How to Save the Planet: Are Geoengineering and Market Fixes the Way to Go?

Some scientists and environmentalists say geoengineering—intentionally altering the earth's climate systems as a quick-fix for climate change—could be the solution to all our climate problems. Others say such schemes could have unforeseen negative consequences, and just this week, delegates at the Convention on Biological Diversity meeting in Japan called for a moratorium.

Meanwhile, there have been similarly strong calls to put market values on nature and biodiversity as a way to save it. Others say that is a misguided approach that can only produce false solutions.

At the CBD meeting, the World Bank launched a global partnership "that will give developing countries the tools they need to integrate the economic benefits that ecosystems such as forests, wetlands and coral reefs provide, into national accounting systems."

The rationale for such programs is that ecosystems and biodiversity are not properly valued, and by recognizing them as economic assets, countries would be more likely to take steps to preserve them. But many disagree, including groups like Friends of the Earth. Isaac Rojas, their forest and biodiversity coordinator, said, "Commodification and privatization of nature and biodiversity are false solutions. Biodiversity is not for sale. Existing financial incentives usually harm biodiversity conservation rather than supporting it, and often violate the rights of local communities."

Even if it's a great idea in theory, the implementation is unreliable and enforcement often ineffective—with few or no accountability measures to compensate. In the words of The Guardian's Jonathan Watts, "Nature cannot complain if it gets cheated."

So while environmental advocates are rooting the loudest for solutions to these problems, their voices are often ignored as to what those solutions should be, and the big financial players of the world look to win out.

Which brings us back to geoengineering. Debate opened up after Bill Gates announced $300,000 in funding for cloud-whitening technology that, in theory, would increase the reflection of sunlight back to space, thus slowing the warming of the earth. It would be the largest geoengineering trial so far, but the fact that it would be conducted in advance of international rules being formed for this type of technology has caused alarm for some following the story. It's also been pointed out that the global south, most affected by climate change to begin with, seems to have little say in whether this or other experiments move forward.

Some environmentalists believe in the potential of projects like using vertical pipes in the ocean to bring cold water up, or pumping sulphates into the stratosphere to block sunlight. Others think they take away from the real problem of human-induced climate change and that people should face up to the consequences of their actions. They also worry about the unforeseen effects that may result—and considering these projects are (intentionally) on such a large scale, the potential damage would be proportionate in size.