The Geoengineering-Industrial Complex

Alan Robock’s reason number 15 of 20 reasons why geoengineering may be a bad idea is the “commercial control of technology”. He questions the motives of companies that could potentially hold patents for earth changing technology; “whose benefit would they have at heart?” when such companies “often value shareholder profits over the public good.” It is a valid point but I don’t think that Robock takes it far enough.

Ian McEwan’s recent novel Solar, tells a story of Prof. Michael Beard, a Nobel prize winning physicist, and his endeavours into alternative energy sources. His motivation stems from scientific curiosity, a desire to reinvigorate his career and tarnished reputation as well as the financial gains. Saving the planet is a bonus that helps him to bolster his reputation and ego. Beard’s colleague in the venture expresses concern that global warming is not real and the planet is actually cooling: “If the place isn’t hotting up, we’re fucked” to which Beard replies: “It’s a catastrophe. Relax!”

***SPOILER ALERT***

The novel ends in a patent dispute that sees the equipment at the launch site destroyed and the whole projected halted pending legal action.

The motivation to tackle climate change consistently takes a back seat to the commercial viability and financial rewards of the project. While Solar is a work of fiction the attitudes and motives that are described do exist in reality. I don’t mean to infer that all climate and energy research should be rooted in planetary concern and humanitarianism but if a planetary crisis becomes an opportunity for financial gain the integrity of the entire endeavour may be compromised.

More than that, the planetary solution becomes something that can be bought, something that wealthy individuals/nations could invest in and potentially own; in this case control of the global thermostat goes to the highest bidder. It is also clear that a situation of global winners and losers would be perpetuated; backing geoengineering can distract from mitigation efforts and would allow wealthy groups to maintain the environmentally-degrading status quo that helped to make them so wealthy in the first place.

Billionaire Richard Branson launched the Virgin Earth Challenge in 2007; he offered US$25 million “for an environmentally sustainable and economically viable way to remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere.” The 11 finalists have been selected. The competition explicitly excluded any project that sought to reduce emissions since projects that do not remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere are outside the scope of the Virgin Earth Challenge.

  

Bill Gates is a prominent financial backer of geoengineering. He finances the Fund for Innovative Climate and Energy Research (FICER) which is managed by Dr. Ken Caldeira and Dr. David Keith, two prominent geoengineering advocates. The fund has provided approximately US$4.5 million for 13 various research projects, including US$1.1 million each for the research projects of Drs. Caldeira and Keith.

Gates is also a private investor in Keiths company Carbon Engineering (CE). CE aims to commercialise and deploy industrial-scale carbon capture technology as a tool to tackle climate change.

While research into geoengineering should only help the world to make an informed decision as to how we can tackle climate change, it is clear that this research is almost entirely in the hands of wealthy nations and groups. Whether or not the motives of such nations and groups are humanitarian, decisions regarding the implementation of geoengineering belong to the entire global community and should require considerable international debate and negotiations. There must be a suitable legal and political framework in place so that geoengineering plans are subject to independent scrutiny and not shareholder concerns.

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.

Atmospheric Sulphate Injections: blue sky thinking...think again

“The warming of earth by the increasing concentrations of CO2 and other greenhouse gases is partially countered by some backscattering to space of solar radiation by the sulfate particles, which act as cloud condensation nuclei and thereby influence the micro-physical and optical properties of clouds, affecting regional precipitation patterns, and increasing cloud albedo” (Crutzen, 2006).

This form of geoengineering is inspired by observations of volcanic eruptions. By utilising this property of sulphate particles as a form of solar radiation management, we could to cool the planet and offset global warming. However it is important to consider some of the other properties of sulphur dioxide (SO2), which include acid rain, ozone depletion and significant health risks.

“SO2 can affect the respiratory system and the functions of the lungs, and causes irritation of the eyes. Inflammation of the respiratory tract causes coughing, mucus secretion, aggravation of asthma and chronic bronchitis and makes people more prone to infections of the respiratory tract. Hospital admissions for cardiac disease and mortality increase on days with higher SO2 levels. When SO2 combines with water, it forms sulfuric acid; this is the main component of acid rain which is a cause of deforestation.” (WHO, 2011).

