5 Ways to harm the World
1 send glace cylinders up to block the sun operated by computers chips... Verse hits and no one remembers what we did and the earth frieze for ever�

2 adding plankton to the oceans� Spins out of control and floods the world�

3 adding more clouds� it�s starts to rain harder and creates more violent storms�

4 adding more chemicals to atmosphere is like creating more energy for the planet to redistribute. You get yoyo actions of energy�

5 Fake trees sound ok but would that just give you permission to burn more oil� And the oceans are peaking now with co2 absorptions�� so what�s about to happen is 1 becomes 2 and 2 becomes 4 ect until it crashes oceans currents and the next ice age comes� And that will stop us all from using oil...

A.J to your comment on urea did you ever stop to consider that the reason that phytoplankton only occur close to land is because thats where the nutrients are comming from. by the time water gets off coastal regions and into international waters it's been depleted of the nutrients by the life near the land

The old saying is "If it seems to good to be true...." well you know the rest. There was however one sollution that maybe has merit. Dr. Latham's idea of the sailing vessel spraying atomized seawater into the atmosphere is intriguing. I like it because it's cheap and it's not irreversable. Let's build one and try it. I'll put up $500.00. Any takers??

A.J. rationing is not going to happen. stop and think for a moment you cannot get people to solve anything by just telling them what they are doing is wrong and will cause serious harm and or kill them, especially with something so integral in thier life style. UNLESS you right afterward tell them "i have soemthing else that wont cost you a penny more right here for you to use instead"

We will burn oil and coal and anything else we can until something else is there to take it's place. then and only then will the people stop using fossil fuels. Crisis mode has been reached there just simply isnt anything of equal price and or with the infrastructure there to take oil's place. no solution to the problem everyone is yelling about is at hand so the people cant do anything.

This show was a clear example of the adage, "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing." It made me wonder how these 'scientists' make a living and where they were when we needed a strong group to lobby before we reached this critical situation. Now that the evidence is slapping the world in the face, they are in a panic. As well, the industrialized nations have put all their energy eggs in one basket, never a wise plan, and have built a huge web around the world to support the usage of only oil & gas (in which those with a vested interest are very reluctant to relinquish).

Without going into great detail may I offer the following comments:
1. Sun Shade concept: The problem is not the amount of sunlight; it is the percentage of carbon in the air that is causing the problems. As well, the cost of 4 trillion & 30 years to accomplish, not to mention the emissions generated to produce and transport these glass plates makes it a non-starter.
2. Shiny Clouds: First the assumption that "people are going to continue to use petrol, so we need a safety button" is weak. We do not want salty rain for obvious reasons (drinking water & plant life would be destroyed). Again, a retarded concept.
3. Sulfur shot into the stratosphere: Same arguments as #2 apply but saying, "afterwards the rockets will PROBABLY fall into the ocean" makes this plan embarrassingly ridiculous.
4. Urea in the ocean: Phytoplankton only occurs, in significant numbers, around bodies of land naturally for a reason & what would urea do to the other life in the middle of the oceans? This scientist's statements, "If we were to stop dumping throughout the world, nature will not restore itself." & "We have been managing nature for some time now so we have to continue to manage it." is just plain ignorant. We need to learn from nature how to live in harmony with the rest of life on earth. Nature is much wiser & more powerful than we are.
5. Artificial Trees: Seems like a good idea though we might rethink how to store the effluent. Can sodium carbonate not be broken down with the carbon alone being stored in sealed containers, like uranium, or reused to make pencils, etc. Klaus clearly understood that this would only be a corrective measure until the atmosphere is restored to its proper balance and we have all converted to a clean system of supplying our energy requirements.

Nobody mentioned that, for starters, we need to get into a crisis mode that would require mandatory rationing of oil/gas consumption, mitigating penalties to all who have profited considerably from oil production & sale, a strict worldwide protection of our forests and massive tree planting campaigns.

The lack of knowledge is due to the insufficiency of investigating the reason of things."Confucius, 500BC. We need to take a page out of the Native Canadian handbook and consider seven generations before we add something into the environment.

To solve a problem that is systemic, that impact on the very fiber of how countries are run, we must investigate collaboratively in a multi-disciplinarian approach with transparency.

