Outrageous, Alarming, and Evocative of Science Fiction: Why We Need Geoengineering
Red sky in the morning, scientists take warning.
Just uttering the word “geoengineering” is an act that could get you kicked out of a scientific dinner party on moral grounds. Or at least, it used to.
Dubbed as being outlandish, unsettling, and redolent of science fiction, geoengineering is yet another topic that causes scientists to flip tables and take hard lines. Geoengineering finds itself at home with topics such as gene cloning and physician-assisted suicide, topics discussed only under the cloak of darkness with your phone in a different room.
That may have been the truth of old. However, even the scientists who described geoengineering as being outlandish, unsettling, and redolent of science fiction agree that geoengineering could potentially slow, stop, or reverse global warming within 1–2 years. So why the careful, deliberate change in rhetoric?
According to those same scientists, a decade of data modeling has shown that geoengineering could be capable of reducing the effects of climate change. Not only that, but they also say that the process of pulling carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases from the atmosphere would take decades, a process that is highly inefficient given the climate targets that we were supposed to be starting on about four years ago.
So does this mean that geoengineering is now no longer a thing to be talked about in fear and tasteful moral disgust?
The realization is here that the window of opportunity to slow the effects of anthropogenic emissions is closing rapidly. The Paris Agreement targets are now creeping up on us with terrifying speed, such that scientists may now dare to publicly say that they are in favor of geoengineering our planet.
The case against geoengineering.
Unfortunately, it doesn’t take much imagination to dream up a list of ways that geoengineering could be weaponized or used to damage our planet by those with less than pure ideals.
The Oxford Principles are a set of guidelines that were drafted in the hopes that they would be used to guide geoengineering technique development and reduce the chances of any conflict that is likely to arise as a result. However, I specifically want to highlight the first principle:
Principle 1: Geoengineering is to be regulated as a public good.
The first principle states that the undertaking of geoengineering techniques should be done in the public interest by the governing bodies at the federal or international level.
But who are the world leaders we would trust with manipulating our climate? How would coercion or bribery of the world leaders be rooted out before significant damage could be done to the climate of targeted countries? Who ensures that scientists are being involved in geoengineering decision-making? Who ensures that the most vulnerable populations are being taken into consideration?
You get the point.
There are so many unknowns when it comes to the governance surrounding geoengineering. I wouldn’t put it past certain modern leaders to weaponize geoengineering to drive home trade agreements or to settle conflicts they have no right getting involved in. Geoengineering also has the potential to promote conflict between countries, especially in the form of “have and have nots”. Countries with this powerful technology could capitalize on the downtrodden and border wars could erupt. It’s not like 2014 was the last time Russia will invade Ukraine.
Another case against geoengineering points to the risk of citizen apathy. Few individuals, corporations, and countries are willing to reduce their carbon emissions, and the risk is present that an easy fix to global warming such as that provided by geoengineering could reinforce this attitude. Geoengineering could take the pressure off corporations to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions and could prolong the usage of fossil fuels. Furthermore, it may even slow the development and expansion of clean energy technologies.
Finally, the last case against geoengineering (for this piece anyway), is that there is little known of the effects that many of the technologies under consideration may have on the planet. While moderate geoengineering may save parts of the world most at risk to climate change, there is a general understanding that geoengineering is certainly no cure-all for climate change. Regardless of geoengineering, the emission of greenhouse gases at the current and projected levels would still pose a risk of increased ocean acidification, coral bleaching, and a lack of ozone regeneration. Furthermore, all studies on the effects of geoengineering have been conducted using software simulations that leave much to be desired in the certainty department. Mother Earth has been known to throw surprise curveballs in the past, and no amount of data analysis and modeling can protect us from what we might bring upon ourselves.
The case for geoengineering.
A strong case in favor of geoengineering isn’t something that began in the late 2000s when we discovered that we had a global warming problem. Instead, it began long before that.
In 1841, an American meteorologist by the name of James Pollard Espy published a book in which he postulated that by generating large storms, “rain might be produced artificially in time of drought”. He was neither the first nor the last. From then on, ideas about geoengineering ranged from the concerning to the politically charged, to not half-bad ideas.
For instance, in 1908, Svante Arrhenius suggested that by adding carbonic acid to the atmosphere, global warming would occur, resulting in people being able to enjoy the benefits of a warmer climate. That sure didn’t age well.
In 1932 and 1946, the Soviet Union and the United States respectively undertook studies surrounding cloud seeding as a method of altering the weather. As politically charged as this era was, some great technology came out of it, including the capacity to change the weather on a small scale using cloud seeding technology.
