Forget Climate Change and Terraform Mars Instead, Economist Suggests

Mars Exploration Rover Landing site. Nr. 2 Melas Chasma. Credit: NASA/Kees Veenenbos

The global effort to halt climate change by 2100 could cost a total of $3 trillion, according to a popularly quoted study published by the German Institute for Economic Research.

However, economist Andrew Lilico, writing in the Telegraph, has proposed an alternative use for these funds: the terraforming of Mars.

Lilico argues that the benefits payback would occur during the same timescale: if we started now, we could have a blue Mars within 100 years. A green Mars wouldn't be achieved until at least 100 years later, with a fully operational ecosystem perhaps taking a total of 600 years.

The cost of terraforming Mars. Credit: NASA/National Geographic/Discovery Channel

The proposition has potential. Instead of trying to halt global warming on Earth, a process requiring the coordination of the world's business leaders and governments, why not kick-start global warming on Mars? It seems counter-intuitive, but by warming Mars, and seeding it with algae, bacteria and plants, the planet would eventually yield its own ecosystem, and in time provide a habitable atmosphere for human civilization.

The main hurdle to the plan would be the cost. An agency or agencies involved in the terraforming process would need a budget of $3 trillion. The impetus to undertake such a massive project would have to be present to raise such funds. While it makes sense to begin building a second home for our species, and others, convincing enough investors of this may be difficult, especially while many countries are still under-developed and humanitarian aid puts continual stress on resources.

Global energy investment vastly overtakes the amount required to either halt climate change or terraform Mars, according to Lilico. With a many-decades payback period, spending on energy and energy efficiency between now and 2035 is estimated at $40 trillion. Safeguarding a second home for humankind could be undertaken at a fraction of that expenditure.

Life on Earth is vulnerable to asteroid strikes, nuclear war, pandemic viruses, catastrophic vulcanism and no end of other potential triggers of extinction events. By choosing to remain solely on Earth, we are placing all of our eggs in one basket. Lilico's suggestion, by drawing a parallel between the costs of halting climate change on one planet and initiating it on another, has highlighted the comparative economic ease with which we could begin humanity's next chapter with a whole new set of horizons.