Last summer, defying a United Nations mandate, a Canadian indigenous group poured large amounts of iron filings into part of the Pacific Ocean. They were attempting to soak up the carbon dioxide that was killing native algae and thus attract salmon back to the waters. Almost instantly, the Canadian government condemned the dump.

This past summer was Northwest Canada's most fruitful salmon year in history. It is almost certain that the iron filings were responsible for the growth of algae last year. It is worth noting that algae absorb more carbon dioxide than trees are capable of. In Canada, the algae bloom was visible from space.

Was this just a fluke, or could Canada's rogue scientists have taken the first, difficult steps onto a new battleground against climate change?

At this point, there is little doubt within the scientific community about global warming. It's real, it's dangerous, and we're responsible for it. Despite almost daily studies showing the mounting evidence for the climate problem, meaningful change toward a more sustainable lifestyle in the West-or at least in America-is as stagnant as the temperature is changing. As long as there's money in the oil business, there will be no major changes in the way Americans receive their power anytime soon. And as National Public Radio recently reported, petroleum engineering is now the single most lucrative college major, with median incomes of $120,000 a year.

If carbon emissions are maintained at their current level, then according to Science Magazine, Earth will reach carbon levels by the year 2100 that it has not seen for over five million years, when it was 29 degrees Fahrenheit hotter then it currently is. This will place the human species in climate conditions it has never before experienced, at an almost immeasurably fast rate. Even if humanity ceased all of their carbon emissions tomorrow, according to Tim Flannery, Australia's former chief climate advisor, the planet would not begin to cool for hundreds, if not thousands of years. Our atmosphere is simply too overburdened. And until alternative energy businesses like First Solar and Q-nergy are household names like Shell and Sunoco, we shall continue to damage our thin, critical layer of ozone.

Solving climate change will require something more serious than buying florescent bulbs and recycling water bottles. While a lasting solution to the problem must inevitably come from cleaner energy, more and more scientists are saying that it is time to consider the problem on another, more drastic front.

Climate engineering is the application of human technology to the planet's natural processes, using our scientific knowledge and technical ability to make the Earth's many cycles work faster and better. It is using new fertilizers to help quickly redevelop forest areas we've destroyed. It is spraying volcanic aerosols to cool the earth or sulfate aerosols that make clouds brighter to deflect more sunlight. It is developing machines to suck carbon straight out of the atmosphere, to be safely stored or disposed of elsewhere. Strange as they may sound, all of these techniques are theoretically possible, and all are being considered.

Climate engineering is often misnamed "geo-engineering," and more colloquially, "planet hacking." The latter term may call to mind a James Bond villain plot, and indeed there is very little research into climate engineering for much the same reason: it sounds so odd. It defies much of what we believe to be true on an instinctive level. Humans shouldn't interfere with the planet's natural processes, because we would only make things worse.

Consider that statement more closely. Humans have already vastly interfered with the Earth. If we hadn't, we wouldn't need to consider climate engineering in the first place. "Planet hacking" is not a villain's plot, but a change in our relationship to Mother Earth, creating a responsible, reciprocal relationship with the planet. It means using many of the materials we mine from her to aid her. It shows that we know we have brought ourselves into our current ecological situation and are trying to remedy it. It is neither an easy way for oil companies to avoid changing their practices, nor is it a cash-cow enterprise. If pursued, it would be a serious government initiative and a serious method of combating global warming.

Climate engineering faces many of the usual problems of government initiatives, such as high cost. Most preclusive to the field, however, is the UN's current moratorium on climate engineering under the Convention on Biological diversity. Only small-scale research experiments can be conducted in the field, and only so long as these experiments "do not harm biodiversity," or species variation within an ecosystem. This is a tricky phrase, because all climate engineering is currently theoretical, so any externalities to other species are unknown. The Guardian reports that only about 12 nations have the economic and scientific abilities to enact climate engineering in the first place, and one of them, Russia, has already proposed more serious research and concluded a test on blocking sunlight with aerosols. Britain had planned a similar test, but it was shut down due to an outcry from non-governmental organizations, fearing that climate engineering would provide an easy excuse for governments and companies to avoid having to reduce carbon emissions.

This outcry is not necessarily unfounded. Climate engineering could be used as a political ploy. And it does sound weird to try to artificially alter the planet, and it could indeed cause more harm than help. But there is no way of knowing what will happen unless we try, unless we conduct controlled experiments into climate engineering technology and determine if it could help reverse the tide of global warming. It is not a replacement for sustainable living; rather, it is a stopgap, a way of buying time until more permanent change toward green energy and waste disposal is politically and economically viable. Alongside these green technologies, climate engineering could be a critical part of saving our species from the brink.