Geoengineering is in the Natural Order of Things
Why it will become an integral part of human evolution
Climate change is one of the most pressing issues of our time, impacting ecosystems, economies, and societies worldwide. While it may have natural components, human activities—particularly the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation—are the primary short-term cause, despite what climate change deniers may claim. The consequences are well-known: rising global temperatures, more frequent and severe weather events such as hurricanes, droughts, heatwaves, floods, melting polar ice caps and glaciers, and rising sea levels. These changes threaten biodiversity, food and water security, human health, and infrastructure. Vulnerable communities, especially those in low-lying coastal areas and developing countries, are often hit the hardest. Fortunately, we understand the technical solutions needed to combat climate change. Mitigation efforts involve reducing greenhouse gas emissions by transitioning to renewable energy sources, improving energy efficiency, protecting and restoring ecosystems, and adopting sustainable practices in agriculture, transportation, and industry.
However, I have already described my assessment of how this will end in a doom-and-gloom three-part series. I do not harbor any illusions that we will stop business as usual, and it is unlikely we will be able to avoid the worst outcomes.
Therefore, I would like to look beyond our current limited temporal horizon and consider how our generation can be useful today in rebuilding what will remain after tomorrow's environmental destruction.
The problem is that traditional efforts to curb greenhouse gas emissions struggle to keep pace with the accelerating impacts of climate change. Scientists are increasingly recognizing that relying solely on solar and wind power, electric cars, hydrogen-based power generation, eventually nuclear energy, and other existing solutions, will not suffice.
It is becoming clear that these measures alone are inadequate, and we need to look beyond them.
One countermeasure that has rarely been considered in the past but has recently gained renewed attention is geoengineering. Geoengineering refers to deliberate, large-scale interventions in the Earth's natural systems to counteract climate change by either removing greenhouse gases from the atmosphere or reflecting sunlight away from the Earth's surface.
The concept is not new; humanity has always engaged in modifications of the environment throughout history for agricultural, water management, and urban development purposes. While these practices may not have been explicitly labeled as “geoengineering,” they nonetheless represent deliberate alterations of Earth's natural systems. One could argue that our reckless large-scale destruction, exploitation, and pollution of the environment over the last couple of centuries have effectively “geoengineered” the climate, leading to the catastrophic consequences we now face. Thus, in a sense, we have always geo-engineered the Earth's climate and soil, and we have done it irresponsibly. There are valid reasons to be skeptical of any further human intervention.
Nonetheless, as I will shortly describe next, geoengineering the atmosphere may be the only viable solution to avoid climatic collapse. It remains the only credible tool for mitigating the worst impacts of climate change.
There are two main categories of geoengineering that scientists are considering: solar radiation management (SRM) and carbon dioxide removal (CDR). SRM techniques aim to reflect a portion of sunlight away from the Earth, thereby reducing global temperatures. One proposed SRM method involves injecting aerosols into the stratosphere to mimic the cooling effect of volcanic eruptions. In contrast, CDR approaches seek to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and store it in geological formations or other long-term reservoirs. Examples of CDR technologies include afforestation, ocean fertilization, and direct air capture.
SRM techniques, in particular, could provide a rapid and relatively inexpensive means of temporarily reducing global temperatures, buying time for emissions reductions and adaptation efforts. Additionally, CDR technologies could help address the root cause of climate change by directly removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.
However, things are not that simple. Currently, these technologies are in their infancy and are mostly discussed in theoretical and speculative contexts. The second alternative, in particular, is far from being a mature and viable technology, as it would require enormous amounts of (clean!) energy itself. At this stage of development, a large-scale geoengineering plan for the Earth’s atmosphere resembles a sci-fi fantasy. The human, economic, and technological resources needed to control the climate are likely immense and beyond our current capabilities.
Moreover, most concerning are the unexpected, unpredictable, and potentially disastrous side effects on the climate at both regional and global scales. We do not fully understand the implications of our actions, and the consequences could exacerbate existing problems or step through tipping points, creating more issues than geoengineering is intended to solve. Furthermore, relying on geoengineering as a solution to climate change could undermine efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, leading to a dangerous dependence on technological fixes rather than addressing the root causes of climate change. Geoengineering would be self-delusional if we do not reduce emissions.
