Since the onset of the Anthropocene, the increasing power and innovative forces of mankind has led to commenced anthropogenic climate change. In response, geoengineering is a proposed method of counteracting such climate change.
Geoengineering is roughly defined, in a 2009 report by the Royal Society, as “the deliberate large-scale manipulation of the planetary environment to counteract anthropogenic climate change”. In the last thirty years, for the most part of discussion, geoengineering has had a widespread consensus as being the ‘evil’ of the possible approaches when it comes to adopting a response to climate change. Generally, most feel that mitigation of climate change is the only possible response we should deploy. This involves reducing greenhouse gas emissions and enhancing the sinks of greenhouse gases. In order to discuss geoengineering as a response to climate change. I shall primarily focus on Stephen Gardiner’s ‘Arm the Future Argument’ (henceforth ‘AFA’). I feel this is the most convincing argument for engagement into geoengineering. After that I will then explore what I consider to be the most problematic flaws with this argument. After focussing on these flaws, I will conclude that geoengineering should be further researched as a reserve should we ever need it since the AFA.
I shall begin by proposing a condensed form of the AFA:
(AFA1) Mitigation is the best response to climate change.
(AFA2) To date, there has been inadequate action to reduce emissions and this is unlikely to change.
(AFA3) If we do not responsibly reduce emissions, then we will soon face a choice between dangerous climate change, or engaging in geoengineering.
(AFA4) Both are bad options.
(AFA4) But geoengineering is a less bad option.
(AFA5) Therefore, if we are forced to choose, we should choose geoengineering.
(AFA6) However, should we not start serious scientific research on geoengineering, we will not have the above option to choose it should we face the above scenario.
(AFA7) Therefore, we should start researching geoengineering now.
Although Gardiner does not advocate for the AFA, with it he is contending the view that mitigation is not likely to be implemented at a sufficient enough scale for it to be deemed successful to prevent a climate catastrophe. Therefore, key to understanding AFA, research on pertinent factors surrounding geoengineering is understood in the likelihood that it would never be desirable to implement such a response.
To better understand the Gardiner’s AFA in support of geoengineering, we need to discuss the preliminary of (AFA1) and (AFA2).
At the Paris climate conference, December 2015, 195 countries adopted the first legally universal binding global climate deal in a bid to avoid a climate catastrophe, i.e. dangerous climate change. Governments agreed upon a long-term goal to keep average global climate temperatures well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels. In response, the more conventional policy to mitigate climate change, is necessary in order to achieve these climate goals. Much of its focus is on avoiding significant rise in climate temperatures and stabilising greenhouse gas levels. On the other hand, geoengineering is a technology considered as a response to present extreme climate change, rather than its avoidance. It might seem then to be ethically corrupt to choose geoengineering over mitigation, since avoiding a nightmare scenario is innately better than its occurrence. More so, it is completely clear that you cannot perfectly compensate for GHG emissions such as carbon dioxide in the atmosphere through geoengineering alone. The problematic concern for carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is two-fold; the most common is the greenhouse effect, but we also face progressive ocean acidification. The reflection of sunlight through SRM techniques fails to account for ocean acidification, so decrease in the pH of the earths oceans, if not tended to can have dramatic ecological impacts. Therefore, mitigation is clearly the only viable permanent solution in response to anthropogenic climate change, so (AFA1) holds – mitigation is the best response to climate change.
However, mitigation is often expensive and difficult to implement. As a result, efforts to lower greenhouse gas emissions is deemed unsuccessful and lacking at a sufficient scale to prevent further escalation of the problem. This can be seen between 1990 – 2005, global emissions saw an increase close to thirty percent. According to the climate scientist Paul Crutzen, we have little reason to be optimistic about future reductions of GHG emissions based on efforts thus far. It is a “pious wish”, he argues, to hope the world adequately changes their consumption in response to climate change. Stephen Gardiner provides what I think is the best explanation to the problem of inadequate action on mitigating climate change; ‘The Problem of Political Inertia’. The explanation, Gardiner phrases “the perfect moral storm”, is comprised of three challenges. Each of these challenges serve to justify (AFA2); inadequate actions to reduce emissions, so far, is unlikely to change.
Now, I shall address what I believe to be the two of three most compelling challenges Gardiner proposes: the Global challenge and the Intergenerational challenge.
First, the global challenge is based on a tragedy of the commons situation. Since the atmosphere is a shared but unregulated resource, a lack of governance on this type of ‘commons’, means people tend to act independently in accordance with their own self-interest regardless of the common good of everyone else. In context, this is often by spoiling the atmosphere with GHG emissions. Gardiner highlights an issue of ‘skewed vulnerabilities’. Although developed nations are responsible for the bulk of emissions, it is the lesser developed countries that are (in short-term) most vulnerable to the subsequent climate impacts. For example, cities lying in river deltas such as Dhaka, will soon be exposed to frequent flooding by 2070 due to rising sea levels if predictions remain. In extent, it is the more developed countries that are capable of bringing a solution to climate change due to their political prevalence. However, despite this skewed vulnerability, lesser developed nations fail to generate a moral response from the developed. Therefore, there is disproportionate action taken to mitigate the problem of climate change.
