We Can Terraform the American West

Overall reaction to “terraforming” the American West

• Strong split between techno-optimism and ecological caution.
• Supporters see it as an inspiring, concrete mega-project on the scale of past dams, canals, highways, and a way to absorb more population and cheap solar energy.
• Critics call it hubris, fantasy engineering, and a solution in search of a problem, given existing habitable land and slowing US population growth.

Water, desalination, energy, and economics

• Desalination is acknowledged as technically mature (e.g., Middle East, Israel), but large-scale cost and brine disposal are contested.
• Some argue: if it were truly cheap, market forces would already be deploying it at scale; others blame US regulatory barriers (e.g., rejected California plants).
• Intermittent solar-driven desal is seen as promising but not yet proven at scale; existing RO plants prefer steady operation.
• Pumping water uphill is flagged as highly energy-intensive; California already spends a large share of energy on the water system. Counterpoint: spring/summer solar “curtailment” could power desal and pumping.

Environmental impacts: deserts, lakes, and wildfires

• Many emphasize deserts as complex, fragile ecosystems, not “empty” land; large-scale irrigation and lakes would likely erase existing biomes.
• Historical examples (Salton Sea, Great Salt Lake, Florida, western water projects in Cadillac Desert) are cited as warnings: endorheic lakes collect pollutants, mega-diversions over-allocate rivers, and long-term maintenance often fails.
• Some argue we already over-mediate western landscapes (fire suppression, mismanaged forests, utilities); others counter that controlled fire and better land management—not massive hydrological changes—are appropriate interventions.

Climate, pollution, and alternative priorities

• Several argue new mega-projects should be secondary to decarbonizing the grid, reducing nitrogen/chemical pollution, fixing existing water systems, and restoring degraded farmland.
• Concern that covering arid, high-radiation regions with water/vegetation may reduce nighttime heat loss to space.
• Discussion of accumulating pollutants (microplastics, CO₂) and impacts on cognition and health; disagreement over how strongly this should influence population and innovation arguments.

Feasibility, politics, and alternative geographies

• Practical barriers highlighted: physics of moving water, oversubscribed rivers, fragile aquifers, water rights, brine toxicity, and US incapacity to build even simpler infrastructure (e.g., high-speed rail).
• Some frame resistance as “conservatism” and loss aversion blocking transformative projects; others say the proposal lacks a compelling “why” compared with enhancing Great Lakes, Columbia Basin, or northern regions.