Hack the planet? Geoengineering research, ethics, governance explored
by Hannah Hickey
Hacking the Earth’s climate to counteract global warming – a subject that elicits strong reactions from both sides – is the topic of a December special issue of the journal Climatic Change. A dozen research papers include the most detailed description yet of the proposed Oxford Principles to govern geoengineering research, as well as surveys on the technical hurdles, ethics and regulatory issues related to deliberately manipulating the planet’s climate.
- “Geoengineering research and its limitations,” a December special issue of the journal Climatic Change
- Edited by three UW faculty from atmospheric sciences and philosophy
University of Washington researchers led the three-year project to gather leading thinkers and publish a snapshot of a field that they say is rapidly gaining credibility in the scientific community.
“In the past five years or so, geoengineering has moved from the realm of quackery to being the subject of scientific research,” said co-editor Rob Wood, a UW associate professor of atmospheric sciences. “We wanted to contribute to a serious intellectual discourse.”
Creating clouds over the ocean that would reflect back sunlight is the subject of a chapter by Wood, whose research is on the interaction among air pollution, clouds and climate. He and co-author Tom Ackerman, a UW atmospheric sciences professor, look at what it would take to test the idea with a field experiment.
A conceptualized image of a wind-powered, remotely controlled ship that could seed clouds over the ocean to deflect sunlight.
“I don’t want to prove it right, I just want to know if it’s feasible,” Wood said. “If you look at the projections for how much the Earth’s air temperature is supposed to warm over the next century, it is frightening. We should at least know the options. Is geoengineering feasible if there were to be what people call a ‘climate emergency’?”
Also explored in the journal issue is the idea of injecting reflective particles into the stratosphere, subject of a 2006 paper in Climatic Change by Nobel Prize-winning chemist Paul Crutzen and central to Seattle entrepreneur Nathan Myhrvold’s proposed StratoShield. Yet another idea is iron fertilization of ocean microbes, though Wood said preliminary tests suggest this is not as successful at drawing carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere as its proponents had originally thought.
How to govern geoengineering is a topic of hot debate. In one paper, U.K. authors flesh out the so-called Oxford Principles, which suggest how geoengineering could be regulated as a global public good. The five principles described in the paper concern the research, publication, assessment and deployment of geoengineering techniques.
Many of the authors spoke at the UW during a 2011 seminar series, and more attended a 2012 workshop where they developed their paper ideas.
While discussions were civil, Wood said, the contributors didn’t all agree. A UW philosopher questions whether geoengineering can even be described in the Oxford Principles as a global public good.
“Just spraying sulfates into the stratosphere is not the kind of thing that necessarily benefits everyone, so in that sense it seems a mistake to call it a global public good,” said co-editor Stephen Gardiner, a UW philosophy professor who has written a book on ethics and climate change. There are decisions about how to conduct sulfate spraying, he writes, and potential tradeoffs between short-term benefits and long-term risks.
Gardiner also questions whether something should be done in people’s benefit but without their permission, and if accepting geoengineering as a necessary evil ignores other science or policy options.
He’s not the only social scientist to be looking at climate issues.
“A lot of people, from across the academy, are getting interested in the Anthropocene – the idea that we may have entered a new geological era where human influence is a dominant feature, and what that means for various issues,” Gardiner said.
The collection aims to prompt a serious academic discussion the editors say has so far been lacking.
“It’s an interdisciplinary discussion with an emphasis on the research angle – whether and how we should be researching geoengineering,” said co-editor Lauren Hartzell-Nichols, a UW lecturer in philosophy. “We hope it helps people think about this issue in a more interdisciplinary and integrated way.”
The seminars and workshop that led to the issue’s creation were supported by the UW College of the Environment.
###
For more information, contact Wood at 206-543-1203 or robwood@atmos.washington.edu and Gardiner at 206-221-6459 or smgard@uw.edu.
When I first read the article I became alarmed, thinking ‘they can’t be serious’….. Then I realized these concepts are put forth by the grandchildren of the futurists who had us traveling in flying cars and speaking Esperanto. Just carrying on the family traditions of the absurd. Move along, nothing to see here.
