A Modest Solution?

Here's something for you to do on a slow Sunday afternoon. Find a modern-day picture of the Los Angeles skyline and put it next to an identical one from 1970. The difference will make you fall out of the chair. Of course, because I know you're all too lazy to actually do this, I'll spoil the surprise. The modern skyline is clear and sunny, but in the other shot you can barely make out the shape of the skyscrapers. The reason for this difference is the ubiquitous presence of everyone's favorite portmanteau word: smog!

In the 1970s, Congress rode a burgeoning wave of environmentalism to the tune of comprehensive reform acts, most notable the Clear Air Act. For all of our legislature's shortcomings, they finally struck law-of-averages gold with their environmental laws. The acts were an unqualified success. Today, smog in the United States is a mere fraction what it used to be, and soot - the other nasty particulate the laws sought to control - has been virtually eliminated from the atmosphere. We all rejoiced and praised the government for its impressive step forward. "Hey, they finally did something right for once!"

Or did they? Fast-forward to modern times and examine global warming, our current environmental nemesis. Global warming is increasing at a rate similar to smog's proliferation in the post-WW2 era. We've all been educated, scolded, and warned of the dangers it poses. And for all the good that environmental laws have done, they are still far, far away from solving this tricky problem.

As it turns out, our massive reduction of smog, soot, and other aerosols wasn't the comprehensive victory it once appeared to be. This year, a NASA study confirmed what sounds like an ironic joke: all those nasty chemicals in the year were actually HELPING the cause against global warming! How can this be?

It's actually relatively simple: the huge amounts of aerosols in the atmosphere were acting as a sort of sunscreen for the planet, reflecting the harmful UV radiation that gets trapped in the atmosphere and warms up the planet. While increasingly less sunlight had reached the earth due to dust, pollution, and other atmospheric particles, that trend reversed around 1990 when aerosol levels began to decline. Notably, that date also marks the start of the rise in average yearly temperatures - in other words, the beginning of global warming as we know it. Recent statistical information, coupled with basic principles of meteorology, confirmed that this connection was more causation than correlation. Over time, aerosols directly and indirectly (e.g. via cloud stabilization) led to global warming's opposite counterpart, the so-called "global dimming" phenomenon.

Interestingly, "global dimming" presents a potential solution to the main argument directed at global warming doomsayers. Although there seems to be little dispute that the planet has been gradually yet consistently warming over the past 15 years or so, meteorologists have yet to observe the incidental effects of the phenomenon. For example, a warmer climate facilitates water evaporation, leading to greater cloud formation and thus increased rainfall. Of course, if you're like me and live in the Southeast, you know that this absolutely not the case. Indeed, by all accounts we're in one of the worst droughts in modern history. Instead, the theory is that less sunlight reaching the surface counteracts the effect of warmer temperatures, thereby stabilizing the hydrological cycle.

Unfortunately, while first-world countries have done a commendable job reducing aerosols, developing nations like China and India are producing enormous amounts of particulate pollution at staggering rates. Complicating the problem is the possibility of black soot settling on the polar ice caps and absorbing further sunlight, melting them even faster than the current rate. On the other hand, fewer aerosols means more sunlight and all of its nasty problems like higher skin cancer rates. Must we literally pick our poison?

With the way things currently stand, the answer might be yes. Unfortunately, the other major problem is that neither industrialized nor developing nations are doing much of anything to tackle greenhouse gases, the prime culprit behind global warming. But don't worry guys - this will only be a problem for future generations.

**************

After hearing about this dilemma, I envisioned what I thought was a brilliant and creative solution. What if we could somehow inject more aerosols into the upper atmosphere, low enough to effectively block UV radiation but high enough to negate their deleterious health effects?

Unfortunately, some Nobel-winning chemist thought of it as well. Where's my Nobel prize, bitch? Anyway, this particular scientist postulated that, by injecting 1 million tons of sulfur per year into the stratosphere, the climate would cool down sufficiently to effectively halt global warming. Yes, sulfur - the very same sulfur that forms acid rain compounds known to decimate forests and fish - could be our biggest ally in the fight to save the natural world.

Here's the part that stumped me though. How the hell do you release a million tons of sulfur into the upper atmosphere? Listen to our chemist's solution: "giant cannons or balloons." ... Okay, so we're both still working on that part. But if you offer me a Nobel, I bet I'll think of it first.