Climate Change and Geoengineering Your initial response should be at least 250 words. How do Western cultural norms help define our relationship to nature, including our stewardship over the earth? ...

Climate Change and Geoengineering

Your initial response should be at least 250 words.

How do Western cultural norms help define our relationship to nature, including our stewardship over the earth?

With this relationship in mind, discuss geoengineering and its role in controlling climate change. What are the ethical and social dilemmas that come with geoengineering? Do you believe that this is the most effective or even appropriate route to take in the face of climate change? What other alternatives do humans have?

GeoenGineerinG the Climate: the SoCial and ethiCal impliCationS by AdAm Corner And niCk Pidgeon “The acceptability of geoengineering will be determined as much by social, legal, and political issues as by scientific and technical factors”1 Preventing dangerous Climate Change Anthropogenic climate change is now a global political priority, and governments across theworld are de- vising policies aimed at mitigating greenhousegasemissionsfromhuman activities.Thisupsurgeinpoliticalac- tivity reflects the increasing scientific consensus that the effect of unmiti- gated climate change for human and non-human systems will be over- whelmingly negative.2 The effects of acceleratedclimaticchangearealready being observed at the polar ice caps.3 With the United Nations negotiations in December 2009 in Copenhagen a focal point for policymakers every- where,discussionnolongercenterson whether climate change should be tackled,buthow. Typically,policiesareaimedatpre- ventingwhatthe1992UnitedNations Framework Convention on Climate Change(UNFCCC)referredtoasdan- gerousanthropogenicinterferencewith theclimatesystem.Althoughthereare significantdifficultiesindefiningwhat constitutes “dangerous” climate change,4astronginternationalconsen- sushasemergedthatsaysthatprevent- ing a rise in global temperatures of more than two degreesCelsius above pre-industrialrevolutionlevelsiscriti- cal(correspondingtoalevelofcarbon dioxide in theatmosphereofapproxi- mately450partspermillion).Beyond thislevel,feedbackloopsintheclimate system become increasingly likely— and the threat of relatively rapid and catastrophic changes becomes signifi- cantlygreater. Unfortunately, the increasing atten- tion paid tomitigating dangerous cli- matechangehasnotpreventedacon- tinuing rise in global greenhouse gas emissions. In fact, emissions are in- creasing more rapidly than even the worst case scenario modeled by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change(IPCC),andpredictionsabout the likelyeffectsof anthropogenic in- fluence on the climate have become increasinglysevere.5Theglobalpopu- lationcontinuestorise(particularlyin emergingeconomiessuchasChinaand India),alongwiththeper-capitaemis- sionsofmanymillionsofpeople. Itremainstobeseenwhetherglobal temperatures will exceed the two-de- grees limit. But some anthropogenic climate change has already occurred (global temperatures have risen by around0.74degreesCelsiusinthelast 100years)andbecauseoftheinertiain theclimatesystem,afurtherwarming ofapproximately0.6degreesCelsiusis inevitable.6 Thus, the window for ef- fectivelymitigating against a two-de- greerise inglobal temperatures isex- tremely narrow, and many prominent members of the climate science com- munityhavebeguntoquestionwhether preventing a rise in global tempera- tures of this magnitude (or even greater)ispossibleusingexistingmiti- gationapproaches.7Scientistsandpoli- cymakersareincreasinglyaskingwhat willhappenifthetwo-degrees“guard- rail” is breached, particularly if tem- peratureincreasesinexcessoftwode- grees lead to positive feedback loops and furtheraccelerateclimatechange. Areexistingmitigationandadaptation policiesenoughtopreventcatastrophic changesintheclimatefromoccurring? In this context, geoengineering the earth’sclimatehasstartedtobeconsid- ered as a serious candidate for both mitigatingagainstandadaptingtodan- gerousclimatechange. geoengineering Geoengineeringreferstotheintentional manipulation