geoengineering (地理工程學(xué))和全球變暖

　　[超級(jí)鏈接]

　　據(jù)美國(guó)《連線》雜志報(bào)道，本周部分科學(xué)家及政府官員將齊聚加利福尼亞州的阿西洛馬，商討地理工程學(xué)（geoengineering）在未來是否會(huì)對(duì)氣候變化帶來不利影響這一議題。然而，如今事實(shí)情況是，為了能夠更好的生存，人類在過去已對(duì)地球做出了許多地理改造，并且負(fù)面效應(yīng)也已出現(xiàn)。

　　據(jù)悉，人類的文明社會(huì),當(dāng)前社會(huì)的一切繁榮、富強(qiáng)、發(fā)展、進(jìn)步都發(fā)生在全新世(Holocene)。全新世開始于1萬年前，人類為了更好的生存，不斷建設(shè)水利、開墾良田、建造城市，并且形成文明。在這個(gè)過程中，人類逐漸地對(duì)地球進(jìn)行了各種地理工程改造。全新世對(duì)于人類具有十分重要的意義。

　　如今，人類改造地球會(huì)造成何種后果還不得而知，但科學(xué)家認(rèn)為，目前全新世已不復(fù)存在，人類目前處于人類世 (Anthropocene)。這是一個(gè)新的地質(zhì)紀(jì)元，在這個(gè)紀(jì)元，人類的活動(dòng)正威脅著地球的自我調(diào)節(jié)能力。此外，人類此前對(duì)地球所做地理工程學(xué)改造已出現(xiàn)弊端。

　　The geoengineering genie

　　Mason Inman

　　Like any human endeavour, geoengineering carries hefty doses of uncertainty, doubt and fear.

　　How to Cool the Planet: Geoengineering and the Audacious(大膽的，無畏的) Quest to Fix Earth's Climate by Jeff Goodell

　　Only a couple of years ago, geoengineering seemed like science fiction. Some scientists talked about cooling the planet using massive shields to reflect sunlight back into space or by loading the atmosphere with aerosols（汽霧劑 ['??r?s?l]）, but few thought of these planetary-scale projects as real contenders（競(jìng)爭(zhēng)者） for averting climate catastrophe. But — perhaps because the challenge of mitigation(緩和，減輕) is now fully recognized — geoengineering has gone mainstream. Increasingly, scientists are turning their attention to it: last month at the Asilomar conference centre in Monterey, California, experts met for the first time to consider how the field can be regulated. Meanwhile, governments are holding parliamentary hearings on the subject and venture capitalists are looking to it as an investment opportunity.

　　“I don't especially want to work on geoengineering. But now that the genie is out of the bottle, I feel I have to,” says climate modeller Raymond Pierrehumbert of the University of Chicago in Eli Kintisch's “Hack the Planet”, one of the first books to cover this burgeoning （['b?:d??ni?] 增長(zhǎng)迅速的,發(fā)展很快的）subject for a popular audience. Though potentially capable of rapidly reducing temperatures, the numerous technologies that come under the geoengineering umbrella would probably have unintended — and potentially disastrous — consequences. Despite its promise and perils（危險(xiǎn)，冒險(xiǎn)）, however, geoengineering is a virtual（['v?:tju?l] 事實(shí)上的,實(shí)際上的,實(shí)質(zhì)上的 ）unknown among the general public, so Kintisch's book and another, Jeff Goodell's “How to Cool the Planet”, both published this month, have come at a crucial time. These two fast-paced tours through the science of geoengineering will help inform growing debates about whether governments should fund large research projects into climatic cooling and about how the various methods might be tested.

