Ecoblogi – A Blog by Daniel Elkama

It is often suggested that we could be saved from the climate crisis through climate modification and so-called “geoengineering”. In this idea, humans act as engineers who use technological solutions to maintain the Earth like a machine. The so-called ecomodernist movement in particular supports this idea. The fact is that humans could modify the climate on a large scale using technological solutions, but this involves enormous risks. In addition, nature-based solutions, in which problems are solved by utilizing, nurturing and creating living nature and ecosystems, are often more practical, better, more efficient and cheaper.

The roots of climate modification are far back in history. In order to form rain, small particles need to act as “condensation nuclei” on which raindrops can condense. Decades ago, people have been spreading small particles into the air from airplanes and causing rain to form on fields in dry areas. However, these particles can be harmful to nature.

It is thought that the climate can be modified, for example, by using mirrors that increase the Earth’s albedo (reflective ability) and thus reflect solar radiation, infrared light, and other electromagnetic radiation back into space. However, mirrors require a lot of minerals and land area. Another often proposed method is to spread sulfur dioxide into the air, which protects the Earth from warming in the stratosphere. The fact is that everything that goes up into the air eventually comes down. The sulfur released into the air would come back to the earth as acid rain, destroying forests and vegetation and acidifying water ecosystems. Ecosystems would suffer and be destroyed.

In addition, machines have been proposed that remove carbon from the air, for example by binding it to solutions. However, trees are natural ”carbon sequestration machines” and bind carbon more efficiently than any man-made machine. The machines also consume enormous amounts of electricity and require minerals. For now, they are not a realistic option. In experiments, their effect has been negligible.

On the other hand, nature-based solutions are, as mentioned, cheaper and more effective. Two thousand years ago, the Earth’s biomass contained over 1,000 gigatonnes of carbon, now it is only 500 gigatonnes. In other words, humanity has destroyed half of the Earth’s nature. Most of the carbon is in the trees of forests, about 85%. Even more carbon than in biomass is in the soil under forests, which is ancient decayed biomass. The carbon sequestration of forests continues indefinitely, the carbon just eventually transfers to the soil. Soil protection is therefore absolutely important.

Humans have destroyed half of the forests that once covered the Earth, today about 33% of the Earth’s land area is covered by forest. Tropical and temperate forests contain approximately the same amount of carbon. Northern forests have just sequestered carbon more slowly and are an equally important carbon store. If we planted enough trees to restore much of the ancient forest cover, we would remove a huge amount of carbon from the air, up to 500 gigatons. Much more than any machine can do. Trees would also protect crops, water resources and soil, support biodiversity and prevent desertification. A great example of this is Africa’s “Green Belt” project, which could stop the expansion of the Sahara.

Nature-based solutions secure ecosystem services, help adapt to a changing climate and are more sustainable in all respects. Trees and other nature, for example, significantly reduce air pollution, reduce the risk of flooding and lower the extreme temperatures of heat waves. The impact is very large, especially in cities where most people already live. This is specifically about trees, the impact of lawns or green roofs is minor; although they also help. Trees are like the Ents of Tolkien’s books, guardians and preservers of the world. Other significant nature-based solutions include, for example, urban streams for stormwater management, which are more efficient than sewers, and urban meadows, which, among other things, protect pollinating bees and butterflies.

In other words, sensible “geoengineering” is based on the inherent power of living nature, not on machines. Nature has been developing its own “green infrastructure” for millions of years. The history of human machines is short, and they are no match for nature as engineering marvels.

Daniel Elkama