#TCOpinion editorial: Editorial: Can technology save us from toxic algae?
In a 2009 story titled 'Re-engineering the earth,' Atlantic Monthly writer Graeme Wood invoked a world ravaged by climate change, where mankind depends upon technology to temper Mother Nature's increasing harshness.
Imagine 'long, delicate strands of fire hose stretching into the sky, like spaghetti, attached to zeppelins hovering 65,000 feet in the air' while factories on the ground 'pump 10 kilos of sulfur dioxide up through those hoses every second. And at the top, the hoses would cough a sulfurous pall into the sky. At sunset on some parts of the planet, these puffs of aerosolized pollutant would glow a dramatic red, like the skies in 'Blade Runner.' During the day, they would shield the planet from the sun's full force, keeping temperatures cool — as long as the puffing never ceased.'
This is technology as savior for a world that can't — or won't — save itself.
Fast forward to July 9, as Stuart-based Ecosphere Technologies sets up a mobile water treatment system designed to remove matted algae from a boat basin at Outboards Only in Rio, using a high-tech system of electric shock, high-frequency sound and ozone.
Two days after the company cranked up the machines, most of the algae — and the smell — was gone.
It was another glimpse of how technology might deliver us from the discharge/algae crisis that we created — and which we cannot solve.
As we watch the algae continue to choke our waterways, as fish and other wildlife die and businesses perish, it's hard to resist the idea of temporary salvation, whatever it costs. Ecosphere officials declined to say what it might cost if Martin County were interested in deploying its system on a wider scale.
'From the looks of it, it can't be inexpensive,' acknowledged Martin County Commissioner John Haddox. 'But if it can save our ecosystem, I think it would be a reasonable expense.'
But we must first define 'reasonable expense.' And beyond that, we must consider the broader cost.
Understand, this is not an endorsement of Ecosphere Technologies. Rather, it's to say there might or might not eventually be a device or system capable of fully removing all the algae from the water and returning it to a near-pristine state — until more algae flows in.
What's that worth? Several million? More? Who would pay that cost?
And is it possible that paying for a temporary technological solution would mean less money for longer-term solutions such as buying land south of Lake Okeechobee?
We also suspect short-term solutions might seem particularly attractive to political leaders who so far have been unable — or unwilling — to do what it takes to solve our water problem. It might seem an opportunity for political 'villains' to become saviors; those who oppose a land buy south of Lake O, for example, could become the hardest chargers for temporary fixes that allow them to portray themselves as environmental champions.
We would want to see a cost-benefit analysis before supporting any specific proposal — and we hope local officials would, as well.
We are leery of treating the symptom rather than the disease. Yes, reducing the discharges from Lake Okeechobee is a herculean political task. But if it can be accomplished, the effect will be lasting.
We fear a temporary fix might be so alluring we lose sight of the long-term objective.
And we worry that living in a community where the water is clear, so long as the machines are turned on, makes us more dependent upon those machines than we should ever be.