Geo-­‐engineering  and  the  transi/on  to  a  green  economy  The Grønnies: Abha, Alejandro, Ali, Arthur & Emmanuel

Methods  &  Applica/ons  

Carbon  Dioxide  Removal  (CDR)    The main cause of climate change is the increasing atmospheric concentrations of GHGs, chiefly CO2. CDR operates on the

assumption that by removing GHGs from the atmosphere, it is possible to reduce the speed with which climate change

unfolds. Air capture and ocean fertilization are two key CDR methods.

Solar  Radia/on  Management  (SRM)  SRM reduces the intensified greenhouse effect by which naturally occuring GHGs absorb solar energy radiated to the Earth’s

atmosphere. While this absorption heats the planet, most of it is radiated back into space thus minimizing any negative

effects. However, excessive amounts of GHGs released by human activities (fossil fuel use, deforestation, etc.) have

increased the amount of heat that is trapped and decreased what is reflected, thereby rising global temperatures. To

counteract this imbalance, SRM aims to reduce the absorption of solar radiation by increasing planetary albedo, or reflectivity.

Two prominent methods include:

Disadvantages  Moral  hazard

The danger of geo-engineering is that it will distrac effort and attention from mitigation and adaptation.

Symptoms,  not  causes

Geo-engineering deals with the symptoms not the causes of global warming, CDR for sure helps decreasing the Co2 levels in

the atmosphere, SRM basically uses new pollution to deal with the old pollution, as long as our society continues increasing

the “fossil oil addiction”, geoengineering will not be a definitive solution.

Known  and  unknown  consequences  Geo-engineering and climate intervention could trigger a cascade of unanticipated and unintended consequences on

organisms, abiotic components and ecosystems. Some other issues to consider include:

     Hydrology  Hydrologoical processes such as precipitation, soil moisture, and river flow could respond negatively due to an alteration of

atmospheric circulation.

     Ocean  acidity  Ocean fertilization will only contribute to the problem and do nothing to resolve excessive ocean acidification. As acidification

continues, there are threats to the balance of the entire oceanic biological chain, from coral reefs to humans.

         Ozone  deple2on  

Additional releases of aerosols will likely lead to an even more severe and accelerated destruction of ozone.

Path  dependency  If geo-engineering consequences do not prove fatal, there remains the issue of reversibility. SRM may make it difficult or even

impossible to revert back to previous and more desirable states of being. As well, geo-engineering may actually afford

humanity too much time, leading to complacency and indefinite lock-in effects. If CO2 emissions are not reduced, CDR must

occur for as long as fossil fuels can be consumed.

Cost  uncertain/es

Given that the field remains in its infancy and the lack of definitive cost studies, current cost estimates are misleading.

Militariza/on  It has been suggested that the weather has indeed been weaponized. At least four countries – the US, Russia, China and

Israel – possess the technology and organization to regularly alter weather and geologic events for various military and black

operations, which are tied to secondary objectives, including demographic, energy and agricultural resource management.

Advantages  Increases  resilience  One of the benefits of considering and pursuing geo-engineering include additional insight to help better understand the

complexities of planetary systems - for instance, the effects of the next volcanic eruption, or how to better measure what

happens in the stratosphere –systems in which our current knowledge is limited (Robock,2010). In addition, it may help lead

to cost reductions and breakthroughs elsewhere, not necessarily related to geo-engineering. As the global climate comprises

the interaction of various processes, geo-engineering may create synergies with other (climate change) research priorities.

CO2  reduc/ons  and  lower  temperatures  DAC ,without considering the yet unresolved economic and technical considerations, is widely the most desirable method.

CDR projects would be accompanied by the creation of greater carbon sinks, the natural and artificial reservoirs that store

CO2 emissions for an indefinite period of time. This would allow for the redistribution of carbon by increasing the CO2 uptake

of the terrestrial biosphere, where the ability of emissions to affect climate change is limited. SRM techniques such as sulfate

aerosol dispersal may also potentially increase land-based CO2 sinks by stimulating vegetation growth (Robock, Marquardt,

et al. 2009). Such growth would be substantial enough to counter anthropogenic emissions.

Cost  effec/ve  SSD and other SRM techniques are very quick to deploy and generally cost-effective (The Royal Society 2009). Preliminary

estimates have determined that costs to disperse aerosols are less than the real estate values of Venice or the crops of small

countries (D. Keith 2010). Theoretically, a single country could perhaps pay for the entire world’s cooling if it sees fit (Barrett

2007). Using the most cost-effective option would amount to perhaps total expense of as little as a few billion dollars, just one

percent at most of the cost of required emissions reductions (Victor, et al. 2009).

Poli/cally  expedient  Geo-engineering is administratively easier to manage compared to road tolls, gas taxes and redesigning entire economies,

which requires substantial systems overhaul (energy, transport, buildings, etc.). Based on this, geo-engineering imparts very

few social and economic costs in terms of behavioral or lifestyle changes, which is not a trivial matter. To the extent that this

reduced burden of social costs translates into ease of implementation, geoengineering is more likely to succeed in the long

term than climate change regulation (Michaelson 1998).    

