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.
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment