I think the characterisation of Germany's Energiewende as a regression
to fossil fuelled energy system is both cheap and wrong. Yes, they are
closing nuclear power stations, but they are also making a huge shift of
truly global significance to renewables and in the process creating a
model of how to do it, that other countries will surely follow. Coal
burning in the power sector has increased across Europe, but not because
of nuclear closures. The main reason is that coal prices are very low
(thanks in part to US switch to shale gas in power sector so much of
their coal is now exported) while the EUETS carbon price has collapsed.
Coal burning in Europe has increased to the detriment of much more
expensive gas.
I note that your paper is for African Academy of Sciences. Surely all
the more important for African audience to stress the importance of a
switch to renewable energy, solar in particular, especially as huge coal
burning projects in southern Africa are getting off the ground with
ruinous consequences for climate.
Oliver.
On 21/08/2013 22:31, Andrew Lockley wrote:
This is a draft article I wrote for the African Academy of Sciences.
I'd really appreciate any comments on it - before I irrecoverably
embarrass myself!
Thanks
A
-----------
Governance of Geoengineering – A personal view
Climate change is here to stay. That much is certain. Due to the
heat capacity of the oceans, we always feel the effect of emissions
past. Meanwhile, not only do emissions continue, but there’s still a
breakneck rush to build carbon-spewing plant and vehicles. This is
true not only in the developing world, but also in affluent countries
that are switching back to fossil – such as Germany, which has turned
against nuclear. So not only are we bracing ourselves for the climate
change that’s already in the mail, we’re also wilfully accelerating
the process.
But it gets worse. As emissions are cleaned up in the developing
world, the aerosol haze which mutes global warming will fade away –
exposing us to the full glare of a changing climate. Furthermore, we
are potentially exposed to major tipping points in the Earth’s climate
system, such as the postulated release of methane in the Arctic. Even
in the unlikely event that we manage to rapidly decarbonise the
economy, we may still find find that any intervention is too little,
too late.
As a technology, geoengineering – and specifically solar radiation
management - is also here to stay. We know we can do it. We know we
can do it fairly cheaply - certainly much more cheaply than rapid,
large-scale mitigation. We also know that it will work, albeit
imperfectly, in reducing the impacts of climate change. So what to do
with this terrifyingly powerful technology? We must bear in mind two
facts. Firstly, we are still emitting. Secondly, even if we stop
emitting there is at least a chance the climate is already in a
dangerously unstable state. Faced with a position like that, it’s
hard to argue that we shouldn’t at least explore geoengineering
technology. And we’d be exploring for a very good reason: committing
to NOT geoengineering is rapidly beginning to look like a very
dangerous idea indeed.
Beyond exploring, what could deployment actually look like? Well
here’s the problem: the real world is a messy, dirty place. We live
in a world which tolerates reckless emissions, and much more besides.
Protectionism, warfare, human rights abuses, genocide. These are all
ugly things that go on and the world tolerates them, to a greater or
lesser extent. We don’t have an effective global governance policy
for such things, although we do try sometimes. We have treaties,
which are optional. We have resolutions, which are ignored. We have
sanctions, which are ineffective. And we have bombs, which yield
highly unpredictable outcomes, and are more effective as a threat than
as an intervention. None of the above is terribly efficient at
getting people or countries to behave themselves. So why do we pretend
geoengineering will really be ‘governed’ by anything, or anyone?
My argument is that it won’t be governed at all. Or at least, there
isn’t any reason to assume that there will be a single, overall
framework of governance that delivers an effective policy – regardless
of whom that single, effective policy favours.
Could we not image a world where a chaotic muddle of overlapping and
competing geoengineering schemes exists? Take for example, a
situation where a power bloc determines a policy of minimal
intervention, but is overruled by a private carbon offset firm who
offer to ‘top up’ the intervention. This seems superficially
possible, if not necessarily plausible. Or perhaps a top up scheme
could be provided by a nation state looking to preserve its glaciers?
This top up could be provided in defiance of a state looking for a
‘light touch’ geoengineering scheme, which allows it to open up
formerly ice-bound oil fields. That scenario certainly seems viable.
Could we imagine a world where ‘smart’ geoengineering interventions
straddle the line between weather modification and climate control? A
world where city mayors try to control heatwaves, or steer hurricanes
away from their shores? We could surely imagine that agricultural
states would seek to manipulate rainstorms – as many already do. This
technology doesn’t even have to work to be deployed. Like a
modern-day raindance, anyone with a chequebook and a jet can try to
control the weather. What hope, therefore, for governance? And
should anyone care about the resulting mess?
There seems to be an implicit assumption in many places that effective
governance is ‘A Good Thing’. But most human activity is
self-organising chaos. Broadly speaking, despite our collective
inability to govern very much on an international level, the world
still muddles through. Most people have enough food, they enjoy at
least some access to international trade, and they usually don’t get
killed in their beds at night by foreign armies. It’s for these
reasons that the opposite attracts much hand-wringing and column
inches. War, death and famine make the news precisely because they’re
not the norm. Even in the poorer parts of the world, people get by.
Things are, in many ways, just about OK.
Is it not therefore possible, that we can have ‘OK’ geoengineering,
without an effective governance regime? That the broadly headless
system that puts food on our table and allows us to raise families
without too much interference could also be relied upon to keep our
climate stable?
This isn’t a utopian vision. It’s not some avant-garde political
nirvana. It’s just OK, just adequate. Just enough to function. And
it’s basically what we have. Through all the messes we have, when
human civilisation is considered in the round we are reasonably
effective at managing things, without much of a system to do so.
There is always a degree of pressure towards a broadly sensible norm
in most fields, and the same is true of geoengineering. The truly
rogue geoengineers will get shot down – perhaps literally, perhaps
figuratively. The dithering laggards will be overtaken by the braver
consensus. The rich and powerful will get their way a little too much,
but not so much that the poor will start flinging nuclear bombs at them.
We’ll geoengineer. And we won’t govern it very effectively. And it
will basically be OK.
--
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.
--
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.