The dangers of SO2 mean that there have been considerable efforts and legislation put in place to reduce emissions and this reduction in emissions has to some extent amplified global warming. The situation is something of Catch-22.

The side-effects of atmospheric sulphate injections could include changed precipitation patterns creating pressure on food and water resources, potentially aggravating the risk of famine and drought in areas of the developing world (Tuana et al., 2012)

Atmospheric sulphate injections would also do nothing to combat ocean acidification but would have a negative impact on the production of solar power due to the increase of diffuse light. So while Wigley (2006) stresses the importance of mitigation alongside solar radiation management it seems significant to note that this approach could diminish one carbon-free energy source.

Another impact would be a change in sky colour. Atmospheric sulphate injections would impact the Rayleigh Scattering. Cruzen (2006) describes this impact as “colorful sunsets and sunrises” but others have a less rose-tinted view.

There is a theory that the volcanic eruption of Krakatoa on August 27 1883, which resulted in “Magnificent fiery sunsets and sunrises”, inspired Edvard Munch’s iconic painting “The Scream”. Munch recounts his experience of his inspiration:

"I was walking along the road with two friends—then the Sun set—all at once the sky became blood red—and I felt overcome with melancholy. I stood still and leaned against the railing, dead tired—clouds like blood and tongues of fire hung above the blue-black fjord and the city. My friends went on, and I stood alone, trembling with anxiety. I felt a great, unending scream piercing through nature."

(Olson et al., 2004)

Image Source: Wikipedia.org

Solar Radiation Management

Solar radiation management basically involves increasing the reflectivity of the planet so that less solar radiation is absorbed and the planet is cooler as a result. SRM proposals include:

• Increasing the reflectivity of the planet by painting structures white. This approach is often considered quite benign and would need to be implemented on a massive scale to have a discernible impact.

• Marine cloud brightening. The overall concept here is that albedo of clouds could be increased by making the clouds brighter. One way to do this would be to spray clouds with seawater.

• Atmospheric sulphate injections. This proposal aims to mimic the effect of volcanic eruptions.

• ”Placing shields or deflectors in space to reduce the amount of solar energy reaching the Earth”

(Shepherd, 2012: 4169)

SRM is at the heart of the controversy that surrounds geoengineering. This controversy is for number of reasons, including:

• The ethics of deliberate manipulation of the global climate.

• The military origins and associations with some geoengineering proposals.

• The known side-effects of SRM, which we are aware of and (we think) we understand.

• The side-effects that we do not understand and have not considered, or unknown unknowns (unless you take exception to that phrase).

The above is not an exhaustive list of SRM proposals, but it is representative of the main ideas. SRM proposals are complex and each one has its own advantages and disadvantages that must be carefully considered before ever being implemented.

One of my concerns with SRM is that it does not address the root of the problem: CO2 emissions. So in some regards SRM can be viewed as making an allowance for CO2 emissions to continue. This effort to maintain current energy consumption and pollution creation patterns serves to diminish efforts to tackle the wider causes of global environmental issues, such as unsustainable societal and economic patterns (Corner & Pidgeon, 2010).

Bickel and Lane, in their report, “An Analysis of Climate Engineering as a Response to Climate Change”, seem to view climate engineering as a substitute for reduced emissions. Despite stating in the opening pages that “the reader should not interpret our focus on climate engineering as implying that other responses to climate change are unneeded”, the authors then go on to discuss the “economic freedom” that flourishes under climate engineering options as opposed to emission controls which are portrayed as an “infringement of economic freedom”. This comparison between climate engineering and emission controls serves to directly contravene the idea that geoengineering should only be implemented in conjunction with emission cuts.

If SRM methods were to be employed they could create “an artificial, approximate and potentially delicate balance between continuing increased greenhouse gas concentrations and reduced solar radiation, which would have to be maintained potentially for many centuries” (Shepherd, 2012: 4170).

Because SRM does not address the root of the problem it does not address the consequences of increased CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere, such as ocean acidification. SRM also adds its own side-effects to the mix, including changed precipitation patterns, ozone depletion and reduced potential for solar power (Tuana et al., 2012 / Shepherd, 2012).

