It’s time for the US to study geoengineering

Can we mimic volcanoes and cool the earth?

Geoengineering — deliberate, planetary-scale efforts to counter the impact of climate change — is so controversial that a high-powered 18-member Washington task force that spent almost two years studying the idea couldn’t decide what to call it.

Most want to rename it “climate remediation.” A few want to stick with geoengineering. But all agreed that, whatever you call it, the U.S. government should begin “a coordinated federal research program to explore the potential effectiveness, feasibility, and consequences of climate remediation technologies.”

In a 33-page report released today in Washington, the task force of the Bipartisan Policy Center emphasized that climate remediation is not a substitute for managing the risks of climate change through mitigation (i.e., reducing emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, most of them generated by burning fossil fuels). It also says that no geoengineering technology is ready for deployment.

But, the group said, it’s imperative that governments, scientists and engineers learn more about geoengineering because the risks of climate change are increasing.

Mitigation measures currently being considered, regardless of their pace of efficacy, will not be able to return atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations to pre-industrial levels for centuries…

Although we do not know exactly how much the climate will change or how fast, globally disruptive or even catastrophic results are possible…Global climate change could unfold in ways that would be very difficult to manage

In plain language: what we’re doing (or not doing) now to deal with climate change isn’t working, and the consequences of those failures are likely to be disastrous.

“I’m not sure we would have had a consensus recommendation on research if mitigation efforts were going great guns,” said Stephen Rademaker, co-chair of the task force and a former assistant secretary of state during the Bush II administration.

Indeed, the report points to a number of climate impacts — threats to food supply, threats to water supply, lost of Arctic ice which could accelerate the rise in global temperatures or the massive releases of CO2 and methane from the Arctic — that, if they occur, would create the kind of global emergency that, without warning, could put the idea of geoengineering front and center.

“We’re being driven by a fear of climate change that is real and palpable,” said Jane Long, a climate and energy expert from the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and co-chair of the panel.

“We don’t know when the climate may tip,” said Richard Elliot Benedick, a former ambassador and chief U.S. negotiator for the 1987 Montreal protocol to protect the ozone layer. “Nature does not give us an early warning system.”

Other members of the BPC task force included natural scientists, social scientists, policy experts, environmentalists (Steve Hamburg of Environmental Defense Fund and David Goldston of NRDC) as well several leading researchers into geoengineering (David Keith of Harvard and the University of Calgary, Ken Caldeira of the Carnegie Institution at Stanford and Granger Morgan of Carnegie Mellon).

As regular readers of this blog know, I’m fascinated by geoengineering. [See Suck It Up: an unorthodox climate solution and Is Geoengineering Ready for Prime Time?] I’ve got a story coming out soon in Fortune on technologies to capture CO2 from the air, and I’m writing a short e-book on the topic as well. Broadly speaking, there are two major categories of climate remediation: carbon dioxide removal (CDR) technologies that are aimed at removing CO2  from the atmosphere and solar radiation management (SRM) technologies that are designed to block the sun’s rays from hitting the earth, by, for example, seeding marine clouds or introducing very fine particles into the stratosphere to deflect radiation. The idea of SRM is based on natural processes; when Mount Pinatubo erupted in 1991, injecting 20 million tons of SO2 into the atmosphere, global temperatures cooled by nearly 1 degree F over the next 15 months.

The technology, policy and ethical issues raised by geoengineering are vexing. If you are at all interested, I’d recommend you read the report, which is available for download here.  It follows reports from the British Royal Academy of Sciences and the Government Accountability Office recommending geoengineering research.

No one, of course, is enthusiastic about the idea of deliberating messing with the earth’s atmospheric.

As the report says:

Most climate remediation concepts proposed to date involve some combination of risks, financial costs, and/or physical limitations that make them inappropriate to pursue except as complementary or emergency measures—for example, if the climate system reaches a “tipping point” and swift remedial action is required.

“If (climate remediation) is a very bad idea, the sooner we know that and take if off the table, the better off we’ll be,” said economist Thomas Schelling, a task force member.

But, task force members said, the technologies need to be better understood, if only so that the U.S. can respond to their deployment by others. Sovereign nations or even wealthy individuals, at least in theory could try geoengineering.

“Other countries or even the private sector might take steps, and we have no way of knowing what the impacts would be,” said the NRDC’s Goldston.

