Blog
Post #11
I’ve
gotta say right off the bat how great this week was for class. On Tuesday we
had the chance to play a simulation game where we, the players, acted as the EU
leaders and make decisions regarding sustainability throughout a two century
span of time. I was partnered with my friend Lucas whose blog you should also
check out and we actually had a successful run. We started off doing pretty
well with keeping our approval rating up and getting support, but often times
our fellow world leaders wouldn’t give support even when we subsidized them (so
stubborn!). Another interesting part of the game was the unexpected natural
disaster that would occur some random year (flood, drought, and others). It was
quite a challenge balancing out all of these elements especially with the
pressures of providing food and water at the same time as reaching our
sustainability goals. This game really makes you think and understand how
difficult it is to be in a position of power (not to say it can’t be done
effectively).
On
Thursday, we had the pleasure of featuring professor Troy Knight to come to
class and talk about Geo engineering and its overall potential. It was very fascinating to learn about all of
these techniques for potential large-scale solutions to taking carbon out of
the atmosphere. At the same time though, most of the solutions offered seem
like last resort cases to me. Even the most practical solution often called a
“biological pump” seemed pretty risky to me. The dumping of chemicals to
enhance the biological output of organisms to capture green house gasses surely
processes flaws and risks as the ocean and coastal habitats will suffer
tremendously to chemical and species imbalance. Hopefully different solutions
arise that could reduce the risks of geo-engineering. So far though, they still
seem to be there only if we need them.
Another probable
solution was one they talked about in an article we read this week titled, “The
Climate Fixers”, by Michael Specter. Looking at the effects of the Pinatubo
eruption, the SPICE program hopes to try and imitate the cooling effects of a
massive eruption by engineering a gigantic twelve-mile-long pipe that pumps sulfur
dioxide and other chemicals into the atmosphere. The idea sounds crazy, but not
too crazy. The negative effects would only be temporary as we could simply stop
the machine and go back to how we were if things go wrong. Also, if sulfur
dioxide turns out to negatively effect the ozone too much we can use synthetic
chemicals with weaker negative environmental impact. Something I found
interesting in the article when they discussed this though was some of the
reasoning for objection to these methods. Certain organizations “fear that even
to consider engineering the climate would provide politicians with an excuse
for avoiding tough decisions on reducing greenhouse-gas emissions” (5). For
this reason, I again find geo-engineering (at least in this stage of its
development) useful as only a last resort because they do not treat the source.
If we are going to have any lasting solution, we need to just not dump this
crap into the atmosphere in the first place. Who’s to say that companies won’t
just keep encouraging fossil fuels for business if we could just take it out
once we put it in? These are important things to consider before embarking down
the mysteriously risky road of geo-engineering.
Excellent analysis of the game--love the cartoon!
ReplyDelete