When an idea to “save the planet” begins with a nuclear explosion, you might think there was a bug somewhere. Yet, this is seriously what Andy Haverly, a young American quantum computing doctoral student, proposed: triggering a massive atomic detonation at the ocean floor to combat climate change. Yes, really.
And while this proposal, as crazy and original as it may be, is now being criticized from all sides, it also reflects an increasingly palpable sense of despair among some scientists in the face of global climate inaction.
Climate is spiraling out of control, and science is growing impatient.
Climate disruption is becoming an increasingly violent reality: heatwaves, droughts, natural disasters, rising seas… If nothing is done, experts predict hundreds of millions of climate refugees, colossal economic losses, and irreversible ecological damage by the end of the century.
In response to this urgency, many researchers are working on solutions known as negative emission technologies: aiming to remove carbon dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere, the primary greenhouse gas. Some known methods include planting trees, capturing carbon at the industrial source, using carbon trapping concrete, or spreading biochar on soils.
But another approach is gaining attention: enhanced rock weathering, which involves grinding certain volcanic rocks (like basalt) so they naturally absorb CO2 when in contact with water and air. Simple in theory, but very complex on a large scale.
A radical plan: pulverize rock mountains… with a nuclear bomb.
This is where Haverly’s idea comes in. In a preprint published on the arXiv site (not peer-reviewed), he suggests solving the logistical problem of this method… with an unprecedented underwater nuclear explosion of 81 gigatonnes, over 1,600 times the Tsar Bomba, the largest bomb ever tested.
The goal? Pulverize over 3,800 billion tons of basalt located under the ocean floor, in a remote area of the Southern Ocean. Once reduced to dust, these rocks would chemically react with CO2, trapping it permanently. And since the bomb would be buried over 3 km beneath the seabed, he hopes the explosion would be “contained” and the nuclear fallout limited.
A far-reaching idea: far from being without consequences.
Naturally, the idea is highly risky, technologically uncertain, and widely criticized.
Firstly, it must be pointed out that the author is neither a climatologist, geologist, nor nuclear engineer. He does not explain how a bomb of this size could be manufactured, transported, and installed at such a depth.
Furthermore, the environmental consequences could potentially be catastrophic: long-lasting irradiation, disruptions to the seabed, risks to marine ecosystems, and of course, the spread of radioactive materials on a planetary scale.
Even Haverly admits that the explosion “would result in long-term human losses,” but he relativizes: it would be “a drop in the ocean” compared to the consequences of coal-fired power plants. A “lesser evil” logic that convinces neither experts nor the public.
The real problem: the illusion of not changing anything.
If this idea has caused such a stir, it is because it crystallizes a worrying dilemma: should we resort to extreme solutions to avoid questioning our lifestyles? Haverly proposes a way to “clean up” carbon without anyone having to consume less, fly less, or touch the profits of fossil fuel industries.
In short: “what if we solved the problem without changing anything?”
This techno-savior fantasy is alluring, but dangerous. Because it risks further postponing concrete action on the root causes of the problem. And in the case of an underwater nuclear explosion, the remedy could prove to be far worse than the ailment.
A crazy idea… that says a lot about our time.
In itself, Haverly’s proposal is unlikely to see the light of day. It is technically unrealistic, morally questionable, and rejected by the majority of experts. But the mere fact that it exists, that it is debated, and that some see it as a solution, shows to what extent the climate crisis is pushing some brilliant minds to their most extreme limits.
It is no longer just the planet that is heating up. It is also our collective imagination, facing a future that we no longer know how to cool down.
