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.
No comments:
Post a Comment