Very cogent arguments are being made here, but I’d like to pose a question of my own: The planet is claimed to have been under ice ages for most of the time, so much so that the current period is termed an “interglacial” (Between ice ages). So, if we determine that we are about to enter a new ice age, are we justified in tinkering? and if we do not learn how to do it properly now, what are the results of a last-ditch, uninformed effort likely to be? This seems to me to be an issue of life and death for the human race in the long term, as all our eggs are literally and figuratively in one basket.
I went to a talk last week by some Notre Dame economist (Phil Mirowski) and was flabbergasted to hear him lump “climate denialists” (his term) with the geoengineering cabal. He is convinced that, in some sort of “neoliberal” conspiracy:
1) “denialists” deny global warming to delay the left wing’s chosen solutions by casting doubt onto the problem so as to
2) propose middle-term solutions such as carbon credits – a market solution, which is bound to fail,so as to
3) gradually introduce acceptance for another market solution that involves corporations selling goods ie geoengineered solutions and
4) the government is co-opted into all of these market-based solutions but the market controls the government
I felt like I had entered an alternate universe, although interestingly he castigated both Naomi Klein and Naomi Oreskes for being blinded by their own left-wing bias into calling “deniers” anti-science. At least he admitted that people who reject the global warming program are not anti-science.
I sat there straining my mind trying to recall anybody here at WUWT, the most important skeptic website in the world, who endorses geo-engineering solutions.
Sadly, owing to my academic situation, I kept my mouth shut and uttered no criticims.
Does anyone here know about neoliberalism and where this stuff is coming from?
Mike86 says: “Wouldn’t you have to apply the precautionary principle here? If there’s a chance that they’d do harm, so matter how small, you don’t let them do it.”
Exactly who is the “you” here, controlling the (allegedly harmful) activities? Is it individuals (like the Greenpeace protesters) interfering with shipping whose activities they don’t like; national governments (so we could see China declaring another ADIZ covering most of the northern Pacific east of the Antimeridian); supra-national entities like the EU extending its control over fisheries, or Ban-ki Moon using it to make a power-grab for UN world government?
The Oxford Principles seem only to say “The Principles … stipulate that any decision with respect to deployment only be taken with robust governance structures already in place in order to ensure social legitimacy” – which rather begs the question; the paper itself is paywalled but from the abstract it seems just to be exploring the usual snake-pit of world politics.
Many commenting on this post view geo-engineering with either scorn or fear and loathing. I agree that any government program addressing climate change in any way, shape, or form may seem to validate Al Gore’s bogus “planetary emergency.” Moreover, negotiations over geo-engineering protocols might pump new life into the moribund UN climate treaty process.
Nonetheless, geo-engineering is not an inherently dumb or mischievous idea.
Suppose scientists and engineers figure out, using non-toxic substances that enhance cloud cover or scatter sunlight, how to inexpensively cool the sea surface in the path of tropical cyclones heading for major population centers. Suppose further that such targeted cooling could prevent a tropical storm from growing into a hurricane. I see no valid moral objection to R&D designed to test the feasibility of such strategies.
Some may condemn geo-engineering as an attempt to play God. The same has been said of biotechnology. But the energy flows that produce hurricanes or determine their storm tracks are no more sacred than the genes linked to Cystic fibrosis, Sickle cell disease, or Down syndrome.
Human management of nature is the main reason ordinary people today live longer, safer, more comfortable lives than the kings and nobles of pre-modern times. The conquest of nature for the relief of man’s estate is intrinsic to the scientific enterprise. Developing technologies to suppress hurricanes, dispel heat waves, or alleviate drought is a ‘natural’ goal of Baconian science. If successful, such technologies could save lives and improve human welfare.
There’s a much easier, cheaper way to raise the albedo of the oceans and suppress AGW.
Release CO2 into the atmosphere.
The increased cloud cover which results from water evaporated from the ocean due to CO2 forcing will counteract most of the global warming which would otherwise have occurred.
