Geoengineering
Is Geoengineering “a bad idea whose time has come”? journalist Eli Kintisch
“a cheap tool that could green the world.” David Keith
“We’ve engineered every other environment we live in — why not the planet?” — Lowell Wood (Physicist, Lawrence Livermore Laboratories, and Pentagon weapons designer)
“Stupidity got us into this mess, and more stupidity will get us out” (Homer Simpson)
Geoengineering is intentional large-scale technological intervention in order to manage the Earth’s climate. “The essential starting point for any consideration of the ethics of geoengineering is the failure of the world community to respond to the scientific warnings about the dangers of global warming by cutting greenhouse gas emissions.” (Clive Hamilton) Today, the global political community is united, not in its ability to combat climate change, but rather in its incapacity to act in ways that will reverse it.
More than twenty years ago, geoengineer David Keith imagined a future where the world had become a human ‘artifact’. In this ‘artificial world’, ‘climate and weather are actively controlled’, genetically modified plants and animals ‘are common in every landscape’, and the genetic heritage of humanity itself enters ‘a period of rapid divergence’. Evolution – even human evolution – would be determined by the market.
It is difficult not to be alarmed by the prospect of deliberate modification to the planet’s geophysical systems, especially the atmosphere, even though humans have already inadvertently modified them (see Anthropocene) (see also climate change). The possibiliy of unforeseen and varying side effects on ecosystems and biodiversity. is of crucial concern In all serious discussions of geoengineering. These could include changes in water availability and rainfall patterns — that would become significant sources for human conflict, especially without effective systems of governance. Climate change is the emblematic problem of the Anthropocene: it is both a driver and a symbol of a thoroughly transformed world.
In the early 1970’s the atmospheric chemist Paul Crutzen studied the role of ozone in the atmosphere, particularly in the Ozone layer, which shields the surface of the earth from ultraviolet radiation. Crutzen linked emissions from industry as well as potential emissions of Nitrous oxide from supersonic aircraft (SST) to damage to the Ozone Layer, in the form of an “ozone hole”. This work would lead to the Montreal Accords, limiting emissions of CFC’s .
Crutzen ‘s authority helped the concept of the Anthropocene to gain acceptance. In an influential article from 2006, Crutzen and Eugen Stormer suggested that geoengineering — in this case solar radiation management {SRM), could serve “as an escape route against strongly increasing temperatures” through the injection of sulfate particles into the Stratosphere, that could change the albedo of the atmosphere, and “become effective at rather short notice.” According to Crutzen, "The very best would be if emissions of the greenhouse gases could be reduced so much that the stratospheric sulfur release experiment would not take place … (but) currently, this looks like a pious wish." While Crutzen recognized that reductions in CO2 and other greenhouse gases are “clearly the main priorities," he suggested that ”a combination of efforts may be called for, including the stratospheric albedo enhancement scheme.” The cooling effect would be analogous to past volcanic eruptions and the subsequent climate cooling by sulfate aerosols (in essence, droplets of water and sulfuric acid) released by El Chichón in 1982 and Mount Pinatubo in 1991.
The natural sources of sulphur in the atmosphere are volcanoes and plankton. The role of the plankton, which is larger than that of the volcanoes though rather less flashy, was for a long time unappreciated. It only really came to light when James Lovelock of Gaia fame measured the emissions from plankton in the open ocean when on board RRS Shackleton in 1971. His discovery that living things in the ocean pumped sulphur into the atmosphere played a part in his growing conviction that life changes the environment to its own benefit. But would injections of sulphate aerosols disrupt this biogeochemical cycle?
The eruption of Mount Pinatubo injected 17 million tons of aerosols into the upper atmosphere The 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo, which many consider a “natural experiment” in sulfate aerosol engineering, produced a large volume of sulphur particles that were injected into the stratosphere, that lowered global average temperature for a few years and led to increases in the incidence of drought and substantial decreases in global stream flow.
