Geoengineering, or why I flunked high school chemistry

Imagine you are back in high school. You’ve spent all day going from class to class, learning, completing assignments, the whole shebang. Finally, you are in chemistry class. You go, take your seat, and look around the classroom. You see that the class has a little under 200 students. Seems a tad odd, but let’s go with it. You also see that not all the students have chemistry sets; closer examination reveals that some sets have more materials than others. Looking at your own set, you see that you have one of the largest, with many different chemicals, containers, and several burners. The class bell rings, but no teacher shows up. You and many other students decide to mess around a little with what’s in front of you. Still, no teacher shows up. Class has ten minutes left, no teacher has shown up, and the students with sets have had 40 minutes of creative freedom. Are you scared yet? Well, I certainly am terrified.

If you haven’t seen it yet, I would recommend watching David Keith’s TED Talk video here. Go on, my blog can wait for 16 minutes. All finished? Then let us proceed.  

Keith brings up an interesting idea that has come about as a solution to the environmental problems we are facing today: Geoengineering. Like Keith, I am not a fan of geo-engineering. And also like Keith, I feel that some knowledge of it is useful for society to know about. Think of it as knowing how chemicals react, so when sophomoric chemistry students start putting x and y together, you can stop them from blowing up the whole building. Starting to see some parallels?  

We will start off with what geoengineering is. The Oxford dictionary calls geoengineering “The deliberate large-scale manipulation of an environmental process that affects the earth’s climate, in an attempt to counteract the effects of global warming.” While I could do a word study and break down this definition, for the sake of this post, this definition is perfectly workable. Basically, it is humans actively attempting to the change the environment to reverse current global trends. A very effective way to complete a decidedly noble goal, but not one without risk. It is because of these risks that I have reservations about geoengineering, and why I wish to inform you all as well.

The fact of the matter is that we do not completely understand Earth’s climate system, either in the past, seeing as how climate change is considered to be anthropogenic in origin, or currently. While the idea of putting sulfur into the atmosphere definitely seems like it will reverse current warming trends, it could very well cause a larger problem down the road. We do not know enough about the consequences to go forward with such a project. It is unethical. To follow the above metaphor, it’s like mixing water with another material. It could be sodium chloride: nice, safe. It could also very well be just plain sodium, and a fire could break out.  I simply don’t trust doing something that affects such a large amount of people, in this case, all of them.

Another important aspect of geoengineering is to realize that it is global. If a student creates a foul smelling gas, the entire class knows about it. In much the same way, manipulating environmental processes doesn’t just effect a small area; If warming is global, then using the same processes to counteract it will also have to be global, if not in scope, then at least in magnitude. As I have mentioned several times: everything is connected. It’s difficult to justify doing something that isn’t 100% helpful when over 7 billion lives are at stake. You got to let that fact sink in.

The biggest danger with all this, however, is that not everyone needs to agree to it for it to be accomplished. There is no teacher in the room. Those with the capabilities to attempt geoengineering have nothing to stop them, nothing to hold them accountable. Say the U.S. decides that this isn’t worth the risk. Great, time to try something else. China, however, decides to go through with geoengineering. Now, despite how people may feel about it, we all have to live in a geoengineered world. There is no higher power authority to stop this from occurring, and that is the scariest part. That like a chemistry lab full of highschoolers, anything could happen, and I personally doubt that it will turn out good.

With all this being said, I wish I had another option to try and help the environment, but I don’t. As the future looks more and more bleak, geoengineering looks even more promising an action, and so we should prepare for its affects, even if we cannot know what they will be.

Lesotho and Honduras (but mostly Lesotho)

The small country of Lesotho is a little heard of state completely surrounded by South Africa. I could tell you that it is a completely isolated, insular country that relies almost completely on subsistence agriculture for survival. The country unfortunately suffers from a lack of natural resources, and this is viewed as the primary source of its citizenry's poverty. And all of this would be false. Instead of agriculture, a majority of the household income is from wage labor in South Africa, which revolves around mining in its neighbor. The lack of natural resources comes from the theft of good Basotho (the people of Lesotho) land by colonial Europeans. The so called "isolation" it suffers has not been true since the mid-1800s at least. All of these aspects serve to add a layer of complexity to Lesotho's issues, and highlight the interconnectedness of the world I talked about last week.
Despite these truths, the false statements mentioned above are what several countries and NGOs used to decide to give developmental aid to Lesotho. In the process, they decided to view the Lesotho government as merely an effective and competent tool to advance the country's development. No thought was given to any political agendas that may be possessed by the national government. Long story short, the failure to understand the true nature of Lesotho's challenges and take into account governmental goals resulted only in an increase in governmental control in an isolated district of the country, something not appreciated by the local populace.
The challenges developers in Lesotho had to overcome had no easy solution from apolitical ecology. The environment didn't change, land resources were being used relatively effectively. Nonetheless, the project was still a failure. From a political ecology viewpoint, more influential changes could be made. Since the majority of income comes from wage laborers in a different country, ways to increase average income would require an agreement of some sorts between both countries, not an easy feat in general, and something made more complex by the fact that mining concerns have very different interests than the agricultural ones the planners were there for, not to mention that mining doesn't look as good for environmental sustainability as farming does. Furthermore, in Honduras the expansion of the cotton and cattle industry resulted in an increase in income disparity in its southern region. While this can be viewed apolitically as economic development, in reality it hurts marginal groups, pushing them even farther to the periphery of society. When the people that are trying to be helped, either in economic or environmental development, end up worst for wear, then something needs be changed. The inclusions that political ecology allows for is essential in the Anthropocene, and should be added to the arsenal of changes needed if we want to protect our planet.

