I was lucky enough to attend a lecture Friday afternoon at Columbia University on the topic of geoengineering. Speaking on the issue were Eli Kintisch, author of Hack the Planet — Science’s Best Hope — or Worst Nightmare — for Averting Climate Catastrophe and Scott Barrett, Lenfest-Earth Institute Professor of Natural Resource Economics, School of International and Public Affairs, Columbia University.

Geoengineering, if you are unaware, is the the term used to describe methods, or proposed methods, to deliberately alter the Earth’s climate to counteract the effect of global warming from greenhouse gas emissions. It has become a much-debated topic among scientists, environmentalists and politicians. The fact that 2009 marked the end of the warmest 10 years ever measured, only gives more credibility to global warming as a serious, worldwide problem. It also places a focus on geoengineering.

Eli Kintisch talked about the different types of potential geoengineering methods:

1. Carbon removal: this method calls for the mixing of iron into the ocean to encourage algae growth. As algae blooms, dies or is eaten, it uses up carbon dioxide.
2. Air capture machines: just like the name says, these enormous machines would capture air inside cylinders lined with a special substance to absorb carbon dioxide.
3. Aerosol spraying: this method entails the spraying of sulfate aerosols into the stratosphere to reduce the amount of sunlight reaching the earth’s surface.

Of course, there are several risks that could arise from such scientific experiments.

Kintisch touched on a few, including:

• Side effects (potentially disastrous ones)
• The difficulty of connecting experiments to effects
• Assigning blame
• Could alienate the public
• Could lead to a ban

But, as Scott Barrett stated, ”the whole point of geoengineering is to reduce risk, but these things we would also carry risk. We’re in a world, unfortunately, where there is always a risk/risk tradeoff.”

Barrett also stressed that the key issue in geoengineering is governance — the question of who gets to decide if and when geoengineering should be tried. Barrett also voiced his concerns over the lack of a geoengineering protocol, reiterating that, currently, there are no rules regarding any aspect of these potential experiments, or the idea of geoengineering in general.

Clearly, there is much to be done.

But if full-scale geoengineering is too drastic or unfeasible to pull off, there are some other tech-related solutions that could help mitigate some of the world’s more dire problems.

• Geoengineering in regards to the environment and climate change has increasingly been gaining mainstream interest over the past year after spending most of its days mired in obscurity or outright condemnation. I’ve personally written about it twice in the past few months both in regards to Bill Gates’ discussion on thwarting hurricanes and SuperFreakonomics‘ assertion that widespread geoengineering to slow climate change is a good solution. Still, the concept remains widely misunderstood and obviously has both positive and worrisome components. To help everyone become better informed about the concept, the MIT Technology Review has taken an exhaustive look at the possibilities of society geoengineering our way out of climate change.

• Yesterday’s 7.2 magnitude earthquake that triggered a tsunami and landslides has left some 1,000 people homeless in the Solomon Islands.

• A Learjet crash outside of Chicago has left two victims — although officials are holding out some hope that they may still be alive. “Asked if both were dead, an official on the scene said ‘This is a recovery operation.’”

• AIG has hired several new senior execs. The beleaguered insurer is also reportedly stalling its planned sale of its Chartis P/C arm.

• Rick Nason teaches an ERM class and while skeptical of the practicality of teaching this within an MBA curriculum, he has a question for you: “ERM has created a lot of excitement, but very few successful examples. Explain why you believe ERM has so few successful implementations.” Head over there to answer. And show your work. (via RiskCzar)

• “The Nigerian man accused of attempting to blow up a US plane has provided ‘usable intelligence’ to FBI investigators, the White House says.”

• And in related news, new security rules for the airline industry are forthcoming from the Obama administration.

• The reinsurance world is in good shape. Aon is highlighting the “Remarkable Recovery” of the reinsurance industry in a new report and Willis sees all “talk of a hard market evaporat[ing]” in it’s January reinsurance renewals report. National Underwriter breaks down both reports.

• Les Krantz breaks down the 200 best and worst jobs in the U.S. in his “Jobs Rated Almanac.” And you know what’s number one? Actuary. “Actuaries, who evaluate the financial impact of risk on an organization, fared best because they work during standard business hours and in favorable conditions — indoors and in places free of toxic fumes or loud noise — as opposed to those jobs toward the bottom of the list such as iron worker, dairy farmer and the biggest loser from last year’s study, lumberjack.” Google “Norm MacDonald,” “Weekend Update” and “worst job” to find out what ranked dead last this year — again.

Find an interesting link? Email me any stories, videos or images you come across. Or just follow me on Twitter @RiskMgmt to pass along the news.