While I recognize these potential drawbacks, let me explain why we will be compelled to take this path, and why it is already a written chapter in the evolutionary history of humankind.
Climate change is irreversible
To understand why, let us assume that, by some miraculous means, we stop emitting greenhouse gases. Tomorrow, a magic wand reduces all carbon dioxide, methane, and other harmful emissions to zero. Would this halt climate change? Unfortunately, the answer is no. The longevity of human-emitted greenhouse gases in the atmosphere varies by gas. Some, like carbon dioxide (CO2), can linger for hundreds to thousands of years. Others, such as methane (CH4), have a shorter lifespan—typically around 12 years—but are more potent in their heat-trapping ability. Nitrous oxide (N2O) can persist for over a century.
Thus, we know that stopping emissions would only prevent further damage. However, the overall impact on the Earth's climate system will endure much longer and will remain irreversible for several generations at best, and for thousands of years at worst. What will we do then? Will we wait centuries for Mother Nature to fix it for us, while passively enduring the inevitable climate and environmental disasters that will affect generations to come?
So far, there are no signs that we are willing to stop emissions. Put bluntly, we will have to live with a modified climate, regardless of our actions. While reducing emissions is crucial, it won’t save us. Most likely, we will reach a +3°C warming by 2080, rendering many parts of the planet uninhabitable and making other areas difficult to live in (see here.). Life will become harsh, cruel, and eventually hellish. If we do not feel this way yet, it is because the effects are delayed by decades, but they will inevitably catch up with the coming generations. It is simply physics.
At that point, I fear that no one will care about the noble objections to geoengineering—or, more appropriately, “retro-engineering” the climate. Whether we like it or not, once the level of pain becomes unbearable—like being subjected to torture—we will change our minds.
Tipping points are points of no return
The second reason that will compel us to consider geoengineering, is the likelihood that climate change will modify the atmosphere past one or more tipping points. Tipping points refer to critical thresholds in the Earth's climate system that, once exceeded, lead to abrupt shifts in the system's state. These shifts will result in significant and rapid changes in environmental conditions, making life on this planet much more challenging.
Tipping points are characteristic of physical systems that undergo sudden, nonlinear reorganization, known as ‘self-organized criticality,’ which can trigger cascading events. A familiar example from everyday experience is how a sand pile grows until it reaches a certain point under its own weight. Adding grains of sand to the pile may initially have no effect. However, once it reaches a critical point, a single grain can cause the entire pile to collapse in a massive slide. Although a sand pile appears to be a simple system, it is, in fact, quite complex. No science can precisely predict when and how this critical state will be reached. We only know that eventually, adding just one more grain of sand will lead to collapse. Here, only statistical approaches can provide educated estimates, but the exact timing and dynamics of the collapse remains uncertain.
Notice that while a single grain of sand can trigger an avalanche, it is impossible to roll the film back to its exact previous state. Restoring the system (the sandpile) to its previous physical state, even approximately, will require a comparatively enormous amount of energy and a significant amount of time compared to the work done and the time interval of the tipping event. These events, where a small change can lead to an unpredictable, irreversible, and complete reorganization of a complex system, are ubiquitous in both natural and non-natural systems. From earthquakes to forest fires, from financial markets to traffic jams, and from the neural networks in our brains to the climate, such phenomena are prevalent everywhere. And they all share one commonality: you are not allowed to play back the film.
The most feared climate tipping point involves the circulation of ocean currents in the North Atlantic Ocean, specifically the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC). The AMOC tipping point refers to a critical threshold beyond which the circulation of these ocean currents can undergo a rapid and potentially irreversible change. This circulation plays a crucial role in regulating global climate patterns by redistributing heat from the equator toward the poles. Its disruption could have far-reaching effects, disrupting weather patterns, affecting marine ecosystems, and impacting agriculture. It would also influence the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events, such as hurricanes, droughts, and heatwaves, by altering atmospheric circulation patterns and ocean-atmosphere interactions. Some experts suggest that Western Europe could even experience a mini ice age. To use an analogy, it is as if your skin pores lost their ability to transpire. You might survive, but your thermoregulatory system would be thrown into disarray, making life considerably more difficult. For an in-depth analysis of the AMOC tipping point, see S. Rahmstorf’s paper.
