In my previous post, I mentioned the role that energy science can play in promoting economic growth through the development of new industries that can help to replace departed industrial jobs. The truth is that the potential for this goes far beyond alternative energy for transportation. It has the potential to do much more--among other things, benefit our ability to feed ourselves as well as the rest of the world.
This New York Times article provides one example of how this can be done. It explains how carbon can be found not only in our air, oceans, trees and fossil fuels, but in the soil itself. In fact, as a consequence of several millenia of farming, much of our farmlands have been heavily depleted of carbon, which is needed if the land is going to be continued in use for agriculture. This depletion is in part a consequence of the overuse of synthetic-based forms of fertilizer, which contain no carbon. But now, according to the article, scientists are looking at ways to use soil as a vehicle for sequestering large amounts of carbon.
Some of this effort is taking the form of research into technology that would literally pull carbon out of the air. Some of this technology already exists, and I think that the potential for expanding the role that it can play in our future is a potentially existing one. The author of the article takes a somewhat different view of the potential that these technologies possess. He dismisses it as "geoengineering" with "a high likelihood of disastrous unintended consequences." He prefers a focus on the use of traditional natural resources--manure and compost--as a way of recapturing carbon from other parts of our environment and sequestering it in the soil. He even makes the case that cattle, and the manure they produce, may play a role in this process, effectively taking a trope away from conservative efforts to mock climate science.
I certainly am not opposed to more natural methods of farming in any case, especially if the net effect of that is to reverse the effects of climate change and save the planet. If that's a way that we can have an immediate impact, then I'm all for it. However, just as Obama believed in going "all-in" on everything when it comes to developing sustainable forms of energy production, I'm a big believer in going "all-in" when it comes to the potential for sequestering carbon, especially if we can put it into places where it can do more good than harm, like our soil. So-called "geoengineering" may very well help us do that.
I can't help but feel that the author's take on this stems from a fear of large-scale scientific innovation, like nuclear energy, that ultimately may have done more harm than good. While I understand and respect that perspective, fear of science is not going to help us get out of the mess that, admittedly, science helped us to create in the first place. Every possible solution has to be on the table, especially now that we've waited this long to do anything major at all.
Whether we use new or old methods, if the best way is a "dirty way," then by all means let's follow it. Time is no longer on our side.
No comments:
Post a Comment