The Military Associations of Geoengineering

Geoengineering’s military connection is often cited as grounds for objection. Alan Roebock (2008) lists it as reason number 16 of 20 for why geoengineering may be a bad idea. Many researchers and writers on the topic of geoengineering find the military link a noteworthy point, this includes Corner and Pidgeon (2010) and Clive Hamilton in Earth Masters: Playing God with the climate.  

While a military association might be disconcerting does it really mean that the whole approach should be discounted? There are a number of examples of military technology being adopted and safely used outside of the military.

9 things invented for military use that you now encounter in everyday life

It is also worth remembering that desires to control or at least influence weather have a long (scientifically dubious) history that pre-dates the supposed “weather race” between the United States and the Soviet Union during the cold war. From prehistoric rituals of sacrifice and dance for the appeasement of weather gods, to the “pluviculturalists” of the 1800s, including James Espy. James Fleming (2006:4) categorises the “pluviculturalists” as “round one” in the history of “scientific weather modification”.

The cold war saw vast investment into weather-altering technology as a result of emblematic cold war paranoia. Fleming (2006) provides a number of quotes from high ranking military personnel and prominent scientists that demonstrate the perceived rewards of climate control and the fear of relinquishing that control to another nation.

General George C. Kenney, commander of the Strategic Air Command: “The nation that first learns to plot the paths of air masses accurately and learns to control the time and place of precipitation will dominate the globe”

Rear Admiral Luis De Florez: “With control of the weather the operations and economy of an enemy could be disrupted....[Such control] in a cold war would provide a powerful and subtle weapon to injure agricultural production, hinder commerce and slow down industry.”

and

“start now to make control of weather equal in scope to the Manhattan District Project which produced the first A-bomb.”

Howard Orville, prominent meteorologist: “If an unfriendly nation gets into a position to control the large-scale weather patterns before we can, the result could even be more disastrous than nuclear warfare”

Professor Henry G. Houghton of MIT: “shudder to think of the consequences of a prior Russian discovery of a feasible method of weather control….An unfavorable modification of our climate in the guise of a peaceful effort to improve Russiaʼs climate could seriously weaken our economy and our ability to resist”

Given the vast resources that go into military research and development, particularly in the US, it is to be expected that the fruits of this labour can have applications outside of the original intentions. While the less than honourable roots of geoengineering should not be the sole reason for dismissing the entire approach, it still raises issues that are worth considering.

The above quotes illustrate the perceived competition that surrounded climate control in the cold war era; in the weather race there would be winners and losers. Military climate control could involve deliberately destructive changes to a rival’s climate. Unfortunately the threat of disadvantageous climate change to some regions does not disappear once the military influence on geoengineering is removed. Geoengineering will still involve winners and losers whether or not the this is the deliberate intention.

Roebock’s reason 18 of 20 (2008) is “control of the thermostat”, he questions how the world could agree on a tailored global climate and suggests that it could result in conflicts over climate control. Corner and Pidgeon (2010) also address the potential for international disputes relating to geoengineering. They suggest that there is potential for adversely affected nations to blame geoengineering nations, but the impacts of geoengineering could be difficult to prove. Geoengineering nations could deny culpability, creating international tension.

A tale of shirked responsibility:

“In 1951 New York city was facing 169 claims totalling over $2 million from Catskill communities and citizens for flooding and other damages attributed to the activities of a private rainmaker, Wallace Howell. The city had hired Howell to fill its reservoirs with rain, and, at least initially, claimed that Howell had succeeded. When faced with the lawsuits, however, city officials reversed their position and commissioned a survey to show that the [cloud] seeding was ineffective. Although the plaintiffs were not awarded damages, they did win a permanent injunction against New York City, which ceased further cloud seeding activities”. (Fleming, 2006: 12)

  

The potential for disputes is awkwardly coupled with a need for international stability since geoengineering projects could require international cooperation over a considerable time frame.

“Just imagine if we needed to do all this in 1900 and then the rest of twentieth century history unfolded as it actually did” (Schneider, 2008: 15)

It would be tragically fitting for technology developed from military research to be employed in the best interests of the our global community but nevertheless result in global conflict and warfare.

Military cloud seeding was employed during the Vietnam war under President Johnson.  When operation POPEYE was declassified at the end of the Nixon era it became known as “the Watergate of weather warfare” (Fleming, 2007: 56).    

“In July 1974, US and USSR agreed to hold bilateral discussions on measures to overcome the danger of the use of environmental modification techniques for military purposes” (UNOG). The result is the  U.N. Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques (ENMOD).

Article one of the convention states: “Each State Party to this Convention undertakes not to engage in military or any other hostile use of environmental modification techniques having widespread, long-lasting or severe effects as the means of destruction, damage or injury to any other State Party.”

While article three clarifies that: "The provisions of this Convention shall not hinder the use of environmental modification techniques for peaceful purposes". The convention further “recogniz[es] that scientific and technical advances may open new possibilities with respect to modification of the environment”.

These provisions would seem to allow for the use of non-military geoengineering. However I would argue that shaking off the unsettling military associations is not the biggest issue facing geoengineering.

Save Santa's Home

Greenpeace are running a Save the Arctic Campaign to highlight the importance of the threat to the Arctic, this includes a campaign to Save Santa’s Home.

