Geoengineering is a controversial topic. It is controversial for a number of reasons:
- It can be understood as the peak of human arrogance; manipulating the global environmental system to allow for continued abuse of the planet.
- It can be seen as supremely risky since we have a limited understanding of some of the consequences and unintended side-effects of geoengineering.
- It can be regarded as a waste of valuable time and expertise. Global environmental change is a time sensitive issue and geoengineering provides a false sense of security; a plan B that distracts policy makers from the tough environmental decisions that need to be made sooner rather than later.
If you believe all or some of the above to be true does this mean that there is no value in exploring the possibilities of geoengineering? Well, Al Gore seems to think so. In an interview with The Washington Post he was asked if his move from politics to technology had changed his view on geoengineering. His response:
"That's complex because there are some benign geoengineering proposals like white roofs or efforts to figure out a way to extract C02 from the atmosphere, though no one has figured out how to do that yet. But the geoengineering options most often discussed, like putting sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere or orbiting tinfoil strips - these are simply nuts. We shouldn't waste a lot of time talking about them. Some people will anyway, but they're just crazy."
So it would seem that this blog is a wasted opportunity to explore global environmental change, and if Al Gore ever knew about it he would be very disappointed (but I think it is pretty unlikely that he will read this, so I'll continue).
At the moment I very much agree with the view of Dr. Matthew Watson in his recent article: Why we'd be mad to rule out climate engineering. His stance is probably best summed up by his blog title: the reluctant geoengineer. He argues that although geoengineering is far from ideal and should not be a favoured approach, it is still worth exploring the possibilities. After all “how can we ever be better off not knowing?"
Even if, given further research, I conclude that geoengineering is not a suitable response to global environmental change, it seems unlikely that I will become so vehemently opposed that I will refuse to discuss the topic (that certainly wouldn't bode well for this blog). Instead, I might take a page out of Clive Hamilton’s book (specifically Earth Masters Playing God with the Climate) and give an objective response to the pitfalls of geoengineering.
Call me crazy, Al!
Hi Ruth,
ReplyDeleteAre you currently sitting on the fence with this topic? Is Geoengineering often a costly process? If so do you not think that this money would be more wisely spent elsewhere?
I'm looking forward to finding out more!
Hi Nathen,
ReplyDeleteThanks for your comment. At the moment I think that geoengineering merits further investigation (and it merits the financial investment that goes along with that) but as it stands currently, it is not a viable response to global environmental change. I think that geoengineering might be useful in conjunction with policies to reduce carbon emissions but it certainly doesn't replace the need to reduce carbon emissions.
I don't think that the cost of geoengineering is its biggest obstacle. It is plausible that geoengineering could find sufficient financial backing from wealthy, carbon-based industries that view it as an alternative to reducing carbon emissions (though, as I said above I don't think this is how geoengineering should be considered and financial backing for the wrong reasons raises other issues).
I think that the unpredictability of the side-effects of geoengineering, the uncertainties in terminating geoengineering projects, and the time-frames for geoengineering to take effect are all far more worrying considerations than the costs involved. I aim to explore and discuss these considerations in more detail in future blog posts.
Thanks for your reply,
ReplyDeletePerhaps a 'prevention not cure' policy should be set out for businesses to make sure they first reduce their emissions!
I can't agree enough that reducing emissions should take priority over any other approach, and most proponents of geoengineering seem to feel this way, which is reassuring. Unfortunately, efforts to reduce emissions have thus far been largely ineffectual so it seems likely that we will need a plan B that could help this effort or at least buy more time to reduce emissions. The flip-side of this of course is that geoengineering could distract from mitigation efforts, if it is falsely portrayed as some kind of get-out-of-jail-free card.
ReplyDelete