When Clive Hamilton considered geoengineering in his novel “Earthmasters: The Dawn of the Age of Climate Engineering,” he seems to loose the geo aspect of the concept. To me, geo conveys a sense of wholeness, a sense that everyone on the Earth is considered equally. Though Hamilton considers multiple times throughout the work that geoengineering would affect the world as a whole, affecting the lives of the billions of people who live there unequally, he seems to attribute the decisions about climate engineering only to the few. However, the few do not speak for the many, even in the case of elected officials, there are always those who disagree with their leader’s actions and choose to speak out against them. If any one leader chose to initiate a geoengineering program, they would face drastic repercussions from both their constituents and the global community at large. 

As touched upon in chapter 7 of Hamilton’s book, those who are delaying or altering programs aimed at slowing climate change are typically those who have the most to lose financially from climate change. Typically, those in power have the most agendas, as they move to promote both themselves and their beliefs en mass. Though there are some in power with good agendas, such as those who wish to actually stop climate change, there are far more with negative agendas. Because of this political deadlock, and the potential disapproval of the masses, geoengineering may never take off. Even if someone wealthy decides to take the choice out of the hands of politicians, they will still face the outcry of the masses, aghast both at being left out of the decision and at the global level event the individual has set off. Not every solution can please everyone, and the issue of geoengineering is too complex to compel a firm majority to agree. No matter how it may be implemented, whether a government, group, or individual, it will be a decision more controversial than nuclear warfare.

“Sustainability” from the series Lexicon for an Anthropocene Yet Unseen, brought to my mind a concept I had never before considered: the translation of sustainability. Though I had been introduced to the idea of a completely western-dominated lexicon before, where western words get brought into other languages, I had not considered the areas it did, or did not, cover. Before, I assumed that it was only western brand names that were carried over (ie Nike, Adidas, etc) or western inventions (ie the TV or WiFi). Until the reading mentioned that sustainability had two translations–“sostenible and sustentable”–I had not considered that sustainability was a western idea. The language(s) spoken by an individual influences their ideas by limiting the words available to describe an idea.  The fact that some languages may not have a direct translation for sustainability adds another layer into the complexity of the issues surrounding sustainability.

Not only does the article point out this issue, it also alludes to the idea that rural communities already practice sustainability, even though they do not have the vocabulary to properly define it. In the second half of the article, Marta’s community is described as one which works with the earth to both sustain it and themselves. Already sustainable practices had been put into use, like the storage bins or the use of feces instead of chemicals. Even though Marta’s community does not have a direct translation for sustainability, they are still concerned about it. Concern for the future of the planet transcends language and cultural barriers, affecting all humans. This gives me hope for the future, that we–as a species–can collectively make a change for the better.