In Zócalo’s new Nexus feature, we’ll be inviting contributors to consider big ideas with a broad perspective, finding connections and context across disciplines and between recent events and long-past histories. Below, Jeff Goodell asks whether man can control climate, rather than blindly pushing it up the thermometer.

It doesn’t take much imagination to dismiss geoengineering as a sci-fi fantasy. The whole notion of geoengineering – which the British Royal Society defines as “the deliberate large-scale intervention in the Earth’s climate system, in order to moderate global warming” – reeks of hubris and technocratic arrogance. Just talking about it seems, at best, a distraction from the urgent business at hand, which is developing the political will to reduce greenhouse gas pollution. After all, if global warming is a problem that can be fixed by simply tossing sulfur particles into the stratosphere to reflect away sunlight, hell, why bother cutting back on fossil fuels? Jump in the SUV and party on.

The only thing more reckless than embracing geoengineering, however, is dismissing it. Yes, it’s a dangerous, crazy idea. In a rational world, we would never consider it. But we don’t live in a rational world. The hard truth is, geoengineering has a political and economic appeal that will be difficult to derail. The question is, will we pursue it in an intelligent way that helps us manage the risks of global warming and deepens our understanding of how the climate system works, or will our pursuit of it simply turn into, as one blogger put it, “a ramifying suite of mega-engineering wet dreams” that leads to a whole new dimension of chaos?

Geoengineering typically refers to two different approaches to cooling the planet. The first are technologies that change the reflectivity of the earth. Reducing the amount of sunlight that hits the surface of the earth by about one percent is enough to offset the warming that comes from a doubling of atmospheric CO2 levels (a common benchmark used by climate scientists). One way to do this is to mimic a volcano and throw a small amount of dust high into the stratosphere; the particles act as tiny mirrors, scattering sunlight. White rooftops and roads also help.

Big volcanic eruptions, such as Mt. Pinatubo in 1992, lowered the temperature of the earth by half a degree or so for nearly a year; the exhaust from diesel ship engines, which contains tiny particles of soot, generate clouds in certain conditions. Of course, reducing the temperature of the earth by reflecting sunlight does nothing to solve the other problems caused by high CO2 levels, the most urgent of which may be ocean acidification. But in comparison to the cost of rebuilding our energy infrastructure, it’s quick and cheap, the fast food of climate solutions.

The second approach is to develop new technologies to pull CO2 out of the atmosphere. One method is to stimulate plankton in the oceans, which in turn would absorb carbon. Another idea is to build CO2-sucking machines that are essentially artificial trees. A handful of scientists have built working prototypes of these machines, but they are still crude, inefficient, and wildly expensive. Still, it’s not impossible to imagine that someday we could build what amounts to an iron lung for the planet.

Critics of geoengineering point out that this all remains speculative, and that if it ever comes to fruition, the same engineering-industrial complex that profits off our addiction to fossil fuels is likely to profit off our quest to geoengineer the planet. Critics also worry about the broader consequences of these technologies, especially the ones that change the reflectivity of the planet. How will injecting particles into the stratosphere effect rainfall in the Amazon? Will it shift the monsoons, disrupting the food supply for millions of people? Then there are questions about governance, fairness, and morality. If we decide to intentionally modify the climate, whose hand will be on the proverbial thermostat?  And if something goes wrong, who eats the risk?

All that said, there are good reasons not to write geoengineering off too quickly. For one thing, we’re already manipulating the climate in a big way by dumping nearly nine billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere each year. So it’s hard to argue that geoengineering is the atmospheric equivalent of building a strip mall in an old-growth redwood forest. As for ethical concerns, it’s true that any full-blown geoengineering scheme is likely to be designed and implemented by the rich and powerful. But in addition to imagining it as a tool of domination, it’s also possible to imagine it as a tool of salvation. For instance, if it were within our technical capability to bring more rainfall to the Sahel and thus boost food production in one of the most desperate regions of Africa, wouldn’t we at least have an obligation to explore that idea?

Cooling off the planet quickly is something we might actually need to do. Despite 30 years of scientific research and public discussion about the dangers of dumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, we’re making zero progress at reducing emissions. Meanwhile, the planet continues to heat up: 2010 is likely to turn out to be hottest year on record, with killer heat waves in Russia and near-record melting in the arctic. Even if we stopped burning fossil fuels tomorrow, the planet would continue to warm for decades. If we needed to cool the planet off in a hurry – say, to slow the rapid melt of the Greenland ice sheets – geoengineering might be one of our only options.

Then there’s politics. You can wring your hands all you want about the dangers of quick fixes, but they are an easy sell. In the not-too-distant future, geoengineering will undoubtedly be pitched  as the diet pill for our climate and energy problems, a cheap and easy way to avoid the difficult task of weaning ourselves off fossil fuels. Precluding such nonsense is the best argument for a credible, federally funded geoengineering research program. Because the better we understand the real risks and dangers, the harder it will be for Big Coal to use it as a tool for further delay and denial.

The best argument for taking geoengineering seriously may be that it changes how we frame the problem of global warming. You cannot have a thoughtful debate about geoengineering without confronting the question: what kind of climate do we want? And what price – in economic, environmental, and human terms – are we willing to pay to get it? These questions are already implicit in conversations we have today about emissions targets and energy policy, but geoengineering discussions make these questions explicit.  They make clear the fundamental fact of our predicament today: that we are, at this very moment, designing the future of the planet.  We are in charge.

Geoengineering may or may not turn out to a valuable tool to reduce the risks of climate change.  But if exploring it helps us to better understand what’s at stake in our rapidly warming world, then it’s worth pursuing.  Because in the end, the greatest danger we face is not new-fangled technological hubris.  It’s old-fashioned apathy.

Jeff Goodell, a contributing editor at Rolling Stone, is the author of How to Cool the Planet: The Audacious Quest to Fix Earth’s Climate. Zócalo is a partner of the Future Tense program of Arizona State University, Slate Magazine and the New America Foundation, for which this essay was produced.

*Photo courtesy slworking2.