http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/21798-what-is-climate-geoengineering-word-games-in-the-ongoing-debates-over-a-definition
What Is Climate Geoengineering? Word Games in the Ongoing Debates Over a
Definition
Wednesday, 12 February 2014 09:23By Rachel Smolker,
Climate geoengineering advocates have long argued over how to actually
define the term "geoengineering." The precise details of that definition
are important for various reasons, not the least of which is that it will
determine what likely is to be subjected to the scrutiny and potentially
complex and difficult legal governance processes that such a global scale
climate-tweak effort would necessarily involve.Already, as of 2010, the
Convention on Biological Diversity, a treaty that 193 UN member countries
(all other than the Holy See, Andorra and the United States) have ratified,
adopted a de-facto moratorium on climate geoengineering in 2010. That was
based in part on previous deliberations and decisions on one particular
form of geoengineering, ocean iron fertilization, which also is regulated
under theLondon Convention. Those decisions were negotiated and agreed in
painstaking process, with each word and its implications carefully weighed
in the balance.1 Obviously, there is much need to specify exactly what is
geoengineering and, thus, subject to the moratorium or any other legal
ruling.For most people, it seems intuitively clear that, for example,
spewing sulphate aerosols into the atmosphere - a technology in the
category of "solar radiation management" (SRM) clearly would be considered
"geoengineering." We would not consider doing that for any other reason or
intent - there are known anticipated serious risks and dangers, etc.
Already, as of 2010, the Convention on Biological Diversity, a treaty that
193 UN member countries (all other than the Holy See, Andorra and the
United States) have ratified, adopted a de-facto moratorium on climate
geoengineering in 2010.
But the distinction is much less clear for other technologies. For example,
bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS), large scale
afforestation/reforestation, or biochar - these approaches mostly involve
using plant biomass and "biosequestration" and fall into the category of
carbon dioxide removal (CDR) technologies. They differ in that these
technologies also are discussed under the framework of mitigation and
adaptation - promoted as beneficial even at smaller scales (arguably). Many
view these as less risky and more easily scalable approaches. Scale, Intent
and PerceptionDefinition debates have swirled around the importance
of scale. For example, planting a few hectares of trees might not be
considered geoengineering by most people, but planting a million hectares
perhaps would. Especially if those involved vast monocultures of trees
genetically engineered and planted specifically to store carbon (for
example). Yet if those same million hectares were replanted to restore
native forests, most would not consider that geoengineering.Debates also
have swirled around the issue of "intention": Is the intent to reduce
global greenhouse gas concentrations? Or something else, say offsetting
emissions from a facility or an industrial sector or some other source of
emissions. Would agroecological farming methods be geoengineering if the
farmer is motivated by his understanding of carbon sequestration, but not
if his intent were simply to produce decent food? How can "intent" be
determined accurately?Some goengineering advocates have argued the
terminology is meaningless because we humans have long been intentionally
altering the global atmosphere, so why come up with a new term? This
argument falls along the lines that we already have messed things up so
badly that we shouldn't get into a fuss over whether to engage in something
that seems potentially likely to mess them up more.Others, such as James
Fleming (author of Fixing the Sky: The Checkered History of Weather and
Climate Control"), argue that requiring "intent" as a condition of the
definition is slippery because there are plenty of "non climate" reasons
that could be used to argue for the use of some geoengineering technologies
(military, food security, etc). There are, as well, technologies that
involve global-scale "tweaks," but to non-climate systems (e.g.
manipulation of nitrogen or water cycles).2The definition debates also have
swirled around making climate geoengineering sound more appealing to a
public that is clearly repulsed by the idea. That repulsion was articulated
humorously by Stephen Colbert in his recent interview with David Keith, and
again by Al Gore, who referred to it as "insane, utterly mad and
delusional," and yet again by a recent survey study that concluded in an
understated manner; "overall public evaluation of climate engineering
is negative."Aware of these poor ratings, the term "soft geoengineering"
was introduced by the conservative American Enterprise Institute. It
states: "In environmental issues, even more than most public policy
questions, perception matters. That is why 'soft' geoengineering techniques
- less ambitious, less disruptive, and less threatening approaches - are
important; they get people used to the basic concepts of geoengineering
without scaring them. And in so doing, they expand the scope of the climate
policy discussion in important ways."Winning over public acceptance
matters, and terminology is key: precisely why we need to be wary and
monitor these word games.No ConsensusVirtually every major meeting on the
topic of climate geoengineering, it seems, has dedicated time to grappling
with the definition. The Royal Society defined geoengineering as "the
deliberate and large scale intervention in the Earth's climatic system with
the aim of reducing global warming." That definition was adopted by others,
for example, including the US Government Accountability Office 2011
report. At the Asilomar conference in 2010, the term "climate intervention"
was offered up as a more palatable term than geoengineering. The Bipartisan
Policy Center then offered up "climate remediation," defined as
"intentional actions taken to counter the climate effects of past
greenhouse gas emissions to the atmosphere" (mitigation referring to
actions to reduce future emissions). About this, Jeff Goodell (quoted by
Joe Romm) states: "The phrase 'climate remediation' is almost as bad as the
phrase 'clean coal.' In both cases, it's a phrase that reeks of spin and
marketing. And while I can understand why Big Coal wants to push it, I
think it was a mistake for this panel to choose this phrase. The idea, of
course, is to make geoengineering - or, if you must, climate engineering -
sound gentle and comforting. It is not gentle and comforting, it is a big,
complex, morally fraught and dangerous idea, and attempts to disguise this
with cuddly language are just going to backfire."The Solar Radiation
Management Governance Initiative (SRMGI) offers that "SRM" could just as
well refer to "sunlight reflection methods." Certainly far more
cuddly.3Informally, some very hopeful advocates of geoengineering have even
argued that the term "ecological restoration" should be used instead of
"climate geoengineering."
