In 2010, Science Writer Eli Kintisch Called Geoengineering/Climate Engineering ‘a bad idea whose time has come’. Do I Agree? - Katie

Geoengineering - large-scale interventions in environmental systems designed to counteract climate change

The struggle to tackle global climate change is one of the defining issues of the 21st century. The overwhelming majority of scientists now recognise the link between anthropogenic changes to the global carbon cycle and a rise in global temperatures; in the words of the IPCC, “The problem of global warming is real and potentially very dangerous”. However, how to counteract or even reverse some of these changes is hotly disputed, not least as there is significant uncertainty around the likely magnitude of impacts associated with climate change which will in turn affect how much economic resource should be allocated to climate change prevention or mitigation. Most efforts thus far have focussed on reducing carbon dioxide emissions, culminating in the Paris accords of 2015. But many are sceptical that such a framework will ever yield sufficient success. Geoengineering thereforerepresents a potentially promising alternative solution whose ‘time has come’. However, theanswer is clearly not that simple due to the huge variety of methods encompassed withinthe term ‘geoengineering’, uncertainty around its side effects and costs, and concerns overunilateral implementation and effective global governance. In this, I will explore some of these debates.

Last year was the warmest since records began in the 19th century. With our global concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere reaching 400ppm, (as illustrated in the graph (IPCC, 2014)) we are precariously close to the “dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system” (United Nations , 1992), generally considered to be 450ppm.

The oceans are warming, glaciers and sea ice are melting with rising sea levels of up to 79cm by 2100 (Maslin, 2009), which increases flood risk. Reductions in biodiversity (IPCC, 2014) are anticipated and with the population rising, the threat of reduced food production looms. On the other hand, an antithetical projection suggests some benefits for the first degree of climate warming, such as increased agricultural productivity in temperate zones and increased rainfall in some arid areas. However, it is unlikely a net benefit from climate change will ever occur (Morton, 2015).

Despite these negative impacts, the threat appears to be getting more rather than less significant. Indeed, “cutting emissions will not be enough to keep global warming in check” (The Economist , 2017). Conventional methods, such as renewable energy have not been effective in mitigating the many feedback loops such as that shown below. Scientists have a lack of optimism about regulations passed by the US and international community, being enough to curb carbon dioxide emissions (Kintisch, 2010). There are also concerns about the political will to use these methods. With Trump pulling out of the Paris climate agreement, the Earth is likely to reach more dangerous levels of warming sooner, which could result in up to 3 billion tonnes of extra CO2 in the air a year (Mythili Sampathkumar, 2017). The Trump administration are keen advocates for geoengineering, potentially using it as an excuse to reduce the focus on curbing emissions (Lukacs, 2017).

Figure 1 - Positive feedback loop illustrating the effect of increased greenhouse gases in the atmosphere 

The Paris Climate Agreement in 2015 calls for the global temperature not to rise more than 2oC above its pre-industrial level, meaning worldwide emissions must hit “net zero” by 2090. To achieve this, more carbon must be removed from the atmosphere than is emitted. Sweden, for example, have pledged they will have “no net emissions” by 2045. By adhering to a “carbon budget”, utilising natural carbon sinks and/or geoengineering (The Economist , 2017). However, even if we cut all greenhouse gas emissions tomorrow, we would still experience further warming as the gases remain in the atmosphere for centuries (Robinson, 2010). Therefore, geoengineering in some form is becoming increasingly inevitable.

To assess the extent to which this is true, it is important to understand that there are two distinct categories the various methods fall into. The first is Solar Radiation Management, reflecting sunlight back into space before it reaches the earth and the second being Carbon dioxide removal, attempting to remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere (Oxford Geoengineering Programme, 2018). Both have completely different ethical, risk, governance and cost issues (Robock, 2011). In general, SRM methods are fast-acting and could be used now. They are relatively cheap, but involve greater risks with huge consequences, such as altering the chemistry of our atmosphere. CDR methods on the other hand, are less risky, but much more expensive, slow to act and harder to implement on a large scale (Wikipedia, 2018). I shall look in depth at two examples of each technique and evaluate the others in a diagram.