of the earth’s climate to counteract anthropogenic climate changeoritswarmingeffects.8Mostof the technology implicated in geoengi- neeringproposalshasyet tobedevel- oped,letalonefieldtested.Somegeo- engineeringproposalsmayyetturnout to be littlemore than imaginative sci- ence fiction—fornow,geoengineering is at a pre-research and development phase, with no major research initia- tivesyetundertaken.Butgeoengineer- ing is beginning to be taken seriously byscientistsaroundtheworld, includ- ingtheAmericanMeteorologicalSoci- etyandtheUK’sRoyalSociety.9 In themost comprehensive review ofgeoengineeringsciencetodate,the Royal Society identified two distinct approaches: carbon dioxide removal (CDR)techniques,whichremoveCO2 fromtheatmosphere,andsolarradia- tion management (SRM) techniques, which reflect a small percentage of the sun’s light and heat back into space.10CDRtechniquesincludepro- posals to imitate trees’ sequestration of carbon dioxide from the atmo- spherebyusinggiant chemicalvents to“scrub”theatmosphere(analogous to the carbon capture and storage techniquescurrentlybeingdeveloped for use on coal-fired power stations) and plans to “fertilize” the oceans by usingparticlesofironsulphatetostim- ulatealgalblooms (whichabsorbcar- bondioxide).Althoughnot strictly an engineeringintervention,majorglobal reforestationcouldalsobeviewedasa long-term method for CDR. By con- trast,SRMtechniquesincludesugges- tions for the placement of trillions of tiny “sunshades” in orbit around the earth to deflect a percentage of solar radiation,andtheenhancementofma- rinecloudalbedousingparticlesofsea salt to deflect sunlight. (See Sidebar, “Proposed Approaches to Geoengi- neering”forfurthertechnicaldetailon geoengineeringproposals.) TheRoyalSocietyreportincludeda preliminaryassessmentofthetechnical feasibilityandsafetyofspecificgeoen- gineeringproposals.Theuncertainties are considerable, and the potential risksvaryenormouslyacrossdifferent proposals—from concerns that SRM techniques would do nothing to pre- vent ocean acidification to fears that ocean fertilization techniques would have unpredictable (and undesirable) ecologicalsideeffects.Moregenerally, therearesignificantconcernsaboutthe maskingeffectsof somegeoengineer- ing approaches. In particular, SRM techniquesdonotaddresstheunderly- ingcausesofclimatechange(i.e., the build up of greenhouse gases), and were such a program to unexpectedly fail, a rapid acceleration of warming mightthenensue.Figure1(reproduced from theRoyal Society report) repre- sents an initial attempt to evaluate a numberofgeoengineering techniques. Accordingto theSociety’sanalysis, it is clear that there is substantial varia- tionintheestimatesofthecost,effec- tiveness, timeliness, and risk of puta- tivegeoengineeringapproaches.Akey considerationisthatmanyoftherisks ofgeoengineeringareatpresenthighly 26 EnvironmEnt WWW.EnvironmEntmAGAZinE.orG voLUmE 52 nUmBEr 1 JAnUAry/FEBrUAry 201o WWW.EnvironmEntmAGAZinE.orG EnvironmEnt 27 uncertain (effectively “unknown un- knowns”), making them particularly difficult to analyze through conven- tionalriskassessmenttechniques. TheRoyalSocietyemphasizedthat noneofthecurrentproposalsforgeo- engineering should currently be con- sideredasacceptablepolicyresponses to climate change. However, despite distancing itself from the application of geoengineering techniques, the RoyalSocietyrecommendedthat£10 million be invested annually into re- search on their technical feasibility and safetyover thenext10years (in theUK).Asaresult,theUKResearch Councilsplan tospend£3millionon some preliminary research from late 2010onward.Thus,despitetheobvi- ouswarinesswithwhichgeoengineer- ing proposals are treated by some members of the scientific commu- nity,11 research into the technicalfea- sibilityandphysicalrisksofgeoengi- neeringispoisedtobegin. The considerable uncertainty sur- roundinggeoengineering isofcourse notconfinedtoquestionsoftechnical risk and feasibility. The prospect of coordinated and large-scale attempts toengineertheclimateraisesahostof challenging legal, ethical, and social questions.Oneofthekeyrecommen- dations in the Royal Society report was that a