To what extent should we engineer the climate?

Introduction

Two broad strategies have been identified to halt climate change and keep global warming within 1.5oc: mitigation and adaptation, reducing emissions to prevent climate change and managing the risks of the impact of climate change. Geoengineering sits within the fatalist strategy of adaptation and is defined by the natural scientist Matt Watson as “the purposeful intervention into the climate systems to reduce the worst side effects of climate change”, intervening into the planet’s natural systems and contracting the impact of the greenhouse effect. This essay will discuss if the benefits of geoengineering outweigh its negative impacts on the planet.

For

On one hand, we should engineer the climate as solar radiation management is effective as a technique to delay the immediate consequences of climate change. SRM works by releasing sulphur and other reflective particles into the atmosphere to evenly surround the globe and reflect the sun’s light, cooling down the planet temporarily. This is carried out by drones spraying sulphur particles. It would cost a manageable US$2.25 billion per year over 15 years, a fraction of the cost of alternatives such as carbon dioxide removal. This means it is an effective way to allow governments to gain time to work on mitigation of climate change, such as switching to sustainable hydroelectricity. It is vital to managing climate change and allows us to be responsive to global warming.

Carbon Dioxide removal (referred to as CDR) is the process where CO2 is removed from the atmosphere and injected into the ground indefinitely. The carbon from CDR can fertilise ocean ecosystems to accelerate growth of plankton, increasing biodiversity.

It also avoids international political conflicts over oil as switching to sustainable energy sources through mitigation would not be needed as a strategy, which is vital as it may avoid conflict and mass loss of life. As of March 2022, it is clear that the UK’s, for example, fuel prices are vulnerable to change. Diesel’s price rose by 5.5p in a week alone due to issues with supply from Russia and the consequences globally of its invasion of Ukraine. This shows the sheer fragility of the UK’s dependence on energy, a balance which can be broken with rapid changes to different energy sources. In addition, demand will be present for CDR solutions, opening up the opportunities for private businesses to profit off CDR whilst benefitting biodiversity, perhaps prompting governments on larger scales to opt for CDR which is effective when rolled out.

Saul (Year 9)

https://www.c2g2.net/wp-content/uploads/CDR-infographic-ENGLISH-AW-1.png

https://cdrprimer.org/ assets/figures/cdr-primerfigure-1-1-lt.png?v7

Against

On the other hand, SRM is only a short-term solution, which, given its effectiveness, may be taken as a long-term one with dangerous consequences. This is a “lock-in” where nations will be too involved in the technology that it will cost more money to abandon than continue, despite other technological solutions being more effective. Politicians have incentives to continue SRM continuous schemes with focus on short electoral periods of time. This matter because the halt of SRM after a long period of time (if it is impossible to hold up because of war or economic collapse) can cause termination shock, a large and rapid increase of global temperatures which would increase in accordance with the previously ongoing and overlooked (due to SRM posing as a solution) so SRM’s fragile positive benefits will be reversed. This shows that we should not engineer the climate due to catastrophic risks if it is halted and uncertainty around its effectiveness, whilst mitigation solutions have been proved. Furthermore, Carbon Dioxide Removal is expensive to roll out and ineffective. As of June 2021, the most promising carbon capture technology costs almost US$96-232 for every tonne of CO2 to be captured, but only if it is on a large commercial scale, which is not feasible at the moment due to its cost and people looking for more affordable climate change solutions. his raises the question of how a scaled-up CDR system would work. Even if the initial hesitancy and fear of CR is overcome, it is only an option for high-GDP nations who have the capability to afford it, despite it being ineffective. A large number of rapidly developing nations would be better off investing in successful technological solution, or (for less economically developed nations) even focusing on prioritising dealing with inequality and diseases such as Malaria. Therefore, it is impossible to scale up.

Moreover, 10 gigatonnes (10 billion tonnes) of CO2 must be captured by 2050 to achieve the bare minimum to avoid dangerous levels of global warming. This matters as the billions of dollars needed could be more effectively spent on converting to wind or solar energy, a sustainable source. This would be expensive, but only a one-time investment, whilst CDR has to occur constantly as we emit CO2 at the same rate. Climate Change models, consistently accurate in large numbers, forecast that CDR relies on a mitigated reduction of CO2 emissions to have any effect. Moreover, as the graph opposite shows, CDR encourages further emissions, leading to more money needing to be spent on CDR meaning it is ineffective and not economically viable. They are also only effective in rollout in the long term and a peer-reviewed study found that CDRs “would only start to deliver too late.” Furthermore, Matthew Watson argues that the IPCC (international panel for climate change) should only consider climate engineering under stable “global governance… only when it is clear that we are a long way down the path to decarbonisation” Currently, geoengineering is done on a small-scale privately, so no meaningful difference can happen. As seen in international climate change conferences such as COP26, a lack of leadership is present and there are many different, often contradictory, interests and visions based on each countries’ economic status. This makes it hard for meaningful changes to occur. If geoengineering is only feasible when done globally, then it is hardly feasible at all. This is in stark contrast to offshore wind which can be effectively rolled out individually by nations. Geoengineering is a needless waste of resources.

Conclusion

In conclusion, I believe that the climate should be engineered to a very small degree in the short term to gain time for structural changes, mitigating climate change by reducing future emissions. SRM should only be used for a regulated short period of 5 years, to avoid long-term acceleration of global warming and a pointless expense. Carbon dioxide removal should be heavily regulated to avoid the perception that it is an economically feasible alternative to switching to sustainable energy sources, such as offshore wind in the UK. The Centre for International Environmental Law argues that carbon capture solutions “cannot play any significant role in the rapid reduction of global emissions necessary to limit warming to 1.5°C”. Ultimately, geoengineering should scarcely be used, and as a Global Witness-commissioned study outlined that “reliance on CCS is not a solution”.