The concept of geoengineering (or climate intervention) refers to the deliberate large-scale engineering and manipulation of the planetary environment to combat or counteract anthropogenic changes in atmospheric chemistry. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concluded in 2007 that geoengineering options, such as ocean fertilization to remove CO2 from the atmosphere, remained largely unproven. It was judged that reliable cost estimates for geoengineering had not yet been published.
Geoengineering accompanies Mitigation and Adaptation to form a three-stranded ‘MAG’ approach to tackling global warming, notably advocated by the Institution of Mechanical Engineers. Some geoengineering techniques are based on carbon dioxide removal (CDR), including direct methods (e.g. carbon dioxide air capture) and indirect methods (e.g. ocean iron fertilization). These techniques can be regarded as mitigation of global warming.
Alternatively, solar radiation management techniques (SRM), ‘Reflective Approaches’ (RA), do not reduce greenhouse gas concentrations, and can only address the warming effects of carbon dioxide and other gases; they cannot address problems such as ocean acidification, which are expected as a result of rising carbon dioxide levels. Examples of proposed solar radiation management techniques include the production of stratospheric sulfur aerosols, which was suggested by Paul Crutzen, space mirrors, and cloud reflectivity enhancement. Most techniques have at least some side effects.
To date, no large-scale geoengineering projects have been undertaken. Some limited tree planting and cool roof projects are already underway, and ocean iron fertilization is at a beginning stage of research, with small-scale research trials and global modelling having been completed. Field research into sulfur aerosols has also started. Some commentators have suggested that consideration of geoengineering presents a moral hazard because it threatens to reduce the political and popular pressure for emissions reduction. Scientists do not typically suggest geoengineering as an alternative to emissions control, but rather an accompanying strategy. Reviews of geoengineering techniques have emphasised that they are not substitutes for emission controls and have identified potentially stronger and weaker schemes.
Geoengineering is the idea of applying planetary engineering to Earth. Geoengineering would involve the deliberate modification of Earth’s environment on a large scale ‘to suit human needs and promote habitability.’ Typically, the term is used to describe proposals to counter the effects of human-induced climate change. However, others define it more narrowly as nature-integrated engineering projects. The term geoengineering is distinct from environmental damage and accidental anthropogenic climate change, which are side-effects of human activity, rather than an intended consequence. The global extraction of hydrocarbons from the sub-surface using integrated geoscience and engineering technology has been termed ‘petroleum geoengineering’ as an activity with global impact.
Several notable organizations have investigated geoengineering with a view to evaluating its potential, including: NASA, the Royal Society, the Institute of Mechanical Engineers, and the UK Parliament. The Asilomar International Conference on Climate Intervention Technologies was convened to identify and develop risk reduction guidelines for climate intervention experimentation. However, major environmental organizations such as Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace have typically been reluctant to endorse geoengineering. Some have argued that any public support for geoengineering may weaken the fragile political consensus to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Solar radiation management (SRM) projects seek to reduce the net incoming short-wave (ultra-violet and visible) solar radiation received, by deflecting sunlight, or by increasing the reflectivity (albedo) of the atmosphere. They do not reduce greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere, and thus do not address problems such as ocean acidification caused by these gases. Solar radiation management projects often have the advantage of speed. While greenhouse gas remediation offers a comprehensive possible solution to climate change, it does not give instant results.
Carbon dioxide removal projects seek to remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere, and thus tackle the root cause of global warming. They either directly remove greenhouse gases, or alternatively seek to influence natural processes to remove greenhouse gases indirectly. These projects offer a comprehensive solution to the problem of excess greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, but they will take many years to work fully. Many projects overlap with carbon capture and storage and carbon sequestration projects, and may not be considered to be geoengineering by all commentators.
The use of vertical ocean pipes to mix cooler deep water and warmer surface water has been proposed. This technology has also been suggested for the disruption of hurricanes by Bill Gates and others in a recent patent application. Modification of hurricanes may be considered weather modification rather than geoengineering, depending on the definition used.
It is argued that climate change has already, or is soon to have passed one or more tipping points where aspects of the climate system may ‘tip’ from one stable state to another stable state, much like a glass tipping over. When the new stable state is reached, it may trigger or accelerate warming positive feedback effects, such as the collapse of Arctic sea ice triggering the release of methane from permafrost in Siberia. The ‘nightmare scenario’ is that a domino effect will occur, with successive parts of the climate system tipping one after the other. Such a situation will lead to spiralling and potentially sudden climate change.
The precise identity of such ‘tipping points’ is not clear, with scientists taking differing views on whether specific systems are capable of ‘tipping’ and the point at which this ‘tipping’ will occur. An example of a previous tipping point is that which preceded the rapid warming leading up to the Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum. Once the tipping point is reached, cuts in greenhouse gas emissions will not be able to reverse the change. Depending on the precise nature of the individual system that ‘tips,’ positive feedbacks may occur, with warming causing more warming, which causes yet more warming—a runaway global warming event. Therefore, some commentators suggest that more conservative use of resources is not enough to mitigate global warming. Even if all greenhouse emissions suddenly came to a complete halt, the world would continue to be affected for centuries, and further warming may occur due to positive feedback. Conservation of resources and reduction of greenhouse emissions, used in conjunction with geoengineering, are therefore considered a viable option. Geoengineering offers the hope of temporarily reversing some aspects of climate change and allowing the natural climate to be substantially preserved whilst greenhouse gas emissions are brought under control and removed from the atmosphere by natural or artificial processes.
