Nuclear bombs could be the solution to improve the climate change situation on Earth. At least that’s what the researcher Andy Haverly says… He proposes a submarine explosion down in the ocean floor, but this radical plan is both well and badly received.
It’s difficult to think a nuclear bomb will be a positive thing for the environment, right? Even more so when we are witnessing other people coming up with new ways to improve the climate change situation whitout harming the environment.
Nuclear bombs
These bombs are a very powerful weapon that uses the energy of atoms to explode. It doesn’t use gasoline like other bombs, but something called nuclear reaction, which releases a huge amount of energy at once.
They were invented during the Second World War (1939-1945) by scientists because of the countries in conflict demand.
A radical plan influenced by the Plowshare Program
This program started in the United States in 1957, sound familiar this year? Exactly, this was the period of the Cold War. You wouldn’t believe what the goal of the program was, but they wanted to use nuclear explosions for construction and pacific purposes. Who would have thought of nuclear bombs for positive things? Well, now someone has.
Andy Haverly and his proposal to save the environment
He is a researcher who thought of the Plowshare Program as an idea that could fit in today’s context. He wasn’t going for a construction aim as the U.S. in 1957, instead, he proposed the use of nuclear bombs for climate issues like stopping global warming. Explosions and global warming in the same sentence in a positive way… let’s see how Andy plans to do it.
Underwater explosions process
Andy says it would be a good idea to place a hydrogen bomb in an isolated region near the Antarctic. Why down in the ocean floor? This is because of the huge amount of basalt in this area.
The aim is to break this basalt into pieces because they will catch carbon dioxide, a gas that causes climate change. So, by keeping CO2 in these pieces of rocks, the air would be much cleaner.
Advantages of this plan
According to Andy Haverly, this plan is worth considering because it would have many benefits for the environment. Some of these benefits are:
- Maintaining huge amounts of CO2 in these rocks in a short period of time.
- Little radiation would be released since the explosion would be underwater.
- He does believe the radioactive impact would be way less in comparison to the harm it is estimated the climate change would do to millions of people in 2100.
The other side of the nuclear explosions
Although Haverly says these explosions have a positive environmental impact aim, he is aware of how controversial his plan is. His proposal has concerned many experts because of two points: environmental and human risks.
About the environmental risks, even though radioactive impact will be limited, there is a possibility of polluting the water and damaging marine ecosystems. Also, the place chosen to place the bomb is considered a main point for the Earth’s climatic balance because it’s full of marine life.
Regarding the human risks, Haverly said there would be negative consequences for human beings in the long run. So, this would mean consciously exposing us to danger.
So, what will happen?
We don’t know yet, but this plan has been thought of by different groups of people. From a technical point of view, this is a possible plan, but for the environment and even an ethical approach this is totally wrong.
Having in mind there are other alternatives like grinding basalt, instead of using explosions, and then spreading it through cultivable lands, this plan feels unnecessary. Not everything can be done according to ‘the end justifies the means’. In this case we are talking about nuclear bombs, which is quite something.