CLIMATE CHANGE: Willingly or Not, We Must Prepare for Geoengineering

• by Claudia Ciobanu* (copenhagen)
• Thursday, December 10, 2009
• Inter Press Service

In that case, we need to be prepared for climate geoengineering, say scientists meeting on the sides of the fourth day of negotiations at the Dec. 7-18 15th Conference of Parties (COP-15) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in Copenhagen.

'Do we need geoengineering?' asked oceanographer John Shepard from Southampton University, one of the authors of the report 'Geoengineering the Climate. Science, Governance and Uncertainty' published by the UK Royal Society in November this year.

'It depends on COP15,' was his answer. 'If we cannot reduce emissions as fast and as much as needed, what else can we do?'

Shepard, who is working on modeling geoengineering solutions for addressing a climate crisis, explained that he is not keen to see humanity having to resort to such solutions. 'I find it scary myself,' he confessed.

But the scientist added that, whether we agree or not with such massive technological interventions to address climate change, we have a responsibility to work them out because it is possible we might need them soon.

Geoengineering basically translates into deliberate large-scale interventions in the earth’s climate system. Unlike the unintended irreversible alteration of the climate that humanity has brought about through its actions particularly since the beginning of industrialization, in the case of geoengineering, humanity would consciously produce climate alterations. And humanity would also have to figure out a just system to manage and control such massive interventions.

Given the current state of research, geoengineering can be divided into two types. One option is CO2 Removal (CDR), done through ocean iron fertilization, the use of scrubbers or artificial trees, enhanced weathering or biochars. CDR can be applied locally and it is considered to come with low risks.

The downfall to this technique is that it would take a long time to absorb the enormous amounts of carbon already released and which will continue to be released in the atmosphere.

The other option is Solar Radiation Management (SRM) involving reflecting the sunlight to reduce global warming, through such technologies as mirrors in space, stratospheric aerosols or clouds enhancement.

This method does not reduce the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, nor does it address the consequences of these emissions, such as ocean acidification. On the other hand, it is considered to be a solution which can be activated fast, 'a quick fix.' In terms of degree of riskiness of SRM, scientists declare themselves wary of the unpredictable effects SRM might have on weather patterns and ecosystems.

Jason Blackstock, a physicist and fellow at the Center for International Governance Innovation, spoke about geoengineering as a 'very uncertain gamble that we do not want to take.'

He echoed the views of Shepard who insisted that 'reducing emissions remains the priority, as the safest and most predictable option.'

Blackstock said that the scientific community working on geoengineering is keen to combat views such as the one presented in the bestseller 'Super Freakonomics', in which authors Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner make the point that humanity should not bother to reduce emissions and just place mirrors in space.

Indeed, a panel of scientists from US and UK research centers speaking in Copenhagen on Thursday were very keen to emphasize that research must be done responsibly and that global society must become aware of how geoengineering works.

Even more, governments, international organizations, research groups and citizens from all over the world must have a word to say on geoengineering, the scientists said, issuing a general call for suggestions on how to answer questions about the regulation of research, the control of climate manipulation tools once they become functional and knowledge sharing.

There are no answers to these questions. But scientists like Shepard and Blackstock were making the point that these answers must be found through broad international dialogue as fast as possible, going hand in hand with the evolution of research on geoengineering.

The world must have 'a plan B,' said Shepard.

Heavy questions loom large over geoengineering. How can such solutions be applied without being tested? And will not a large test practically mean the deployment of climate manipulation mechanisms?

Who should control research and deployment is another question. And, while the scientists were very keen to open up this process and even their research to public discussion, they also declared themselves aware that there are already interests in place that argue for stopping mitigation and relying solely on geoengineering.

'Geoengineering is likely to become technically possible, but the technology is barely formed,' said Shepard. It will all play out in the following decades, he explained.

When they do become deployable though, technologies of CO2 Removal or Solar Radiation Management will not be very expensive. It is likely that 50 to 100 countries in the world could afford to deploy stratospheric aerosols for example, said Blackstock.

'Imagine a situation in 10-15 years when a small island state is tired of seeing that the G8 or the G2 (US and China) are not doing enough to address climate change and it decides to deploy the technology unilaterally,' Blackstock continues.

The implication is that proper governance frameworks must be put in place before a climate crisis emerges so that the technologies are not captured by corporations nor used unilaterally by nation states.

But looking at the intricate and troubled Copenhagen negotiations on emission reductions makes it almost impossible to imagine how humanity could figure out such governance tools.

* This story appears in the IPS TerraViva online daily published for the COP 15 at Copenhagen.

© Inter Press Service (2009) — All Rights ReservedOriginal source: Inter Press Service