Mile
Zero

A pro-environment, climate science editorial in the Wall Street Journal? It's probably a shock to them as well, but Jamais Cascio writes this week about the case for geoengineering. He argues that geoengineering--the process of intentionally altering the planet's climate to counteract global warming--is necessary to buy time for long-term adjustment plans, even though it will have unpredictable environmental and political side effects.

Of course, being the Wall Street Journal, the comments are a roiling hotbed of climate denialism. Reactions to Cascio's article include the implication that the WSJ is playing a prank on its readers by making up a San Francisco-based environmental futurist with a French first name, possibly at the behest of (I kid you not) George Soros. There are also gems like "I've spent most of my life on Planet Earth and venture out into the 'environment' almost every day. I have yet to notice any sort of crisis out there." Indeed: such compelling evidence will no doubt be collected in the IPCC's newest report, tentatively titled "My Back Yard: I Ain't Seen Nothin', Ya Crazy Hippies."

The irony of these comments is that they're the reason that geoengineering is even being considered in the first place. As Cascio writes, it has moved from the fringes to the semi-mainstream simply because policy-makers have failed to respond strongly to global warming, even as the problem has worsened (most recently, a study at MIT found that warming could reach double the levels previously thought over the next century). And a significant cause of the sluggishness on the part of governments is the hue and cry from denialists who have fought tooth and nail against climate action.

But perhaps, if nothing else, this is the reason to get geoengineering out into the public debate: it moves the conversation forward. Compared to, say, dumping millions of tons of sulfur into the atmosphere as a cooling mechanism, a carbon cap and trade scheme looks a lot more moderate--and hopefully, a lot more achievable.