The Hubris of Playing God: NOAA’s Geoengineering and Carbon Capture Fantasies

It seems the scientists at NOAA have decided they can play god with our planet’s climate system. The recently released NOAA fact sheet on Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) reads like a manifesto for techno-utopian hubris, proposing a future where carbon capture and geoengineering are wielded as tools to reshape the Earth’s atmosphere and oceans. This document, laden with grandiose claims and alarming uncertainties, outlines a vision that is as scientifically questionable as it is ethically troubling.

NOAA’s fact sheet emphasizes the role of human-caused CO2 emissions as a primary driver of climate change, leading to a slew of environmental changes, from ocean acidification to altered marine food webs.

“Human-caused emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2), a greenhouse gas (GHG), has been the largest driver of climate change over the past century. The increase of CO2 in the atmosphere has led to warming of surface temperatures over land and in the global oceans, ocean waters becoming more acidic and lower in oxygen, changes in marine food webs, and other associated climate impacts”​​.

The narrative suggests that only by drastically reducing emissions and removing CO2 from the atmosphere can we avert catastrophe. However, this rush to implement drastic CO2 reduction policies is based on an unproven hypothesis of danger, with little regard for the inherent risks. The notion that reducing CO2 is inherently laudable ignores the complexity and potential downsides of such an endeavor, from economic disruptions to unintended ecological consequences.

The fact sheet outlines a range of untested and largely theoretical methods, from Direct Air Capture (DAC) to ocean alkalinity enhancement. DAC involves removing CO2 from the air and storing it underground, a process that requires vast amounts of energy. Ocean-based methods like fertilization and artificial upwelling aim to manipulate ocean chemistry to increase carbon uptake. These approaches are not only unproven on a large scale but also fraught with potential environmental risks.

“Novel CDR pathways are currently in their infancy and all approaches require additional research and development. If scaled, a successful CDR strategy would need to be appropriately balanced with other Sustainable Development Goals to ensure responsible, permanent carbon removal”​​.

For instance, ocean fertilization could disrupt marine ecosystems by creating dead zones or altering food chains. Similarly, the introduction of alkalinity to oceans might have unintended consequences, such as disrupting marine habitats.

“Marine CDR approaches can amplify the ocean’s natural carbon cycles that pull carbon from the atmosphere and transport it into the deep ocean. Ocean alkalinity enhancement, which increases the ocean’s drawdown of CO2 by lowering surface water acidity, has the potential added benefit of mitigating ocean acidification”​​.

Yet, NOAA seems ready to charge ahead, undeterred by the potential for ecological disaster.

One of the most glaring issues with NOAA’s CDR proposals is the lack of attention given to the immense engineering and economic challenges involved. The fact sheet glosses over the technical difficulties and massive financial costs required to scale up these technologies. For example, Direct Air Capture (DAC) systems need to process enormous volumes of air to capture significant amounts of CO2. The energy requirements alone are staggering, raising questions about the net carbon efficiency of these systems. If the energy used to power these systems comes from fossil fuels, the entire process could become counterproductive.

Additionally, the infrastructure required for DAC, including facilities for CO2 capture, transport, and storage, is not only expensive but also logistically complex. Building and maintaining these systems at the scale proposed would necessitate significant investment in new technologies and facilities.

“Energy requirements: For CDR methods to be carbon negative, the energy required to drive the system, to mine or engineer the materials needed to convert CO2 to a more durable form, and to transport and store the carbon, must come from renewable or non-CO2 emitting sources. A key challenge for DAC and DOR systems is the necessary high-energy inputs”​​.

This reality is conveniently brushed aside in favor of a more optimistic narrative.

The economic feasibility of these projects is equally dubious. The cost per ton of carbon removed is currently prohibitively high, making large-scale implementation financially unsustainable without massive subsidies.

“Economic Feasibility: The cost of CDR methods is determined by the cost-per-ton of carbon removed. Some techniques, such as DAC, currently have a high cost due to the infrastructure and materials required”​​.

Even if the cost could be reduced over time, the initial investment required would be colossal, with no guaranteed return on investment. The idea that a “carbon management industry” could provide economic benefits, including job creation, is speculative at best. The document cites an estimate of 300,000 new jobs by 2050 and an overall industry valuation of US $259 billion. However, these figures are based on optimistic projections and do not account for potential economic disruptions or the opportunity costs of diverting resources from other sectors.

The ethical implications of geoengineering are equally troubling. The fact sheet mentions the need for “responsible, permanent carbon removal” but offers little in terms of concrete safeguards.

“Given NOAA’s scientific leadership on oceans, coasts, and the management of marine resources, mCDR methods are a primary focus of NOAA CDR research. In 2023, NOAA led the first large-scale public private funding call on mCDR”​​.

The idea of “community-driven decision making” and “equitable distribution of deployment” is vague, impractical, and essentially Marxist gobbledegook. How do we ensure that the global poor are not disproportionately affected by these large-scale interventions?

The regulatory landscape is described as “still being developed,” with international agreements like the London Convention considering whether to incorporate more marine CDR strategies.

“Codes of conduct are beginning to emerge for CDR and mCDR research and/or implementation, but are not binding. International agreements, such as the London Convention and London Protocol covering marine pollution, are actively considering whether to incorporate more mCDR strategies into their framework”​​.

This lack of a robust regulatory framework raises serious concerns about accountability. Who will be responsible if something goes wrong? The document’s silence on these issues is deafening.

In conclusion, NOAA’s CDR proposals are a dangerous mix of overconfidence and underestimation. The scientists behind these plans appear to suffer from a severe case of technological hubris, believing they can control complex, interwoven natural systems with the flick of a switch. The rush to implement these untested technologies at a global scale, based on an unproven hypothesis of danger, could lead to unforeseen consequences, both environmental and socio-political.

It’s time to question the wisdom of these activist scientists who seem intent on playing god with our planet’s future. Rather than blindly following their lead, we should approach these proposals with a healthy dose of skepticism and demand rigorous, transparent research. Until then, the idea of geoengineering and large-scale carbon capture should remain firmly in the realm of speculative fiction, not science policy.

H/T Mumbles McGuirck