July 18, 2005
View Comments | Post Comment"Hack The Planet"
"Ecohacker Michael Markels claims he has a fix for global warming:" dump a bunch of iron filings into the ocean, which will spur a plankton boom, drastically increasing photosynthesis.
TheHackers (which has a surprisingly low IMDB rating) tagline, "Hack the planet!" seems very applicable. This idea sounds feasible, though it seems like it would have a very damaging effect on ocean life other than plankton. Also, the guy seems to be in it just for the potential profits. I find it very interesting that we've actually reached a point where we can conceive of intentionally altering climate.
For all the global warming panic, panic which I certainly share, at the same time I can't help but think that we'll figure something out to stop it. I definitely feel that in the meantime we should do what we can to stop it, and make drastic cuts, etc (says the guy who owns an SUV, albeit a relatively fuel efficient one). Ratify Kyoto, require all new cars to be hybrids, cut back industrial air pollution, and so on... but I can't help but have some degree of faith in human ingenuity to solve the problem before it gets too bad (though some would say it already is getting quite bad, with the increased storm levels and such).
The funniest thing about the article, in my opinion, is the use of the term "ecohacker." Just because the article is printed in Wired doesn't mean it has to be about hacking. It's just funny that "hacker" has now become mainstream enough, and with neutral enough connotations, that it can now be bandied about in new situations. The other day, my Dad and I killed a coral snake with a shovel in our yard. Does that make us snakehackers? And I know a fat guy, who I will now refer to as a hamburgerhacker. The guy who works at the zoo shoveling shit is a feceshacker. It's really a pretty versatile construction. Me like.
Posted at July 18, 2005 3:56 AM | Comments (7)
Comments
Post a new comment
We can't ratify Kyoto. For starters, the thing won't even work, as it attempts to place restrictions on countries that aren't polluting as much as, say, China is, which gets a break. Moreover it caps emissions at 1990 levels which hurts countries that were already doing something about pollution. Most important it probably wouldn't even have much of an effect, lowering the earth's temperature by a fraction of a degree.
This isn't to say I don't believe in global warming - I mostly don't, but still - but that before we jump into projects and commitments like Kyoto, we should be aware of the consequences. Kyoto was rejected 95-0 by the Senate in 1997, and 55-43 in 2005, btw. The Kyoto protocol is bad policy for the U.S.
Posted by: Michael Wilt at July 18, 2005 5:22 PM
That should've said 2003, oops.
Posted by: Michael Wilt at July 18, 2005 5:23 PM
Saying it won't work because certain companies won't be held to the restrictions is completely wrong. Its intention isn't to eliminate emissions, it's to reduce them. You're right in saying that it isn't fair, but sometimes the civilized nations will have to deal with unfairness in order to save all the nations. And you're right that it's effect would be small. But even a fraction of a degree can make a big difference in permanent ozone depletion, and can make a big difference in overall global warming.
It seems like your argument would support even more stringent requirements than those currently in Kyoto, which I don't think you are intending to advocate.
Posted by: David Barzelay at July 18, 2005 7:35 PM
Oh, and if you still don't believe in global warming, you're a fucking idiot.
Posted by: David Barzelay at July 18, 2005 7:35 PM
i can't believe we're still arguing about this. lowering the earth's temperature by a fraction of a degree is a big fucking deal and if you don't understand that, you need to take and environmental science class.
Posted by: sarah at July 19, 2005 11:53 AM
I guess we won't have to worry about it when we head back into the ice age that we're overdue for. (BTW, greenhouse gasses != ozone gasses)
Kyoto isn't fair. Too bad. Gotta do something.
Posted by: Daniel at July 19, 2005 6:54 PM
greenhouse gasses != ozone gasses
I know, but greenhouse gases lead to ozone depletion, yes?
Posted by: David Barzelay at July 19, 2005 6:57 PM
