Opinion
Resisting the Dangerous Allure
of Global Warming Technofixes
As the world weighs how to deal with warming, the idea of human
manipulation of climate systems is gaining attention. Yet beyond the
environmental and technical questions looms a more practical issue:
How could governments really commit to supervising geoengineering
schemes for centuries?
by dianne dumanoski
In the summer of 2006, geoengineering — the radical proposal to offset
one human intervention into planetary systems with another — came
roaring out of the scientific closet. Deliberate climate modification,
as climate scientist Wally Broecker once noted, had long been “one of
the few subjects considered taboo in the realm of scientific inquiry.”
Two things spurred this dramatic reversal: growing alarm because
climate change was hitting harder and faster than expected and the
abysmal failure of political efforts to reduce carbon dioxide
emissions. Indeed, since world leaders signed the Rio Convention on
Climate Change in 1992, global emissions climbed from 6.1 billion
metric tons of carbon a year to 8.5 billion tons in 2007. Dismayed by
the inaction, Paul Crutzen, a Nobel laureate, published a
controversial paper in August, 2006 that opened the door to the
hitherto unthinkable. Since timely and sufficient reductions appeared
to be, in his words, “a pious wish,” he urged serious investigation of
technological proposals to offset rising temperatures.
For some, geoengineering seemed to hold out another hope: that
technology might provide an escape not only from growing heat, but
also from the thorny realm of hard choices and difficult international
politics. Those politics were on vivid display in Copenhagen this
week, as nations have agreed on the gravity of the threat but little
else.
Since the release of Crutzen’s influential paper, many have voiced
concerns about possible hazards posed by geoengineering schemes. For
example, the artificial volcano projects, which would inject sulfate
particles into the stratosphere to deflect incoming sunlight, might
reduce the symptom of excess heat, but experience from past volcanic
eruptions and climate
The moral and political hazards of geoengineering are as
formidable as the physical dangers.
models indicates that this approach would likely alter rainfall
patterns and intensify drought in many regions. And because such
sunshade schemes only treat a symptom rather than tackle the cause,
this technofix would do nothing to prevent another dire consequence of
rising levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere — increasing acidity
in ocean waters. This acidity jeopardizes coral reefs, shelled marine
life, and a tiny plankton Emiliania huxleyi, which plays a key role in
the transfer of carbon from the atmosphere to long-term storage in
deep ocean sediments.
But the biggest hitch in sunshade remedies involves politics and
questions of governance, for they would require an unflagging
commitment of centuries: five hundred years or so, or, if we do not
make major emissions cuts, even as long as a millennium. If anything
were to interrupt this geoengineering effort, which would have to keep
replenishing the sulfates every few years, the world would quickly
confront a doomsday scenario: Temperatures would suddenly soar upward
at a rate 20 times faster than they are rising today, causing
unimaginable havoc in human and natural systems and with it, the real
danger of human extinction. This institutional challenge is without
question a far greater obstacle than any technological difficulties.
It is hard to imagine that anyone with even a passing knowledge of
human history would think this long-term commitment could be a prudent
gamble.
The moral and political hazards of geoengineering are altogether as
formidable as the physical dangers. However inviting the prospects
shimmering on the technological horizon, geoengineering “solutions”
and the promise of a technofix down the road lead us easily into
temptation. Indeed, these speculative technologies are already
figuring in the political debate and hover in the background of
diplomatic discussions, since it will be impossible to limit future
warming to 2 degrees C, as G-8 leaders pledged in July, without
something like a new technology to suck carbon dioxide from the
atmosphere. It is easy to forget that these are proposals, not proven
technologies. There is no assurance that any will actually work as
imagined.
Even more troubling, these tantalizing prospects can encourage neglect
of what can be done now. Former President George W. Bush often used
future technology as an excuse for inaction, touting research on
hydrogen
Cloud Ships
University of Edinburgh
CLICK TO ENLARGE: In one geoengineering scheme, scientists are
studying the idea of ships that would spray droplets of saltwater into
the atmosphere, making cloud cover thicker and whiter, thus reflecting
more sunlight back into space.
fuel-cell “freedom cars” while rejecting proposals to improve the
efficiency of today’s vehicles. One energy economist quipped, the
freedom car “is really about Bush’s freedom to do nothing about cars
today.”
Similarly, longtime climate skeptic Bjorn Lomborg claims that the
best, most cost-effective approach isn’t any of the policy proposals
on the table in the U.S. Congress or at the Copenhagen conference —
for instance, carbon taxes or a regime of cap-and-trade — but rather
one of the sunshade technologies that would boost the cooling capacity
of clouds by spraying saltwater into the air to stimulate the
formation of more cloud droplets.
If Lomborg and his allies in conservative think tanks tout such
technofixes as a better “solution” to the climate change, others such
as Crutzen and Ralph Cicerone, president of the National Academy of
Sciences, see it as an insurance policy in the event of full-blown
emergency. They advocate research to distinguish the merely risky
geoengineering schemes from the manifestly mad. It is hard to object
to a backup plan, especially as the world has not yet halted
emissions, much less embarked on the deep reductions that are
required.
