'Warming of the climate system is unequivocal' (Bernstein et al., 2008;1); the principal driver being the acceleration of the atmospheric process known as the greenhouse effect by excessive anthropogenic carbon emissions. Carbon dioxide is the largest constituent of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere; and thus, the chief culprit of the increasing greenhouse effect. It is therefore imperative to consider geoengineering in the larger context and history of global climate change, as anthropogenic emissions are the very reason for its needed existence. Climate change poses a severe threat to global sustainability, as the predicted climatic effects are catastrophic, and could ultimately lead to the deterioration of our planet and potential extinction of our race (IPCC, 2007). As a result, geoengineering is currently an ongoing field of research into the deliberate large-scale technological intervention in the Earth’s natural systems to control climate change; formally defined as ‘the intentional manipulation of the earth’s climate to counteract anthropogenic climate change and its warming effects’ (Corner and Pigeon, 2010; 24). This hope would allow us to maintain a level of climatic stability while still continuing our current consumption and production patterns. There are many different proposals regarding different means of doing this; all of which however fall into two main categories: solar radiation management (SRM) and carbon dioxide removal (CDR). This essay will begin by exploring the different geoengineering methods along with their viability and potential benefits. Thereafter, this essay will discuss arguments in favour of geoengineering research and adoption; before conversely discussing the most prominent criticism of CDR and SRM. Thereafter this essay will discuss the holistic counter-argument against the use of geoengineering as a solution to global warming by outlining its limitations, and paradoxical context of its existence, with regards to addressing the pre-existing governmental and structural faults that allowed climate change to become so ill-omened. Before finally closing with an evaluation of both arguments and a deductive conclusion.
It is important to reiterate that geoengineering is a contested and ongoing research topic, not a scientifically proven method, but more so a hypothesis for a potential solution. Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) methods involve absorbing and storing carbon dioxide in various ways. Proposals of such techniques include: Ocean iron fertilisation, which works by adding large quantities of iron into the ocean, causing amplifying plankton growth, which absorbs carbon dioxide; Increasing ocean alkalinity, by adding large quantities of alkaline rocks to the ocean which increases carbon dioxide absorption (Royal Society, 2009). Alternatively, SRM aims to reflect some of the Sun’s energy back into space, thus controlling the rate of atmospheric heating. Proposals of such techniques include: Orbiting space-based sun reflectors, to redirect insolation back out into space; Stratospheric aerosols, involving injecting sulphur particles into the stratosphere to cloud out and block insolation; and Increasing earth surface albedo, by increasing the amount of reflective materials on the ocean, and land surfaces (Royal Society, 2009). SRM methods are particularly attractive due to their potential speed of effect (once implemented), and could modify the global climate within months, as suggested by research on the 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo, which cooled the globe about 0.5 °C in less than a year by injecting large amounts of Sulphur dioxide into the stratosphere (Keith, et al., 2010). The most researched, plausible and only SRM proposal that seems to be effective and relatively affordable is stratospheric sulfate aerosol injections (Hamilton, 2011; Royal society, 2009). Other possibly effective methods are likely to be highly capital intensive (Space Mirrors), while perhaps cheaper methods are considered likely to be less effective.
There are three main justifications that are used to defend research into geoengineering and to validate its possible deployment: firstly, it will allow us to buy more time, it will allow us to respond to a climate emergency more directly and immediately if needed, and it may be the best option economically going forward (Hamilton, 2011). The argument of ‘buying-time’, has been the driving force behind endorsement of geoengineering since early IPCC reports began warning of the drastic rates of anthropogenic climate change and its projected repercussions. Nobel Prize-winning atmospheric scientist Paul Crutzen stated that: ‘by far the preferred way to resolve the policymakers’ dilemma is to lower the emissions of the greenhouse gases. However, so far, attempts in that direction have been grossly unsuccessful’-(Crutzen, 2006; 211). The argument assumes that political paralysis and/or the power of vested interests is the reason governments and international organizations have not made a more concerted attempt to reduce carbon emissions, and mitigate the effects of global warming. Therefore, given the economic reality that countries will only adopt cleaner alternatives to fossil fuels on a large scale when they become cheaper and more economically viable; SRM would allow the continuing effects of global warming to be controlled while this economic transition takes place. ‘Geoengineering is, therefore, a necessary evil deployed to head off a greater evil, the damage due to unchecked global warming’-(Hamilton, 2011; 2).