Implementation of some technologies would immediately and directly, or
eventually and indirectly, very likely have transboundary effects. And then
we can ask: were they intended or unintended? How can that be known?
The 2012 IPCC Working Group 1 report described geoengineering in the
glossary as follows: "Geoengineering refers to a broad set of methods and
technologies that aim to deliberately alter the climate system in order to
alleviate the impacts of climate change. Most, but not all, methods seek to
either (a) reduce the amount of absorbed solar energy in the climate system
(Solar Radiation Management) or (b) increase net carbon sinks from the
atmosphere at a scale sufficiently large to alter climate (Carbon Dioxide
Removal). Scale and intent are of central importance. Two key
characteristics of geoengineering methods of particular concern are that
they use or affect the climate system (e.g., atmosphere, land or ocean)
globally or regionally and/or could have substantive unintended effects
that cross national boundaries. Geoengineering is different from weather
modification and ecological engineering, but the boundary can be fuzzy."It
is notable that it mentions "unintended effects that cross national
boundaries" and "use or affect the climate system globally or regionally."
Including terminology regarding transboundary effects is both sensible and
nonsensical. On the one hand, it highlights the fact that some approaches
are likely to have differential impacts in different regions, raising the
potential for quite serious geopolitical concerns and divergent interests.
At the same time, the global atmosphere knows no boundaries, even if
international laws do.Implementation of some technologies likely would have
immediate and direct, or eventual and direct transboundary effects. And
then we can ask: Were they intended or unintended? How can that be known?
What will the sociopolitical ramifications be? As Jim Thomas from ETC
Group points out, this condition regarding transboundary impacts could lead
to a case where fertilizing Lake Baikal would not be geoengineering, but
fertilizing Lake Malawi would be.A "thought experiment" here is useful:
What if Canada decided to engage in very large-scale biochar or BECCS
program, in the process wreaking havoc on their forests and biodiversity.
Most international law would not consider that a transboundary concern - as
they currently do not consider Canada's high rate of deforestation to be
any sort of treaty violation. Yet Canada could be considered to be in
breach of the Convention on Biological Diversity geoengineering moratorium,
because that is, in fact, conditional on biodiversity impacts.
The risks associated with underground "storage" of CO2 are enormous and
much of the captured CO2 so far has not been "stored" but rather used for
"enhanced oil recovery."
What About Weather?Regarding the issue of weather modification, IPCC
correctly indicates the boundaries are fuzzy. A history of research and
practice on weather modification already exists, derived in part from
military research and development where the ability to stimulate rainfall
in particular was found useful to hindering opposing forces in the Vietnam
War. Startling and disturbing though it may be, one can today simply google
"Weather Modification Incorporated" and find commercial services available
("When most people look up they see clouds. We see potential"). The weather
modification industry has its own association and a dedicated journal. Most
of its attention is focused on cloud seeding; ETC Group has included it in
its rundown of geoengineering technologies - and Fleming similarly supports
its inclusion. If weather modification is geoengineering, then we already
are engaged. Even now it is becoming a last resort for regions such as the
western United States, where drought conditions are severe and
worsening.BECCS is among the technologies perhaps most awkwardly poised in
debates. IPCC has been a proponent of BECCS, although it does not
necessarily - or consistently - identify it as geoengineering. The IPCC
special report on renewable energy (2011) claims "Bioenergy technologies
coupled with CCS substantially could increase the role of biomass-based GHG
mitigation if the geological technologies of CCS can be developed,
demonstrated and verified to maintain the stored CO2 over time. These
technologies may become a cost-effective indirect mitigation, for instance,
through offsets of emission sources that are expensive to mitigate
directly." They continue to incorporate BECCS into their scenario models
with curious and undue confidence in its effectiveness. This in spite of
the fact that there has been very little real-world experience with BECCS,
and that the underlying assumptions regarding climate impacts of
large-scale biomass technologies have been challenged very soundly (i.e.