My question is why would we consider adding something into the environment when in Canada our medical school students are not trained on the basic causes of degenerative diseases like cancer, and that a Chair for Environment and Health does not exist with a PhD to provide training in the area of environmental impacts on a cellular level using bench science (blood, urine and tissue beyond bio-monitoring).

The tipping has happened and we must begin to bridge the gaps in knowledge. We must engage youth at the post and under-graduate level to allow for investigative research to be done on a global basis. This will enable a collaborative approach by joining Canada's top scientists and post graduates with those around the world to set priorities on environmental degradation and its impact on health. The tipping point has happened-with climate change, cancer rates, autism to name a few, we are living the evolution of pollution.

Let's be strong citizens and join with academic leadership at the highest level of integrity and provide government the knowledge they need to protect Canadians and in so doing, be global leaders in environment and health.

One very common theme i am seeing in these comments is for us to solve the problem at the source, (our own c02 emissions). Then there is reality, we the human race will burn every last drop and cubic meter of fossil fuels on and in this planet, we have to, our economy is based on it. As someone who works in the Canadian oil field I may have an insiders view on this issue or a biased one, (don't know witch?) And i see all of the technologies developed in the past, electric car, and today, fuel cell and parahydrogen, being pushed back and hidden from our society, I'd like to think because of the impact these techs would have on all our jobs, whether in the oilfield or not.

One very intresting program i watched had to do with extracting a sample of magma directly from the base of an active volcano. Even more intresting was the blip comment that this one, repeat 1, volcano introduced almost the same quantities of co2 as all of the states autos. Well isn't that a huge semi contained source of millions of tons of co2? I teach new and old alike about the dangers of working in the oilfield and our exposure limits to many gasses. Ventalation i stress to the worker exposed, extract the gas from the source and send it off down wind. Or just maybe, extract the atmosphere inside a volcano and send it through a processing plant that may use the same solution as the 'artifical tree' therfore extracting huge amouts of co2 at a source, then disposal as described.

Do nothing? it's natural? heavier than air? (wind) Mother earth will never die just change, can we human beings live with or more importantly in that change?

I kind of disagree Petra. you cannot ask the world to sacrifice fossil fuels without having something right there ready to go to replace it. and we are far away from that. even if we have another energy source for our planes trains and automobiles we don't have the infrastructure to supply it like we do gas.

In the mean time we need technology to perform damage control. and some of the ideas proposed in this show wont have lasting reprocussions. I dont like the sulfur idea or the idea of taking carbon out of the earths cycle forever, however we dont have to the phytoplankton and the cloud seeding idea are about as good as it gets i think. though i wonder what happens when the clouds with salt in them start raining down on the land pouring salt water into the lakes and streams.

Since close to half the problem comes from transportation, it makes sense to go after the root cause, not just the symptoms.

In Canada there is being developed the natural evolution of the automobile. A car that is the evolution of a zero emission car, an evolved highway or Guideway that moves the vehicles at high speed and automatically to the destination. Working together, this will eliminate a large number of cars and the resulting emissions, while at the same time improving transportation efficiency.

The problem is that there is no support in this country for this technology. If there were, we could solve a large part of the source of the problem, not just look at radical ideas. As usual the technology will probably have to go to a foreign country for support.

Frankly, I thought it was disappointing that the CBC would even air this documentary.

All of the "Five Ways To Save The World" are solely theoretical, and worse yet, based on the ill-conceived notion that we can first pollute and then buy our way out of environmental degradation with some kind of Rube Goldberg machine that filters CO2 back out of the atmosphere.

Ridiculous! We already have the solution to global warming. Low-tech, and affordable, the experts call it "emission reduction".

This documentary suggests that we must continue to use the same amount of energy to live in the comfort that we're accustomed to (and to which poorer countries aspire), and then somehow harness unproven technology and theoretical science to remedy the problems that this behavior creates.

Was this written/produced/funded by corporate oil and energy interests who want to disempower individuals from reducing their own energy consumption?

I would like see more documentaries on the effective action we as individuals can take to save the environment, rather than leaving it up to the same company scientists, disingenuous government officials, and selfish corporate interests that helped create this crisis in the first place.

Maybe someone can explain to me the need to remove something from the atmosphere, artificially or otherwise when gravity is already doing it for us. CO2 is heavier than the air so it will fall to the ground on it's own.

