|
|
|
|
Geoengineering
|
| |
|
| |
Geoengineering is the idea of applying planetary engineering to Earth. Geoengineering would involve the deliberate modification of Earth's environment on a large scale "to suit human needs and promote habitability". Typically, the term is used to describe proposals to counter the effects of human-induced climate change. However, others define it more narrowly as focusing only on the mineralogy and hydrology of the Earth. The term geoengineering is distinct from environmental damage and accidental anthropogenic climate change, which are side-effects of human activity, rather than an intended consequence.
Discussion
Ask a question about 'Geoengineering' Start a new discussion about 'Geoengineering' Answer questions from other users |
Encyclopedia
Geoengineering is the idea of applying planetary engineering to Earth. Geoengineering would involve the deliberate modification of Earth's environment on a large scale "to suit human needs and promote habitability". Typically, the term is used to describe proposals to counter the effects of human-induced climate change. However, others define it more narrowly as focusing only on the mineralogy and hydrology of the Earth. The term geoengineering is distinct from environmental damage and accidental anthropogenic climate change, which are side-effects of human activity, rather than an intended consequence. Definitions of the term are not universally accepted.
The modern concept of geoengineering is usually taken to mean proposals to deliberately manipulate the Earth's climate to counteract the effects of global warming from greenhouse gas emissions. Advocates of the idea promote it based on the possibility that climate change may become so far advanced that severe and dangerous effects are inevitable, or that positive feedback mechanisms may cause runaway climate change, even if emissions are substantially reduced. There is also a body of opinion that supports geoengineering because it may avoid or delay the difficult and expensive transition to a low carbon economy. However, most scientists, environmentalists and engineers who advocate geoengineering see it as an additional measure required to stabilise the climate, not as an cheaper alternative to a low carbon economy.
Some geoengineering techniques are based on carbon sequestration. These seek to reduce greenhouse gases in the atmosphere directly. These include direct methods (e.g. carbon dioxide air capture) and indirect methods (e.g. ocean iron fertilization). These techniques can be regarded as mitigation of global warming. Alternatively, solar radiation management techniques (e.g. stratospheric sulfur aerosols) do not reduce greenhouse gas concentrations, and can only address the warming effects of carbon dioxide and other gases; they cannot address problems such as ocean acidification, which are expected as a result for rising carbon dioxide levels. Most techniques have at least some side effects.
Examples of proposed geoengineering techniques include the production of stratospheric sulfur aerosols, which was suggested by Paul Crutzen, and cloud reflectivity enhancement. Some limited tree planting and cool roof projects are already underway, and ocean iron fertilization is at an advanced stage of research, with small scale research trials having been completed. To date, no large-scale geoengineering projects have been undertaken, nor has a general consensus been reached that their use is desirable. Some commentators additionally suggest that consideration of geoengineering is unhelpful because it threatens to reduce the political and popular pressure for emissions reduction which they regard as desirable for their own sake. Typically, the scientists and engineers proposing geoengineering strategies do not suggest that they are an alternative to emissions control, but rather an accompanying strategy.
Aside from global warming-related projects, some large scale water management and hydraulic engineering projects could be considered to be hydraulic geoengineering, in that they involve changing the hydrological processes of an entire region, or use weather modification for hydraulic engineering purposes.
Background
The field is currently experiencing a surge of interest as it has now become a broadly accepted fact that climate change is both real and dangerous. A degree of urgency in efforts to research and implement potential solutions is based on the possibility that tipping points in the Earth's climate system are close at hand. In particular the Arctic shrinkage is causing accelerated regional warming due to positive feedback of the albedo effect, as reflective Arctic sea ice gives way to open water, absorbing heat from the summer sun. Such positive feedback is characteristic of a tipping point, and can accelerate global warming and even cause abrupt climate change. Rapid action with geoengineering may be necessary to halt the Arctic shrinkage. Other tipping points might be avoided by reducing the impact of global warming in order to stifle positive feedback and prevent the resulting accelerated climate change.
The study of geoengineering is a notably complex discipline, as it requires the collation of knowledge in:
Several notable organisations have recently, or are soon to, investigate geoengineering with a view to evaluating its potential. Notably, NASA, the Royal Society, the Institute of Mechanical Engineers, and the British Parliament, have all held inquiries or contests aimed at discovering and evaluating current knowledge of the subject.
The major environmental organisations such as Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace have typically been reluctant to endorse geoengineering, perhaps due to the commonly-held belief that any public support for geoengineering may weaken the fragile political consensus to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Proposed projects
Several geo-engineering projects have been proposed. The documentaries Five ways to save the world and La temperature grimpe describe many of the most notable projects. IPCC documents also detail several proposed projects.
