We can’t geoengineer our climate woes away

Re “Geoengineering can help save the planet” (Opinion, Nov. 13): As a prescription for the climate under the next Trump administration, Scot Lehigh calls for geoengineering efforts to move forward, reeling through possible technologies while ignoring their catastrophic side effects.

Solar geoengineering, for example, could lead to reduced monsoon rainfalls in Asia and Africa, threatening the food supply of 2 billion people. If solar geoengineering were deployed and then suddenly halted for any reason, it would result in rapid warming of the planet.

Lehigh also discusses marine geoengineering, citing an upcoming research proposal to add alkalinity to ocean waters in an attempt to draw down carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. He neglects to mention that the experiment would dump more than 60,000 gallons of sodium hydroxide into the ocean off of Cape Cod. Sodium hydroxide is one of the most caustic substances on earth and causes chemical burns on skin. For that reason and many others, the project has met stiff opposition from environmental groups, commercial fishermen, and even state agencies.

We can — and must — fight for solutions that are equitable, effective, and safe. Geoengineering is not that solution.

Benjamin Day

Milton

The writer is a senior campaigner on the Climate and Energy Justice team for the Washington, D.C.-based organization Friends of the Earth.

Geoengineering is a contentious and often misunderstood topic. We’re glad to see a column making the case for pursuing research on this topic, since we believe that some forms of geoengineering will be essential as bridge technologies to help limit the damage from climate change. That being said, geoengineering will not “save the planet,” and using that language in a headline misstates the effects of these technologies.

Solar geoengineering, in particular, is a collection of proposals for decreasing heat rise by blocking a fraction of the sun’s energy. Once tested and well understood, this cooling effect could mitigate heat events and limit the development of large storms, saving lives and reducing property damage.

However, solar geoengineering will not address the accumulation of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and, more crucially, in the oceans, and thus it cannot be called a solution to climate change. Instead, it’s best to think of it as a temporary remedy that may buy us time to reduce our emissions to the net-negative state needed to ensure a livable planet. We must study these technologies now because we will need them soon, but we must not deceive ourselves with promises of an easy fix for climate change.

Jon Kiparsky

Belmont

Gary Oberbrunner

Arlington

The writers are members of Long Now Boston, a local organization fostering long-term thinking.