CO2 can't possibly be to blame for climate change or global warming and if it's not the cause then reducing production of it can't possibly be the correct solution. When are people going to wake up and demand proof of what's really causing climate change because you can't come up with a solution until you know for sure what the cause is. Kyoto is just a modern version of blood letting. The only thing worse than doing nothing is doing the wrong thing. Reducing production of a natural substance like CO2 is the wrong thing.

I agree that we should continue discussing and finding out solutions to global warming now, not later.

The 5 ways to solve the problem are not enough, just as many comments said here. The root problems still remain, if we do not change our habits or ways that we conduct of our lives on earth, such as, pollution, over-consumption with lots of wastes like un-recyclable junks and chemical, etc...

Another root problem is inequality, particular gap between rich and poor. The fight for power (by raising wars) and hence economic benefits for priviledge groups, not just happens with the rich countries, such as USA, but also occurs in poor African countries where warlords and fractions fighting among themselves. It happens in the Balkans, in Iraq. The list goes on, in the past, present and future.

Not until we humanity is stripped of our hypocricy, our greed, our selfishness, our arrogance, the log in our eyes, could we find a peaceful and permanent solution to the problem of global warming or any other local or global problems.

Cutting emissions is vitally important, but this alone won't be enough to prevent catastrophe. It is already too hot, and there is already too much CO2 in our atmosphere. The polar ice cap will keep on melting at today's temperature and the Greenland glaciers will continue sliding into the sea. Phytoplankton and corals in the sea are already being affected by too much CO2.

Of the technological solutions proposed in this documentary, the idea of artificial trees seems to have the most merit. I would presume they could be powered by solar energy.

By artificially removing CO2 from the atmosphere, we can protect our oceans and reduce global temperature at the same time. This technology can be easily fine-tuned, as opposed to some of the other proposals, which could get out of hand and might be difficult to reverse. Ideally, we should bring global temperature back to about where it was in the 1950's and calamitous feedback loops could be prevented.

As I watched the show I realized that it is to late for the human race to save it self, we have realized the problem and it's too late. There are too many people not willing to change there way of life. People think that the world will fix its self or that some on is going to come along and fix it. They don't realize that it's a global effort. Action needs to be taken now. We must locate the biggest producers of green house gases and stop them now.

I think the best Idea was the artificial tree, b/c it's very reliable and does not have any negative side to it. If the same artificial tree technology can be used in every day things. For example if you can make a Muffler cap that would fit on most cars and trucks that used this artificial tree technology it would be a good start for us.

This BBC program referred to the 2003 blackout, but made it sound like solely a New York City event. I thought it hit seven or eight states, plus Ontario. I guess all the Brits care about is NYC--almost as bad as US media itself.

The most outstanding feature about this film for me was the age of all the scientists. Where are our younger generations on this subject?

All the while I was watching these suggestions being made by these caring individuals I kept feeling that "yet another manmade solution" to yet another manmade problem?

Man seems to exacerbate problems with his solutions and I agree with Petra that the only real solution will be our personal decisions to live with less. Our real power is nonconsumption. That solution is the very one that the deniers of climate change are afraid of. After all it's out want for needless things and excess that has created so many of the world's disasters.

Interesting concepts all of which are as dodgy as the over blown idea that mankind is all to blame for causing the world temperature to raise.

Nothing to date printed or shown by the media has clearly shown that what is happening in our times has not happened on this earth in the past.

When you dig through all the mass hype about global warming all there conclusions are built on very shady or shaky foundations.

No clear facts or figures have been shown yet. Very little discussion on other very plausible natural reasons from the suns rays that do change, to the earths axis and the planets cycles. All play a part.

I want a clean and healthy world like most people do. But false information that is being readily broadcasted is irresponsible and leads to a general public less informed and ready to follow the status quo. Show the science on the other side of the debate and give equal footage only then will we see the real truth.

Unfortunatly I missed the first part of this episode (salt clouds and sun shade). I have to aggree with Petra that change needs to take place at a ground level, and we must all be involved in making changes that will have a postive effect.

I however do think that technology must be used in an attempt to slow if not reverse the problem, as it is the over utilization of technolgy that has brought us to this point.
The methodes that were shown are quite revolutionary and curious and I would like to learn more about them. I do realize that they are not a "miracle cure" but at this point I think that we must do what we can to make a change.

