http://mattcrossman.me/2013/09/13/let-me-break-it-down-geoengineering/
A major figure in the scientific field made a suprising call this week. The Astronomer Royal, Lord Rees appealed for urgent research into geoengineering solutions to the growing carbon emissions problem, in case other efforts fail. I can easily understand how you might arrive at such a recommendation. The UN-lead international effort to get countries to agree on cutting emissions voluntarily has stalled in a major way. Unlike the international treaty to cut CFCs and protect the Ozone layer, the carbon emissions / climate change problem is much more complex, disproportionately affects the developing world, and can only be addressed through pretty expensive, along term solutions. Flip all three of those factors on their head and you know why the Montreal Protocol on CFCs was so effective.The major debates in the UNFCC surround the notion of ‘intra-generational equity’ – that is, fairness within this generation in apportioning the effort in dealing with climate change. Developing countries have rightfully protested at developed countries calling for scaled back development, since the developed countries have already benefitted from the unregulated consumption of fossil fuel reserves in order to boost the scale of their economies to unprecedented and unexpected levels. It’s easy to take a look at the failure to agree a successor to Kyoto, look at the creeping rise of carbon emissions into dangerous levels, and panic. It’s easy to give up, and suggest a plan B, an alternative to global coordinated action to decarbonise energy and develop truly sustainable economies. So what’s the ‘solution’ if we can’t get the political will behind efforts to combat climate change, making effective cuts and decarbonising electricity? Geoengineering. That is, tinkering with the earth’s physical processes in such a way as drastically affect carbon concentrations in the atmosphere, or reflect solar energy back into space. Seeding clouds, triggering algal blooms in the ocean, construction of giant carbon scrubbers – the kind of giant fantastical engineering projects seen only in science fiction.Why is this a problem? Let me break it down for you: 1. It’s really hard No, really. It’s going to be incredibly hard to achieve, not without an absolute guarantee that there won’t be unforeseen consequences.One of the reasons action on climate change has stalled is due to the poor public understanding of science and the highly complicated analysis of the global climate needed to underpin any policy action. That is, modelling the climate and the way it might change is very complex and controversial. Making long term projections leaves you open to the critique of the climate denier.The IPCC is probably the most cautious scientific body that has ever existed. We are as near to certain that human activity is causing climate change, but we are far from certain on its specific effects. That’s because climate modelling is incredibly hard.So what hope do the geoengineers have of recommending a series of globally implemented fixes that fully understand the dynamics of the earth’s climate, in such a way that they will remove carbon and reduce global warming, maintaining the precise conditions for life enjoyed by this planet for millennia? And let’s not forget – if we mess this up, we have no second chance. We will have to be sure that any geoengineering fix would not have any unexpected consequences or system level effects.The ideas seem nice in isolation – human beings have solve problems using tools since the dawn of time, and so it appeals to us. But let’s say we took it seriously. We can’t even get planning permissions for wind turbines sorted; how will we get planning consent from entire nations, when we can’t be sure of the risks and the rewards? A mass adoption of geoengineering will waste even more precious time. 2: It’s not a solution Well, at least, it’s not a solution once you really understand the nature of the problem. Geoengineering recommends expending our very limited resources and political will on agreeing very complicated trans-national structures which will solve the short term effects of climate change – but enable society and industry to carry on exactly as we know it.Climate change isn’t a ‘problem’ – it’s a symptom of an unsustainable economic model fuelled by a once-in-a-generation glut of cheap energy. Excess carbon emissions are but one consequence of our unsustainable lifestyles. The problem is man seeing himself as ‘master’ of the environment rather than ‘part of’ the environment. Geoengineering confirms us in our role as ‘masters’ rather than living pieces of the ecosystem.One of the great advances in recent centuries has been the specialisation of knowledge in the areas of science, engineering and the like. But the danger with specialisation is that we have a cognitive bias towards our own field; an engineering tends to see the world in engineering terms; a financier in financial terms. With huge overarching problems like unsustainable development, we need a contribution from all areas of human knowledge if we are to make effective interventions. Engineering and geology have looked at the problem and diagnosed it as excess carbon, which they will build gadgets to remove and store. It might work in the short term, but it won’t solve the underlying problem of our unsustainable lifestyles.If geoengineering solved the climate crisis – and it only has a slim chance of doing so – we’d still be scuppered. The Davos Economic Forum have issued a list of risks to global growth, and climate is but one of the environmental challenges. Deforestation, water scarcity, biodiversity loss and desertification all feature. If we managed to install vast solar mirrors and succeeded in reducing global temperatures to manageable levels, we would still have a rising concentration of carbon in the atmosphere, which would be absorbed by the oceans, leading to acidification and disruption of the oceanic ecosystem.Geoengineering our way out of the climate crisis would be a temporary fix. Changing the very nature of our economies, and they way in which we interact with the environment, would address them all.In the words of Jamais Cascio, cofounder of the website worldchanging.com. “If you find yourself in a hole, the first step is to stop digging. But stopping digging isn’t going to get you out of your hole.” 3. It’s a political nightmare As mentioned above, the major feature of the international efforts on climate change has been the dynamic between rich and poor countries. That won’t go away if we decide to adopt geoengineering. Who will pay for the technology? It creates no immediate economic benefit, and hence will be subject to the same vagaries and uncertainties that all green technology is currently subject to. It will need massive subsidies, and massive investment. There is an opportunity cost to all this – spending trillions on solar shields may be desirable, but you could easily foresee funding being cut in the next recession. Ordinary people won’t vote for it; environmentalism is already at a low ebb. What politician could possibly be electable on a massive geoengineering platform – essentially a massive public works effort? That’s before we even try and parse the international politics and apportioning of costs. Will China pay for its emission, but what of the countries near them who will get the benefit of their efforts? How will we actually do this, when the climate is a global systems caused by state level action? Have we really exhausted every option to create the political and policy environment we need to try and cut carbon and move to a green economy? And is it worth abandoning the process at this stage, just to face all the same problems again in a different guise as we attempt to apportion responsibility for executing a global geoengineering plan? There’s a huge amount more to be said on this issue, but I hope these three big points help shape your thinking. Maybe there is some role for limited geoengineering whilst serious efforts to address rising emissions go on, but we have a chance to redefine humanity’s relationship with the environment, and ensure a sustainable future for the next generation. Geoengineering looks like realism, but sells us well short of a genuine solution to the sustainability problem. -- 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.