Other tipping points could include the exponentially rapid melting of polar ice sheets, which, if they collapse, could lead to significant sea level rise and inundate coastal landscapes (we are almost there, aren’t we?). The thawing of permafrost in Arctic or Siberian regions may release enormous amounts of methane, creating a reinforcing feedback loop that would add greenhouse gases and further warm the planet. Deforestation of the Amazon rainforest could reach a tipping point where wildfires lead to widespread soil degradation, pushing it past its resilience threshold and resulting in a shift to a drier, savanna-like ecosystem.
These are just a few potential scenarios. But it could come even worse, since one tipping point could trigger others, creating a domino effect. The most alarming fact is that, as mentioned above, once we reach that threshold, there is no turning back. It may take thousands or even millions of years (nobody knows) for the atmosphere to regain its previous equilibrium. For sure, the relatively stable world climate we know will likely be lost for many generations to come.
If this wasn't bad enough, let me illustrate the third reason why we will be compelled to embrace some form of geoengineering.
Human evolution was possible because of the stability of the climate
In case you didn’t know, the climate we are accustomed to is not the rule but rather the exception. Throughout Earth’s natural history, ice ages have been the norm. The graph below illustrates the Earth’s average temperature anomaly over the last 800,000 years, showing divergence from the average temperature of the previous ten thousand years. As you can see, the climate was far from stable. Between 20,000 and 30,000 years ago, the Earth's temperature was 7 to 9 °C colder than in the last 10,000 years-that is, 8.5 to 10.5 °C colder than today. This is a significant difference! For thousands of years, most of Canada and Northern Europe were covered by large ice sheets, deserts expanded, and water became scarce.1 While humans are adaptable and did not go extinct, those living at tropical latitudes likely had lifestyles similar to those of indigenous people in the Arctic regions before the Industrial Revolution. Especially during the winter, life must have been extremely harsh without modern heating systems and technological comforts.
In a sense, we are living in a very comfortable and temperate age. Over the last 10,000 years, Earth has experienced a relatively warm and stable climate that is friendly to life.
Fortunately, concerns about the onset of a new ice age are unjustified. There is no need to prepare for a Viking-style civilization (unless the AMOC creates havoc in Europe). While the exact reasons for the cyclical nature of ice ages are still not fully understood, current theories suggest that they are mainly influenced by the so-called Milankovitch Cycles. Without delving into technical details, these cycles depend on certain orbital parameters and the tilt of the Earth, which can be calculated. While we cannot make definitive predictions, it seems unlikely that we will soon enter one of those 'dips' illustrated in the graphs. Additionally, ice ages have been associated with low concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere, which are primarily modulated by volcanic eruptions. In fact, we are inadvertently doing our utmost to prevent the next ice age from occurring.2
However, the key point to remember is that we, as humans and as a species, became what we are largely due to an interglacial period characterized by a relatively stable climate (the previous cycles were much less stable). These environmental conditions facilitated the development of agriculture, the growth of human settlements, complex societies, and culture, ultimately leading to the scientific and industrial revolutions. The fact that humans experienced such a cultural, scientific, and technological renaissance only in the last few millennia, rather than 300,000 years ago, is no coincidence; it was made possible by favorable climatic conditions.
We must recognize how fortunate we are to live during this particular ‘season’ of Earth’s natural history. The relatively serene period we currently enjoy served as the incubator for human cultural development, yet it is rapidly being destabilized by our anthropogenic influences, which threaten to upset the delicate balance between the environment and our evolution. The present climate is not the norm; it is an exception that takes millions of years to cycle back. If that stability fades, our ability to develop may also diminish—unless we take appropriate measures.