Aerosol spraying involves reflective sulphur particles being released into the stratosphere which then reflect the sun’s rays, having a cooling effect, mimicking the process of volcaniceruptions. This method could be used to bring down the temperature in places such as Antarctica. Pierrehumbert modelled the effects of quadrupling the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, injecting aerosol spraying once a year to induce the cooling effect. He found that suddenly ceasing the spraying would cause a 14oF temperature increase in the tropics over three decades (Kintisch, 2010). Also, the effects of aerosol injections in the Northern hemisphere would cause devastating droughts in sub-Saharan Africa because the regional jet stream would get stronger and shift towards its respective pole, (Geib, 2018) creating a winner-loser scenario. To deploy this method effectively demands global consensus. A major disadvantage of this method is that it does not combat ocean acidification (Black, 2009). The spacecraft needed would cost $1 trillion, (Maslin, 2009) and there are further unknown risks, for example, if the particles shifted position, coalesce, or were to come back down to earth (Science in Society, 2012).

Another SRM method involves the enhancement of marine cloud albedo via controlled sea salt injections. The water droplets evaporate, leaving behind salt crystals, reflecting solar radiation. Furthermore, the crystals form condensation nuclei, which increase overall marine cloud coverage, reflecting even more solar radiation. This could geoengineer this feedback loop.

Figure 2 - feedback loop showing effects of decreasing albedo

A CDR method that has been trialled is ocean fertilisation with iron, causing a boom in phytoplankton, which respire and absorb CO2, taking this with them to the ocean floor when they die. It is relatively cheap and relies on existing fertilisation technology. However, concerns about the long-term impact on ecosystems include decomposing phytoplankton attracting bacteria. On a large scale, this could use up all the oxygen surrounding it, creating a “dead zone” and killing living organisms. Also, there are uncertainties as to whether the carbon is released again as the phytoplankton die, or released through respiration of the zooplankton that eat them. In the largest experiment, (Lohafex, 2009) hopes surrounding this method were diminished as 40 tonnes of iron sulfate produced no significant extra plankton growth (Black, 2012). The amount of iron required is huge (Maslin, 2009).

The second CDR method is capturing carbon from power plants and can be seen in Sleipner in Norway where they pump the CO2 released into porous and permeable reservoir rock. So far there are only 17 carbon capture and storage (CCS) programmes big enough to dispose of 1m tonnes of carbon a year. But put with bioenergy generation (BECCS), the two produce negative emissions. Unfortunately, to introduce this technology on a global industrial scale is extremely expensive. The second most feasible technology is direct air capture, according to Jennifer Wilcox of the Colorado school of Mines and machines to suck CO2 directly from the atmosphere are being built. However, extraction costs are above $600 per tonne, compared with $60-250 for BECCS (The Economist , 2017). There also comes particular difficulty with this as CO2 makes up less than 0.04% of air, the extraction of which requires immense energy. To create this energy cheaply may entail burning fossil fuels. Furthermore, tens of millions of these machines will be needed to deal with US emissions alone, (Maslin, 2009) making the scalability immensely problematic.

Scientists are constantly thinking of new ideas. For example, Switzerland is now wrapping glaciers in blankets to stop them melting by reflecting sunlight. Others includes refreezing glaciers by blowing artificial snow across their surface, building underwater structures to prop up ice sheets (Zoe Schlanger, 2018) and zapping clouds with lasers (Conover, 2016).

Figure 3 - Blankets on glaciers. Source – World Economic Forum

In the diagram below, I have evaluated the different geoengineering techniques. None ofthem are “very good” and 10/14 are “bad” or “very bad.” However, it does illustrate that afew of the methods could be viable.

Figure 5 – My evaluation of the geoengineering techniques

Even though geoengineering is still predominantly in the research phase with only small - scale field tests, its potential to affect our planet and society on a global scale demands we consider concerns that it is a bad idea very carefully. What we need to ask is, are the risks very large or different to those of global warming? These risks can be seen from environmental, economic, social, political and ethical perspectives.

Firstly, environmental concerns are extremely complex and question whether we would be creating more problems than we are trying to solve. These unintentional side-effects to geophysical processes, the environment and ecosystems include altering the chemistry of our atmosphere and oceans, continued ocean acidification, effects on plants, further depletion of the ozone layer and changes to rainfall. Economically, the technical feasibility of many of the techniques question whether they could be cost effective. It is hard to create a market for these, unlike solar panels for instance.

Socially, if natural surroundings and weather patterns are altered, so will the lives and livelihoods that are dependent upon them. Many people may suffer harm which could be irreversible. Also, the effects would not be uniform and it would be difficult to restrict them to certain regions or communities. Ethical considerations question whether we have a right to interfere with the planet, who makes the decisions and receives the benefits and impacts.

