For decades, scientists have been toying with the ultimate question: “How can we cool the planet?” Apocalypse Plan B, a documentary hosted by Canadian academic and activist David Suzuki, dives into radical ways some scientists are hoping to combat a warming world.
One is physicist David Keith, who wants to dim the sun by using jets to spray layers of sulphur into the stratosphere 24-7. The technique is supposed to bounce sunlight into space. The idea is built as a simulation of volcanic eruptions, which send sulphur into the air, lowering the temperature on Earth.
“It's insanity,” Suzuki told Canada’s National Observer. “We think we're so goddamn smart we can take over the atmosphere and treat it in a way that will correct the problem we already created from being too smart.”
Clearly, Suzuki is not on board with the plan. He’s not afraid to show it, either. Viewers can see it when filmmakers Mark Starowicz and Caitlin Starowicz pit the Davids against one another in a scene overlooking snow-capped mountains. It's there that Suzuki calls Keith’s methods a manipulation of the natural world.
Dr. Sarah Doherty of the University of Washington’s ideas stomp on similar grounds as Keith’s. Her idea is bright — literally. It's called marine cloud brightening. The proposed solution is to use sea salt projected from large ships to brighten clouds, which then would reflect the sun into space and offset global warming from greenhouse gas emissions.
For Indian physicist Dr. Vandana Shiva, messing with the sun is yet another form of the west’s attempt to impose its ideas on the rest of the world. Blocking the sun, she says, basically curses “80 per cent of humanity and all the beings on this earth who depend on the green leaf for their survival on this planet.”
“It's not solving the basic problem,” Suzuki tells Canada’s National Observer. “We don't even take the first steps that are needed, namely, don't make it worse.”
He explains the need for a Plan B because simpler solutions that require stopping fossil fuel burning and deforestation are ignored.
With humanity producing 10 gigatonnes of carbon annually – which, for perspective, is similar to a four-kilometre block of coal over New York's Central Park – the film demonstrates that change is needed, and fast.
“All kinds of people are suffering…because of our inability to rein in our fossil fuel emissions and then to use them as the excuse to continue this line of work that allows the fossil fuel companies to continue. That is absolutely disgusting,” adds Suzuki.
To hear podcast host David McKie’s full interview with Canada’s cherished icon David Suzuki, make sure to tune into upcoming episodes of Hot Politics. Suzuki picks a bone with the fashion and food industries, recounts his long career with the show The Nature of Things and reflects on the future he sees for his grandkids’ generation.
You can catch up on all the previous episodes of Hot Politics on Apple Podcast, Spotify or your favourite listening app.
Hot Politics is made possible by listeners like you. If you’ve supported the podcast already, thank you. If you haven’t, click here to donate what you can to help us keep producing valuable journalism.
Apocalypse Plan B is available to watch on CBC Docs.
Comments
Solar dimming does nothing to address ocean acidification, as CO2 continues to accumulate in the atmosphere and ocean.
We would have to dim the sun continuously for decades or centuries. As soon as we stop (or shortly thereafter), global warming rebounds.
This is to say nothing of unintended consequences.
Thumbs down.
I've found it very hard to discern David Keith's motivations, ever since he was at uCalgary. Prestige? Riches? Honestly applying his ApplSci knowledge and curiosity for planetary benefit? Fossil apologist/facilitator? I don't know. He has, regardless, become and remains a de facto spokesman for geoengineering and seems to win a plurality of airtime for the pro-geoengineering crowd.
I've likewise no idea about Harvard's motivation for headhunting him. I'm assuming, at least, that they came looking for him, as even >15 years ago he was, it seems to me, all-in on tech remediation, by one means or another (he has championed a couple including direct air capture and atmospheric aerosols), of atmospheric GHGs.
Hopefully the interview is interesting, if likely predictable. Props, nonetheless, to Keith for facing off with Suzuki.
For people following the topic of geoengineering, keep an eye out for Dr. Keith to see what he's saying on the topic going forward.
Just watched: Apocalypse Plan B. Good summary, worth watching. Useful interaction with David Keith.
I have to say I remain confused, however, by seeming contradictions in messaging. Cut fossil fuels now. No, wait... cut them by 50% by 2030 and to zero by 2050. But, what about developing nations who emit less than we rich folks and wish to improve their lot which, presently, means burning more fossil-fuels?
We really need to do some courageous opportunity-costing, soon, regarding livestock and the global meat industry.
Etc.
The problem with some scientists is that they ride hobby-horses, and have zero comprehension of the range of possible or likely or inevitable other effects of what they're talking about. I blame it on the ever-greater level of extreme specialization at ever lower levels of education.
As I understand it, what's in the stratosphere is subject to gravity, and passes through clouds on its way down.
I, for one, am not seeing beneficial effects of sulfuric acid raining down on us ... or the oceans, for that matter. Quite aside from the warming gasses released by jets.
It seems to me that the young physicist needs to go back to school and learn some basic chemistry and geology, and to stop basing his opinions on overly focussing on one small part of "all that is."
Frankly, it seems like a really, really idiotic suggestion, that could only be made by someone who doesn't understand that the hubris and short-sightedness of science is what's got us where we are in the first place.
I also fail to understand how clouds raining salt down on plant life won't have the effect that putting salt on weeds does. FWIW, it kills'em ... not all, but many. And nothing "new" grows there. I've been told it's good for some crops: watermelons, specifically. But I don't know if that's factual or misinformation. I do know that putting salt on roads hastens melt-off, and can't see how it'd be good for northern ice or glaciers, and I do know that road salt has killed plants growing in the margin between the sidewalk and my fence.
Ocean salt doesn't generally as an aspect of nature wind up far inland.