We are gearing up to go with geoengineering when we haven't even given mitigation a chance.
On Mon, Nov 2, 2020 at 9:58 AM Andrew Lockley <[email protected]> wrote: > > https://legal-planet.org/2020/10/30/geoengineering-ready-for-its-close-up/ > > GEOENGINEERING > Geoengineering: Ready for its Close-up? > After long being marginalized in climate debates, geoengineering is > experiencing a surge in attention — which carries both opportunities and > risks. > If you’re a long-time Legal Planet reader, you may have noticed that I > weigh in once a year or so to say that geoengineering – active engineered > response to global climate change – is going to get prominent, and > intensely contentious, soon. > > Geoengineering? Before continuing, we need a brief aside about names. Even > what to call it is contested and shifting. In addition to geoengineering, > people call it climate engineering, climate remediation, more recently > climate intervention. They argue about whether it’s all one thing, or > whether various methods and approaches are so different that they should > have different names and not be discussed together. The names are certainly > important for debate framing, and for shaping public and political > response, but they don’t change the substantive issues and arguing over > what to call this stuff has become tiresome. So for this post, I’m going to > call it “Norma.” (If this confuses you, check the classic Billy Wilder > film, “Sunset Boulevard.”) > > Norma is intentional modification of the environment at large scale – > large meaning continental to global – to reduce the climate change and > other harms done by elevated atmospheric greenhouse gases. Norma comes in > two main types, interventions that remove CO2 or other greenhouse-gases > from the atmosphere (“Carbon dioxide removal” or CDR – for this post, > “Removal Norma”), and interventions that change the energy balance of the > Earth, mainly by scattering an additional percent or so of incoming > sunlight to make the Earth a little brighter (“Solar geoengineering,” solar > radiation management, solar radiation modification—for this post, “Solar > Norma”). The most prominent form of Solar Norma would spray mists of > reflective aerosols in the upper atmosphere, “stratospheric aerosol > injection” (SAI). “Carbon” and “Solar” are not necessarily the only > possible types of Norma. Others are occasionally proposed. > > For 15 years or so, Norma has been argued over by small groups of > scientists, climate-policy wonks, and activists, but has not received wide > attention. This changed a few years ago for Removal Norma (CDR), which has > gained a surge of attention and resources since 2015. The main trigger for > this came from the emissions scenarios produced to show ways of meeting the > Paris climate targets, limiting global-average heating to 1.5 to 2ºC. Most > of these required hundreds of billions of tons (GtCO2) of Removal Norma by > year 2100. Solar Norma might be much more effective than Removal Norma at > limiting climate risks – and act much faster – but has enjoyed no such rise > in attention or respectability. On the contrary, Solar Norma has faced > starkly inadequate research funding, determined opposition to even > innocuous proposals for small-scale field research, marginalized and biased > treatment in official assessments, and exclusion from climate scenarios. > The widespread reluctance to study or research it, even to better > characterize potential risks and limitations, has been widely likened to a > religious ban on study or discussion of heretical doctrine. > > Until now, that is. Over the past couple of months, Solar Norma is > everywhere. Research funding has started to flow (although still far short > of need), and research communities not formerly involved are starting to > pay attention. Stories about it are appearing every week in prominent, > respected publication outlets. Research and policy organizations are > staffing up. It finally hit me yesterday that this change is real, when > within a two-hour period both my teenaged sons sent me a link to a new > video on Norma their favorite cool-science-explained Youtube channel. (BTW, > the treatment of Norma in this video is excellent – it covers all the major > issues accurately and clearly, and is even-handed about the scariness, the > known problems and risks, and the reasons Norma still needs to be studied > and considered despite these.) > > So why is this happening now? Is it a good or a bad thing? And does it > suggest that other things about the debate over Norma have changed? > > One possible answer to the “why now” question is that it was bound to > happen eventually, and that it’s happening now is just a random event. The > familiar argument for increased research and governance attention to Solar > Norma remains valid, indeed grows stronger as time passes: > > Climate-change risks are severe, getting worse, and slow to deflect: > climate change is a train-wreck in slow-motion; > Deep cuts to the emissions that are driving the changes, moving the world > economy to non-carbon energy sources, is the first-priority response, > essential to limiting risks; > But we’ve known this for 30 years, during which world emissions kept > increasing except for a few flat years. With a few small exceptions, > emissions-cutting efforts have thus far achieved little; > At this point, even an extreme effort on emissions-cuts might not > adequately limit risks, given the late start and the uncertainties about > the