The political implications surrounding the topic are difficult to resolve. Universally, there is a lack of agreed regulations and geoengineering would undoubtedly cause global conflict. What is clear is that any modification to the atmosphere is going to have global consequences and for that reason global governance is vital (University of Oxford, UCL, University of Sussex , 2014). A single nation could act unilaterally for their own self-interest having huge consequences- some of the most avid promoters have links to the fossil fuel industries.

Ever since humans first set foot on the planet, we have been altering the Earth’s naturalsystems through processes such as creating fire, farming, deforestation, industrialisation and urbanisation. In fact, global warming is already the result of climate modification – it was just unintentional. Therefore, ethically we do not need to question our power and right to geoengineer the planet, when we have changed it drastically already. We now have the technology to try to put things right for future generations and the MEDCs responsible for a disproportionate amount of carbon emissions have a duty to do so. Slowing climate change would ultimately save lives and therefore must be a higher priority. Although the risks and uncertainty of many of the methods render them to be bad ideas, in light of climate change predictions, I would argue that, instead of being “a bad idea whose time has come”, geoengineering is a necessary idea whose time has come. Yes, we would need to proceed with caution, however, in principle if some of these geoengineering techniques work without creating adverse effects that would do more harm than the projected effects of climate change, then in essence, I do not believe it is a bad idea – we just need to select the right methods. Largely, removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere is a good idea, whereas blocking the sun is not. Some of the techniques without harmful side-effects, such as planting forests, can be implemented now, although the problem is that no one method is perfect. So far, mitigation, whilst technologically feasible, has not been achieved for political, economic, environmental and social reasons. I think the key to the debate is to further our knowledge and research in preparation for a time when climate change could potentially become self-perpetuating if unknown physical, chemical or ecological processes were to come into the equation (Beard, 2018). Secondly, is the much harder task of trying to unifythe world’s political perspectives and objectives on the issue. That way, we may have a chance of averting such a catastrophic situation. Prevention is better than cure – a combination of effectively curbing emissions and introducing some geoengineering now could avoid being forced to use some of the more radical measures and cures in the future.“Man’s a nuisance, man’s a crackpot, but only man can hit the jackpot.” Only we can solve our own problems (Doerr, 1976).

Bibliography

Beard, S., 2018. Geoengineering Is A Very, Very Bad Idea - But Here's Why We May Have To Do It Anyway. HuffPost.

Black, R., 2009. Plan B for Planet Earth. BBC News.

Black, R., 2012. Climate ocean tech fix 'can work' research suggests. BBC News.

Conover, E., 2016. Zapping clouds with lasers could alter Earth's climate. ScienceNewsforStudents.

Doerr, A. H., 1976. The bounds of earth. The Rotarian.

Geib, C., 2018. Our Climate Is Changing Rapidly. It's Time to Talk About Geoengineering.Futurism.

IPCC, 2007. s.l.: s.n.

IPCC, 2014. Climate Change 2014 Synthesis Report, Copenhagen, Denmark: IPCC.

J.R.G. Evans, e. a., 2010. Can oceanic foams limit global warming?. Climate Research , Volume 42, p. 5.

Kintisch, E., 2010. Hack the Planet: Science's Best Hope - or Worst Nightmare - for Averting Climate Catastrophe. Chichester, United Kingdom : Turner Publishing Company .

Lukacs, M., 2017. Trump presidency 'opens door' to planet-hacking geoengineer experiments. The Guardian .

Maslin, M., 2009. Global Warming A Very Short Introduction. New York: Oxford University Press.

Morton, O., 2015. The Planet Remade. s.l.:Princeton University Press.

Mythili Sampathkumar, A. W., 2017. Donald Trump confirms withdrawal from Paris Agreement on climate change in huge blow for global deal. The Independent .

Oxford Geoengineering Programme, 2018. What is Geoengineering?. [Online].

Robinson, E., 2010. Eli Kintisch on Geoengineering and 'Jumping the Shark'. Earth Institute.Robock, A., 2011. Bubble, bubble, toil and trouble. Climatic Change , 105(3-4), p. 3.

Royal Geographical Society with IBG, 2015-2016. 21st Century Challenges. [Online].

Science in Society, 2012. Unintended Hazards of Geoengineering. Science in Society Archive .The Economist , 2017. Sucking up carbon: Greenhouse gases must be scrubbed from the air.The Economist.

United Nations , 1992. United Nations Framework Convention On Climate Change, s.l.: s.n. University of Oxford, UCL, University of Sussex , 2014. Geoengineering Governance Research.[Online].

Wikipedia, 2018. Climate engineering. [Online].

Zoe Schlanger, Q., 2018. Swiss residents are wrapping glaciers in blankets to keep them from melting. World Economic Forum .