The Halloween Special: Could geoengineering be a Frankenstein Monster?

The termination problem is one of the risks that would have to be taken into consideration if geoengineering was ever to be implemented.

The termination problem refers to the issues that arise once geoengineering has ceased. It is probably best explained in the graphs below.

These graphs are taken from a paper by Ross and Matthews (2009) which discusses the potential for accelerated temperature increase following the cessation of geoengineering.

The first graph shows the expected temperature increase under a business as usual scenario (BAU). While the graph shows a considerable increase in temperature, this takes place over a relatively large time frame (relative to the second graph that is). The annual rate of warming is estimated between 0.015°C to 0.07°C.

The second graph shows a scenario in which geoengineering is implemented from 2020 but is subsequently stopped in 2059. The geoengineering successfully reduces the temperature change while it is in place, but once it has been stopped the annual rate of warming is estimated between 0.13°C to 0.76°C for the first few years, this then decreases to approximately 0.1°C per year within a decade of the cessation of geoengineering.

While the BAU scenario has an increase in temperature between 0.6°C to 5.1°C between 1990 and 2100 the Geoengineering scenario has an increase in temperature between 0.15°C and 4.5°C between 2060 and 2100.

The danger here is not just the absolute increase in temperature but the rate of change. The rate of temperature increase can be regarded as inversely proportional to the the ability of an ecosystem to adapt to climate change. Ross and Matthews (2009) propose that the short-term increased rate of warming following the termination of geoengineering "would be sufficient to severely stress the adaptive capacity of many species and ecosystems, especially if preceded by some period of engineered climate stability".

The authors conclude that geoengineering should be coupled with mitigation efforts, specifically the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, and it should not be considered as an alternative to reducing emissions.

Before considering geoengineering as plan of action to tackle global environmental change it is important to consider the commitment that it demands. Once it has been put in place it becomes very difficult to undo. If the side-effects are less manageable or are more severe than was anticipated, or if there is an unavoidable technological failure and geoengineering loses favour with its creators and advocates, well then this feat of human endeavour starts to seem monstrous and this monster doesn't like rejection.

Happy Halloween! 

Why Al Gore won’t be inviting me to dinner!

Geoengineering is a controversial topic. It is controversial for a number of reasons:

• It can be understood as the peak of human arrogance; manipulating the global environmental system to allow for continued abuse of the planet.
• It can be seen as supremely risky since we have a limited understanding of some of the consequences and unintended side-effects of geoengineering.
• It can be regarded as a waste of valuable time and expertise. Global environmental change is a time sensitive issue and geoengineering provides a false sense of security; a plan B that distracts policy makers from the tough environmental decisions that need to be made sooner rather than later.
  
  

If you believe all or some of the above to be true does this mean that there is no value in exploring the possibilities of geoengineering? Well, Al Gore seems to think so. In an interview with The Washington Post he was asked if his move from politics to technology had changed his view on geoengineering. His response:

"That's complex because there are some benign geoengineering proposals like white roofs or efforts to figure out a way to extract C02 from the atmosphere, though no one has figured out how to do that yet. But the geoengineering options most often discussed, like putting sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere or orbiting tinfoil strips - these are simply nuts. We shouldn't waste a lot of time talking about them. Some people will anyway, but they're just crazy."

So it would seem that this blog is a wasted opportunity to explore global environmental change, and if Al Gore ever knew about it he would be very disappointed (but I think it is pretty unlikely that he will read this, so I'll continue).

At the moment I very much agree with the view of Dr. Matthew Watson in his recent article: Why we'd be mad to rule out climate engineering. His stance is probably best summed up by his blog title: the reluctant geoengineer. He argues that although geoengineering is far from ideal and should not be a favoured approach, it is still worth exploring the possibilities. After all “how can we ever be better off not knowing?"

Even if, given further research, I conclude that geoengineering is not a suitable response to global environmental change, it seems unlikely that I will become so vehemently opposed that I will refuse to discuss the topic (that certainly wouldn't bode well for this blog). Instead, I might take a page out of Clive Hamilton’s book (specifically Earth Masters Playing God with the Climate) and give an objective response to the pitfalls of geoengineering.

Call me crazy, Al!

So What is Geoengineering Anyway?

I think that the logical starting point for this blog would be to address the question:

What is geoengineering?

"Geoengineering is deliberate intervention in the climate system to counteract man-made global warming. There are two main classes of geoengineering: direct carbon dioxide removal and solar radiation management."

(Shepherd, 2012 :4166)

Keith (2001) specifies the importance of scale and intent when defining geoengineering. Geoengineering should be of a large enough scale to have a global impact; so small-scale or localised environmental changes, regardless of the deliberate intentions to alter the environment, should not be considered geoengineering.

Conversely cases of large-scale (global) environmental change should not be considered as examples of geoengineering unless those changes were deliberately intended. So anthropogenic CO2 emissions, which have certainly impacted the global environmental system (see side note below), cannot be considered geoengineering as this was an unintended consequence of human energy consumption.

Side Note: The IPCC Summary for Policy Makers Report, which was released in September, uses the word "unequivocal" (page 2) to describe climate change. The report further states that "human influence on the climate system is clear" (page 13) and that "it is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century" (page 15). For anyone unfamiliar with the report the link below provides a light summary of the most salient points:

Buzzfeed: 7 Stupid Things People Say About Climate Change That Aren't At All True

The issue of intent with regard to geoengineering is an important point that is relevant to the ethical concerns surrounding geoengineering - a topic for a future blog entry.

Geoengineering is only one proposed response to global environmental change. Steffen et al (2007) list it as one of three potential approaches. A brief description of the other two approaches is given below.

1. Business-as-usual

This is the least proactive of the three approaches and it places great faith in the ability of technology and economic systems to counter global environmental change. It makes assumptions that the time scales and the magnitude of environmental changes will be evenly matched with society's ability to respond.

2. Mitigation

This approach aims to recognise and address the anthropogenic stresses placed on the earth system. It ultimately seeks to curtail the human impact on the global environmental system through well-managed and sustainable interactions with the environment.

It seems likely that in reality some combination of all three approaches could be used to tackle global environmental change.

The IPCC summary report named geoengineering as a potential response to global environmental change. This places geoengineering firmly in the mainstream global environmental change debate, but nevertheless it remains a highly controversial and sometimes ill-defined approach.