CLIMATE CHANGE

Uncivil Engineering

The Serious Problems With Further Climate Tinkering

Geoengineering is growing into an up-to-date idea for a “plan B” to moderate climate change and its adverse effects. In general, geoengineering could be understood as the large-scale and deliberate manipulation of the global environment.[1] The concept itself was introduced specifically in the climate change debate in the 1970s, and ever since its meaning has expanded to refer to a wide-ranging spectrum of methods that aim to counteract climate change by engineering climate. It does so, however, without addressing the root of the problem, that is, the increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. The solutions geoengineering offer might seem tempting at first sight as a plan B if one considers that the mitigation efforts—the “plan A” —have so far been largely ineffective. Therefore, geoengineering is becoming a hotly debated issue in environmental politics. Moreover, not only are the side effects of these proposals unpredictable, they represent a significant amount of hubris in thinking that complicated climatic systems we don’t fully understand would simply obey human will.

Geoengineering proposals are usually divided into two categories. The first category, solar radiation management, or SRM, is a variety of techniques that decrease the absorption of incoming solar short-wave radiation. This is possible by either increasing the reflectivity of the Earth, an approach called albedo enhancement, or by diverting the incoming solar radiation. The most prominent techniques proposed so far are stratospheric aerosol injections, cloud-albedo enhancement, space-based sunshields, and increasing of the reflectivity of the environment. The second category, carbon dioxide removal, or CDR, aims to reduce the level of atmospheric greenhouse gases by removing them from the atmosphere. The most-discussed methods so far are improvements in land use and afforestation—the process of creating or rebuilding forests—as well as carbon capture from ambient air and ocean fertilization. Some of these methods, for instance reforestation, are already in use although not currently seen as geoengineering. The American Meteorological Society recently added a third category of geoengineering proposals, which includes vertical ocean pipes that increase downward heat transport.

Geoengineering shares with standard climate policies the aim to diminish the risks of climate change. Whereas adaptation activities increase our capacity to cope with the effects of climate change and mitigation measures reduce the greenhouse gas emissions, geoengineering differs from them as it is a deliberate attempt to exercise control over atmospheric phenomena. Geoengineering techniques do not detract all of the serious consequences from increasing GHG emissions and therefore cannot moderate climate change alone without proper mitigation and adaptation strategies. As well, the climate modification proposals do not approach the root of the problem: the ever-growing greenhouse gas emissions. For instance, solar radiation management methods would allow ocean acidification to continue unchecked, and atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations would not diminish any way.

Geoengineering proposals can be loosely grouped into “soft” and “hard” proposals, both of which fall into solar radiation management and carbon dioxide removal categories. While soft proposals might have less long-term effects, their implementation could be terminated more easily and the uncertainties are minor in comparison with hard proposals. Soft proposals include, for instance, land use management, afforestation, and albedo enhancement by painting some parts of urban areas white. The hard proposals involve termination problems, environmental, legal, and ethical issues, and a vast array of uncertainties and risks with regard to implementation, control, side-effects, and research. Hard proposals include albedo enhancement by stratospheric sulphur injections, space-based mirrors, and large-scale ocean fertilization. A report from the United Kingdom’s Royal Society, Geoengineering the Climate, which was released in September 2009, elicits a whole range of open questions with regard to the subject. For instance, a hard radiation management proposal, stratospheric sulphur injection, would have adverse effects on stratospheric ozone and would have a negative impact on the biological productivity, including food production. In this case, the cure could be at least as bad as the disease.

These are just some of the reasons for being cautious about geoengineering, even in the early phases of research and development. Another point of concern is the risk that the public might have unrealistic expectations about the plan B and consider it an easy technological fix to control climate change. Furthermore, its attractiveness increases the perception that, if there is a technological fix, then there is no need to transform carbon-intensive lifestyles in the affluent countries and elsewhere. Geoengineering can also obtain some support from those who believe that mitigation strategies have largely failed although investments in clean energy production might turn out to be fruitful in the long run.

However, most opinions on geoengineering proposals present mitigation and geoengineering proposals combined. One proposed compromise is to bring together mitigation and geoengineering undertakings in order to buy time with stratospheric sulphur injections.[2] On top of this we must consider the governance of geoengineering implementations since for the time being, there is neither an authority with appropriate global oversight, nor have the fairness issues been thoroughly scrutinized. If these projects actually made the planetary thermostat adjustable, major disagreements could arise. Even if some of the proposals could be implemented unilaterally the effects exceed national borders and require fair international agreements on the common means and targets of geoengineering.

It is inevitable that this plan B would give a rise to numerous controversies that are extremely difficult to solve. Further relevant questions include the reversibility of the methods, compensation, and fairness in the face of environmental, legal, political, ethical, social, economic, and technological consequences. Finally, we must consider national security concerns under geoengineering implementations, and especially the potential for global conflicts without proper international agreements on the appropriate use of geoengineering methods.

The general tone of Royal Society’s report is cautiously positive. Although it recognizes a number of uncertainties, it does not see them entirely as obstacles to carrying out various experiments or conducting a research program. All the geoengineering alternatives we have at hand are risky, particularly the hard proposals. The problem with the soft proposals, more than being unsafe, is that they are insufficient for working our way out of the climate change problem. Our understanding about the climatic system is far from complete, which restrains our ability to predict the outcomes. Even though it is possible to detect signals of climate change the question of planetary control is wholly separate—reading the signs is distinct from dominating them.

Professor Andrew Feenberg, a philosopher of technology, raised this point in his keynote speech at the conference of Society for Philosophy and Technology in July 2009 in the University of Twente, the Netherlands, when he was asked about the feasibility of geoengineering.[3] He replied that although it might be possible to implement some of the proposals and have the desired effects for a while, the side effects are unpredictable because of the incomplete understanding about the climatic system. It would be the height of human hubris to imagine that the immensely complicated systems we don’t fully understand would obey our will. Feenberg’s comment suggests that the bigger the intervention into nature, the more we should worry about our own ignorance. Even if we could buy some time with hard proposals, the side effects could turn out to be even more detrimental than the outcome of runaway climate change. Therefore, the idea of a plan B focused on planetary control through geoengineering might turn out to be nothing but a mistaken notion.

Sanna Joronen, Master of Social Sciences, is a doctoral student in philosophy at the University of Turku, Finland. Her thesis focuses on the ethical implications of geoengineering. Dr. Markku Oksanen is currently an academy research fellow, based at the University of Turku. He is also a university lecturer in philosophy at the University of Kuopio, Finland.

Notes

[1] Keith, David. Annual  Review of Energy and the Environment 25(2000): 245-84.

[2] Wigley, Tom. “A Combined Mitigation/Geoengineering Approach to Climate Stabilization.” Science 314(2006): 452-454.

[3] Feenberg, Andrew. “Ten Paradoxes of Technology and the Transhuman Illusion.” Keynote speech at the conference of Society for Philosophy and Technology 9 July, 2009, The University of Twente, the Netherlands.

Tags: Climate Change, environment, geoengineering

Comments on this article

You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.