http://www.worldchanging.com/archives//009784.html
GEOENGINEERING AND THE NEW CLIMATE DENIALISM
by Alex Steffen
The Idea of Geoengineering is Being Used Dishonestly
Though we spend our time here at Worldchanging focused on solutions
to the planet's most pressing problems, sometimes the politics around
an issue become so twisted that it's necessary to address the
politics before we can have a real discussion about the problems and
how to solve them. That's the case with geoengineering.
Some scientists suggest that certain massive projects -- like
creating artificial volcanoes to fill the skies with soot, or seeding
the oceans with mountains of iron to produce giant algal blooms --
might in the future be able put the brakes on climate change. These
"geoengineering" ideas are hardly shovel-ready. The field at this
point consists essentially of little more than a bunch of proposals,
simulations and small-scale experiments: describing these
hypothetical approaches as "back up options" crazily overstates their
current state of development. Indeed, almost all of the scientists
working on them believe that the best answer to our climate problem
would be a quick, massive reduction in our greenhouse gas emissions.
None of this has stopped geoengineering from becoming part of a new
attempt to stall those very reductions, though. The same network of
think tanks, pundits and lobbying groups that denied climate change
for the last 30 years has seized on geoengineering as a chance to
undermine new climate regulations and the U.N. climate negotiations
to be held at the end of the year in Copenhagen. They're still using
scare tactics about the economic costs of change, but now, instead of
just denying the greenhouse effect, they've begun trying to convince
the rest of us that hacking the planet with giant space-mirrors or
artificial volcanoes is so easy that burning a lot more coal and oil
really won't be a problem.
Delay is The Carbon Lobby's Strategy
It's a central, yet often forgotten, fact in the climate debate that
pumping greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere is incredibly
profitable. For a small group of giant corporations (the coal, oil
and car companies which we can collectively call the Carbon Lobby),
business as usual is big bank. The difficulties of addressing climate
change have much more to do with the political power of these
corporations than with the technical challenges of building a
carbon-neutral economy (a carbon-neutral economy being an engineering
and design challenge that we already have the capacity to meet).
For the last thirty years, the Carbon Lobby's strategy on climate
change has been to delay. Almost every informed observer knows, and
has known for decades, that the days of fossil fuels are numbered,
but how quickly and how completely we shift away from them makes all
the difference to these industries. They have a huge investment in
oil fields and coal mines and dirty technologies, and each decade
they delay the transition away from coal and gas means literally
trillions of dollars more profits. Delay = big bucks.
The best way for the Carbon Lobby to delay that transition has been
to make regulations and treaties that limit the amount of CO2
emissions politically impossible, especially in the U.S., where the
Lobby's influence is the greatest because of their hold over the
Republican party.
That's why they put such emphasis on attempting to portray the
science of climate change as inconclusive or hotly debated (despite
the fact that their own scientists told them in 1995 that the science
on climate "is well established and cannot be denied"). If they could
make people feel uncertain, they could make it safe for politicians
to actively oppose new regulations and treaties (a strategy laid out
in the famous leaked "Luntz Memo"). Lying about the science made
people uncertain; that uncertainty let the Carbon Lobby stall U.S.
action; and by stopping the world's biggest polluter from
participating, they stymied any real global deal on greenhouse gasses.
The strategy worked, up to a point. But now most Americans understand
that climate change is real and that it demands action. Our new
president advocates strong action on climate; business leaders from
many industries back him, as do most labor and religious groups; and
foreign nations are eager to negotiate (European conservatives are
even competing to show leadership on tackling climate emissions,
rather than denying that those emissions are a problem). This
emerging consensus on the need for regulatory action and effective
treaties threatens to accelerate the transition away from fossil
fuels much more quickly than anyone expected, so the Carbon Lobby is
scrambling to find new reasons for delay.
How Geoengineering Becomes an Argument for Delay
Their new justifications for delay are simple. Taking advantage of
the economic crisis, they call climate action a job killer. If the
Right's anger and vehemence against the very idea of green jobs has
shocked and confused you, well, understand that it's important that
climate change be framed as a threat to the economy, and never an
opportunity: the growing importance of clean tech industries and jobs
to the American economy must be downplayed in order for this strategy
to work (never mind that wind power already employs more Americans
than coal mining). Look for this argument to increase in volume as
Copenhagen draws near.
But to really make their case for more delay, they can no longer be
seen as outright opponents of climate action. They've got to have
their own plan. And that's where geoengineering comes in.
The biggest argument for strong actions taken quickly is that delay
or weak responses may put us in a position of facing rapid, perhaps
even runaway climate change. The longer we wait, the more dangerous
our position becomes. The only certain route to safety would be rapid
emissions reductions, including programs for ecosystem restoration
and other forms of sustainable sequestration to help draw CO2 levels
down.
But if we can be made to believe that megascale geoengineering can
stop climate change, then delay begins to look not like the dangerous
folly it actually is, but a sensible prudence. The prospect of
geoegineering is the only thing that can make that delay seem at all
morally acceptable.