Some geoengineering proponents argue that fast-acting “solutions”, such as atmospheric sulphate injections could quickly help melting ice-sheets to recover. The Royal Society’s 2009 report: Geoengineering the Climate states that stratospheric aerosols have “high timeliness” and once implemented would take effect within a year. However others might argue that such an approach, which by providing an alternative to reducing emissions and to changing energy consumption patterns, poses a greater threat to the Arctic.

Save Santa's Home Cards

In my last post I discussed the perils of geoengineering distracting from the need to reduce emissions. If the moral hazard posed by geoengineering is cause for concern then the use of geoengineering as a direct and deliberate replacement for emission reductions is just reckless.

It is difficult to find a geoengineering advocate that does not support reduced emissions but it is necessary to take a wider look at the economic and political climate in which geoengineering would potentially be implemented.

Polar amplification means that the Arctic is particularly sensitive to global warming, furthermore the Arctic is strategically important to the entire global climate. The feedback loops that operate mean that “the earth system is potentially vulnerable to how the Arctic responds to continued climate warming” (McGuire et al., 2006: 62)

The environmental and climatic changes in the Arctic are worrying, but in political and economic circles it seems they are viewed as an opportunity; an opportunity for new shipping routes and an opportunity for further fossil fuel consumption. Specifically these fossil fuels consist of “an estimated 90 billion barrels of undiscovered, technically recoverable oil, 1,670 trillion cubic feet of technically recoverable natural gas, and 44 billion barrels of technically recoverable natural gas liquids”(USGS, 2008). It is a vicious cycle of abuse whereby the damage caused by burning fossil fuels will allow the Arctic to be exploited, will enable the extraction of more fossil fuels and will cause further environmental degradation.

The Russian flag sitting on the Arctic seabed gives an indication of the territorial importance now attached to the Arctic. Arctic nations may, and some already have submitted claims under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) for extended territory. Oil companies are not waiting for territorial treaties to be finalised and are already getting set to explore (Gamble, 2009).

By removing the imperative to reduce emissions, geoengineering enables and reinforces a continued carbon-based energy system, with disastrous environmental consequences. So despite the intentions of geoengineering advocates for this approach to be used in conjunction with emissions cuts, the reality of its use is likely to be dictated by greed and growing energy demands.

Whatever the good intentions of geoengineering it may still find a place on Santa’s naughty list.

Save Santa's Home Cards

Geoengineering: break in case of emergency and don’t break the bank

This TED talk is from 2007, and the point that Keith makes at the beginning of his talk still seems to ring true; despite the continued march of time the debate about geoengineering (and climate change in general) has not moved very far forward.

Discussions about geoengineering give a cursory nod to emission reductions as the optimal solution but nevertheless proceed with proposals that sometimes compliment but at other times serve to diminish and distract from efforts to cut emissions. This moral hazard argument is popular with geoengineering skeptics.

The argument for geoengineering is often filled with confusing statements and seeming contradictions, Keith’s talk is no exception. The audience is presented with various ideas for why geoengineering should be implemented:

1. Geoengineering; it takes the edge off

Geoengineering can be presented as an emergency measure; implemented to quickly reverse a trend towards a tipping point. The scenario depicted by Keith is one in which emissions have already peaked and are being reduced but a fast-acting solution is still required to save the rapidly melting Greenland ice sheet. Keith stresses that this is “an absolutely possible scenario” but there is a convenience in selecting a scenario in which reducing emissions is no longer pertinent and so does not compete with geoengineering as an approach. However, given that reducing emissions has so far proved to be an elusive goal there is limited usefulness in depicting a scenario, that while possible, is far removed from the most likely scenario.

2. Why pay more?

In a financially based approach geoengineering goes head to head with emission reductions and comes out on top because it is “absurdly cheap”. Keith is quite clear that reducing emissions is the preferable course of action, stating that the technology exists to do this but “all we lack is the action to actually spend the money”. The solution to this is...find a cheaper way?

When shopping for climate control remember that with geoengineering you can pick up an ice-age for the low low price of 0.001% of GDP, every little helps!

It becomes very difficult to reconcile statements about the importance of emission reductions with a financially motivated geoengineering approach and so when Keith says that we should “get serious about cutting emissions” the words ring hollow.   

3. Actions but no consequences

Using geoengineering to “break the link between human actions that change climate and the climate change itself” as Keith suggests, is probably an honest estimation of the likely role that geoengineering could have, but that does not make it the most sensible course of action. Removing the link between human action and the environmental consequences makes an allowance for continued environmental abuse. This approach would contravene emission reduction approaches and also does not sit well with the idea that geoengineering should just be implemented in case of emergency

This uncertainty in the way in which geoengineering might be adopted makes it difficult to support it as an approach. This uncertainty also validates Keith’s final point: that greater discussion is required and that this discussion must incorporate a much broader group of people. The inclusion of geoengineering in the latest IPCC report is likely to bring it further into the mainstream debate. While I am confused and unsure about some of Keith’s assertions I firmly agree that “it’s time to begin thinking about it even if the reason we are thinking about it is to construct arguments for why we shouldn't do it”. One important aspect of the geoengineering debate is certainly the moral hazard argument, and it seems clear that with the potential for geoengineering to act in opposition to emission reductions it is a valid argument.