Man Plans to Save Earth by Nuking Its Crust: Is It Genius or Madness?

As we face the escalating threat of catastrophic climate change, newly reinstated President Donald Trump has ignited controversy by advocating for increased fossil fuel extraction with his rallying cry to “drill, baby, drill.” This directive, aimed at accelerating fossil fuel projects and boosting production, seems likely to be eagerly embraced by the world’s oil and gas companies, which have shown signs of retreating from their earlier commitments to transition towards renewable energy.

In this context, the grim visions held by those who accept the scientific consensus on climate change grow darker. These visions depict a world ravaged by climate disasters, prompting a desperate search for innovative solutions as traditional approaches falter.

One controversial solution gaining attention is geoengineering, which involves large-scale interventions in the Earth’s climate system intended to counteract the effects of climate change. Some view this as an opportunity to showcase human creativity and potentially save the planet. Others criticize it as a misguided belief in technological salvation.

Among the geoengineering strategies is solar geoengineering, which aims to reflect solar radiation away from the Earth’s surface to cool the planet. One method proposes injecting sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere to create a reflective aerosol barrier. Another approach, Enhanced Rock Weathering (ERW), focuses on carbon capture. ERW accelerates a natural process where CO₂ is removed from the atmosphere through reactions between rainwater and certain rocks, thereby storing more carbon.

“This explosion would be well over a thousand times larger than the 50 megaton ‘Tsar Bomba’ test, the current largest nuclear explosion in history, which itself was around 3,800 times the strength of the bomb dropped on Hiroshima.”

A particularly radical geoengineering concept has recently been proposed by Andy Haverly, a young software engineer at Microsoft. He suggests detonating the largest nuclear bomb ever created beneath the Earth’s crust to lock away 30 years’ worth of global CO₂ emissions in submarine basalt rock formations.

Haverly envisions placing an 81 gigaton nuclear bomb several kilometers under the seabed of the remote Kerguelen Plateau in the Antarctic Ocean. This explosion would vastly exceed the power of the historic 50 megaton Tsar Bomba, detonated by the Soviet Union in 1961. Haverly theorizes that the pulverized rock would chemically react with CO₂ in the ocean, forming stable mineral compounds that sequester carbon indefinitely. He believes the deep ocean waters would contain the explosion safely.

During a Zoom interview, Haverly explained that his idea stemmed from frustrations with the inadequacy of current carbon sequestration methods. “Watching the movie Oppenheimer brought nuclear technology to my mind,” he said. “The notion of combining known techniques like Enhanced Rock Weathering and underground nuclear detonations seemed unexplored, which is why I published my initial findings.”

Despite the innovative nature of his proposal, Haverly acknowledges the immense risks and potential unknowns associated with such an extreme method of geoengineering. Questions about its impact on geological and oceanic systems, as well as the containment of nuclear radiation, remain major concerns.

“We need to consider this carefully,” Haverly cautions, emphasizing that his proposal is merely a starting point for discussion rather than a ready-to-implement plan.

However, critics argue that even considering such drastic measures can be harmful. They suggest that focusing on geoengineering could detract from necessary actions to reduce fossil fuel emissions now, potentially leading to irreversible ecological damage if critical tipping points are reached, such as the collapse of the Amazon rainforest or the melting of the Greenland ice sheet.

Wim Carton, an associate professor at Lund University, views the proposal as dangerously reminiscent of early geoengineering ideas that irresponsibly suggested using nuclear bombs for large-scale construction projects or Arctic ice removal. “These ideas were as reckless then as they are now,” he states, emphasizing the lack of discussion on the effectiveness and political feasibility of using nuclear explosions for environmental purposes.

“There have, at least in my opinion, not been any fatal flaws of this idea pointed out.”

Yet, Haverly maintains that exploring such radical ideas is necessary in a world running out of options. “We should continue advancing green energy solutions, but we also need to consider every possible tool to minimize our environmental impact,” he argues. His proposal has sparked a mix of criticism and cautious interest from various scientific quarters.

“More research and discussion are needed to determine if this could ever be a viable approach,” Haverly admits, hopeful yet realistic about the challenges ahead.

As the debate over geoengineering continues, the question remains whether such extreme measures represent a dangerous overreach or a necessary gamble in our quest to mitigate climate change.

Follow Joe Banks on X @JoePBanks