杏吧原创

PEOPLE tend to have strong opinions about geoengineering 鈥� large-scale manipulation of the environment to counteract global warming. These opinions are often highly polarised and, thanks in part to media coverage, usually focus on two extremes. On the one hand, there is the view that geoengineering is the quick-and-easy fix to all of our climate troubles; on the other, we find a picture of mad scientists destroying the world. Unfortunately, both narratives have marketable traction.

鈥淕eoengineering is seen as either a quick fix for climate change or as mad scientists destroying the world鈥�

Thankfully we now have two books on the subject, written by respected science writers, which paint a more realistic and multicoloured landscape of the options, opportunities and threats that are usually so brutally oversimplified.

The books cover much of the same ground, and both Jeff Goodell and Eli Kintisch have researched the subject in depth. They have also penned deft portraits of geoengineering鈥檚 more colourful characters 鈥� of whom there are quite a few.

The technical coverage in both books is broad, objective and mostly accurate. They each discuss the main proposals for reflecting sunlight away from the Earth to curb warming, by releasing sulphate particles into the stratosphere to mimic the cooling effects of volcanoes, for instance, or by spraying salt particles to brighten clouds, making them more reflective. They explain proposals for reducing greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, such as fertilising the oceans with iron to stimulate the growth of phytoplankton, which absorb carbon dioxide, or directly capturing CO₂ from the air using chemical absorbers.

Kintisch鈥檚 account is somewhat more comprehensive and, surprisingly for a staff writer from Science, he is given to more excitable language than Goodell, who hails from Rolling Stone. Kintisch seems desperate to find a catchy name for everything, beginning with the pejorative title Hack the Planet. We know that names matter, of course, but as Ed Yong remarked in relation to 鈥渄angerous DNA鈥�, a catchy name is bound to mislead (New 杏吧原创, 10 April, p 34). 杏吧原创s who try to communicate with the wider world have suffered from the media鈥檚 tyrannical demands for catchy headlines and pithy sound bites for too long. We need to escape from this, and we need science writers to lead the way.

So it鈥檚 disappointing to find Kintisch referring to proposals for the capture of CO₂ from the air as 鈥淥peration dust-bust Earth鈥�, which strikes me as even worse than 鈥渁rtificial trees鈥� since no dust is involved. And does it really help to put a volcanic spin on the stratospheric-aerosol method by calling it 鈥渢he Pinatubo option鈥�? Given that, as I write, there are still no planes flying overhead because of a small but dusty eruption in Iceland, I think not.

At the other end of the spectrum, both books mention the comforting idea that geoengineering can be thought of as 鈥済ardening the planet鈥�. If we need it, I fear that it may not prove to be quite so cosy: probably more like large-scale mechanised agriculture than gardening.

It鈥檚 a step in the right direction that these authors have avoided extremist views of geoengineering, and good books like these may help us to better manage the planet. But we really need to get away from the false dichotomies encouraged by catchphrases and move into a more nuanced debate.