For someone who founded the Department of Astrophysics at the American Museum of Natural History, has deep admiration for the late cosmologist Carl Sagan, and touts the impressive wonders of space, Neil deGrasse Tyson sure doesn't seem all that interested in turning to planetary discoveries to help save Earth. In fact, he seems outright determined to destroy the very planet he lives on.

When addressing a question during a recent appearance on Real Time with Bill Maher, Tyson was asked his thoughts regarding the possibility of droughts striking that are more disastrous than the ones in California. Tyson's response had nothing to do with space exploration or improving conditions on Earth as one might logically assume based on his background. His response? "You know what I want to happen? I think it's not about finding another planet. I think it's about being masters of geo-engineering." You can view his interview, which is in a video in the related story, here.

It's interesting that Mr. Let's-Explore-Space apparently doesn't see any need to do so, at least according to the first part of his response. Whatever happened to an article he authored for Natural History magazine that appeared on HaydenPlanetarium.org entitled "The Search for Planets"?

The dangers of geoengineering
He also mentions something else that is highly disturbing: becoming "masters" of geoengineering.

A Congressional Research Service report explains geoengineering as an "array of technologies that aim, through large-scale and deliberate modifications of the Earth's energy balance, to reduce temperatures and counteract anthropogenic climate change." Yes, this is what Tyson advocates. Such technologies primarily focus on carbon dioxide removal (CDR) and solar radiation management (SRM) methods that involve ocean fertilization, removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, and increasing the earth's reflectivity. We're talking about carbon dioxide extraction, aerosol injections, and space-based reflectors to get the planet back on track.

...

Is carbon dioxide really so awful?
Then there are thoughts that all this carbon dioxide in the atmosphere might be a good thing that is actually helping people rather than harming them. Of course, this begs the question of tampering with climate change in the first place; could it actually have its benefits?

Indeed, people living in the southern strip of the Sahara Desert would say yes. After droughts there in the 70s and 80s killed more than 100,000 people, the area is now experiencing increased rainfall and a "re-greening" that is linked to those bad words, "climate change." It's thought that more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has led to this change, creating more plant growth and community-led farming efforts in the region.

Neil, are you listening? Geoengineering is not anything we need to be masters of!