Pyrotechnic Proposal for Planetary Preservation via Pulverized Basalt

In a world grappling with the exigencies of climate change, a rather incendiary idea has emerged from the academic fringes. Andy Haverly, a 25-year-old doctoral candidate at Rochester Institute of Technology, has floated an audacious plan, detonating nuclear devices beneath the Southern Ocean's seafloor to shatter basalt & amplify carbon absorption. This radical notion seeks to accelerate a geological process known as “enhanced rock weathering,” which naturally sequesters carbon dioxide.

Seismic Silicates & Subterranean Schemes for CO₂ Sequestration

Enhanced rock weathering relies on the natural decay of silicate-rich rocks such as basalt. When these rocks weather, they react chemically with atmospheric CO₂, ultimately locking it away in mineral form. The hitch? The sheer magnitude of rock required, billions of metric tons, renders current methodologies energetically extravagant & logistically labyrinthine. Pulverizing vast tracts of basalt, therefore, becomes the pivotal challenge.

Nuclear Nostalgia & Plowshare Parallels Inspire Geologic Gambit

Haverly’s hypothesis finds historical echoes in the mid-20th-century Project Plowshare, a U.S. endeavor that flirted with using nuclear explosions for constructive civil applications, from canal creation to isotope generation. His contemporary rendition envisions burying an 81-gigaton nuclear device 3 km beneath the ocean floor to obliterate approximately 3.86 trillion metric tons of basalt. For scale, the Tsar Bomba, the largest nuclear explosion ever, was a mere 50 megatons.

Radiation Risks & Rhetorical Rationalizations Raise Red Flags

Despite assertions of safety through deep-ocean detonation, Haverly’s thesis acknowledges inevitable fallout. He posits that radiation effects would be “a drop in the bucket” compared to ongoing emissions from coal-fired power plants. Critics, however, argue this is an ethically evasive calculus, trading one catastrophe for another & disproportionately affecting ecosystems in the blast vicinity.

Quantum Queries & Qualifications Questioned by Qualified Quarters

It is essential to highlight that Haverly is not a climate scientist, geophysicist, or nuclear engineer, but rather a quantum computing researcher. His paper, hosted on the arXiv preprint server, has not been peer-reviewed. Experts have been less than effusive, voicing concerns about the scientific rigor, ethical ramifications & geopolitical implications of weaponizing nuclear technology in environmental discourse.

Carbon Conundrum & Capitalist Comfort Zones Remain Unchallenged

This nuclear stratagem, though extravagant, underscores a broader philosophical predicament: the desire to remedy climate calamity without confronting systemic overconsumption & fossil fuel dependency. By investing in carbon capture rather than curbing emissions at source, such proposals enable business-as-usual frameworks that shelter entrenched economic hierarchies from structural disruption.

Geoengineering Gambles & Greenwashing Guises in Global Governance

Geoengineering, the umbrella under which Haverly’s nuclear weathering sits, remains a divisive topic. While it tantalizes technocrats & industry leaders with grandiose fixes, it also threatens to deflect attention from essential policy reforms & behavioral shifts. The seductive simplicity of blasting basalt masks the moral morass of offloading ecological risk to distant ecosystems, often inhabited by the world's least culpable & most vulnerable.

Fallout Fantasies & Future Fears for Feckless Fixes to Fossil Folly

Ultimately, whether Haverly’s plan is physically feasible or scientifically sound becomes secondary to its symbolic weight. It reflects a dangerous willingness to gamble planetary health on speculative solutions, rather than undertaking the arduous but necessary task of emissions reduction. The metaphorical bombshell it drops on climate discourse is perhaps more potent than the literal one it proposes.

Key Takeaways

• Andy Haverly's unorthodox climate proposal involves detonating an 81-gigaton nuclear device 3 km beneath the Southern Ocean to pulverize basalt & enhance carbon capture.

• Experts criticize the plan for its radiation risks, lack of peer review, & potential to distract from emission reduction strategies.

• The idea reflects a broader trend toward technocratic solutions that may perpetuate fossil fuel usage rather than addressing root causes of global warming.