Buys  /me  Geo-engineering may be the only solution left, if the ideal solutions remain politically and economically impossible. At the very

least, geo-engineering will afford additional time regardless of lifestyle choices. Given that the effects of past GHGs emissions

are already too great to reverse, it is an inevitability that climate change will unfold. Geo-engineering is quite likely to limit the

harm and risks associated with climate change thus providing a better chance to react, whether it is to continue business as

usual or to pursue a green economy and the necessary mitigation and adaption measures.  

Ethics  The most pressing issues remain of a human and institutional nature to which answers remain elusive. These are linked to

governance, but are also much broader, and without them we are bound to find ourselves in serious trouble (Stone 2010).

Inten/onality  Deliberate intervention requires an entirely new perspective. Intentionality necessitates a stronger duty to consider ethical

implications since such actions have different moral and legal significance than accidental actions. Now fully aware of human

impact on climate, do we have the moral right to continue combusting fossil fuels? Similarly, knowing that stratospheric

aerosol injection might impact the ecosphere, do humans have a right to forge ahead regardless (Robock 2008)?

Control  The issue is whose hand is to be on the global thermostat – who gets to decide whether and how geo-engineering should be

attempted (Barrett 2007). Geopolitics gives rise to fears of clashing of economic and military superpowers (e.g. the US and

China) and also among emerging nations – Russia may seek a couple additional degrees of warmth, while India a couple

additional degrees of cooling. How then are disagreements to be handled and how can they be prevented from escalating?

Risks  Although climate change is a global problem, the impacts will differ in various parts of the world. This implies that situations

that span jurisdictional boundaries, and various groups and societies require proper consideration of liabilities and

compensation regimes to balance conflicting interests (The Royal Society 2009). This is critical given that certain geo-

engineering methods require long commitments, and the decision to proceed may result in lock-in onto unsustainable paths.

Objec/ves  It is very possible that risk can be managed and that adequate governance schemes can be put in place. However, the

feasibility of geo-engineering may lead humanity down a slippery slope of unknown consequences. If anthropogenic climate

change is tackled with geo-engineering, the possibility remains open in future scenarios for alternative initiatives to alter

planetary systems for human desires (D. Keith 1998). Thus, it must be determined in which manners geo-engineering is

acceptable, and why alternative uses on a global scale are wrong and undesirable.  

Geo-­‐engineering  &  Green  Economy  Geo-engineering will have balancing pros and cons for human well-being, and no improvement in social equity or ecological scarcities. It would help in improving environmental risks, particularly by masking climate change obviously, but in the bigger picture, very little elsewhere.

Human  Well-­‐being  The benefits of geo-engineering on human well-being are unclear. Geo-engineering will be a useful technology to minimize, even

prevent, further damage to developing countries already prone to degradation, water stress, poor soil, etc. By reducing CO2

emissions and bringing down temperatures, homes and social networks will remain strong, water supplies remain safe and food

sources can continue to be harvested. SRM could enhance plant and vegetation growth. This may hold many potential positive

side effects on agriculture, such as greater ability to feed through less environmentally damaging farming methods.

This, however, must be balanced with the potential for geo-engineering to negatively impact human health. While geo-engineering

could theoretically counteract the human toll of climate change just as it does on physical damage, this is uncertain. DAC could

help, but it should also be noted that sulfate aerosol dispersal will only increase air pollution and, more seriously, may also likely

further damage the ozone on which all life depends on.

Social  Equity    There is very little possibility for geo-engineering to reduce the gap between the rich and the poor. In this regard, the cost-

effectiveness of geo-engineering is a drawback. The relatively low financial requirements for geo-engineering deployment mean

that very few human resources are ultimately required. Job creation compared to mitigation and adaptation policies are few.

Ecological  Scarci/es      The role of geo-engineering may not be very helpful in the long run. The worst-case scenario would be that a failure to curtail

material consumption in industrial countries, and also growing appetites in developing and emerging countries. Thus, also further

contributing to energy demands and fossil fuel depletion. SRM is known to alter hydrological patterns leading to water shortages

and drought. It is also noted that stratospheric sulfur injection may hinder solar energy by impairing incoming solar radiation.

Research has indicated that climate engineering will not resolve the problem of ocean acidification thus threatening fisheries.

Environmental  Risks  It is quite evident that geo-engineering can provide much needed help in decreasing the risks associated with climate change.

Recognizing that CO2 emissions and temperature increases are the main culprits of global warming, CDR and SRM will serve as

counterforces to these triggers. As such, worst case and high-risk scenarios that are forecasted will likely not happen.

Nevertheless, geo-engineering merely masks the problem. Should something go wrong with geo-engineering systems, the effects

of climate change may very well suddenly erupt. Moreover, climate change is but one pressing environmental risk. Habitat

destruction, biodiversity loss and eutrophication are other pressing problems not addressed by geo-engineering.

Introduc/on  As the global community soon convenes for the United Nations Conference, Rio+20, to assess progress on environmental

sustainability, two pressing issues loom: extreme poverty and climate change.Extreme poverty and climate change cannot be

addressed as two separate issues. Because poor countries are most vulnerable to climate change, poverty reduction must

occur simultaneously with lower carbon emissions. What this means is that development must unfold in a manner that

decarbonizes energy systems and greater socio-economic progress.

