how do we save our planet?

The United Kingdom seems to be a leader in environmental reporting. A very interesting piece came out of the Independent this week, asking the world’s leading climate scientists what can be done to save our planet.

The results are very interesting. Getting input from 44 people across the globe, would, obviously result in a wide range of opinions.

Below are a sampling of some of the more compelling, but going to the article, HERE, is recommended.

Professor Chris Rapley, director of the Science Museum, London: I am not enthusiastic about geo-engineering, as to intervene on a massive scale in the Earth’s climate system will certainly have unforeseen consequences, some of which could be as regrettable as the problem the intervention was designed to address in the first place. This is why Jim Lovelock and I have been encouraging thought and exploration of means to “help the Earth help itself”; i.e. by amplifying carbon sequestration processes that the Earth already practises – in the ocean and on land.

Professor John Latham, US National Centre for Atmospheric Research: Since CO2 levels seem certain to rise for a long time, we think it vital to examine geo-engineering schemes for stabilizing Earth’s temperature for long enough to allow alternative, clean forms of energy to be developed.

Professor James Shulmeister, University of Canterbury, New Zealand: There is NO prospect of getting cuts in emissions of the scale needed to have a large impact on the problem. We need all the cuts we can get but we also need to engineer ourselves out of the problem. However, geoengineering on its own is NOT the solution.

Frank Schwing, National Atmospheric and Oceanic Administration, US Department of Commerce: I am more optimistic about global reduction efforts because the new Obama Administration in the US is poised to be a world leader in this effort, and because the public groundswell for such an effort is growing rapidly. Regarding geoengineering, we clearly will need some concerted and effective efforts to engineer our way to reduced greenhouse gas levels. However, I am concerned that the public, and governments, will see such efforts as a panacea, thereby eliminating the need for public action to reduce emissions.

Steven Sherwood, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut: At the present time, I do not know of any geoengineering strategy that I feel would ever be worth implementing. For example, the most popular idea (creation of stratospheric aerosols) would render us susceptible to a devastating climate whiplash if the program were ever halted. However, as a matter of principle I believe that such strategies should be carefully studied, their merits and defects weighed and discussed, and better alternatives sought. International agreements on how to decide on geoengineering need to be put in place before such actions are seriously contemplated, rather than after.”