The one big draw of SRM proposals is the time frame in which they would work. They could be called upon in an emergency, such as at the brink of a tipping point, and be implemented to relatively quickly reverse some potentially disastrous climate change trajectory (Tuana et al., 2012). The caution to this is that all of the risks and drawbacks of SRM would be diminished in the face of an impending global environmental disaster and so risky and radical policies could be implemented while a vulnerable public are unable to resist. This in some ways echoes Naomi Klein’s Shock Doctrine theory.

I think that solar radiation management merits further research and full public engagement so that if it is ever to be implemented policy makers and the public can have full confidence in the approach or conversely have the knowledge and power to resist its implementation.

Carbon Dioxide Removal: sweeping the problem under an oceanic carpet

As discussed in my previous post, geoengineering can be broadly categorised into Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) and Solar Radiation Management (SRM). Some make the distinction that CDR is not true geoengineering since it aims to reverse carbon emissions and so is more like pollution mitigation. However the scale at which CDR would need be implemented and the potential side-effects mean that it raises many of the same concerns as its cousin, SRM. SRM is often presented as the more sinister and risky side of geoengineering, but while CDR might be seen as the lesser of two evils it is far from ideal.   

Examples of carbon dioxide removal include carbon capture and storage (CCS) and air capture (AC). The distinction is that CCS removes CO2 from fixed point sources such as power plants, i.e. before the CO2 has been released to the atmosphere (and so is a form of pollution mitigation), while AC aims to remove CO2 directly from the atmosphere. In order to have a significant impact on global atmospheric CO2 concentrations AC would need to be implemented on a large scale for a long time, which puts it more into the realm of global climate engineering. The thing is however that this AC technology does not currently exist on a commercial scale (Keith et al. 2006).

In either case, supposing that the CO2 can be successfully captured, it needs to be stored and the most frequent suggestion is in the ocean. Oceans already operate as carbon sinks and by absorbing anthropogenic CO2 emissions the oceans may have diminished and disguised the impact of global warming. The Global Carbon Project estimate that 27% of total emissions from human activities during 2003-2012 were absorbed by the ocean sink. For this reason the ocean is central to many CDR proposals.

One suggestion is to store CO2 so deep in the ocean that the low temperature would change the CO2 from a gas to a liquid, which would be more dense than the water and so would remain in storage. Concerns surrounding this approach are that it would alter the chemical composition of the water, resulting in ocean acidification. Ocean acidification has ramifications for marine species and the development of coral, and in turn would impact human societies that subsist from the ocean. There are also concerns about leakage of carbon from these ocean stores (Nevala & Madin, 2008).

Another proposal to increase the absorption of carbon from the atmosphere into the ocean is to fertilise the ocean with nitrogen in order to promote phytoplankon blooms, which would remove carbon from the atmosphere. Once the phytoplankton die, they sink to the ocean depths, along with the carbon they are storing. The concerns with this approach are the scale on which it would have to be implemented to be effective, and again the potential for altering the chemical composition of the ocean is great. Not to mention the other side-effects, such as the promotion of toxic algae blooms. The cons are troubling and difficult to reconcile, particularly since the effectiveness of this approach is far from guaranteed (Nevala & Madin, 2008).

The Ocean Nourishment Corporation (ONC) however, sees so much potential in ocean fertilization that it “is developing its unique patented ocean nourishment technology”

"ONC’s agenda is to assist in providing scalable solutions to global environmental problems including the excess carbon dioxide waste in the atmosphere and its effects on climate security, ocean acidification and the decline of world fisheries from overfishing, poor management and environmental degradation. These are lofty goals and therefore ONC is no ordinary business, our triple bottom line is environment first, social second and economic third."

So the bottom bottom line is economic?

ONC describe Ocean Acidification as an important issue that “is seriously under investigated”. They acknowledge that “work is needed to clarify the processes, to gain a better understanding of what is happening”. They don’t mention if they are undertaking this work.

I think that understanding the issue of ocean acidification should precede research and development into site selection and nutrient delivery technology, but ONC and I must disagree on this point. The priorities of ONC are particularly interesting since ocean acidification has the potential to diminish ocean biodiversity and productivity, which seems directly at odds with the mission of ONC.

The below link highlights why ocean acidification is so troubling and why it could be worth reconsidering the ocean for carbon storage.

20 Facts About Ocean Acidification