What can prevent climate change from becoming catastrophic?

We all know Climate change will be bad. How bad is it? Can we stop it from being awful? (Choose your own definition of “risk”) Let me know what you think in the comments—then if you’re in the Bay Area on September 28th, you can enjoy Re:WIRED Green at our one-day How To event. Human ingenuity can cope with climate change. There will be talks, demonstrations and discussions with some of the most exciting researchers, activists and entrepreneurs working on this problem. Which brings us nicely to the topic of this month’s update.

Swinging the fence for the weather

Climate optimists tend to say things like: Yes, it’s really bad, but humans have been good at preventing the worst. Malthusian trap, ozone hole, acid rain. Of course, “we’ve done it before, so we’ll do it again” may not be a reliable proposition when the fate of billions of people hangs in the balance. And weaning the entire global economy off fossil fuels is arguably even more difficult than those problems. (Who would have guessed at the time?)

At WIRED, we frequently look at some of the more technological solutions, and the story usually goes something like this: “This is promising, but there are some nasty trade-offs.” A great example, which we wrote about in depth last December and last month, is chemically removing carbon dioxide from the air and locking it underground. Many experts agree that this is probably the most important supplement for low carbon extraction in the first place. But the technology is expensive, difficult to scale, and the least standardized—it’s turning into a gold rush for the same companies that drill and burn fossil fuels. Well, that’s capitalism for you.

Or take a slightly older CCS technology: trees. Planting more of them will certainly help, but it will take decades or centuries for new trees to become as good as rapidly disappearing wild-growth forests at absorbing carbon. You might be able to genetically modify trees and other plants to absorb carbon more quickly, but spreading GM trees around the world without knowing the long-term consequences worries people (rightly). On the other hand, breeding large numbers of carbon-starved trees in a non-GM way can take a very long time.

Then there are biofuels. But the shift has knock-on effects, such as requiring more fertilizer to grow biofuel crops, which also raises emissions. Or low-carb beef – but it still has more carbon than other meats, so marketing it as low-carb can encourage people to eat more and produce higher net emissions. or growing special crops to burn the emissions as fuel by capturing and storing them; But again you need more fertilizer and farm infrastructure.

All in all, we are not unintelligent. The technologies exist, including some that are not as controversial as the ones above. If implemented correctly, they could keep the world below 2 degrees warmer. What is missing? Mainly financial support, and the political will to make countries keep their promises. The climate legislation passed by the US Senate on Sunday is off to a promising start.