Last month in the UK a group of researchers came together to start a project called Stratospheric Particle Injection for Climate Engineering (SPICE).
The project was based on observations from volcanic eruptions, which are often followed by a year or more of cooler than average global temperatures. This is attributed to the sulphates that are released into the atmosphere after an eruption and which are capable of reflecting a significant amount of solar radiation, keeping it from reaching the Earth. This has the effect of cooling the planet.
The aim of the project was to investigate if it is possible to replicate this process artificially on a small scale. This involves using a giant balloon with a long tube attached from the ground, to pump climate-cooling sulphate particles into the stratosphere. The first proposed experiment was aimed to test the practicality of this method, so instead of spraying sulphates, they would pump water in at a low altitude.
However, as a result of intense criticism from various organisation such as Friends of the Earth (FOE) the project has been postponed. The opposition claims this would be the first step down a slippery slope towards, what they view as potentially dangerous technologies. Mike Childs head of science policy and research at FOE said:
“We are going to have to look at new technologies which could suck carbon dioxide out of the air. But what we don’t need to do is invest in harebrained schemes to reflect sunlight into space when we have no idea at all what impact this may have on weather systems around the globe.”
Bristol University’s Dr Matt Watson, who leads the project, expressed surprise at the decision. He told the BBC, “We’re talking about a pressure washer you could buy in a hardware shop, a long hose, and two bath loads of water, so you couldn’t have a more benign experiment”. He accepted however that the social context was important and that they should listen to an independent advisory panel.
What is geoengineering?
Geoengineering encompasses a wide range of theoretical technologies with a common goal of addressing the effects of climate change.
According to Professor John Shepherd, Research Fellow in Earth System Science at University of Southampton, the definition of geoengineering is: “Any attempts to interfere with the Earth climate, to try to change the climate and more specifically to moderate global warming. This would involve interfering with the radiation balance by trying to reflect sunlight back into space or actually remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere.”
Illustration of geoengineering examples
There are two main approaches to geoengineering currently being discussed. One is the extraction of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and storing the gas elsewhere, the other is to reflect amounts of incoming sunlight back into space, sunlight that would otherwise reach the ground and heat the Earth’s surface.
The extraction of carbon dioxide incorporates a number of techniques including capture by trees or by various artificial devices such as atmospheric carbon dioxide scrubbers. Other carbon dioxide capturing techniques involve the fertilisation of the oceans by using iron to promote the growth of planktonic algae that will in turn absorb carbon dioxide.
This is unlike methods that reduce incoming sunlight i.e. solar radiation management. The implications of these methods are more serious, such as the altering of global weather patterns. The method in theory would help reduce temperatures, however it could potentially have a global knock-on effect on ocean currents, rainfall patterns, soil moisture and photosynthesis. This suggests that it would require substantial amount of regulation.
Is Geoengineering a viable solution?
Whether geoengineering has the potential to be a scientifically viable tool against climate change is an issue still under debate. There are a lot of problems related to the use of geoengineering, since these ideas are at a very early stage of development. There are uncertainties regarding cost, the environmental impacts related to consequences, and how such a scheme might be managed and controlled.
Additionally there is the issue of ethics, because there is a vocal demographic who believe that the deliberate intervention with the climate would be immoral. This is a view shared by Clive Hamilton, Charles Stuart University’s Professor of Public Ethics in the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics.
Professor Hamilton said, “We have used many excuses for our failure to reduce carbon emissions. When we look for reasons to avoid doing what we know we should do it can be called ‘moral corruption’, so geoengineering research may be a form of moral corruption.”
One of the main issues with carbon dioxide removal is that the excessive use of the materials necessary would create an increased demand in mining activities as well as energy and water consumption.
For example, chemical ocean fertilization would require the distribution of ground minerals over the oceans that would enhance photosynthesis in phytoplankton. This would in turn consume more carbon dioxide, but requires materials such as iron, phosphorus, nitrogen, calcium hydroxide, limestone and silicates. The extraction of this will incur environmental costs including hazardous waste, high water use and excessive energy consumption.
With solar radiation management (SRM) the main problem is in the potential disruption in normal weather patterns. Scientists fear it could interfere with monsoon rainfall systems, which are not well understood and are of vital importance to the agriculture of a very large number of the world’s most vulnerable people. A disruption of the monsoon system could have devastating consequences for many of those people.
Support for geoengineering
There is however strong vocal support for geoengineering from those who claim that the technology is essential to tackle climate change. The Institution of Mechanical Engineers (IMechE) has stated that the government should prioritise funding for geoengineering projects that could delay climate change sufficiently to allow mitigation, adaptation and political solutions to be found.
This is a point of view shared to a degree by Professor David Keith of Public Policy at the Harvard Kennedy School. He recently gave an interview for the BBC news programme Hard Talk in which he argued that geoengineering can provide a cost effective plug on the effects of climate change before it becomes irreversible.
During the interview he agreed with the Royal Society’s stance that geoengineering as a science has too many uncertainties. For example there is no hard evidence that SRM can compensate for the effects of carbon dioxide in the environment by cutting sunlight. He said some risks may be reduced by this method but could cause environmental and social problems including conflict.
“I spend a lot of time trying to look at the environmental problems it will create and the social problems, and I make it perfectly clear that you cannot perfectly compensate environmental effects in the atmosphere by cutting sunlight.”
He believes that more research and work is needed on small scale geoengineering experiments and computer model simulating. He proposes starting from a small scale and expanding
gradually to a more widespread experiment, watching out for any ill effects. This wouldn’t necessarily guarantee safety however. Professor Keith argues that the benefits would compensate this risk as it would provide remarkable levels of protection for both nature and the people in the world most affected by climate change.
“One of the most obvious things we understand about climate change is heat stress on crops. For poor farmers in the world, the most likely impact they will see from climate change is that peak temperatures will reduce the productivity of crops. And first SRM models have shown that it would significantly reduce the impact and that is a big deal for a lot of poor people on this planet”
Professor Kieth also expressed his view, on the role geoengineering will play in tackling climate change.
“I see my work (geoengineering) as building a tool, a tool that humanity may or may not need, I don’t see any big application anytime soon”
Many fear geoengineering to be unethical and dangerous
With regard to public perception and social issues around geoengineering, Professor Keith believes that the technology needs time to evolve with increased participation from the public to address issues, enable debate and look seriously at these options.
“Public opinion will evolve over a long time, and from my point of view the goal is to make that public opinion to be shaped by facts and politics and also by peoples values, values about nature values about poor vs rich, and I have no preconceived notion of what the right answer is, except that we look seriously at these options”
Where does this leave us?
From a practical and scientific standpoint, geoengineering technologies are not likely to be established for a couple of decades. It is still a speculative solution and not a substantial alternative.
According to John Shepherd such technologies are not viable, and we have to concentrate on the main task, which is to reduce carbon emissions and to adapt to climate change that is now happening, and face the inevitable impacts it will bring.
John Shepherd said “As a scientist, I don’t want to have to make decisions based on ignorance, and I don’t believe that members of the public want that either. Those who prefer their decisions to be based on evidence should probably wait a bit before casting their vote on geoengineering.”
Conclusion
At present some may claim that geoengineering is simply ‘playing God’ with the environment without out any real knowledge of the consequences. However, it is anything but simple, and the research involved remains inconclusive. For more clarity more research needs to be conducted, but the ethics of what this leads to are being questioned by many people. Are we as a society willing to open Pandora’s box?
Main photo - Courtesy of Roberto Bobrow
Other photos - Courtesy of indigoprime and mckibillo