process of dialogue and engagement to explore public and civil society attitudes, concerns, and uncertainties about geoengineering shouldbegin immediately. In thefol- lowing section, we identify some of the social and ethical questions that geoengineering proposals may raise. We then identify some methods by whichpublicresponsestotheseques- tions might be elicited. Finally, and echoing the Royal Society’s senti- ments, we suggest that beginning a processoflegitimateandparticipative public engagement is essential for policymakers who are considering proposals for geoengineering the cli- mate.Asanissuepotentiallyaffecting citizens of countries around the globe—both richandpoor—dialogue about theprospectofengineeringthe earth’sclimateshouldnotbeconfined totechnicalorpoliticalelites,norfor that matter solely to the citizens of industrializedWesternnations. The Royal Society has identified two broad types of geo-engineering proposals. Carbon dioxide removal (CDR) techniques remove CO2 from the atmosphere, while solar radiation management (SRM) techniques reflect a small percentage of the sun’s light and heat back into space. CDR TeChniques Chemical air capture and carbon sequestration: there are a number of proposals to imitate trees’ sequestration of carbon dioxide from the atmo- sphere by using giant chemical vents to “scrub” the atmosphere. more conventional carbon capture and storage (CCS) techniques are currently being developed for use on coal-fired power stations. ocean fertilization: plans to “fertilize” the oceans by using particles of iron to stimulate algal blooms (which absorb carbon dioxide) have already attracted interest from commercial investors, but small scale experiments have thus far been unsuccessful. Biomass/biochar/biomass with carbon sequestration (BeCS): the use of biofuels as a substitute for fossil fuels might not seem to qualify as geoengineering, but the mass harvesting and sequestration of biomass would constitute a major climatic intervention. enhanced weathering: adding silicate materials to soil would enhance weathering processes which naturally sequester Co2, while increasing the levels of alkalinity in the ocean would have a similar effect. afforestation: large-scale ecosystem management at a local and global level could provide significant increases in carbon sinks such as forests. While few undesirable side effects would be expected, carbon stored in vegetation is not securely sequestered in the long term. sRM TeChniques Space-based reflectors: the placement of a fleet of artificial “sunshades” in orbit around the earth would deflect solar radiation. one suggestion is that a swarm of around 10 trillion extremely thin discs could be launched into space in stacks of a million, once every minute, for about 30 years. Stratospheric aerosols: Sulphate particles blasted into the strato- sphere would deflect sunlight. Based on the model of a volcano, rapid reductions could be achieved in earth-bound solar radiation, but there are serious concerns over unintended effects on the stratospheric ozone. enhanced surface albedo: human settlements could be made more reflective by painting them white, more reflective crop varieties and grass- land could be planted, and deserts could be covered with highly reflective materials. enhanced cloud albedo: the whitening of oceanic clouds could be achieved by spraying salt-rich sea water into the sky—sometimes referred to as “cloud seeding.” Proposed Approaches to Geoengineering The Social and ethical implications of geoengineering intentional Manipulation of the Global Climate Perhaps themost fundamental ques- tion that geoengineering raises is whethertheintentionalmanipulationof the global climate is ethically accept- able.On theonehand, fewwoulddis- agree that a global temperature rise of three or four degrees (or even higher) willhavecatastrophicconsequencesfor bothpeopleandecosystems,providing an ethical imperative for action if all otheroptionsarelikelytofail.Thereis also a long history of anthropogenic manipulation or modification of many of the Earth’s systems (not just the globalclimate).12Itisclearthathumans have the capacity to