The neglected plan B to stop climate change
By Paul Mornon
2026, a vessel is sent through space to install the first human colony on Mars. The goal? Make the red planet a new earth, transforming it into a viable environment. The method? All technologies that can be classified under the label "Terraformation". Releasing water from the earth’s poles with nuclear explosions, creating an atmosphere with chemicals.
This is what Kim Stanley Robinson describes in the award-winning Mars Trilogy. This is pure science fiction. Your children will probably never hear about this in their lifetime. What you might hear about in the next years is ‘geo-engineering’: the idea of using science in order to ‘fix’ Earth. No to create a new home, but to save our planet.
In its last report from April 2014 – for the first time – the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) extensively mentions geo-engineering technologies as a potential tool in the fight against climate change. The recognized international organization, created by the United Nations (UN) in 1988 has received the Nobel Prize in 2007. Both scientists and policy-makers closely look at its reports. IPCC scientists are not working on the next sci-fi bestseller; they are analyzing the impact of real technologies.
The recurrent inability of political leaders to reach an agreement on climate change issues leaves the door open to many other solutions. No serious deals have been made over the past 20 years to reduce carbon emissions. Quite the opposite, geo-engineering technologies do not rely on some revolution in the lifestyle of billions of people or disruption for our modern society.
As the IPCC report highlights, they have the advantages of being relatively cheap and easy to implement at first sight and quick results would be expected. Yet nothing is happening – more surprisingly, research in the area is scarce. It misses clear international agreements, legal frames and public funding, with concerning consequences. Are all these technologies realistic tools or just weird projects from crazy scientists?
SRM, CDR, SAI… Anything to capture Carbon and reflect sunlight
What technologies are we talking about? Mainly Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) and Solar Radiation Management (SRM). Behind these two obscure names, two basic ideas: bury CO2 – the main greenhouse gas – and artificially reduce sunlight to cool down the planet.
CDR technologies offer to remove CO2 from the atmosphere and store it in land, ocean, natural reservoirs underground or even… trees! According to the IPCC “they represent a major component of the response strategy for climate change in the majority of scenarios in the literature.”
Afforestation basically means planting more trees. The ocean can be “fertilized” to increase marine food production that also needs CO2 to proliferate. Carbon can also be captured directly from the air using biological or chemical processes. In brief, there are many ways – more or less trustworthy and efficient – to remove CO2 from the atmosphere.
The other main technology called SRM aims to reduce the amount of sunlight reaching Earth’s surface. The idea comes from observing natural phenomenon. Studies showed that the eruption of Pinatubo in 1991 (Philippines) cooled down the region by an average of 0,5 degrees over a year and a half. By injecting aerosol into the stratosphere (SAI technology) one can imitate the impact of a volcanic episode.
A similar idea consists of increasing the density of clouds to reflect more sunlight. A project designed by two British scientists, John Latham (National Center for Atmospheric Research) and Stephen Salter (University of Edinburgh) offers to spray seawater with wind-powered catamarans in order to obtain whiter and denser marine clouds. They would reflect more the sun and therefore… cool down the planet.
Miraculous solution or time bomb?
Have you watched this south-Korean movie from last year called Snowpiercer? The scenario is pretty straightforward. Humankind almost disappears after a geo-engineering disaster. Willing to cool down the planet, scientists provoke a new ice age that kills nearly all life on earth. Not the best promotion for geo-engineering.
Environmental NGOs such as Greenpeace or Friends of the Earth are sending alarm signals to warn against numerous uncertainties, especially in the very case of solar management. Injecting aerosol in the stratosphere would not be without consequences. A team of scientists showed in 2013 a correlation between dramatic droughts in Sahel and volcanic eruptions in the northern hemisphere. They observed that the use of technologies releasing aerosols would have the exact same impact.
Such consequences would raise questions of responsibility. Who pays the externalities? Where is the viable exit option in case of disastrous impact? Who pushes the button for such interventions? Basically, who wins, who loses? In addition, blocking sunlight would have negative impacts on solar power facilities and it would not have any effect on other climate change consequences such as ocean acidification or other effects of elevated CO2 concentration.
But this should not necessarily disqualify geo-engineering technologies. They feature equal if not superior advantages. Former head of Microsoft technology department Nathan Myhrvold developed a plan involving the pumping and spraying of aerosol thanks to high-altitude balloons (Stratospheric Aerosol Injection). The cost? According to him, less than one billion dollars for the entire northern hemisphere. A ridiculously low sum comparing to expected cost of Obama’s carbon emission reduction project.
As opposed to mitigating effort – commitment to reduce emissions for instance – geo-engineering does not necessitate global political consensus to show results. But rather than replacing mitigation, it appears as a potential complement, a back-up strategy to ‘buy time’ or reduce the impact of climate change in the short term.
Moral dilemma and pragmatism
The biggest fear for anti-geo-engineering group is actually somewhere else: a theoretical yet understandable potential consequence. One could call it a ‘moral hazard’: this idea that reducing the impact of climate change through technology would knock down incentives to mitigate (e.g. renewable energies, reduction of CO2 emissions). If we can fight climate change with these new tools, why would we try to change our lifestyles?
Can we do everything to the earth? Can we play with climate as if humankind was the legitimate owner of the planet? Interestingly this is a question our science fiction author Robinson illustrates in his Mars trilogy. He opposed two visions of the terraformation project on Mars. On one side, some believe that it is humanity’s obligation to maintain and spread life in the universe at any cost. On the other side are those who consider that we cannot change the entire planet at our will. Transfer the debate to earth: the same issues arise.
