Saviour complex

The effect of change is often most vivid when one returns to a place after a long time: visiting a childhood park that has been replaced by apartment blocks; dropping by an old neighbourhood to find it derelict... the transition is obvious and striking. But as the boiling frog metaphor demonstrates, the impact of change is far less noticeable when one is immersed in it while it's happening.

A closer look reveals it is more an untested canon than a knight in shining armour.

Lezette Engelbrecht, online features editor, ITWeb

Humans are good at responding to sudden changes, like disasters or political uprisings, or even simple daily deadlines. But shifts that take decades, no matter how life-changing, tend to go straight into the “worry later” box. And why shouldn't they? Most people have enough in the “needs attention right now” box to keep them busy for a week. But like it or not, long-term planning isn't a luxury we can afford to ignore. If people can think far enough ahead to plan for retirement, illness and their children's education, they can surely spare a thought for the small matter of the state of the planet. Because what use is planning for the former three if the latter is in ruins?

Here the idea of seeing and experiencing change becomes important. Those in Greenland can physically see glaciers retreating, just like people in East Africa can see Mount Kilimanjaro's ice cap disappearing. But in other places, gradual warming and subtle seasonal changes provide a much milder pot of boiling water. Perhaps what's needed is a clearer idea of how much the future world will contrast with our present reality.

Global demand for major grains such as maize, rice and wheat is projected to increase by 70% between 2000 and 2050. Other predictions suggest world grain reserves could be empty by 2030, with bad harvests and grain export embargoes leaving 200 million teetering on the brink of starvation.

If the future food scenario is worrying, concerns around water supply are downright scary. According to current trends, in the next 20 years we'll use 40% more water than we do now. In future, water crises could trigger major outmigration, resulting in millions of environmental refugees pouring into surrounding countries in search of resources. At the same time, melting ice could accelerate to the point where we face a sea level rise of nearly 12cm. Picture flooding along major rivers including the Mississippi, Nile, Niger and Euphrates, and rising seas and typhoons dislocating tens of millions of people in South Asia.

Back home, we'll see chaotic seasonal and rainfall changes, with severe droughts in the Horn of Africa and East Africa. In contrast, many parts of Western Africa will experience record floods. All of this will also have a dramatic impact on the incidence and spread of disease. Rising global temperatures will result in malaria and dengue fever spreading to previously temperate climates, with disease and malnutrition combining to create an unprecedented global health crisis.

These predictions are not the rantings of a lunatic fringe. The International Energy Agency issued a warning just last week that under current policies, estimated energy use and CO2 emissions would increase by a third by 2020, and almost double by 2050. “This would likely boost global temperatures at least 6^0C. Such an outcome would confront future generations with significant economic, environmental and energy security hardships.”

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change predicts a global rise of between 1oC and 6oC by 2100, depending on various factors, while others say there's a risk of temperatures rising more than 8^0C or even 11oC. This would make life intolerable and perhaps even un-survivable.

Faced with this picture, a mere 20 years away, of a world where climate change, food shortages, rising energy prices, and water scarcity have resulted in almost 50 million people being displaced, it's easy to clutch at the salvaging hand of technology as a way to fix all our problems.

The concept of geoengineering - the large-scale manipulation of the environment to combat changes in the atmosphere - is a manifestation of this belief in the omnipotent power of technology. But a closer look reveals it is more an untested canon than a knight in shining armour. It could blow a nice big hole in your problems, but it could also cause more damage to your own troops than anticipated.

Several geoengineering strategies suggest interference with natural systems that could have devastating and unforeseen consequences. Ocean fertilisation, for example, involves pumping the sea full of nutrients so phytoplankton can flourish (they absorb carbon dioxide in the process of photosynthesis). But this could also create harmful algal blooms, with some species releasing a toxin which wipes out other marine life and upsets food webs.

Another strategy is to try and blast chemicals into the atmosphere to reflect sunlight and cool the planet. Stratospheric sulphur aerosols, for example, mimic the effect volcanoes have by dimming the skies in a sort of 'managed sunshine as a service' approach. But using giant blimps to release tonnes of hydrogen sulphide or sulphur dioxide into the atmosphere could also result in a depleted ozone layer, acid rain, droughts and changes in rainfall patterns, to mention but a few.

Also, think of the implementation problems. Constructing these sizeable engineering projects is going to be a long, arduous process if governments are already busy defending or replacing urban infrastructure hit by storms and disasters. Where will they find the money to fund these undertakings while also dealing with the massive economic, developmental and resource challenges climate change will bring?

There's also the fact that once countries start messing about with the skies and the oceans, they begin overstepping their national boundaries somewhat. Who owns which patch of atmosphere, and what are they going to do if it starts affecting neighbouring skies? Is all the world a lab and anyone is free to experiment, regardless of the consequences?

Technology can only ever be an aid, not a saviour. The idea of climate remediation is very much like a magic pill for weight loss. For years we stuff our faces and ignore the rising numbers and imposing bulges. Then one day we wake up not quite happy with the situation, and want a quick fix that will make it all go away. But trying to engineer the earth's climate to meet human needs is no substitute for behaviour change on a grand scale.

Humankind won't have the luxury of seeing their before and after as two contrasting images held side by side after surgery - which can often shock us into change. We will have to live through the ripping and tearing and restructuring over years, and perhaps only see the stark changes in our world in generations from now. At present, though, there is still an opportunity to turn the oven dial lower. The residual heat will continue to burn for a long time, no doubt, but if we sit doing nothing and wait for a technological miracle, there's a far greater chance we'll be left to boil alive in our own apathy.