The extreme weather that we have experinced here in Vancouver has made it evident that something must be put into praxis.

The fastest plant that I have ever encountered that seems the most capable of gobbling up CO2 is sunflowers. Why not grow them, feed the seeds to us and the leaves to animals.

I think these ideas are grand, but I believe it is not the whole answer. People will still have to change the way we live. I am sorry to say, but we waste far too much. What was wrong with purchasing a product, ie. tv, and buying new parts when something goes wrong. We are far too much a waisteful society. This goes farther this this alone. This Philosphy permiates every part of our being. We are all told as children what we do at home has an effect on what or how we act or react outside and as we grow up.

Change does not have to be scary. We learned that new technology is not scary. Well what the heck is wrong with the development of newer tech that is eviornmentally responsible.

I think our Politicians have to be accountable. They helped largely to create this mess. This is in part due to Policies. I live in a Western Culture that is highly industrialized and waisteful. We are largely at fault. We destroy lands, forests, water systems, and animals. We say lets take DNA so we have a collection in case of extinction. These ideas are good, but they are deadly if and only IF we do not change NOW!!! These ideas make us think we do not need to do anything then, then is an escape. Let's not think this way.

In closing let me say. We invest in our children. we invest in our retirement. WE invest in our Education. Let's invest in our Enviornment (Our animals,trees, lakes, rivers, oceans). Maybe allow us as a society to pay a little more to maintain our eco systems. The time is now.

Humans 'managing' the atmosphere -- now there is a terrifying thought. Like we managed the cod fishery, our old growth forests etc. etc.

Right now we have the vested interests (Exon for example) in a state of denial. They do not want to see any action on GHG at this point and since they have the GW Bushes and S Harpers of the world in their back pockets - nothing much is going to happen. At least not in North America and Australia.

But what happens when things begin to unravel in a big way and they see their accumulated weath and power threatened by the economic turmoil that global warming will surely bring?

That's when the corpratocracy will attempt a cheap, quick and easy fix to the climate problem by doing something hasty and ill advised - like seeding the upper atmosphere with sulpher dioxide.

We must adaptively grow and evolve true to life's instincts; if we attempt to only adaptively sustain we will not advance our culture and more than likely cause more problems that will need a future solution with no gain to global peace and stability or greater intelligence; climate change is just one fault of our lack of ethic and as we progress in many of this worlds stable environments even without the cataclysm of a looming climate shift we still cause continuous extinctions as we devolve and destroy mass amounts of life as we remove necessary components in the greater chains.

The solution if any must come as a revolution in thought and idea; it must grant greater promotion of life in all stations; a solution from which we would gain greater weapons to fight the evils that loom of a biosphere near Apocalypse ones that still currently block our humane natures. We as simple parts of life, must either be spurned to advances and so accept the risks that come of them, we might choose to listen to the earth and return to it and our animalistic nature so leave community, civility and all production behind, or let a unknown force of nature attempt to replace us as we a species now found lacking in morals as the causality from that lack wipes us out like a failed experiment.

There is always a solution, but some will not so easily fit on a page and the cost of this solution to our earth must only be counted as it benefits. We as humanity can only work for such promotion of promise when it will directly impact not only our livelihoods but those of our grandchildren.

Solution Number Six?

what really caught my eye was the snythetic tree. Its a awesome idea but we're solving the problem of removing carbon dioxide by creating a bio-waste. Example nucluer energy with the radio-active waste thats shelf life of how many years.

Injecting the waste of these fake trees will just start another problem ....

Removing CO2 directly from the air via artificial trees is a great concept. However, instead of storing the CO2 under the sea, why not convert it to Methane (natural) gas, Methanol, Ethylene, or Ethanol?

The process is known as the "HYDROGENATION OF CO2" and can use clean, green, renewable energy. Wind, solar, or hydro electricity can be used to electroylyze H20 into H2 releasing O2. The H2 "HYDROGENATES" the C02 produced by the artificial trees from the air. The Carbon from CO2 is combined with H2 to form CH4 (Methane gas), CH30H (Methanol), C2H4 (Ethylene), or C2H5OH (Ethanol), releasing more O2.

These processes are well known and, if I recall my (organic) chemistry from 35+ years ago, are covered in high school.