Contrary to what some ecological groups assure, the last IPCC report takes into account these issues. What if no mitigation agreement is reached in the next years? The report suggests that in a critical situation “humanity could end up in a situation where deploying engineering, particularly SRM [solar radiation management], appears lesser evil than unmitigated climate change.”
In a certain extend, if one tries to broaden the definition, we are geo-engineering the planet when industry emits CO2 for instance. Why would our everyday life behavior be allowed and not geo-engineering? Instead of impacting accidentally and negatively the planet, couldn’t we implement active ways to fix the damages we are causing?
Emitting less CO2 costs a lot and would have limited result according to famous researcher Bjorn Lomborg, author of the Skeptical Environmentalist. He strongly criticizes the wrong framing of climate change problems. Rather than focusing on mitigating solutions – including reduction of CO2 emissions – the focus should be put on research and innovation in order to lower the price of green energies for instance. According to him, it is even very dangerous not to seriously consider geo-engineering as a potential short-term solution while we wait for renewable energies to take over.
No international agreement, no legal frame, no public funding… and then no research
We need more research on geo-engineering technology, we need international agreement to control these interesting but potentially dangerous methods, we need public funding and we need legal provisions.
Climate change debate deals with global public goods management. As well as the air we breathe, climate change is a global public good. Each country, each individual contributes to this state of affairs. Geo-engineering is also a public good and as such, it requires states to tackle the issues and international cooperation in order be addressed properly. In 2009-2010 the American government was asked for two billions dollars of grants for geo-engineering research but only released 0,5 percent of this sum.
The only clear mention of geo-engineering regulation in international law appears in the 2010 Convention on Biological Diversity. It invited all UN countries to ensure that no geo-engineering activities that may affect biodiversity takes place “until there is an adequate scientific basis on which to justify such activities and appropriate consideration of the associated risks […] with the exception of small scale scientific research.”
The conference more or less banned the research on geo-engineering with a very unclear declaration on this very specific question of biodiversity. Is it really the solution? Geo-engineering would probably impact biodiversity but isn’t global warming the biggest threat for it? What is small-scale research? It seems odd to ban research for potential tools to fight global warming in the name of preserving biodiversity! The precautionary principle appears here as a barrier to research on such a critical topic. When countries cannot agree on mitigation measures, it might be a mistake.
The lack of regulation impacts even ‘small scale scientific research’. In 2012, the Spice Project in England was supposed to test a Solar Radiation Management technology by injecting salty water in certain marine clouds in order to strengthen their brightness. Patents rivalry with other teams of scientists lead to the cancellation of a field trial, leaving scientists of the Spice Project without any arguments about the efficiency of the technology.
Why is research on geoengineering so important?
There is a major difference in advocating for geo-engineering and advocating for research in the area. Some authors have argued that large-scale experiments might make the full-deployment of the technology inevitable. This is very doubtful.
An extreme but somehow relevant analogy was made in an article of Time Magazine: “Imagine driving safety activists advocating closure of hospital emergency rooms, on the theory that if automobile drivers knew there were no means available following an accident […] they would proceed with greater attention and caution”. Research would, above all, give critical information to evaluate risks. Nowadays decision makers cannot take informed decisions.
The IPCC last report underlines that participants of different studies tend to prefer the most natural solutions (carbon capitation rather than solar reflection) and that media plays a crucial role in the vision of geo-engineering. First of all, research, and then communication on risks and advantages, appears to be essential in the future. This matter is too important for research to fall in the wrong hands. It needs to be done with public funding and monitoring but also socially controlled by the public.
A strategic sector that could fall into the wrong hands
This is already a strategic sector and if state funding is scarce, private companies understand very well the interests at stake. Where is the border between wishes to take over the failure of states and self-interested business?
Bill Gates and Richard Bronson are two of the most active private funders for geo-engineering companies and scientific research. Their private funds are granted to a small number of scientists who, as a consequence, have a monopoly on the topic.
David Keith from Harvard University is the head of Carbon Geo-engineering and sits on a number of panels, some from the UN, which discusses international rules and regulations regarding these technologies. Gates funds Keith’s research but also has shares in the company.
The conflict of interest is obvious but Keith assured The Guardian in a 2012 interview that "the best way to reduce [his] influence is to have more public research funds available, so that [their] funds are in the noise. If the federal government played the role it should in this area, there would be no need for money from Gates."
New markets in Russia, China or India understand well the potential of these technologies. One of the members of the IPCC panel was a former advisor of Vladimir Putin and conducted a large experiment of Solar Radiation Management in 2009, which was most likely violating the moratorium from the Biodiversity Convention. Russia has been accused by The Guardian last year of trying to put pressure on the IPCC for them to describe geo-engineering solution as a “potential solution” for global warming.
Eventually it is a vicious circle. The lack of public funds makes scientists depend on private support, which are doubtfully altruistic. These scientists are able to research the topic and therefore they have a very important voice, while conflicts of interests are often obvious. This makes geo-engineering technologies more and more denigrated. They depend on a few, hardly trustworthy people and represent huge commercial stakes.
Geo-engineering is not the solution to climate change. This is one potential complementary solution, a short-term back up. The most important issue to tackle is to gain enough time in order to develop more mitigating initiatives as underlined by the IPCC. Geo-engineering might be able to buy this time. The main problem today is the lack of transparency in a sector dominated by private funding and missing international regulation. Yet you might hear about the geo-engineering debate more and more in the coming years.
Paul Mornon is a French freelance journalist.
Photo credit to Joichi Ito via Creative Commons.
