Reply to comment

Thanks, Anonymous, for adding your comments, though they would be more useful if you identified yourself and thus made it possible for people to consider the source.

The reason I complained about New Scientist's sensationalist headlines is captured in your quotation from Bryan Walsh:

Unless the geopolitics of global warming change soon, the Hail Mary pass of geoengineering might become our best shot.

If we find ourselves reduced to a "Hail Mary pass" to avoid devastation, we will already be in big trouble. In fact, if we reach that point, whom will we trust to call the play? We'll have experts advocating different solutions and free agents in positions of power who may try their own approach before the rest of the "team" gets into the huddle.

That is why it is so important for us to act now. To use a different football analogy, we need to run a two-minute drill--disciplined and planned but urgently executed.

To keep the team together, we need to be clear about what is possible if we succeed and what the best- and worst-case scenarios can be if we don't. I find sensationalist headlines in highly respected international publications extremely unhelpful because they focus on the worst-case scenarios and not what we can do now to minimize their likelihood.

Note that I am not disputing concerns about carbon capture and sequestration, which has been presented as a magic bullet without any proof it is feasible on a large scale. I am not disputing that large-scale geopolitical and social disruption may lie ahead if we fail to turn around this climate aircraft carrier we are riding.

But the best approach to avoiding calamity begins with an honest assessment of the extent and consequences of climate change. That means all scenarios, not just the ones that make for eye-grabbing, gut-wrenching headlines.

Fred Bortz
Children's Science Books
and
Science Book Reviews