Yes. Of course we need a bunch of idiots, with no idea how the climate system works and firmly committed to weird beliefs about one trace gas, playing fast and loose with the atmosphere, etc. upon which we all depend. What could possibly go wrong?
These people, more even than the average drama green, make my blood run cold.
And anyone who uses the word “Anthropocene” in earnest … I rest my case.
vigilantfish said:
” At least he admitted that people who reject the global warming program are not anti-science.
…
Sadly, owing to my academic situation, I kept my mouth shut and uttered no criticims.”
And that’s all evil needs… (The silence of good men)
Megatoads? An SI unit?
Next time these brain explosions go pear shaped – for example a Cat 3 typhoon hits Vietnam after the seeding turns into a storm, who pays? Or do we just tell them “for the greater good – GetUp loved it and they got heaps of hits on Twitter”?
@ROM says:December 17, 2013 at 3:39 pm
So right you are ROM!
At the same time as we should
– accept the CAGW theory (in particular the CA part),
– and support antropogenic climate remediations.
This is hubris to the square!
For a list of proposed and current geoengineering projects (now also referred to as Climate Remediation), as well as US and UK government decisions about geoengineering:
http://www.agriculturedefensecoalition.org/content/geoengineering-current-actions
The site belongs to a California agriculture activist whose concern is damage to food crops, and other fauna and flora. She is retired from the CA Department of Agriculture (grew up on a farm). The site might be a little wobbly as it is in the middle of being redesigned.
if somebody uses the term ‘neoliberal’…it means they are communist…part of their communal vocabulary
how about scooping up all the plastic floating in the oceans
Hack the planet? If carbon dioxide is a problem, what we need is… some sort of self building structures that are solar powered, that remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and using some form of chemical process separate the carbon from the oxygen, the oxygen can then be returned to the atmosphere while the carbon is used to progress the building of the structure. I feel sure that existing technology could be utilised for this. after all… great oaks from little acorns grow.
🙂
Has it occured to anyone else that if the earth’s climate system came back into balance after a giant asteroid strike 65 million years ago, that it will be able to bounce back from a doubling of the CO2 in the atmosphere?
Honestly?
Well, let’s say you considered it worthwhile to develop the technology (that’s hurdle number one to overcome: is it worth it?), you then have the issue of deciding when to use it, according to what criteria and who has the authority to authorise usage??
I have to say that this is one area where private enterprise should have nothing to do with executive decision-making. You might want to get them to run the cloud-making enterprise, but they shouldn’t be deciding when to do it. Not ever.
The second thing to say is that this is warfare in the hands of the US military. If you want to imagine what will be the 22nd century ‘Nuremberg’, it will be callous, inhumane scientists who have artificially engineered multi-year crop failure in one part of the globe, killing millions by so doing.
This is one arena where global agreement is necessary and it should be used solely to modulate climate for human benefit.
The League of Nations banned the use of chemical and biological warfare in the 20th century.
Well, in the 21st, it should ban the use of climatological warfare and develop institutions to monitor and enforce such a ban. The primary suspects for breaches currently would be the USA, China, Russia and Israel and the most susceptible to climate warfare would be the Indian subcontinent (destroying the annual Monsoon), South America (destroying the Amazonian climate of daily rainfall) and Africa (destroying the wet season rains which are the sole buffer against mass starvation). Australia could also be targeted, given its propensity for decade-long droughts. So could California for that matter, but woe betide anyone who tried doing so before 2050.
One thing is certain, the people throwing money down this pit will be taxpayers. And energy consumers. Through taxes and levies.
If the advocates had to fund it privately they would be laughed out of the building.
Andrew says: “Next time these brain explosions go pear shaped – for example a Cat 3 typhoon hits Vietnam after the seeding turns into a storm, who pays?”
You’ve hit the nail square on the head: without some cast-iron mechanism, universally agreed across the entire world, to control or limit claims someone somewhere will be suing for huge amounts every time one of these devices goes operational – and the lawyers will offer “no win no fee” agreements to sue operators, adding a positive feedback to the process …
The biggest potential “geoengineering project” of all is of course nuclear warfare which has the potential to wipe us all out – international (non-proliferation) treaties haven’t done very well in that case…
Some call it “geo-engineering”.