Humans have evolved into a scientifically and technologically capable species that creates its own material comforts. We will not passively accept being plunged into a hellish inferno or a new ice age. Prehistoric humans had no choice but to accept their natural destiny and either adapt, migrate, or face extinction. We are the first living beings on Earth capable of choosing a different path, and we will do so because we can. The question is not if we will enact that change, but how we will do it.
When the time comes—and it will come soon in the historical timeline of Homo sapiens—nobody will be concerned about the potential side effects of geoengineering. We will not accept the notion of doing nothing and letting Nature take its course. When life becomes unbearable, people will disregard our current fears and the ethical, moral, and technical doubts surrounding geoengineering. We have adapted to our environment by developing technological means that protect us from its fluctuations. We will do the same in response to short- and long-term climate changes. Humans must find a way to stabilize the climate. Whether we like it or not, we will be compelled to geoengineer or risk becoming a harsh desert civilization reminiscent of the sci-fi novel Dune. We have always "geoengineered" the planet, but we must learn to treat Nature with respect and apply science and technology for their true worth—not to satisfy an insatiable greed, but to enable us to live in a world worth living in. This will be one of the next technological and spiritual facets of humanity's evolution; it is part of the natural order.
Or…
Deniers of human-made climate change often cite this as evidence that it is all a hoax. Critical thinking is necessary to look beyond the fossil fuel lies and propaganda!
You may be tempted to believe that global warming, caused by human greenhouse emissions, could offset the onset of a new ice age, leading you to think we can stop worrying about rising temperatures. If so, I suggest you to think further.
Credo che la geoingegneria non troverà mai applicazione su vasta scala, anche se qualcuna tra le principali nazioni potrà fare forse tentativi circoscritti. Ma potremmo ripristinare gli ecosistemi per altre vie.
Tempo fa mi sono imbattuto in uno dei libri di Robert Monroe sulle sue esperienze extracorporee e vi ho trovato il resoconto di una sua sorprendente esperienza nel futuro (non è insolito che si sperimentino esperienze spirituali del genere, anche se durante le NDE, ad esempio, si tratta in genere di visioni): in esso veniva descritto come gli umani fossero passati a un nuovo livello di coscienza che gli permetteva anche di modificare la materia, e usavano quel potere proprio per porre rimedio ai danni prodotti al nostro pianeta. Da lettore di Aurobindo, non ho potuto evitare di pensare a questi nuovi umani come a quelli da lui preannunciati. Questo avverrà realmente? Esiste già, da una prospettiva in cui il tempo non ha significato? Non lo so, e comunque non basta a confortarmi il pensiero che tra mille e più anni si realizzerà qualcosa che ora è inimmaginabile. A mio avviso l'umanità dovrebbe già aver sofferto abbastanza ed essere pronta fin da subito a un cambiamento di coscienza collettivo. Ma è evidente che ciò non avverrà senza ulteriore sofferenza ed eventi tragici - quelli che peraltro lo stesso Monroe ha visto, ma di cui ha preferito non lasciare resoconti, sperando che non si avverassero.
Marco, when Federica refers to the vertical path to dealing with these environmental issues, perhaps a concrete example will help.
What is your view, for example, on the idea that the Earth is a living and sentient being, with its own intentional first-person perspective just as we have ours? Of course, that doesn't mean the Earth is thinking in verbal concepts and analyzing the warming of its body, but simply that the metamorphoses of its bodies have some integral relationship with its higher-order soul and spiritual existence.
That doesn't mean humanity has no relevance for the Earth organism's metamorphoses, either. On the contrary, humanity is like the brain of this organism and is becoming increasingly responsible for stewarding its psychic and bodily rhythms. Yet would you agree this can only be done properly from a place of deep spiritual insight into the higher-order intentions through which the Earth's state of being unfolds?
Otherwise, it is as if we are a doctor confronted with a patient who has a high temperature and our first response, instead of doing diagnostic tests and conversing with the patient to resonate with their inner state of being, is to dose them up with whatever medications we can find based on myopic knowledge that some of these medications were correlated with lowering temperatures in the past, even though we have no deep insight as to why there is a temperature to begin with.