rate and impacts of climate change; > Removal Norma will probably help a lot, but will take decades to grow to > the assumed Gt scale – and is not confidently known to work, with > acceptable impacts, at that scale. So by all means pursue it, hard, but > don’t bet the farm on it. > Solar Norma appears able to make bigger, faster changes to limit climate > risks – so while it presents many scary risks and hard problems of > governance and control (real problems, but potentially remediable), it may > be a necessary part of an effective climate risk-limitation strategy, > offering risk-reduction opportunities not available in other ways; > And finally, the foregoing is not a secret. So no matter how much you may > hate or fear Solar Norma, you can’t guarantee that some government(s) > facing severe climate impacts won’t try to use it. This strengthens the > case for understanding how it would work, what risks it would pose, and how > to govern it, even if the endpoint is to reject it. > With this all old news, the reason for the sudden spike in attention now > could simply be that understanding of this tough situation has percolated > to enough people to pass some critical scale. And like any issue dominated > by conformity and fear of speaking out, the first little crack in the wall > of silence leads quickly to the dam bursting. (Mix, mix, mix those > metaphors!) > > But my guess is that there is more going on. The politics and public > awareness of climate change are undergoing a broader transformation. The > volume of alarming news about changes and impacts already occurring, the > shifts in public opinion and elevation of alarm, have greatly strengthened > the case for – and raised the likelihood of – serious action to cut > emissions. The multiple announcements of new emissions commitments – > notably China’s recent adoption of a net-zero target by 2060 – have further > strengthened the sense of possibility on this front, as has the prospect of > a new US administration that would take strong climate action seriously. > > I speculate that all this movement toward getting serious about emissions > cuts – at last! – opens a window for a serious conversation about Norma, > including Solar Norma. Even a cursory examination of the extreme need for > emissions cuts, and the heavy lift involved in achieving them, has to raise > the question of how much can be achieved, how fast – and the severity of > remaining climate risks even under the most optimistic assumptions about > the ambition and effectiveness of mitigation. This line of reasoning > naturally directs inquiry to other, potentially additional approaches like > Norma. Moreover, the strongest objection to thinking about Norma has been > the risk that Norma may distract from, or undermine support for, the needed > deep emission cuts. This argument becomes less persuasive as public alarm > about climate change and support for emission-cutting policies grow > stronger. So Norma may really be ready for its close-up. > > Whether my speculation about the cause of the current surge of attention > to Norma is right or wrong, the existence of the surge is undeniable. So > what happens now? What is likely to happen, and what should happen? > > Part of the answer is obvious, and unchanged by the current surge of > attention. The first need is for a large expansion of research into > alternative methods, how they would work, and what impacts and risks they > would carry. Equally essential is starting the conversation about how to > research, develop, and control these technologies, how to assess and limit > their risks, how to fit them into an effective overall climate response > strategy. Most importantly, how can it be ensured that the development of > Norma does not impair, but rather strengthens, support for the other > essential elements of such a strategy, especially deep rapid cuts in world > emissions. The severity and novelty of Solar Norma’s governance challenges > cannot be over-stated, and if its use is ever to be considered it must be > with confidence that this can happen competently, prudently, and > legitimately. Whatever use is made of Solar Norma, if any, must advance – > and on all accounts not impair – effective overall management of climate > risks and global cooperation, development, and justice. This will be a tall > order for currently weakened international governance capacity, and the > exploration of how to achieve it needs to start immediately. > > This emergence of Solar Norma as something that can be discussed in decent > company is not without risks. Indeed, many of these risks are closely > related to the concerns long expressed about Solar Norma, but the rise in > attention means these previously hypothetical risks are becoming real. I’ll > discuss these in future posts, including ways that some recent pathologies > in debates about COVID and its responses illustrate ways things could go > badly wrong with more active consideration of Solar Norma. > > -- > 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 view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAJ3C-04WEBhTL-eF1pJ3ht-6_Mstxx52D%3D%2Bi2KHoKX-zfV-RKQ%40mail.gmail.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAJ3C-04WEBhTL-eF1pJ3ht-6_Mstxx52D%3D%2Bi2KHoKX-zfV-RKQ%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > -- 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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CA%2BsAiBS%2BDDa%3DT3pf%2BmcszWMYNnQuzdPzU1MNxg0r0%3DeZevdR4g%40mail.gmail.com.
