A geophysiologist's thoughts on geoengineering

How Anthropocene Might Save the World: Metamorphosis

The Anthropocene has created a new cartography. It moves between the rejection of scientific disciplines, overcoming dualism and a change of coordinates with which to interpret the world. The Anthropocene unites two fields of knowledge: geology and anthropology. The “Axial Age” divides daily practices (the World of life) and the objective view of nature (the World of science). The Anthropocene” by Paul J. Crutzen and Eugene Stoermer has two distinct parts; the first establishes “a period of time”, and the second establishes an “epistemic tool”. This paper is intended to illustrate the epistemological dimension of the Anthropocene. Eduard Suess, Antonio Stopani, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, Vladimir Vernadsky, etc. anticipated the concept of the Anthropocene a century ago. The hypothesis of the earth as a “living organism” is inspired by the Goethean Science or Naturwissenschaft of Johann Wolfgang von Goethe. It reinforces the character of “rupture” that the Anthropocene has. The Gaia Hypothesis, which is built from elements of Earth science systems, sees the pressing need for a global system and to overcome the barriers between disciplines. The Anthropocene allows both ancient quarrels and the roots of philosophical thought to be reviewed. The metamorphosis linked to the Anthropocene represents the interplay between “collapse” and “awakening”. Focus on the objectivity of the “primary effects”—the “public bads”—leads to the imminent ecological apocalypse. If we focus on “secondary effects”, we observe the metamorphosis of “public bads” into “public goods”. The “good” hides behind the “evil”. We are not at the end of Civilization; we are before new beginnings, new rules, new structures. The Anthropocene could save the world thanks to the metamorphosis of our consciousness of the world.

Synthetic Biology for Terraformation Lessons from Mars, Earth, and the Microbiome

What is the potential for synthetic biology as a way of engineering, on a large scale, complex ecosystems? Can it be used to change endangered ecological communities and rescue them to prevent their collapse? What are the best strategies for such ecological engineering paths to succeed? Is it possible to create stable, diverse synthetic ecosystems capable of persisting in closed environments? Can synthetic communities be created to thrive on planets different from ours? These and other questions pervade major future developments within synthetic biology. The goal of engineering ecosystems is plagued with all kinds of technological, scientific and ethic problems. In this paper, we consider the requirements for terraformation, i.e., for changing a given environment to make it hospitable to some given class of life forms. Although the standard use of this term involved strategies for planetary terraformation, it has been recently suggested that this approach could be applied to a very different context: ecological communities within our own planet. As discussed here, this includes multiple scales, from the gut microbiome to the entire biosphere.

Cogs in the endless machine: lakes, climate change and nutrient cycles: a review

Lakes have, rather grandly, been described as sentinels, integrators and regulators of climate change (Williamson et al., Limnol. Oceanogr. 2009; 54: 2273-82). Lakes are also part of the continuum of the water cycle, cogs in a machine that processes water and elements dissolved and suspended in myriad forms. Assessing the changes in the functioning of the cogs and the machine with respect to these substances as climate changes is clearly important, but difficult. Many other human-induced influences, not least eutrophication, that impact on catchment areas and consequently on lakes, have generally complicated the recording of recent change in sediment records and modern sets of data. The least confounded evidence comes from remote lakes in mountain and polar regions and suggests effects of warming that include mobilisation of ions and increased amounts of phosphorus. A cottage industry has arisen in deduction and prediction of the future effects of climate change on lakes, but the results are very general and precision is marred not only by confounding influences but by the complexity of the lake system and the infinite variety of possible future scenarios. A common conclusion, however, is that warming will increase the intensity of symptoms of eutrophication. Direct experimentation, though expensive and still unusual and confined to shallow lake and wetland systems is perhaps the most reliable approach. Results suggest increased symptoms of eutrophication, and changes in ecosystem structure, but in some respects are different from those deduced from comparisons along latitudinal gradients or by inference from knowledge of lake behaviour. Experiments have shown marked increases in community respiration compared with gross photosynthesis in mesocosm systems and it may be that the most significant churnings of these cogs in the earth-air-water machine will be in their influence on the carbon cycle, with possibly large positive feedback effects on warming.

Geoengineering: could we or should we make it work?

Schemes to modify large-scale environment systems or control climate have been proposed for over 50 years to (i) increase temperatures in high latitudes, (ii) increase precipitation, (iii) decrease sea ice, (iv) create irrigation opportunities, or (v) offset potential global warming by injecting iron in the oceans or sea-salt aerosol in the marine boundary layer or spreading dust in the stratosphere to reflect away an amount of solar energy equivalent to the amount of heat trapped by increased greenhouse gases from human activities. These and other proposed geoengineering schemes are briefly reviewed. Recent schemes to intentionally modify climate have been proposed as either cheaper methods to counteract inadvertent climatic modifications than conventional mitigation techniques such as carbon taxes or pollutant emissions regulations or as a counter to rising emissions as governments delay policy action. Whereas proponents argue cost-effectiveness or the need to be prepared if mitigation and adaptation policies are not strong enough or enacted quickly enough to avoid the worst widespread impacts, critics point to the uncertainty that (i) any geoengineering scheme would work as planned or (ii) that the many centuries of international political stability and cooperation needed for the continuous maintenance of such schemes to offset century-long inadvertent effects is socially feasible. Moreover, the potential exists for transboundary conflicts should negative climatic events occur during geoengineering activities.