In other words, combining dire warnings about climate action's
economic costs with exaggerated claims about geoengineering's
potential is the new climate denialism.
The Carbon Lobby Spins Geoengineering Instead of Emissions Reductions
The new climate denialism is all about trying to make the continued
burning of fossils fuels seem acceptable, even after the public has
come to understand the overwhelming scientific consensus that climate
change is real. That's why denialists present geoengineering as an
alternative to emissions reductions, and couch their arguments in
tones of reluctant realism.
One of the earliest political calls for geoengineering was Gregory
Benford's essay Climate Controls, written for the Reason Foundation
(you can find out more about their links to the Carbon Lobby and
their role in climate denialism here). Benford was explicit that he
saw geoengineering as a way to avoid reducing CO2 emissions:
"Instead of draconian cutbacks in greenhouse-gas emissions, there may
very well be fairly simple ways--even easy ones--to fix our dilemma.
...take seriously the concept of "geoengineering," of consciously
altering atmospheric chemistry and conditions, of mitigating the
effects of greenhouse gases rather than simply calling for their
reduction or outright prohibition."
Benford is far from alone. One of the major proponents of
geoengineering is the American Enterprise Institute. AEI has a long
history of working to deny the scientific consensus on climate
change. They have strong ties to the Carbon Lobby (ExxonMobil CEO Lee
Raymond served on the AEI board of trustees, and $1,870,000 from
ExxonMobil helped fund their anti-climate work).
Now AEI is working both sides of the new climate denialism street.
They claim that climate action is too expensive (In a January paper,
AEI's Willem P. Nel and Christopher J. Cooper argue that "The extent
of Global Warming may be acceptable and preferable compared to the
socio-economic consequences of not exploiting fossil fuel reserves to
their full technical potential." In other words, "It's more
profitable to let the planet roast."). They also house one of the few
funded policy centers on geoengineering, the AEI Geoengineering
Project.
The Geoengineering Project is run by Lee Lane. Lane is smart, and so
he doesn't say outright that we should dump climate negotiations and
trust in geoengineering, but you don't need to read too far between
the lines to hear that's what he's saying.
In 2006, Lane specifically advised the Bush Administration to urge a
greater focus both on debating carbon taxes (we know how Republicans
like to "debate" taxes) and on geoengineering as "strategic measures"
to "block political momentum toward a return to the Kyoto system." He
continues to put forward geoengineering as an alternative to real
emissions reductions anytime in the near future. As he said at AEI's
recent geoengineering conference:
"I think in response to all of those difficulties that certainly I am
not the only person to see, a growing number of experts are becoming
increasingly concerned about the need to broaden the debate on
climate policy. What I mean by broaden it is to expand what we
consider as serious climate policy options from what has been a very
narrow focus on greenhouse gas emissions limitations, and indeed
rather steep and rather rapid greenhouse gas emissions limitations,
to consider a much broader range of policies that go way beyond
simply attempting to make short run reductions in greenhouse gases."
In other words, Lane wants us to believe that emissions reductions
are politically impossible (never mind that he works at an
institution which has labored mightily to sabotage emissions
reductions treaty negotiations, and that he himself explicitly
advised the Bush Administration on how to do the same), so we ought
to be considering geoengineering as the "serious" option instead.
The Distortion of Geoengineering has Become Widespread
Turn over denialist rocks and you'll find political advocates for
geoengineering a-plenty. For instance:
*The Cato Institute (denialists), whose senior fellow and director of
natural resource studies, Jerry Taylor, says that if we end up forced
do something about global warming, "geo-engineering is more
cost-effective than emissions controls altogether."
*The Heartland Institute (denialists), whose David Schnare now
advocates geoengineering as quicker and less costly to the economy
than greenhouse gas reductions:
"In addition to being much less expensive than seeking to stem
temperature rise solely through the reduction of greenhouse gas
emissions, geo-engineering has the benefit of delivering measurable
results in a matter of weeks rather than the decades or centuries
required for greenhouse gas reductions to take full effect."
*The Hudson Institute (denialists) advocates geoengineering as
substitute for reductions:
"Successful geoengineering would permit Earth's population to make
far smaller reductions in carbon use and still achieve the same
retarding effect on global warming at a lower cost. The cuts in
carbon use proposed by international leaders and presidential
candidates would have a drastic effect on the economy, especially
since substitutes for fossil fuels will be expensive and limited for
a number of years."
*The Hoover Institution (denialists) is home to not only to senior
fellow Thomas Gale Moore, author of "Climate of Fear: Why We
Shouldn't Worry About Global Warming" but also nuclear weapons
engineer and original SDI "Star Wars" proponent Lowell Wood. Wood has
become an outspoken geoengineering proponent and co-authored a recent
WSJ op-ed in which he warns "But beware. Do not try to sell climate
geo-engineering to committed enemies of fossil fuels," thus revealing
that the point is to be friendly to fossil fuels.
