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.
No comments:
Post a Comment