The failures of the Kyoto Protocol and the Copenhagen Summit indicate that political will to initiate green economies is

generally weak. It is largely acepted that a green economy is desirable, but the implementation of climate change mitigation

and adaptation to achieve sustainable development is difficult and not progressing as rapidly as needed. As progress stalls,

geo-engineering is garnering attention as an alternative solution to combating climate change.

Geo-engineering is the deliberate large-scale manipulation of the planetary environment to counteract

anthropogenic climate change (The Royal Society 2009). In this sense, human and technological intervention would serve

to purposely manipulate the Earth’s climate as a means of averting the negative impacts caused by increasing concentrations

of atmospheric GHGs. Geo-engineering is a “game changer” with profound implications for each and every individual on this

planet, now and in the future.

 Direct  Air  Capture  DAC removes CO2 from the air with chemicals. Such a system essentially involves

running outside air over an absorptive chemical that collects CO2, thereby

preventing the global warming process (American Physical Society 2011). The

concentrated CO2 is released for disposal underground, while the “scrubbed” air is

returned to the atmosphere.  

 Ocean  Fer2liza2on  Ocean fertilization builds upon natural biological interactions of aquatic organisms.

Fertilization involves boats to pump nutrients, primarily iron, into oceans for the

purpose of stimulating phytoplankton blooms. The abundance of algae absorbs CO2

as they grow, and upon their death sinks to the bottom of the ocean. The result is

the sequestration of CO2 deep along the ocean floor, where it remains indefinitely.

 Stratospheric  Sulfur  Aerosol  Dispersal  The dispersal of sulfate aerosols into the stratosphere seeks to limit solar radiation

from entering the atmosphere by spreading gases and particulates (e.g. hydrogen

sulfide, sulfur dioxide, sulfate aerosols). This can be accomplished by means of

artillery, aircrafts, or high-altitude balloons, and the result would be a planetary cooling

or global dimming effect. This mimics the observed effects of the 1991 Mount Pinatubo

eruption, which ejected vast amounts SO2 and cooled global temperature by 0.5°C.

 Cloud  Reflec2vity  Enhancement  Cloud reflectivity enhancement alters cloud characteristics to recalibrate global

average temperaturess. A primary method uses ships to spray seawater into the

atmosphere for the purpose of creating extra condensation that makes clouds whiter

(P. J. Rasch 2009). “Marine cloud brightening” focuses on low hanging clouds, which

tend to be warm and highly reflective of sunlight. By increasing the whiteness of these

clouds, reflectivity is simultaneously increased to cool the climate.

For  more    informa/on:   geoengineering2012.wordpress.com  

Conclusion

Geo-engineering can be a useful tool in minimizing the damage of harsh natural disasters and continued environmental

plundering. However, there is a clear duality with geo-engineering. It may give breathing room for mitigation and adaptation,

but implementation may very well also weaken resolve for these actions. Sole reliance on geo-engineering will contribute

little to poverty reduction and not completely eliminate threat of climate change. While nobody is really advocating for this, it

is nevertheless something to keep in mind, because if geo-engineering is implemented, it is plausible that no further action

will be taken.

If geo-enginneering is adopted as short-term implementation, its real utility depends on a number uncertainties, the primary

one being ultimately on mitigation and adaptation measures. So while there must be governance issues to sort out on geo-

engineering, it is more important to develop a mechanism to ensure appropriate and effective action takes place thereafter.

Regarding this, the need for long-term planning and to minimize vested interests make this much more difficult to

accomplish. But without the broader and requisite systematic changes in thinking and living, sustainable development goals

will not be achieved and the world will proceed down a slippery slope.

Another  aspect  for  the  geo-­‐engineering  field  moving  forward  is  to  take  into  account  the  rela=ve  merits  of  CDR  and  SRM.  The  range  of  

geo-­‐engineering  proposals  are  broad  with  varying  degrees  of  desirability  and  effec=veness.  The  applica=on  industrial  ecology  

perspec=ves  and  tools  to  specific  geo-­‐engineering  methods  is  useful  in  hashing  out  the  rela=ve  merits.  Use  of  Life  Cycle  Assessment,  

for  instance,  will  unveil  the  true  costs  of  geo-­‐engineering  methods.  

The  ability  to  control  planetary  climate  and  weather  paJerns  would  indeed  be  a  significant  development  in  human  history,  but  is  this  

something  we  really  want  to  do?  Geo-­‐engineering  is  a  complex  issue  and  requires  much  contempla=on.  The  prospects  strike  at  the  

very  essence  of  human  existence.  It  requires  reflec=on  on  some  very  basic  ques=ons:  What  is  the  purpose  of  our  existence?  What  are  

our  goals?  What  are  our  responsibili=es?  –  ques=ons  we  as  a  collec=ve  whole  have  the  faintest  idea.  Geo-­‐engineering  technology  may  

redefine  how  we  view  the  natural  environment,  but  it  also  presents  opportunity  to  affirm  our  values,  direc=on  and  commitment  to  

sustainable  development