And, of course, denialists' allies in the media and the blogosphere
have been quick to take up the call. Conservative columnist (and
climate "contrarian") John Tierney thinks geoengineering makes
superfluous emissions reductions ("a futile strategy") and wants "a
geoengineering fix for global warming," to provide an alternative to
the idea that "the only cure [is] to reduce CO2 emissions." Wayne
Crews of the denialist site globalwarming.org (a project of the
Carbon-Lobby-funded Competitive Enterprise Institute) likes
geoengineering strategies as possible "options apart from carbon
constraint," while climate treaty opponent and "delayer" Roger
Pielke, Jr. finds it encouraging that geoengineering's getting so
much buzz.
It would be easy to go on. But the point is obvious: the Carbon
Lobby, no longer able to deny the reality of climate change, is
hoping to use the idea of geoengineering to undermine political
progress towards reducing climate emissions through sensible,
intelligent regulations and international treaties. Big Oil, Big Coal
and the auto companies want you to believe that reducing emissions is
too expensive to work, climate negotiations are too unrealistic to
succeed, but we can keep burning fossil fuels anyways because
geoengineering gives us a plan B. If you think that, you've been spun.
How to De-Spin Geoengineering
None of this is to say that megascale geoengineering should be a
taboo subject. We need a smart debate here, where we explore the
subject honestly and without industry spin. Here are six suggestions
for returning reality to the geoengineering debate in these critical
months leading up to Copenhagen:
First, Demand that bold emissions reductions be acknowledged as the
only sound foundation for any climate action plan. The Carbon Lobby
thrives on half-truths and obfuscation. Ethical people -- whether
geoengineering proponents, opponents or doubters -- all need to be
extremely clear in saying that a strong, rapid movement away from
fossil fuels and toward climate neutrality is non-negotiable. Many
leading thinkers on geoengineering (such as Paul Crutzen and Ken
Caldeira) already make clear that immediate action on reducing
greenhouse pollution (on both the national and global levels) is the
first step, period. We should follow their lead.
Second, Point out that a climate-neutral world is realistic. One of
the public debate's biggest failures is the extent to which we've let
people be convinced that a climate-neutral planet is some distant,
improbable fantasy world. It's not. We know, already, right now, how
to dramatically slash emissions using currently available
technologies, and make a profit. Economists (like Lord Nicholas
Stern, former Chief Economist at the World Bank) estimate that the
total cost of pursuing climate neutrality could be as little as 1% of
GDP (far lower than the anticipated costs of allowing climate change
to worsen). But there may not even be a cost: a great many of the
actions we need to take (like rebuilding our cities and using energy
more efficiently) return greater economic benefits than they demand,
and when something pays you money, it's not a cost, it's an
investment.
Third, Be extremely clear about geoengineering's real possibilities
and actual limitations. Journalists tend to sell the planetary
engineering sizzle, rather than serve the heavily-caveated steak.
Advocates need to continue to emphasize that geoegineering proposals
are still extremely early-stage, experimental and surrounded with
unknowns. (On the other side, even determined opponents of
geoengineering need to acknowledge the good intent and sound
reasoning of scientists who are doing their best to add new insight
to an extremely important debate.)
Fourth, Get the order right: zero-out first, adapt next, engineer
last.. We need to be clear that because of the experimental nature of
geoengineering projects, their use should be a last resort, not a
primary option. Megascale geoengineering should not yet be part of
any national strategies for addressing climate change, or a part of
any offset systems in carbon trading regimes. We need first to drive
greenhouse gas concentrations down with proven methods, and then
begin preparing to adapt to the climate change we know we've already
set in motion. We should only turn to megascale geoengineering as a
last resort.
Fifth, Keep a wary eye on the Arctic ocean and other tipping points.
Last year, scientists conducting research in the Arctic made a
startling discovery: what might perhaps be formerly-frozen methane
was bubbling to the surface of the warming ocean in alarming amounts.
Their work demands corroboration, but if confirmed, this should cause
us all to worry. Methane is an incredibly potent greenhouse gas and
huge amounts of it are trapped beneath frigid waters and frozen
permafrost, waiting perhaps to be released by rising
temperatures.That methane could set off runaway climate change. Even
if their findings are refuted, though, potential tipping points need
to be watched. If we find we've blundered into rapid runaway climate
change, some forms of geoengineering, however poorly understood, may
quickly move from "last resort" to "needed option."
Sixth and last, Continue outing the Carbon Lobby and its cronies, and
reject their intervention in the debate. Legitimate debates about the
possible uses of megascale geoengineering should not include people
whose institutions have been consistently and intentionally dishonest
about science and science policy.
The next two decades will have an almost unparalleled importance in
human history, and the decisions we make during this time could have
almost unthinkable impacts for millennia. The world in which scores
of future generations will live -- its climate, the plants and
animals that make up its biosphere, the material possibilities of its
cultures -- will to an astonishing degree be influenced by the
choices we make in the next score of years.
How we interpret the possibilities of (and understand the limitations
to) large-scale geoengineering projects will help shape the clarity
and velocity with which we act on reducing emissions and building a
new, climate-neutral economy. These questions matter too much to
allow them be twisted by a bunch of shills for fossil fuel industries.
We need to reclaim the debate about our planet's future, together.
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"geoengineering" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
