http://www.worldwatch.org/node/13296

The Promises and Perils of Geoengineering

Worldwatch Institute examines the potential consequences of using
geoengineering as a climate quick fix.

Simon Nicholson is an Assistant Professor at American University AUGUST 7,
2013

Geoengineering, by definition, is any deliberate large-scale manipulation
of the planetary environment to counteract human-caused climate change. As
the planet continues to warm, the potential solutions offered by
geoengineering are tempting, and several serious projects are actively
being pursued. In the latest edition of State of the World 2013: Is
Sustainability Still Possible? I examine the pros and cons of such an
approach to responding to climate change.The technological prospects for
geoengineering are vast, and fall into two main camps:

Solar Radiation Management (SRM), a tactic that aims to reflect solar
radiation back into space so that it is not absorbed by the atmosphere. The
intent is to counteract heat-trapping gases by scattering or deflecting
some percentage of incoming solar radiation by, for instance, streaming
sulfate particles into the stratosphere or launching sunshades into space.

Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR), an approach that involves drawing large
amounts of carbon out of the atmosphere, and storing it where it won’t
cause future harm. Land-based ideas have included carbon dioxide scrubbers
that would pull large quantities of carbon dioxide straight from the air,
or growing forms of biomass and then reducing it to charcoal, which can be
buried. Ocean-based ideas mostly involve the cultivation of plankton, which
take in carbon from the atmosphere and bring it to the bottom of the ocean
with them when they die.SRM strategies are receiving the bulk of the
attention. It is hard to see a CDR scheme coming online quickly enough or
being deployed at a large enough scale to make a real dent in the
atmospheric carbon load. Yet solar radiation management is not any kind of
real answer to climate change.At best, SRM can reduce the planet’s fever
for a period. Talk of geoengineering is gaining traction because it has the
appearance of an easy, sacrifice-free approach to tackling climate change.
It is critically important to recognize that there are sacrifices, some
obvious and some harder to spot, associated with the bulk of geoengineering
schemes.In my chapter, “The Promises and Perils of Geoengineering,” I
outline some of the consequences that may arise if geoengineering is
pursued:

Climate Catastrophes:The most obvious concern is the potential for causing
catastrophic and irreparable damage. Even with computer models and endless
calculations, there are still potential unforeseen problems that may occur
with any such large-scale plan, due to our still limited understanding of
the world’s climate system.

Political Dilemmas:Large-scale climate engineering may curtail the will to
develop other forms of climate-protecting actions. If changes in the
climate affect various parts of the world, the question of who ought to
control the thermostat also raises issues. Less influential countries may
be left to suffer as world powers dictate climate behavior to their
advantage. Militaries may be able to start using the weather as their
greatest weapon of mass destruction.

Rogue Actors:In October 2012, an American took a ship off the shore of
Canada and dumped about 100 tons of iron sulfates into the Pacific Ocean,
in hopes of creating a carbon sink. As threats about rising temperatures
increase, it is possible that more individuals and organizations will risk
taking the climate’s condition into their own hands.

With outlined principles and public decision making, however,
geoengineering does have the potential to become one method to battle
climate change. Some scientists have suggested a “soft-geoengineering”
approach, in which changes we make are still widespread, but are reversible
and predictable. Examples include painting roofs white to reflect sunlight,
or building up carbon in soil and vegetation.The need is for a middle
ground, not geoengineering as a techno-fix but rather geoengineering as one
small part of an effort to steer the world to a state of rightness and
fitness in ecological and social terms.

Worldwatch’s State of the World 2013, released in April 2013, addresses how
sustainability should be measured, how we can attain it, and how we can
prepare if we fall short.

For more information, visit www.sustainabilitypossible.org.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


Reply via email to