Whether the government will listen to the panel’s report and study geoengineering is, of course, very much unknown. The costs of research would be modest but, as Goldston noted, this “isn’t exactly a time of government largesse.”

The topic is also controversial. Just this week, a small scale British experiment to test the ability of a one-kilometer hose to spray water droplets into the air was postponed because of opposition from nonprofit groups, notably a Canadian organization called the ETC Group hat opposes geoengineering.

The task force’s debate over what to call the technologies arose, in part, from the belief that “geoengineering” implies, in a hubristic way, that humans can engineering manipulate and manage the planet. A majority preferred the term “climate remediation” to focus the conversation back on climate — which is, in the end, what geoengineering is all about.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Comments

  1. That’s an amazing photo!

    With regards to geo-engineering, it almost seems reminiscent of altering humans’ DNA – the sheer power of such a project, due to the way that it changes nature itself, means it is both incredibly exciting, but also quite terrifying. Thanks for writing this.

  2. “technologies to capture CO2 from the air”
    I ask myself whether this isn’t like rescuing the child that already fell in the well…

    Shouldn’t be start a few steps earlier to rescue our environment? Shouldn’t we start by thinking of environmental sustainability to reduce the CO2 emission so that we don’t need any technologies capturing CO2 from the air?!

    Many movies like “the day after tomorrow” illustrated in a more Hollywood-way how the nature will strike back if we don’t keep our environment clean.
    Therefore in my opinion it’s time for the US to think about ways to reduce the CO2 emission. A good start could be by producing cars which need less gasoline and to force companies to introduce sustainability management into their daily business.

  3. In the Americans had (very) little intelligence, they would start by taking measures to change they way of life and reduce their compulsive consumption. I am sorry, but it looks to me extremely stupid to deliberately pollute and destro the planet, and then expect that frankenscience will fix everything !!
    GD

  4. Marc. I recently ventured into a geoengineering blog article myself, but I have to admit that my position is closer to that the last two commenters. I think that geoengineering is a thin hope that we can do the wrong thing (altering the earth’s biosphere) correctly after spending years of doing it poorly. To think that we can have any real idea of the ramifications of tinkering with the climate on a global scale strikes me as misdirected and incredibly dangerous. We can’t predict weather patterns accurately more than ten days out yet we would want to try to influence the weather indefinitely and think we can foresee all of the results?

    My biggest beef with the concept is that it embraces the heavy-handed mentality that nature is a force to be guided and that we have finally arrived at a level of near-omniscient perspective to have decoded the earth’s systems, leaving us in the fortunate position to be able to slip behind the wheel and steer the climate in a better direction. There are already a list of possible negative side effects to things like addition iron to the oceans or spreading sulfates into the atmosphere, but the bigger problems are the effects that we wont know about until they’ve happened.

    I also don’t really consider CDR/CRM techniques as part of “geoegineering.” Planting trees that we’ve already lost, painting roofs light colors, or planting green roofs aren’t really in the same league as trying to manipulate ecosystems in unnatural or uncharted ways for which we have little idea of what eventual side effects could be.

    In the end, I agree that if the possible effects of climate change are potentially cataclysmic enough to justify the research of a geoengineering panic button then that’s all the more reason to point to our current efforts at sustainability and how much they fall short. If the problem is that severe then our society should be exhausting other options (that are much easier and right in front of us) rather than trailblazing into the unknown of climate manipulation.

  5. Tyler, I agree with you that geoengineering as it is traditionally understood (solar radiation management, ocean fertilization) is a very risky business. It also doesn’t get to the core of the climate problem, which is rising CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere. It may have to be deployed in an emergency; let’s all hope to.

    But I do think that CDR (carbon dioxide removal) is different and more benign, whether we are talking about “natural” approaches (planting trees) or chemical ones. [See my blogpost, The Business of Cooling the Planet, here http://bit.ly/mP9Iyl ] Until we start to talk about storing vast amounts of CO2, carbon dioxide removal poses risks similar to local power plants or other big infrastructure projects, I think.

    Of course we should be mitigating CO2 now. Of course that’s the best option. But that, alas, is not what we are doing. To the contrary, the risks of a climate emergency grow everyday and we need to be clear headed about that unhappy fact.

  6. Geoengineering “Technologies”
    – Because using already existing natural cardon-dioxide absorbing processes would be too much effort. (read: plants)

Speak Your Mind

*