geoengineer and have done so intentionally on a small scale and unintentionally on a large scaleonmanypreviousoccasions:An- thropogenic interference in the global climate is precisely the problem that geoengineeringisdesignedtosolve. But the intentional large scale ma- nipulationoftheclimatehasnotprevi- ously been attempted. Thus, it is the intentionality of geoengineering pro- posalsthatdemarcatesthemfrompre- viousanthropogenicinterferenceinthe global climate. This asymmetry be- tweenintendedandunintendedactsis clearly observed in law (most legal systemsdistinguishcrimesonthebasis of intentionality),medicalethics(pas- sivevs.activeeuthanasia),andmilitary conduct(theintentionalkillingofcivil- iansvs.“collateraldamage”ofwar).13 Some commentators have argued thatthefactthathumanshavealready causedclimaticchangeispreciselythe reason why an intentional effort to undo it should not be initiated.14 On thisview,theunintendedconsequences of current human interference in the climate systemare apowerful indica- tion that “meddling” with the global climate is inadvisable. Proponents of geoengineeringcounterthatevennon- geoengineering attempts at mitigation constitute intentional interference in the climate—as efforts to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions of human activity are aimed at slowing down (and ultimately reversing) global warming.15But as several decades of riskresearchhaveestablished,people’s perceptionsoftherisksassociatedwith science and technology are filtered through social and cultural lenses.16 Thismeansthat theprospectof large- scaletechnologicalmanipulationofthe atmosphere is likely to produce radi- callydifferentresponsesfromdifferent membersofthepublic.Peoplewithop- posing cultural worldviews tend to perceiverisksandbenefitsverydiffer- ently.17Whilesomemayfindthepros- pectoflarge-scaleengineeringprojects worrisome,otherswillviewprograms aimed at changing their consumption 28 EnvironmEnt WWW.EnvironmEntmAGAZinE.orG voLUmE 52 nUmBEr 1 Figure reproduced with full permission from the royal Society. Geoengineering the Climate: Science, Governance and Uncertainty (Science policy Centre report 10/09, 2009, p. 49). each of the geoengineering techniques is described in the Sidebar, “proposed approaches to Geoengineering.” an additional dimension on which geoengineering techniques vary is reversibility. While increasing urban surface albedo could quickly be undone, reversing ocean fertilization programs would be more difficult. the degree to which any particular geoengineeing tech- nique could be halted and reversed might be a critical determinant of how people perceive them. Figure 1. a preliminary evaluation of geoengineering techniques reviewed by the royal Society (2009) JAnUAry/FEBrUAry 201o WWW.EnvironmEntmAGAZinE.orG EnvironmEnt 29 iS to C k p h o to /m a r o S m a r k o v iC Some scientists have proposed carbon dioxide removal systems to address pollutants emitted by refineries such as this one. morally unacceptable. While mitiga- tion through behavior change—for someclosertoanideaof“socialengi- neering”—and geoengineering may both technically constitute intentional interference with the climate, people areunlikelytoseethecommonality.18 Consent If agreementwere tobe reached that climate modification was a techni- callyviableandpoliticallyacceptable option, whose agreement would be sought? In the industrialized nations, thedemocratization (orotherwise)of science and technology is a topic of continuing interest.As the large aca- demic literature on how to engage people with science demonstrates, how and whytoinvolvethepublicin decisionsabouttheappropriatenessor acceptability of novel scientific and technologicaldevelopmentscontinues to generate debate.19 The U.S. Na- tional Research Council (in common withmanyothers)hasarguedthatitis beneficialforexpertsandpolicymak- ers to involve citizens in discussion aboutthesocietalaspectsofemerging areas of science, technology, and the environment using appropriate ana- lytic-deliberativeprocessesattheear- liestpossiblestage.20Theprospectof controlling the global thermostat is something that all citizenscould rea- sonably claim to