A Feb. 10 release from The National Academies explored the topic of climate intervention, also known as geoengineering. Geoengineering involves removing existing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and reducing the amount of sunlight entering the atmosphere. Both tactics have the intention of reducing and potentially reversing the effects of human-caused climate change.

Geoengineering is an exciting idea but it is equally dangerous, both physically and imaginatively. Physically, most forms of implementation would come with serious uncertainties and potential to irreversibly damage our atmosphere. Imaginatively, it could give people a non-existent security blanket.

More importantly however, this could be the perfect excuse for the continuation of destructive fossil fuel industries which now have an argument to fall back on. Scientists already know what will help the climate immediately: renewable energies. While researching potential geoengineering options is positive, energy reform must still be the priority.

The whole idea of geoengineering can be traced back to the 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines. According to a Feb. 10 National Geographic article, the eruption “launched 20 million metric tons of sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere and cooled earth by 1 degree Fahrenheit.” This was a result of the sulfur dioxide in the atmosphere reflecting the sun’s radiation back into space.

A Feb. 14 article from BBC news explained that some scientists want to develop an array of measuring tools to deploy when the world’s next major volcanic eruption takes place. These devices would help scientists better understand exactly how sulfur dioxide reflects sunlight so they can have hopes of successful replication. The downside of the sun reflection method is quite serious, because if humans were to miscalculate and block out too much sunlight, humanity could plummet into an irreversible ice age. This is the extreme end of the spectrum but never the less illustrates the gravity of the issue at hand.

The second aspect, and scientifically preferred geoengineering option, is the removal of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. These techniques range from practices as simple reforestation to direct carbon capture. Options vary in price and effectiveness but still, the most cost effective and simplest option will be to focus on reducing fossil fuel consumption.

BBC News reported University of Washington Professor Steve Gardiner’s way of putting nicely, “I don’t like the Plan B framing; I tend to think of it (geoengineering) as Plan Z.” This is the exact notion that must be understood. Plan A, which consists of diminishing reliance on fossil fuels and increasing renewable energy production, must remain the goal and must retain the momentum it still has.

Luckily, the scientists at The National Academies all agreed that the chief concern should be curbing fossil fuel emissions.

The fact that there is scientific consensus on the priority list of things to do for our environment is a good thing, but is still not 100 percent reassuring. Our current political system is proof that scientific consensus does not equate to political consensus on science related issues.

As frustrating and as convoluted as governmental response currently is to climate change, this will pale in comparison to the complexity that wide scale, technologically complex, financially draining geoengineering development will pose.

Right now it is essential to focus on the task at hand: establishing comprehensive, widespread energy reform.

Azor Cole is a junior public relations major and geography minor. His column appears weekly. He can be reached at azcole@syr.edu and followed on Twitter at @azor_cole.

Published on February 19, 2015 at 12:00 am