Geoengineering? The Earth Doesn't Need to Change - We Do

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

This article was published in Scientific American’s former blog network and reflects the views of the author, not necessarily those of Scientific American


"The Earth doesn't need to change, we do" says Sheril Kirshenbaum. In today's Ottawa Citizen, the University of Texas research scientist explains why we shouldn't use "our only home" as a geoengineering lab. Kirshenbaum argues that there are simply too many variables that can cloud our ability to predict the outcomes of - for example - pumping sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere to cool the Earth. And, if we mistakingly go too far, we could ruin the "only [planet] that we've got."

Instead, Kirshenbaum argues that society can do to help control their changing climate. In her article, she states that:

"[we need to] move beyond lip service and work to take greenhouse gas emissions seriously by lowering them to an acceptable level. It won’t be easy — in practice or policy. But there’s a lot more we can do too that will work in our favour. For example, forest restoration globally will not only protect animals, but also capture a great deal of carbon dioxide. With increasing urbanization, we have the capacity to reforest degraded grasslands and pasturelands, which would have a real, measurable impact on climate.

In other words, I’m not ready to give up on humanity to do the right thing. Not yet. Instead of attempting to manage Mother Nature through geoengineering, we should be doing a better job of managing ourselves."


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


We should not dismiss the potential for geoengineering to be a positive force in the energy and climate discussion. But, we should also appreciate Kirshenbaum's concerns regarding the potential for unintended consequences. We have one Earth, and we should protect it.

See the entire article here.

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe