Earlier this year I published a story in this magazine about geoengineering—which is the attempt to lessen the impact of global warming by deliberately altering the climate of the earth. There are many plans, some of which are absurd and potentially catastrophic, and others of which are absurd and potentially vital to the future of humanity. It will all depend on how desperate we become to counteract the effect of greenhouse-gas emissions. Most reputable scientists agree that climate change is real and that the effects are likely to be bad. But nobody can say for sure exactly what bad means.

The safest and most equitable way out of this horrific mess is simple: cut fossil-fuel emissions. Sharply. We, however, are doing the opposite. I wrote the story because it seemed important to examine the potential impact of these schemes before it gets too late. The piece ended with what I assumed was a bit of dark hyperbole from Nathan Myhrvold, one of the pioneers of Microsoft. Myhrvold now runs Intellectual Ventures, which has invested in several geoengineering ideas. “Rich, powerful countries might have invented much of [this technology], but it will be there for anyone to use,’’ he said. “People get themselves all balled up into knots over whether this can be done unilaterally or by one group or one nation. Well, guess what. We decide to do much worse than this every day, and we decide unilaterally. We are polluting the earth unilaterally. Whether it’s life-taking decisions, like wars, or something like a trade embargo, the world is about people taking action, not agreeing to take action.’’

Enter Russ George, an American entrepreneur who has fulfilled Myhrvolds’s dictum and become the world’s first geo-vigilante. This summer, it has just been revealed, George dumped a hundred tons of iron sulfate into the Pacific Ocean about two hundred nautical miles west of the Canadian islands of Haida Gwaii, triggering a ten-thousand-square-kilometre plankton bloom. In theory, the approach is not as nutty as it sounds: blooms like that are capable of sucking large amounts of carbon out of the atmosphere and eventually sequestering it deep in the ocean. (This is not George’s first try at this experiment: he has long sought to create lucrative carbon credits to trade on international markets. According to the Guardian, which first reported the story, George had been chief executive of a company called Planktos Inc.:

Those previous failed efforts to conduct large-scale commercial dumps near the Galapagos and Canary Islands led to his vessels being barred from ports by the Spanish and Ecuadorean governments. The US Environmental Protection Agency warned him that flying a US flag for his Galapagos project would violate US laws, and his activities are credited in part to the passing of international moratoria at the United Nations limiting ocean fertilization experiments.

George told the Guardian that the recent dump is “the most substantial ocean restoration project in history,” and that he has collected “a greater density and depth of scientific data than ever before…. We’ve gathered data targeting all the possible fears that have been raised [about ocean fertilization]…. And the news is good news. All around. For the planet.”

Well, gosh. That makes me feel so much more comfortable. Perhaps next, he can send a rocket into space, spread a few million tons of sulphur-dioxide particles, and cool the earth that way. Finally, a man capable—all by himself—of saving the earth.

This idea may eventually prove useful or at least necessary (and so might the notion of seeding the stratosphere with particles that can block light.) Many scientists are exploring these and other approaches to our growing climate crisis. And nearly all agree that we need to move with great deliberation when altering the ecosystem of the ocean. (A sudden influx of oxygen could harm bacteria that are an essential part of the food chain. Too much iron could result in an increased production of nitrous oxide, a greenhouse gas more powerful than carbon dioxide. And sequestering enormous amounts of CO 2 could, conceivably also cause danger.)

George’s unilateral action was deplorable, premature, and violated several international laws and United Nations covenants. (Well, unilateral may be harsh. He apparently convinced the council of an indigenous village to approve the project.) There was no scientific assessment attached to the experiment, which does carry potential risks.

I may be wrong, but I am fairly certain that no village on earth should have the power to approve a project the consequences of which, for the entire planet, cannot possibly be foreseen.

Read Specter’s “The Climate Fixers: Is There a Technological Solution to Global Warming” or listen to him on NPR, and also with Elizabeth Kolbert and Nicholas Thompson discussing geoengineering on the New Yorker’s Out Loud podcast. Also, read Specter’s piece from this week’s issue on bacteria and the human body.

Photograph: Goddard Earth Sciences Data and Information Services Center/NASA.