If you believe in Climate Change, and believe, as I do, that immediate action is required, then I ask you measure my proposal on the
basis of its potential value as a solution. My aesthetic choices were made with climate skeptics as the intended
audience.
Climate change has been politicized, and most deniers or skeptics identify as conservative. Conservative minded people have a
tendency to be extremely pro military. That basic connection of values led me to believe that reframing the fight against
climate change as a patriotic duty and tying in the C.A.F. was a potential path to creating consensus around the need for
action against climate change.
It doesn’t have to look like a gun. I could have designed a big colourful ball with pins that plant seeds from internal
storage as it is rolled playfully across the landscape by curious wildlife. However, if I did, the very skeptics I’m trying
to convince would slink further away as they correctly perceive the solution to be the product of their natural enemy, the
dreaded art school environmentalist.
This has come up a lot in discussions around the intent of my aesthetic choices. The short answer is no, we don't need to convince everyone before taking action. However, so long as there is debate on the issue there will be obstruction to action on climate. The closer we come to consensus the sooner we act, and with greater resolve. I did a great deal of research into cognition and climate and believe it is possible to bring skeptics around. This project is meant to communicate climate change in a way that appeals to skeptics mental models. By framing the subject as a patriotic duty by relying on symbols familiar to the skeptics I believe we can overcome the energy industry's obfuscation of the subject. For more on the subject of cognition and climate you can download my paper here.
For those concerned that this initiative will distract from our military’s traditional defense
capabilities I have some arguments that I believe should alleviate those concerns.
First and
foremost, the C.A.F. is already eager to increase our operational capacity in the North.
The afforestry effort will require infrastructure that could easily have mixed uses.
Additionally the enlistment of additional personnel will create a greater pool of people with
familiarity of military culture, operations, and outdoor survival skills who could be an asset
in the unlikely event of an invasion of hostile forces. Moreover, the practical experience gained
through the implementation of this initiative from rapid deployment to supply chain operations and
maintenance would be invaluable.
There are different types of permafrost, from sporadic to continuous, at different depths.
Plants will grow over sporadic permafrost. The permafrost is melting, and the treeline is already
projected to creep Northward.
Part of the benefit of the polyculture approach is that a wide variety of species will include "pioneer" species.
Grasses and shrubs can grow where trees will not. These species will provide the same benefits of creating shade and drying the soil.
The drone station could be powered by solar, but I am leaning towards the concept of wind turbine blimps, as proposed by Alteros with their “Bat.” Alteros claims that a single Bat could power a small village, as well as providing Wi-Fi. This concept, scaled down, could supply power for the station, but also for the energy needs of personnel deployed to harvest the seeds. The personnel would camp at the Drone Station for a few months and would require energy for a temporary kitchen as well as hot water and other equipment while also providing communications capabilities in these remote locations. This approach would forego the need for diesel generators, relying instead on renewables, eliminating the need for fuel shipments.
There are a number of drone planting technologies being deployed and developed, so why am I suggesting human labour?
In my primary research, I spoke to a number of people with tree planting experience. All spoke fondly of their
experience. I posit there are many people who would thoroughly enjoy this type of work.
We could simply drop seeds from aircraft, and I’m not opposed to this solution, but I believe this initiative could
create tens of thousands of jobs in areas with limited employment opportunities. The enlistment of local indigenous
populations in particular could be a boon for First Nations communities in the North.
Humans also have the ability to adapt to their environment in a way that technology has yet to match.
A human planter, with appropriate training, could observe if a location was too wet, or dry, and plant
only in optimal locations. For now, seed bombing and drone planting lack the precision that humans on
the ground are capable of.
Tree planting is primarily undertaken by the forestry industry to replace forests they’ve harvested.
They need to increase their efforts on their front.
These private enterprises practice monoculture, planting forest as a cash crop. This has produced forests
that are susceptible to fire and disease, problems exacerbated by a warming climate.
Tree planting over permafrost is not worthwhile to the forestry industry due to the effects of thawing
permafrost on trees, causing them to grow crooked.
Planting seedlings would likely produce higher yields, but create challenges. The energy required to grow them
in a nursery would be substantial. Transporting the seedlings and keeping them wet and alive requires labour.
Seed pods, by comparison, are lower maintenance and require less energy to produce. When we consider that my
proposal recommends polyculture, the challenge of using seedlings only grows. Each species has is own
requirements, making coordination difficult. Seed pods are definitely the way to go.