The climate emergency argument was first introduced by Crutzen as the motivation for his 2006 Nobel prize winning intervention on geoengineering. He claimed that Sulphate aerosol injection technologies should be developed in order to create a means to combat potentially catastrophic climate heating, if such does occur (Crutzen, 2006). Nowadays the prominence of this argument reflects a growing understanding and concern for climate tipping points. It envisions the possible need for urgent deployment of SRM in response to a sudden or extreme climatic event, such that cannot be averted by mitigation efforts alone (Hamilton, 2011). Possible examples might include the onset of hyper-melting of the Greenland ice sheet, or the breaking off of the Ross ice sheet; both of which would affect the entire earth’s climate (Blackstock, 2009). Those who anticipate the need for urgent deployment of SRM in a climate emergency support continued research so that, once developed and refined, the technology could be stowed away, to be used as and when it is necessary in the future (Lane, et al., 2007)
Lastly, the best-option argument suggests geoengineering should be researched and implemented pre-emptively. The finance-centric approach ignores the nuanced understanding of the root of the carbon emission crisis, and views geoengineering as the most viable and economical way in dealing with global warming. This consequentialist approach applies a comprehensive assessment of the costs and benefits of each method; and assumes the principled decision is the one that maximizes the ratio of benefits to costs (Hamilton, 2011). The argument is justified by some early economic modeling that concluded, geoengineering is cheaper than mitigation methods, as effective, and much faster in producing the desired results (Barrett, 2008). Therefore, it should be preferred.
Critiques of Geoengineering research and its proposed methods are abundant. Firstly, CDR methods deal with the root problem of ocean acidification, and global carbon concentrations by attempting to store and reduce circulating levels of Co2. However, given the fact that we have only explored 5% of the world’s oceans, many of the CDR methods have been criticized for their potentially severe unanticipated environmental effects and ecological impacts on ocean ecosystems (Robock, 2008). Though CDR methods are most significantly criticized for their relatively slow timeframe of effective impact. SRM methods, however, do not confront the root cause of carbon emission production, but rather acts as an intermediate intervention which would control and limit the resulting greenhouse warming effect. This is a relevant concern given the possible eventuality that if SRM were to be suddenly halted, a drastic rebound warming of the atmosphere would then ensue, this is known as the ‘termination effect’ (Royal Society, 2009). Keith, et al. (2010) also states that a climate cooled by regulating insolation is far more unstable than a climate cooled by reducing emissions, as evaporation and precipitation processes in the water cycle would be affected, which would likely affect regional climates, microclimates and even global climate patterns.
‘The essential starting point for any consideration of the ethics of geoengineering is the failure of the world community to respond to the scientific warnings about the dangers of global warming by cutting greenhouse gas emissions earlier’-(Hamilton, 2011). Geoengineering methods (specifically Sulphate Aerosol Injections), seems like an attractive solution to the problem of the Earth’s warming atmosphere, but it does not address the root cause being excess anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions. This problem exists due to a lack of political and governmental action and regulation, policy action lethargy, and is sustained by lobbying and vested interests of big corporations (Robock, 2008). As a result, the public framing of the issue of global warming has also been warped by the detrimental behavioral norms and consumption patterns that sadly resulted from the prolonged period of simultaneous environmental unconsciousness and ruthless capitalism that governed western society since the 1800’s. Human behaviour is a critical contributor to environmental degradation and climate change (IPCC, 2007) and, as a result, changing human behaviour is also crucial in addressing climate change and environmental issues (Smith, et al., 2012).
Therefore, I do not believe intervening at an intermediate point in the complex issue in order to mitigate its effects, rather than engaging with the causal factors, is a wise approach to seeking resolution of the problem. Global warming needs to be framed in its entirety, and therefore needs to be addressed individually, socially, structurally, and on a governmental level (Robock, 2008). By accepting the silver-bullet approach of blind faith in geoengineering, this may result in further diminished public responsibility to deal with the problem, which would be counterintuitive to dealing with the current misunderstanding of global warming. It is imperative that we deal with the anthropogenic reasons behind the excess carbon emissions that caused, and continue to perpetuate climate change; by confronting the individual behavioral practices and government policies towards pollution, in order to break the current business as usual approach of avoiding responsibility, which has led to the extreme social injustice of climate abuse we can retrospectively see today. Finally, the arrogance displayed to justify the pre-emptive implementation of intentional geoengineering of the environment, is the same reason we allowed our selfish actions to jeopardize the Earth’s longevity in past generations. We must strive for change. In closing I do not advocate playing god, but rather that climate justice and social justice be served to those beneficiary high-carbon emitting states responsible; while a nuanced social, educational and legal, structural adjustment program be implemented in order to reframe the issue as one that is within our locus of control (Robock, 2012).
In conclusion, it must also be remembered that geoengineering is still a pipeline concept with only one Russian field test of SRM having ever been carried out (Keith, et al., 2010). Although it may seem fundamentally unethical to promote geoengineering as a solution, the argument that it may be needed as a last resort in the case of a climatic emergency is starkly valid. Therefore, although I believe we should continue, researching and potentially developing geoengineering methods for the above reason; I am strongly opposed to the consideration of its pre-emptive usage. Allowing environmental problems such as that of carbon emissions to be framed by an ecological modernization perspective, as issues that are economically and technologically solvable, without the need for the uprooting of pre-existing institutions and power structures, only continues to allow corruption, greed, and inequality to worsen, at the detriment of the environment and its voiceless inhabitants. In closing, I believe we should develop SRM capabilities, however only as a last-ditch response in the case of an imminent global climatic emergency. As I believe what is really needed is a nuanced social, educational and legal, structural adjustment program; to reframe the issue of global warming, reform attitudes towards it, and promote pro-environmental behavior and climate consciousness.