Welcome to Conversationage Sign in | Help

Can Innovation save the Earth?


My company thrives on Innovation.  We live it, celebrate it, communicate it for our clients; in fact we refuse to work with clients that do not innovate, in some form or another.  We have a Chief Innovation Officer (the super-smart Marianne Allison), and senior management is constantly seeking ways to encourage Innovation among our ranks.

With all the angst surrounding climate change the past few years, I've been mulling over the role that Innovation is playing in the fight against global warming.  A lot has been discussed by scientists and politicians about the proposed methods for curbing carbon dioxide emissions (emissions trading, carbon tax, carbon offsets, renewable energy, soft energy path), but are we encouraging Innovation from all directions, creating incentives for average people to think outside of the box? More importantly, do we have mechanisms for funneling, vetting and matching ideas with resources?

One of these is the Virgin Earth Challenge, a competition awarding US$25M to the individual or organization that can invent a way to remove greenhouse gases from the Earth's atmosphere. The prize will be awarded to the first scheme that is capable of removing one billion metric tons of CO2 from the atmosphere per year for 10 years (current emissions average 6.3 million tons per year.)  Announced by Sir Richard Branson in February 2007, with Al Gore listed as one of the judges, the competition is a rare call for ideas (and action) that anyone can participate in.  In my view almost all the truly big, bold ideas will involve geoengineering in some way. 

The field of geoengineering is fraught with anxiety.  Previously regarded as being in the realm of science fiction, the large-scale artificial modification of a planet (or Earth's) to suit human needs, is garnering more attention recently as a way to combat global warming:

Geoengineering is the name given to large scale planning projects aiming to counteract or reduce the effects of planetary change. For example, some have proposed putting large mirrors in orbit which would modify the insolation received by Earth - either increasing or decreasing it, as the need arises. Other examples which have been seriously considered include: large-scale sequestration of CO2 inside geological formations or ocean sediment, the modification of Earth's albedo with reflective or absorptive materials spread over portions of its surface, the alteration of rainfall patterns through the creation of artificial seas, and the depositing of iron in the ocean to encourage algae growth. To date, none of these proposals has been implemented on truly a planetary scale.

(from Wikipedia)

Arguments against geoengineering as a solution include its viability on such a large scale, its potential to distract current efforts to curb greenhouse gas emissions ("If we can fix it, why bother changing our behavior?"), but most importantly, the fact that we have only one Earth, and if we fail and create unintended side consequences there is not fallback, rendering the Earth uninhabitable.

Just like the end of the movie Total Recall, when Schwarzenegger's character activated a massive alien machine that made Mars' atmosphere breathable, is the human race intelligent enough to create a machine (or an array of machines) that will alter a whole planet's atmosphere to our liking?

Call me naive, but I believe Innovation got us here (the Industrial Revolution) and Innovation will get us out of the global warming mess that we're in.  For a global problem, the key is to democratize Innovation and allow a good idea, from anywhere in the world, to bubble up and be taken seriously.  That's the challenge.  The Internet is great, but it only reaches a fraction of the human race.

Published Sunday, October 14, 2007 6:04 PM by Davidko

Comments

 

bronney said:

I've been reading on alternate power and even go as far as finding out how much they cost.  We've advanced in the past years that it is now actually feasible to install solar panels in homes that could cut the electricity bill dramatically.  Provided that you're living on a south facing lot and not on the 8th floor of some apartment (which most of us do in Hong Kong).

The US military is also investing in a solar panel that's bigger than the ISS and will be situated in space; providing power by shining a bright beam back to earth to power stuff, or to kill "terrorists".

I personally believe that solar power would be a great start for everyone to start helping mother earth by producing less CO2 by using less power such as and.  Mr. Einstein invented it.

Some state government, especially California, actually subsidize the use of solar power and will rebate installers on various scales of operation.  I just wish that we can stop burning so much coal and drive some electric cars real soon.

October 17, 2007 12:28 AM
 

Marc Lein said:

I hate to be the Devil's advocate here but there is $125,000 availabe to anyone that can prove in a scientific manner, that humans are causing harmful global warming. The winning entry will specifically reject both of the following two hypotheses:

http://ultimateglobalwarmingchallenge.com/

UGWC Hypothesis 1

Manmade emissions of greenhouse gases do not discernibly, significantly and predictably cause increases in global surface and tropospheric temperatures along with associated stratospheric cooling.

UGWC Hypothesis 2

The benefits equal or exceed the costs of any increases in global temperature caused by manmade greenhouse gas emissions between the present time and the year 2100, when all global social, economic and environmental effects are considered.

While I agree that innovation and specifically technology can bring wonderful things to our planet, I find it impossible to just sit by and watch global warming hysteria continue to take place especially considering we are just a few thousand years removed from the last ice age, which is statistically infestimal when taking in the Earth's age of 4.5 billion years.

October 22, 2007 1:31 PM
 

David KO said:

Thanks Marc I love it that you posted this comment.

We should be open to all sides of the argument, and while at this stage I'm 100% convinced human activity is causing climate change, I'm always open to being convinced if a sound scientific explanation can be found that disproves the current thinking.  

I do have to say though, I believe that while that search is going on, we should act on the current information because this is a time-sensitive issue and so far no compelling data has emerged that presents a convincing case against climate change.  

I agree some of the current celebrity and political posturing can be offputting, but we need to separate that distaste from the core issues.

And btw, I am familiar with junkscience.com and Steven Milloy's reputation.  Still, facts speak for themselves and I would love to see the scientific data and be convinced otherwise, regardless of source.

December 3, 2007 8:54 PM
 

Marc Lein said:

My apologies for the delay on this response as I just saw it today. While I too am open to both side of the arguement, I think where we differ is how to act on the data on which we have. Finding a "happy middle ground" between ecomic growth, personal freedoms, and responsible environmental impact should not be an impossibilty.

While Steven Milloy's ties to what other's would call buiness only interests may put some off to what he says. The fact remains that we know very little about things such as Solar Variation Theory, and not taking them into account does a dis-service to us all.

March 31, 2008 3:15 PM

Leave a Comment

(required) 
(optional)
(required) 

WE reserves the right to refuse to post or to edit or remove, in whole or in part, any Information that is, in WE's sole discretion, unacceptable, undesirable or in violation of these rules.
Submit