Second, we have the intergenerational challenge. Given that the lifetime of the major anthropogenic greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide, can typically remain in the atmosphere for up to 200 years, some 10-15% can persist for ten thousand years and the remaining for much longer. As a result, the full extent of the impact of a generations emissions will certainly not be realised in that lifetime. Such persistence of carbon dioxide raises ethically obligated questions. However, if a person can benefit from passing on the adverse impacts from their climate changing behaviour, then there is a tendency to do so. This can either creates morally impermissible passing of burdens direct from their actions to future generations.
In wake of these challenges, Geoengineering offers an alternative response that could resolve the issue of inertia in adopting a suitable approach. Proponents of geoengineering argue that it is extremely cost-effective. In order for a country to effectively reduce carbon emissions, it would mean having to introduce costly policy measures in addition to those already in place. Geoengineering offers a much cheaper alternative. The release of stratospheric aerosols is reportedly estimated to be around 1,000 times cheaper than the average cost of mitigation. Couple this with administratively simple deployment, this can easily incentivise governments to initiate in deployment with little economic consequences. More so, geoengineering does not require an international agreement like mitigation does, so theoretically speaking can be put in place by a single country or corporation alone. Essentially, one person can deploy it, whilst the rest of the world continues with their daily routine. This might help further overcome the issues of skewed vulnerabilities as found in the global challenge. For example, deployment of stratospheric aerosols over artic regions would create a positive cooling effect, dampening the impacts of sea-level rising to low-lying coastal areas or river deltas.
Prima facie, the AFA is strong and persuasive to an extent, better understood with additional context to (AFA1) and (AFA2). However, the AFA frames geoengineering under a single definition – a climate ‘emergency’. Then, as Gardiner highlights, in what exact circumstance would we situate ourselves to be in an emergency scenario. So, should this event come, a group of decision makers in order to deploy geoengineering, would need to know the following: “that the side effects of deployment… would be minor in relation to the harm prevented”. Therefore, we need to acknowledge the problems of geoengineering and if then these outweigh the dire impact of a climate catastrophe, would it be a suitable response to climate change – all things considered. These problems can be broken down into the following dimensions: environmental, social and economic. However, given the nature and complexity of global systems, it is not possible to quantify relevant impacts that geoengineering has on such dimensions. Therefore, we should increase investment in geoengineering research to find out. However, I will now propose what I believe to be the strongest arguments against research on geoengineering.
The AFA provides a basis for research into geoengineering. However, additional vested interest into SRM technologies adds a new complication to efforts in mitigating climate change. If the interest promotes investment into climate engineering strategies, then this provokes what is called ‘institutional momentum’. Put simply, institutions starting projects try and commit themselves to finish that project. Engaging research into geoengineering then, is pushing the tendency for unwanted deployment of geoengineering. An increase of institutional momentum is also likely to mean increased publication of the topic. As a result, an increasing number of people will regard geoengineering as an insurance option should mitigation fail to adequately respond to climate change. The acknowledgement of an insurance creates changes in behaviour and responses to the issue of climate change, making people less willing to reduce their own emissions or even deciding not to engage in mitigation. This creates what is known as a ‘moral hazard’. The moral hazard is further perpetuated by factors that prevent the reversibility of society’s commitment to geoengineering. By this, we mean the ability to stop a programme such as geoengineering in the short term. Such factors include capital intensity, resistance to criticism and infrastructure requirement. Much of these factors relate to how well established geoengineering is. Should we research into geoengineering, increased investment is likely to be spent on capital intensive equipment therefore increasing commitment to the programme and institutional momentum. Subsequently, research into geoengineering will make a self-fulfilling prophecy of deployment by promoting increased inertia to mitigate climate change.
Geoengineering technologies can be subdivided into two categories: carbon dioxide removal (CDR) from the atmosphere and solar radiation management (SRM) — a process which involves reflecting sunlight. Although there are many proposed forms of geoengineering, we will focus on the latter, and in particular stratospheric sulphate injection (SSI), a form of SRM. This is mainly down to the existence of its partial analogue, Mount Pinatubo. SSI aims to reflect sunlight by spraying sulphates into the stratosphere, increasing cloud albedo, thereby counteracting further warming as a result of anthropogenic greenhouse gases. Mount Pintatubo’s eruption in 2001 provides empirical evidence and certainty that SSI works, injecting close to 15 million tonnes of sulphur dioxide into the stratosphere. Over the course of the following two years, this had a global cooling effect of around 0.6 degrees celsius.