Some geoengineering techniques, such as cool roof (reflective) techniques, can be achieved at little or no cost, and may even offer a financial payback. In general, solar radiation management techniques are substantially cheaper than are carbon dioxide removal techniques.
Climate engineering would represent a large-scale, intentional effort to modify the environment, which differ from inadvertent climate change through activities such as burning fossil fuels. Intentional climate change is viewed very differently from a moral standpoint. This raises questions of whether we as humans have the right to change the climate. The selection of a globally-agreed target temperature is a significant problem in any geoengineering governance regime, as different countries or interest groups may seek different global temperatures.
Solar radiation management is an incomplete solution to global warming. The possible option of geoengineering may reduce incentives to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. It is argued that geoengineering could be used to ‘buy time’ before drastic climate change happens, allowing mitigation and adaptation measures more time to be implemented and work. But the opposition points out that there are issues regarding the interference this causes with actual efforts for climate change, creating an unnecessary distraction.
It has been argued that regardless of the economic, scientific and technical aspects, the difficulty of achieving concerted political action on climate change requires other approaches. Those arguing political expediency say the difficulty of achieving meaningful emissions cuts and the effective failure of the Kyoto Protocol demonstrate the practical difficulties of achieving carbon dioxide emissions reduction by the agreement of the international community. However, others point to support for geoengineering proposals among think tanks with a history of climate change skepticism and opposition to emissions reductions as evidence that the prospect of geoengineering is itself already politicized and being promoted as part of an argument against the need for (and viability of) emissions reductions; that, rather than geoengineering being a solution to the difficulties of emissions reductions, the prospect of geoengineering is being used as part of an argument to stall emissions reductions in the first place.
Geoenginering poses several challenges in the context of governance because of issues of power and jurisdiction. Geoengineering as a climate change solution differs from other mitigation and adaptation strategies. Unlike a carbon trading system that would be focused on participation from multiple parties along with transparency, monitoring measures and compliance procedures; this is not necessarily required by geoengineering. ‘The artificial release of sulphate aerosols is a commitment of at least several hundred years.’ This highlights the importance for a political framework that is sustainable enough to contain a multilateral commitment over such a long period and yet is flexible as the techniques innovate through time. There are many controversies surrounding this topic and hence, geoengineering has been made into a very political issue. Most discussions and debates are not about which geoengineering technique is better than the other, or which one is more economically and socially feasible. Discussions are broadly on who will have control over the deployment of geoengineering and under what governance regime the deployment can be monitored and supervised. This is especially important due to the regional variability of the effects of many geoengineering techniques, benefiting some countries while damaging others. The challenge posed by geoengineering is not how to get countries to do it. It is to address the fundamental question of who should decide whether and how geoengineering should be attempted – a problem of governance.
The techniques themselves may cause significant foreseen or unforeseen harm. For example, the use of reflective balloons may result in significant litter, which may be harmful to wildlife. Ozone depletion is a risk of some geoengineering techniques, notably those involving sulfur delivery into the stratosphere. The active nature of geoengineering may in some cases create a clear division between winners and losers. Most of the proposed interventions are regional, such as albedo modification in the Arctic. Necessarily, such interventions compel those in the affected regions to tolerate the effects of geoengineering for the supposed benefit of the global climate. There may be unintended climatic consequences, such as changes to the hydrological cycle, including droughts or floods, caused by the geoengineering techniques, but possibly not predicted by the models used to plan them. Such effects may be cumulative or chaotic in nature, making prediction and control very difficult.
Geoengineering research began as a war tactic in the 1940s for the US and the Soviet Union during the Cold War. During the Vietnam War, the US used geoengineering to flood certain areas. Then in 1976, 85 countries signed the ‘U.N. Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques,’ which generally prohibits weaponising geoengineering techniques. However, this does not eliminate the risk. Geoengineering techniques may serve as weapons of mass destruction, creating droughts or famines designed to destroy or disable an enemy. They could also be used simply to make battlefield conditions more favorable to one side or the other in a war (such as in Operation Popeye, a US military cloud seeding operation in Vietnam). For example, laser-guided weapons are confounded by clouds, and thus switching off cloud machines would favor forces using such weapons, and switching them on would favor ground forces defending against them.
Geoengineering opens up various political and economic issues. David Keith argues that the cost of geoengineering the Earth is within the realm of small countries, large corporations, or even very wealthy individuals. Steve Rayner agrees that not all geoengineering possibilities are expensive, and that some, such as ocean iron fertilization, are within the reach of very wealthy individuals, calling them a ‘Greenfinger’ (after the fictional ‘Goldfinger’). This effectively eliminates any control over who gets to decide when to cool the Earth and how often this should be done. The resulting power would be enormous, and could not necessarily be readily controlled by legal, political or regulatory systems. These legal and regulatory systems may themselves be far less powerful than the geoengineers controlling the climate become.
The Daily Omnivore 
Leave a comment