It produced a substantial decrease in precipitation over land and brought drought to some parts of the tropics.
Is geoengineering research itself virtually certain to reduce incentives to pursue mitigation? Its big backers are Silicon Valley billionaires The researchers claim to be neutral, but they are funded by private endowments, and are trying to increase the comfort level for the idea. Because its cost is estimated to be “trivial” compared to the costs of cutting carbon pollution, SRM geoengineering might easily be considered an extremely attractive and economical substitute . This prospect creates what economists call a “moral hazard”. While the international community has found it difficult to agree on strong collective measures to reduce carbon emissions, this form of climate engineering could be relatively cheap, immediately effective, and not require the time and effort of decarbonization. In fact, it could be available to a single nation, or even a wealthy individual, in the absence of international agreement.
The hazards of considering geoengineering to as an alternative to decarbonization are not only moral. There are very real dangers to injecting sulfur in the stratosphere, and there are no realistic experiments to understand the consequences other than implementing it at scale. Even if the project was a success and cooled the surface of the Earth significantly, the sulfates would need to be replaced regularly — on an annual basis, in fact. There would be no permanent effects, and interrupting the process would lead to “Termination Shock,” in which case temperatures would rise very quickly to what they would have been without the solar management interventions in the first place.
Scopex launch site Sweden
Currently the most likely candidate for geoengineering seems to be a privately funded initiative led by David Keith at Harvard. The group proposed and planned the launch of a trial balloon, first in the American Southwest and later from Sweden. Once the plan became widely known, public opinion was solidly against the test of Scopex (Stratospheric Controlled Perturbation Experiment), and it has been postponed for now.
More than twenty years ago, geoengineer David Keith imagined a future where the world had become a human ‘artifact’. In this ‘artificial world’, ‘climate and weather are actively controlled’, genetically modified plants and animals ‘are common in every landscape’, and the genetic heritage of humanity itself enters ‘a period of rapid divergence’. Evolution – even human evolution – would be determined by the market.
Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
The history of carbon capture and storage (CCS) suggests that governments are indeed likely to latch on to geoengineering as an excuse for further delay. The promise of CCS has been used repeatedly by both governments and industry as a justification for building new coal-fired power plants. and thus undermine global mitigation efforts by giving national governments an excuse to do nothing, in the hope that coal plants could be rendered safe. Greenpeace described CCS as “a smokescreen for building new coal-fired power stations".
Carbon Capture Facility Iceland
For Clive Hamilton, “The case of CCS (carbon capture and storage) is a vivid illustration of moral hazard, yet it is into this political and commercial environment that geoengineering arrives as the next (aptly named) great white hope. It is presented as a solution to the same global warming problem, to the same politicians, with the same resistant industry, and the same public prone to wishful thinking. The conditions seem perfect for moral hazard”
Some critics have suggested that the whole idea of carbon removal was developed to keep the fossil fuel system going. The most negligent elements would be able to use geoengineering to escape their responsibilities for causing climate change. This helps to explain why some who actively debunk climate science also support geoengineering—so as to serve as a means of covering over deception. (see ecology
MARINE CLOUD BRIGHTENING (MCB)
Another proposed solar radiation management technique and analog to nature is to project particles of salt from sea water, in order to brighten clouds over parts of the ocean, and cool climate below. In this approach, optimized particles of sea salt are dispersed from ships drawing in sea water to create an aerosol spray and deliver it into low lying clouds, which could theoretically affect the weather at a relatively small scale.
rendering of a proposed autonomous platform for projecting salt aerosols into the stratosphere.
Geoengineering raises understandable fears about technological hubris. Virtually every-
one who studies geoengineering hopes that it will not prove necessary. But with global
emissions continuing to rise, and little prospect of reversing that trend anytime soon, we are not living in a world where we can assume the best. We are living in a world where we must. prepare for the worst. As Naomi Oreskes reminds us, “