　　Both Goodell and Kintisch make it clear that geoengineering is at best（充其量，至多）a complement to drastic cuts in carbon dioxide emissions. “We have to immediately launch a worldwide program to stop polluting our atmosphere with this surprisingly pernicious（有害的,有毒的;惡性的,致命的）trace gas,” Kintisch argues. Most scientists feel much the same, viewing geoengineering strictly as a possible emergency backup plan that should be used only if things get really dire. And because of the risks involved, the idea of doing field trials, especially of technologies for so-called 'solar radiation management' — that is, blocking out sunlight in one way or another — is still contentious（愛爭(zhēng)論的，有異議的;引起爭(zhēng)論的）among scientists. But Goodell makes a strong argument in favour of at least some limited tests. He tells the tale of Charles Hatfield, a travelling rainmaker who won acclaim across the United States in the early 1900s. When Hatfield tried to bring rain to San Diego and torrential（奔流的;猛烈的;洶涌的）floods ensued（ [in?sju:]接著發(fā)生，接踵而來，因而產(chǎn)生）, he was hounded out of the city, his reputation in tatters（衣衫襤褸的；被粉碎的;徹底破產(chǎn)的）. With geoengineering, writes Goodell, “it might be smart to begin sorting good ideas from bad, lest we fall under the spell of another generation of Charles Hatfields”. That is, if we do the research, then perhaps we'll decide that some methods are best forgotten.

　　Hack the Planet: Science's Best Hope — or Worst Nightmare — for Averting Climate Catastrophe by Eli Kintisch

　　Dangerous journey

　　For the time being, however, all of the existing plans and proposals are just “armchair geoengineering”, as Kintisch puts it. And the cast of armchair geoengineers is still very small. The result is that both books cover a lot of the same ideas and quote many of the same sources, and both have in-depth chapters about two particular options: fertilizing the oceans with iron, and ships spewing cloud-brightening particles. Kintisch's book, though, offers up more examples of geoengineering. One is a proposition by the nonprofit Ice911, started by California-based engineer Leslie Field, to protect sea ice from melting by covering it with sacks full of silicon beads. Another is a scheme put forward by atmospheric scientist Brian Toon, who proposes modifying coal-fired power plants to belch the chemical carbonyl sulphide at ground level, from where, Toon figures, it will eventually be carried up to the stratosphere（['stræt?usfi?] 【氣】同溫層;平流層） and turn into light-reflecting sulphates.

　　Kintisch also digs deeper than Goodell into explaining the details of how geoengineering might work — and why it would be so difficult to do well. A reporter for the journal Science who regularly covers geoengineering for the journal's ScienceInsider blog, Kintisch likewise takes an insider's view in Hack the Planet. That's not to say Kintisch argues in favour of geoengineering, but that he writes from firmly within the world of science, and for an audience who's comfortable with science, too. He never explains the term 'hack' in the title, for example, which is borrowed from computer hacking and reflects the idea that geoengineering involves interfering with fundamental aspects of the climate to change how the whole system works. For this reason, scientists and other science-literate readers — especially those who already have some familiarity with geoengineering — will probably prefer Kintisch's book over Goodell's.

　　In contrast, Goodell's book takes a step back, presenting an outsider's view —unsurprising, as he is a regular reporter for Rolling Stone, the music and politics magazine. This perspective allows Goodell to be a guide to those who might reject the whole idea of geoengineering as far-fetched or crazy. “You don't need a Ph.D. in physics to understand the basic insanity of this undertaking,” Goodell writes, while emphasizing that the outlook for the planet is so bad that we have to think about these options anyway. Of the two authors, Goodell does a better job of taking the reader on a journey. Most chapters in How to Cool the Planet feature a central character, from geoengineer David Keith tinkering in his lab at the University of Calgary to environmentalist and scientist James Lovelock strolling the countryside around his quaint English home. By digging into their stories, Goodell portrays geoengineering as a human endeavour, carrying hefty doses of uncertainty, doubt and fear.

　　It what seems to be an odd coincidence, both books end by likening geoengineering to some kind of planetary gardening. Goodell takes some comfort in this notion, whereas Kintisch is sceptical about the idea that we can tame and control ecosystems, let alone the whole planet. To my mind, a better analogy（比擬，類比，類推）for geoengineering would be industrial agriculture, with vast feedlots（飼育場(chǎng)）and fields of crops planted and harvested by machines. This system works for now, but its sustainability is increasingly coming into question. Similarly, geoengineering might appear to work well for a while before its dark side becomes evident. As Princeton University's Robert Socolow recently told the Asilomar meeting: “Be very careful.” Geoengineering comes with some strong warnings, and they're worth heeding.