I don't know if this is practical, but it certainly is possible!

This was an interesting program but one hopes that it doesn't mislead viewers into thinking that a gamut of technological solutions are ready to be exploited and the problem will be neatly solved.

None of the solutions presented seemed to offer any evidence that to implement them on a large enough scale to make a significant impact on the CO2 levels would be feasible without unacceptable costs, access to materials or for that matter energy consumption.

For example, Tim Flannnery's recent environmental book 'The Weather Makers' explains that 1.26 tonnes of iron filings would be needed in ocean seeding to sequester 900 tonnes of CO2. When you consider that 13 gigatonnes of CO2 is emitted every year, even to offset 1% of that would require 18 million tones of iron filings, which is just not feasible.

The enormity of the task for each of these solutions, albeit theoretically possible, I suspect will be overwhelming.

The seriousness of the problem demands that a level of research be supported to try to seek out a truly novel and doable solution. In the meantime governments and citizens must start immediately to put into effect an array of proven solutions, such as compact fluorescent bulbs, smaller cars with better gas mileage, improved house designs, etc.

I suggest people read "Heat, how to stop the planet from burning" by George Monbiot, respected columnist in the Guardian, UK. See page 208 on plant plankton to remove carbon: "It doesn't work. Modellers at Princeton have shown that hardly any of the gas the plankton absorb is removed from the surface of the sea. At the same time, because it mops up oxygen, fertilization by iron stimulates the production of methane."

Or on John Latham's project to spray seawater into the air: "This project could be exceedingly dangerous: it seems that small salt particles, while generating mists, could actually retard the development of rain-bearing clouds, causing droughts in the countries downwind."

On page 212: "...in order to deliver a carbon cut of the size I have discussed, everyone will have to limit their emissions, either today or, in the poorer nations, in the future."

I wonder if this film has been backed by interests who realize they can no longer say global warming doesn't exist or is not caused by human activity but they have decided to go with emphasizing supposed fancy technological fixes by "experts" to distract us from reducing use of fossil fuels! I am very disappointed that the CBC has seen fit to air this documentary!

The first three 'solutions' fail to address the problems of CO2 and fossil fuels. Even if these technologies were deployed to cool the planet, there would still be acified oceans and we would still run out of fossil fuels within a few generations.

Phytoplankton blooms cannot be a major part of the solution because they would cause other ecosystem disruptions.

Artificial trees sound intreguing but I doubt that is cost effective both in terms of money and in terms of energy input required to keep regenerating NaOH (or other CO2 absorbing material).

Ultimately we must decrease our energy consumption. It's the cheapest, swiftest, cleanest part of any solution. It's also a lot simpler and less risky than geoengineering.

We can't leave it up to industry alone or government regulations alone or individual goodwill alone. This crisis must be tackled from all sides and the sooner we face facts the better.

The artifical trees must be planted right away.

The doc said planting 1 artificial tree is like taking 20,000 cars off the road.

I would like to see the world plant 10 million artifical trees over the next 5 years.

Now that would be progress.

I am very bullish about the human ingenuity and creativity to come up with cleaver ideas such as the ones showcased in this episode. However, let us not forget that, large systems are extremely complex and unpredictable with many feedback cycles. Therefore, tinkering with a large system like Earth's environment can lead to consequences that we do not anticipate. The unpredictable natures of mega-systems are even evident in completely artificial man made systems, such as, our global connected marketplace. Most social scientists, economists, and developmental researchers are aware of the problems caused by the inter-connected global economy but we are unable to control the system to mitigate the unwanted pains of globalization because we do either have the means (or will) know-how to implement drastic changes!

I found the ideas presented quite interesting but would describe them to be the diet pill for global warming. As in dieting, there is no magic solution to the effects our current and past actions. Grassroots action is required now. "Put down the fork"

These ideas may just be what the critics are relying on when it comes to global warming. Although some technology may be integrated into a new greener system, I don't think technology will solve this problem. And the reprocussions, much as the industrial revolution's were, are inconcievable and may just throw off the balance further.

I believe that change can only come from the ground level, on a mass scale. Truly solving the problem may take a revolution. The true solution lies in the sacrifices we must decide to make. We must get together and decide to take on this problem, but we must all be involved, starting now.