emissions and other effects from vastly increased demand for wood/crops are
likely to be very large, and the assumption that regrowth will reabsorb
those emissions is simply unfounded). Furthermore, the risks associated
with underground "storage" of CO2 are enormous, and much of the captured
CO2 so far has not been "stored" but rather used for "enhanced oil
recovery." How BECCS is treated in the soon-to be-released Working Group 3
report remains to be seen, but it is likely BECCS will feature in scenario
modeling, as if viable.Under the Convention on Biological Diversity, Carbon
Capture and Storage (CCS) specifically was excluded (under pressure from
Norway and in spite of resistance from some parties, including
Bolivia).4 But large-scale bioenergy is not. Hence the conditions of the de
facto moratorium would apply to biodiversity impacts associated with
supplying biomass but not those associated with geological carbon
storage.Seeing the ForestsMany debates over the definition of climate
geoengineering have stalled over the topic of afforestation and
reforestation. Some prefer that these remain entirely and forever outside
the definition, being situated in the realm of forestry and land-use
practices unrelated to geoengineering. Others argue that those should in
fact be defined as geoengineering if they are at a very large scale and
done specifically with the intent to store carbon. And it has been argued
that including the term "technology" in the definition is key. Doing so
would at least create some basis for differentiating between, say, a forest
restoration project where native species are replanted and an industrial
monoculture of genetically engineered trees.
Their aim is to water down the definition and thus dampen resistance to the
entire suite of technologies, i.e. they hope that people would not oppose
even the most risky geoengineering approaches if, by association that would
also mean opposing, say, afforestation and reforestation.
For the more enthusiastic advocates of biosequestration carbon dioxide
removal (CDR) technologies, there appears to be mixed feelings as to
whether these are best situated within or outside of the definition of
geoengineering. On the one hand, some would like to see their pet
biosequestration approaches supported and scaled up to global proportions,
as any attempt to influence global atmospheric greenhouse gas
concentrations clearly would require. But, at the same time, they do not
want to be associated with the bad press that other proposed geoengineering
technologies - such as "spewing sulphuric acid into the atmosphere" - have
garnered. They are concerned that such negative association will tarnish
and hinder their vision for large-scale biosequestration technology
development.And yet others appear to have just the reverse logic - arguing
for a hugely inclusive definition to include any approach promoted for
sequestering carbon - not just "technological interventions" but even
agroecological farming and ecosystem restoration and regeneration. Their
aim is to water down the definition and thus dampen resistance to the
entire suite of technologies, i.e. they hope that people would not oppose
even the most risky geoengineering approaches if, by association, that
would also mean opposing, say, afforestation and reforestation.Now a number
of recent initiatives have taken up yet another new terminology, "negative
emissions technologies" (Oxford Geoengineering Institute, Stanford
University Global Climate and Energy Program, Friends of the Earth England,
Wales and Northern Ireland and others). Featured approaches are, once
again, BECCS and biochar along with some other technologies. According to a
review by FOE England, Wales and Northern Ireland, they are "one family of
geoengineering techniques that are in general safer and more controllable
than the other family of geoengineering technologies, solar radiation
management." Once again, it seems the goal is to separate CDR from SRM -
the bad from the ugly?Recently Ken Caldeira, a central figure in virtually
all of the definition debates, suggested yet another new definition:
"Geoengineering refers to activites intended to modify climate that have de
minimis effect on an international commons or across international borders
through environmental mechanisms other than an intended reduction of excess
anthropogenic aerosol or greenhouse gas concentrations." The insertion of
"de minimis" effects is of course very tricky given that such a
determination is so subjective. Caldeira specifically indicates that his
intention is to get BECCS and direct air capture, which he considers to
bear "no novel risks," separated from the other approaches.The debates over
definitions of geoengineering have gone on and on ad infinitum, and remain
contentious. But what has become clear is that boundaries are fuzzy, terms
are vague, the implications of different definitions are uncertain and -
most importantly - motives run the gamut. As the recent debacle with Russ
George's ocean fertilization experiment in Haida, British Colombia,
illustrates, geoengineering by another name is ... salmon restoration? By
referring to his iron fertilization experiment as a "salmon restoration"
project, he managed to slip it past the radar of two international
moratoria.There are various agendas at play and potential for trickery in
this game of defining, labeling and "messaging" about climate
geoengineering. The current direction seems to be toward labeling some CDR
approaches such as BECCS and biochar, large-scale afforestation and
reforestation, etc. as "soft" and more benign - slipping back and forth
seamlessly between discussions of mitigation and climate geoengineering and
serving as a means to soften public perception of climate geoengineering as
a whole. Our job will be to recognize those for what they are: Like other
approaches to geoengineering, they are dangerously risky and unfounded
technologies with the potential to cause massive ecosystem degradation and
land/water/resource grabs. Meanwhile, we know many real, proven and
workable solutions that make common sense: halt deforestation, transition
to agroecological farming, reduce the gross overconsumption of resources by
the wealthy, stop drilling, mining, extracting and burning fossil and bio
fuels - just to name a few. Building the political will and public support
for those is challenging, but the only real pathway to a liveable future.
--
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.