More recently, Dr. Edward Teller, known as the “father of the hydrogen bomb”, became a supporter of two methods of geoengineering that increase the albedo of the planet. In short, albedo is the built-in cooling mechanism of the planet. The polar ice caps are a great source of albedo (or, whiteness), as the snow and ice reflect sunlight into space. However, because of their fast melting rate, Dr. Teller proposed two other methods of increasing planetary albedo. The first, and most simple, is to send small particles into the atmosphere that will act to scatter and reflect sunlight. The second, and more expensive and technologically difficult, would be launching mirrors into space to reflect sunlight.
The first of Dr. Teller’s proposed methods have been extensively discussed and modeled by scientists. The theory behind this method comes from global dimming (cooling) that is associated with major volcanic eruptions.
The famous eruption of Mount Pinatubo in 1991 is the perfect case study for global dimming. During the eruption, 15 million tons of sulfur dioxide were added into the stratosphere. Once in the stratosphere, the sulfur dioxide reacted with water to form aerosol particles that were made up of sulfuric acid droplets. Over several years, winds spread the particles around the world. The particles remained in the stratosphere for years due to the stratosphere not having any rain clouds to wash away the pollutants. Over time, the pollutants were slowly removed by chemical processes and atmospheric circulation. The important thing to gather here though is that these particles, once in the atmosphere, contributed to the deflection of sunlight, resulting in a global drop in temperature of approximately 0.6 degrees Celsius (1 degree Fahrenheit).
Because of this eruption-caused drop in global temperature, the theory remains that by adding sulfates into the stratosphere, the resulting buildup of particles would act to deflect solar radiation as it tries to reach Earth. This would mimic massive volcanic eruptions and the Earth would cool.
However, the addition of particles to the stratosphere to keep sunlight out could have a serious impact on weather systems. Once released into the stratosphere by specially equipped planes, little can be done in the way of evenly distributing the particles. An uneven distribution could affect regions differently, causing potential changes in rainfall patterns and ocean circulation patterns. As you might have guessed, this can affect regional temperatures and precipitation levels. Furthermore, there is little known about the impact of the aerosol particles on human health and the environment once they begin to leave the stratosphere.
Another method of geoengineering is to remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere. This can be done through several methods, including using devices to extract carbon dioxide from the air and seeding oceans to produce more carbon-absorbing algae.
Using devices to extract carbon dioxide from the air works on the theory that the captured carbon would be turned into biomass that would power these carbon-harvesting systems. The result would be net-zero emissions. The problem with this method is that the amount of land required for these systems would be enormous. Furthermore, fuel would have to be provided to the machines initially, before they could become self-sustaining using the carbon they pull from the atmosphere.
However, instead of planting trees to feed into these machines as biomass in order to pull carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases from the atmosphere, couldn’t we just plant trees instead? Trees are the ideal, and most efficient greenhouse-gas-extraction-device, aren’t they? Also, wouldn’t trees be cheaper, easier to maintain, and take up less space than an entire building full of machines dedicated to removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere?
Basically, yes.
Therein lies the tried-and-true method of geoengineering that has been around for millions of years. Right under our noses.
Restoring forests has all of the benefits on the same scale as geoengineering without any of the potentially negative effects. According to an article in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, “natural climate solutions can provide 37% of cost-effective CO2 mitigation needed through 2030 for a >66% chance of holding warming to below 2 degrees Celsius.” The paper defines natural climate solutions as being various “conservation, restoration, and improved land management actions”. These actions would result in improving carbon capture by the soil and plants and the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions found in various natural locations. This more natural method of geoengineering has a list of positive side effects that go along with it, including “water filtration, flood buffering, soil health, biodiversity habitat, and enhanced climate resilience.”
Forest restoration wouldn’t need a significant replanting effort either. Forests restore themselves naturally, and by allowing multiple species of trees to grow in an area instead of planting “crops” of trees, forests would grow healthier and stronger and would be much more capable of pulling carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere.
Understanding that geoengineering is as benign as encouraging forest restoration is the key to making it a safe topic to discuss. While it can be as formidable as you can imagine, with thousands of mirrors being launched into space to reflect sunlight, hundreds of machines sucking pollutants from the atmosphere, and billions of sulfurous particles lacing our stratosphere, it can also be about rejuvenating our planet naturally.
Given the chance, and a small helping hand, the Earth will manage to geoengineer itself out of a dystopian future. The Earth has been doing this for centuries, long before we ever showed up. I think it’s time to let her do her thing once again.