Political Ecology

I have personally taken several political science courses, and they all have defined politics in roughly the same way: who gets what, when and how. In our modern day world, it is almost impossible to do anything without politics playing a part; at the very least, one needs to make sure they aren't breaking a local law with their activities. Since governments are one of the most powerful and influential institutions in the world, and especially where they maintain their sovereignty, it would be almost unthinkable to not have them play some part in environmental protection, whether their presence is wanted or not.
As our models for the world, the environment, and nature all continue to develop, it becomes apparent that there is a need to no longer view such things as apolitical entities, but as related aspects of our culture. As I mentioned in a previous post, it is important to look at the environment as a part of our culture, affecting us just as we affect it. Using the new versions of social science I discussed, it is no small leap to add politics into mix, allowing a more holistic, if not eclectic, view of the world, especially in ecological studies. By using political ecology to "'denaturalize' certain social and environmental conditions, showing them to be contingent on outcomes of power, and not inevitable" (Robbins, pg 12), there is a greater allowance of understanding certain outcomes and how avoid or improve them. Political ecology also allows for an understanding of how collective action forms in different groups; a fundamentally imperative force for change in most societies. Within all of these aspects is a progressive ideology to adapt to the changes in the environment effectively. Looking at a couple development programs in Lesotho and Honduras should help highlight these aspects, and the need for political ecology.

First Post

I was reading an article, and it had a very interesting premise. It stated that the social sciences as we know them are no longer usable, since they rely on an erring assumption: that there is a separation between the environment or nature and humanity. They use the premise that the only humans have agency compared with the static backdrop of nature. However, it is now evident that there can be no social science without bringing in the environment. As humans are now the strongest force for environmental change, it is no longer possible to separate human culture from nature. Both are inexplicably linked. It is through this connection that I feel an important change is occurring in the social sciences. They can no longer rely on the traditional forms research, but have to start integrating with other fields of study to accurately try to understand how culture is affecting the environment and how environment is affecting culture.

In geography, it is widely known that no one field has all the answers, and I personally am very happy that other fields of study are growing to accept other forms of thought into them. While there is no doubt that many people want to know all the answers, there is no way to figure them out. What we can do is try to expand our knowledge, and part of that involves in learning that all we do is interconnected. Culture and the environment, society and nature, politics and the economy. No longer can scientist look at these aspects as separate entities. They are all dynamic in nature, and each imparts a force on the other aspects, forming a large, complicated web of features.

Another important feature of this new version of social science is understanding the importance of scale. Just as culture and nature are inseparable, changes in an isolated area can lead to a profound impact in other locales, and possibly even globally. Butterfly effects are an important aspect for social change, in my opinion, and their importance should not be ignored. A single passionate person, merely talking with her friends, can create the foundation of an activist movement. This small movement could gain traction and grow, and continue growing until a national change occurs. Or an individual from this movement could move to another country and start a similar movement, and so on and so forth, until a global network of movements is formed. In the same way, a small change in the environment at one location can result in a drastic change throughout the world. The climate is a complicated circulation of energy and mass, with teleconnections causing climatic conditions around New Zealand to affect the weather in L.A., for example. These connections prove that the Earth system is immensely complex. The addition of humans, with our multitude of cultures and large scale environmental change, only serves to create a more complicated world in which to study and understand. It is in this world that social scientist endeavor to find how we can sustain or environment. This will be no easy feat, and the goal is very open ended, but it is what must be done if we wish to effectively make a change and allow us to find a way to live in harmony with the environment. Hopefully, this blog will help to educate my readers, and we can start to make the change we want to see in the world.

Individual Inquiry 1

Q: What change is needed in the world that only I can make?

A: When I think of this question, what comes to mind is what I specifically can do. As a college student, I have limited resources, but what I do possess is knowledge. In geography, we learn that everything is related, and the smallest action can cause a large change. Just by sharing with those in immediate contact with me what I know about the environment and how individuals can be part of the solution could lead to changes on a local, regional, and possibly national or global scale. By allowing others to see that they don't need to be trained professionals or devote their entire lives to help the environment, I would create changes that no one can foresee, and forming limitless potential for change.

Getting Started

Greetings y'all. It is time for my first official post. As a quick intro, my name is Kendal, and I am one of the members of The Lorax. I am a geography student, and hope to bring a somewhat unique perspective to this blog. I ostensibly am part of this group to talk about how environmental changes hurt small cultures. However, there every possibility that other topics are brought up, especially ones that relate both geography and the anthropocene. Now, you might be wondering why a geography student is would participate in a blog about habitat destruction. The answer is rather simple: being in geography, I am interested in all things Earth related, of which the environment is a substantial part. One aspect that I am particularly hoping to look into is environmental determinism, or how the environment of around a culture shapes it. With the world's climate ever changing and natural landscapes being altered, I am interested to learn about and share how this idea may still hold relevancy in the modern age.

That's all I have for now. look for my individual inquiry a second blog post in the very near future. I will be diving right in, so be prepared.