They are dyslexic.
It is “ego-engineering”.
I see new targets for Greenpeace’s Rainbow Warrier to ram and sink. It could be the opening scene of a new Monthy Python movie.
This holds the problem of the unintended consequence to the fore. Clouds are a natural consequence of excess heat, the more heat the more cloud so reducing insolation at the surface and reducing surface heat by their formation, through latent heat. Clouds are not fully understood so get the data before creating some monster.
Models do not include vital information like clouds and the differing solar variations but do include CO2 causing heating which it cannot do.
How about this? Once they geo-engineer Mars into a livable planet then they can meddle with Earth.
vigilantfish says:
December 17, 2013 at 9:10 pm
“Does anyone here know about neoliberalism and where this stuff is coming from?”
I think Milton Friedman coined the term neoliberalism for his brand of free trade / globalist / modern monetary system. Today the European leftists use the term to denounce free marketers, as they think it sounds a lot like Neo-Nahzee.
The Modern Monetary system (following MMT, Modern Monetary Theory) is basically mutating into a form of global Keynesianism these days via endless money creation and deficit spending forever. I don’t know if Friedman would have a problem with that; the fiercest critics of MMT are the Austrian school economists; for whom MMT adherents are central planners and not market oriented at all.
That guy with his weird idea that climate sceptics want to pave the way for geo-engineering has never read anything from real climate sceptics; he has probably only read a few utterances in the WSJ or from pseudoskeptic Dr. Muller’s backers, the geo-engineering NOVIM group.
http://www.climatedepot.com/2011/04/04/climate-depot-round-up-on-richard-muller-scientists-trashing-mullers-workmuller-stands-accused-of-being-front-man-for-geoengineering-org-muller-responds-to-climate-depot/
Geo-engineering would of course be a great pretense to let some trillions of taxpayer money disappear, so every crony on the planet must have wet dreams about it.
rtj1211 says:
December 18, 2013 at 12:36 am
“Well, in the 21st, it should ban the use of climatological warfare and develop institutions to monitor and enforce such a ban.”
Climate is weather averaged over 30 years; so waging war by modifying the climate seems like the opposite of a Blitzkrieg to me… as amusing a notion as the famous “war over water” meme… An Israeli general once said, two weeks of warfare are expensive enough to pay for a desalination plant, so it’s simply uneconomic to wage war over water. (source: The Skeptical Environmentalist, Björn Lomborg)
Please don’t throw the baby out with the bath water!…
Special Issue: Geoengineering Research and its Limitations – “….Any collection of papers in a fast-moving discipline can only represent a snapshot of viewpoints at a given period. We have attempted to focus primarily on the question of geoengineering research and the opportunities and challenges that may lie ahead should interest in geoengineering continue to grow. There are of course notable gaps. For example, where discussion focuses upon specific approaches, it mostly centers on solar radiation management with little explicit attention to carbon drawdown and removal. Yet the latter certainly requires attention as arguably it presents a somewhat different set of technical, ethical and governance challenges.”
Sustainable Land Development Goes Carbon Negative – “If we’re serious about halting the rise of – and eventually lowering – CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, biochar could prove the best way. It also allows us to more sustainably manage organic waste from municipalities, croplands, wastewater treatment plants, and a certain amount of residues from forests. The problem, as with all other climate-mitigation approaches, comes with reaching scale. Can biochar be produced to a large enough scale to make a measurable impact? The answer lies in the triple-bottom-line perspective. In other words, the only way this will happen is if it can be produced in ways that meet the needs of people, planet and profit.” http://www.triplepundit.com/2010/09/sldi-project-carbon-negative/
Champion Trees, and an Urgent Plan to Save the Planet – “It’s amazing for one layman to come up with the idea of saving champion trees as a meaningful way to address the issues of biodiversity and climate change. This could be a grass roots solution to a global problem. A few million people selecting and planting the right trees for the right places could really make a difference.” http://www.triplepundit.com/2012/07/man-planted-trees-lost-groves-champion-trees-urgent-plan-save-planet/