Insurance, however, often has a perverse effect: The promise that
something will be there to bail you out if the worst happens
encourages imprudent behavior. The number of mountain rescues has
increased
The promise that something will bail you out if the worst happens
encourages imprudent behavior.
because hikers carry cell phones. The National Flood Insurance Program
for people living in coastal communities aimed to discourage
development in high-risk areas by providing subsidized insurance if
the local government agreed to guide development away from flood-prone
areas, but the program instead has increased development in these
danger zones. Similarly, geoengineering schemes foster the notion that
technology can rescue us from climate hell, if it comes to that, and
thereby discourages early, prudent action to head off the worst
danger.
The political hazards of deliberate planetary manipulation are as
formidable as the moral pitfalls. The technologies that scientists and
engineers regard as “insurance” to safeguard the human future may
precipitate new kinds of international conflict and the possibility of
an arms race in geoengineering technology.
If geoengineering becomes the chosen response, the obvious question
is, Who is going to make decisions that are truly global in scope, and
how? Who, if anyone, will be approving, overseeing, and policing any
use of geoengineering? If the time comes when the Earth needs a
sunshade, there must be a guarantee, once started, that it will
continue for centuries. If the monsoon fails following some
geoengineering effort, there must be some authority to mediate the
dispute about what caused it or compensate those who claim damages. As
Stanford climate scientist Stephen Schneider has suggested, such
claims are inevitable, so it would be unwise to do this without some
plan for “no-fault climate disaster insurance” to provide
compensation.
And how is it going to be possible to distinguish plain old bad
weather from climatological warfare? In a geoengineered world, a
catastrophic hurricane or devastating drought can generate suspicion,
paranoia, and conflict.
The problems of the planetary era clearly require some manner of
global governance, but our first attempts at this have failed
miserably. Gus Speth,
What happens if a single country opts for planetary manipulation
instead of reducing emissions?
the former dean of the Yale School of Forestry & Environmental Studies
and an early leader on global problems, describes the current state of
affairs bluntly: “The climate convention is not protecting climate,
the biodiversity convention is not protecting biodiversity, the
desertification convention is not preventing desertification, and even
the older and stronger Convention of the Law of the Sea is not
protecting fisheries.”
The planetary system binds us more tightly in a common destiny than
the economic system. No one will be secure in a world with runaway
warming. Yet governments that willingly concede some of their
sovereignty to promote economic expansion will not do the same to
protect planetary systems.
In the absence of some means to arrive at a collective decision and
provide oversight, all sorts of conflicts and tensions are almost
inevitable. What happens if a single country decides to opt for
planetary manipulation instead of reducing its emissions? What if
other countries object that the project is too risky? If it becomes
possible to scrub carbon dioxide from the air and reduce carbon
dioxide levels, the question of who gets to choose what kind of
climate we want and whether nations should pay to remove their share
of past emissions could spark serious disputes.
More from Yale e360
Geoengineering the Planet:
The Possibilities and Pitfalls
In an interview with Yale Environment 360, climate scientist Ken
Caldeira says the world needs to better understand which
geoengineering schemes might work and which are fantasy — or worse.
Pulling CO2 from the Air:
Promising Idea, Big Price Tag
Of the various geoengineering schemes being proposed, one approach —
extracting carbon dioxide from the atmosphere using “artificial trees”
— may have the most potential. But both questions and big hurdles
remain.
Until a shift in their rhetoric on climate change six months ago,
Russian leaders, for example, were inclined to an upbeat assessment of
the benefits of climate change and quick to claim land along with any
oil, gas, and minerals lying beneath the no-longer-icebound Arctic.
Even if their new-found concern about future warming proves genuine,
the Russians might balk at a plan to reduce carbon dioxide levels to
280 to 300 parts per million — a target that would return CO2 levels
to what is indisputably the safe range for the climate system. Climate
scientist Ken Caldeira judged that it isn’t far-fetched to imagine
“some kind of arms race of geoengineering where one country is trying
to cool the planet and another is trying to warm the planet.”
The greatest temptation is the naïve hope for a quick fix that will
spare us from the difficult challenges of cutting greenhouse gas
emissions or finding a way to live together on a shared planet. Even
if one of these geoengineering schemes does pan out, be assured that
it isn’t going to prove either simple or a “solution.”
POSTED ON 17 Dec 2009 IN
dianne dumanoski ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Dianne Dumanoski is an author and journalist who has reported on a
wide range of environmental and energy issues for four decades. As an
environmental reporter for The Boston Globe, she covered the effects
of ozone depletion, global warming, and the accelerating loss of
species. Her latest book is The End of the Long Summer: Why We Must
Remake Our Civilization to Survive on A Volatile Earth.
--
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.