Evaluation of the relative merits of each technology is difficult, especially bearing in mind the difficulties of modelling and the lack of engineering development of many ideas. For example, deposition of sulfate aerosols into the stratosphere could be done using fighter aircraft or similar airplanes, a process which could result in damage to the ozone layer, whereas the use of artillery would not have the same effect.
Solar radiation management
Solar radiation management (SRM) projects seek to reduce the amount of sunlight hitting the Earth and thus counteract global warming. They do not reduce greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere, and thus do not address problems such as ocean acidification caused by these gases. The phenomenon of global dimming is widely-known, and is not necessarily a geoengineering technique, occurring naturally as a result of volcanoes and major forest fires. However, its deliberate manipulation is a tool of the geoengineer.
Solar radiation management projects often have the advantage of speed. Whilst Greenhouse gas remediation offers a comprehensive possible solution to climate change, it does not give instant results; for that, solar radiation management is required.
Techniques that fall into this category include:
Greenhouse gas remediation
Greenhouse gas remediation projects seek to remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere, and thus tackle the root cause of global warming. They either directly remove greenhouse gases, or alternatively seek to influence natural processes to remove greenhouse gases indirectly. These projects offer a comprehensive solution to the problem of excess greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, but they will take many years to work fully. Many projects overlap with carbon capture and storage and carbon sequestration projects, and may not be considered to be geoengineering by all commentators. Techniques in this category include:
Arctic geoengineering
Various hydrological geoengineering projects aim to change the climate without directly or indirectly removing greenhouse gases, or directly influencing solar radiation. These principally act by limiting Arctic sea ice loss. Keeping the Arctic ice is seen by many commentators as vital, due to its role in the planet's albedo and in keeping methane, which is an important greenhouse gas, locked up in permafrost.
Justification
The use of geoengineering to tackle climate change is advocated for several specific reasons:
Tipping points and positive feedback
It is argued that climate change has already, or is soon to, pass one or more tipping points where aspects of the climate system may 'tip' from one stable state to another stable state, much like a chair tipping over. When the new stable state is reached, it may trigger or accelerate warming positive feedback effects, such as the collapse of Arctic sea ice triggering the release of methane from permafrost in Siberia. The "nightmare scenario" is that a domino effect will occur, with successive parts of the climate system tipping one after the other, with each change being caused by the previous one and causing the next one. Such a situation will lead to spiralling and potentially sudden climate change.
The precise identity of such "tipping points" is not clear, with scientists taking differing views on whether specific systems are capable of "tipping" and the point at which this "tipping" will occur. An example of a previous tipping point is the Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum. Once the tipping point is reached, cuts in greenhouse gas emissions will not be able to reverse the change. Depending on the precise nature of the individual system that "tips", positive feedbacks may occur, with warming causing more warming, which causes yet more warming—a runaway global warming event. Therefore, some commentators suggest that more conservative use of resources is not enough to mitigate global warming. Even if all greenhouse emissions suddenly came to a complete halt, the world would continue to be affected for centuries, and further warming may occur due to positive feedback. Conservation of resources and reduction of greenhouse emissions, used in conjunction with geoengineering, are therefore considered a viable option. Geoengineering offers the hope of temporarily reversing some aspects of climate change and allowing the natural climate to be substantially preserved whilst greenhouse gas emissions are brought under control and removed from the atmosphere by natural or artificial processes.
Precautionary principle
Bearing in mind the threats from climate change, it can be argued that attempting geoengineering represents a lesser risk than not pursuing such strategies. While the understanding of geoengineering techniques is limited, the risks of climate change are at least partially understood, and are severe.
Costs
Some geoengineering techniques, such as the use of pale-coloured materials for roofing and paving, can be achieved at little or no cost, and may even offer a financial payback. It is therefore possible to argue that certain implementations of such techniques are preferable to cutting carbon emissions on cost grounds alone.
Political viability
It has been argued that regardless of the economic, scientific and technical aspects, the difficulty of achieving concerted political action on climate change requires other approaches. The political expediency argument recognises the difficulty of achieving meaningful emissions cuts. The effective failure of the Kyoto Protocol demonstrates the practical difficulties of achieving carbon dioxide emissions reduction by the agreement of the international community.
Risks and criticisms
Many criticisms have been made of geoengineering. However, the existence of criticism should not be taken to mean that those raising it are opposed to a particular technique, but rather that they are pointing out a potential disadvantage or downside which may need to be monitored or controlled, or may alternatively weigh against a particular technique. Some commentators appear fundamentally opposed, however. Individuals such as Raymond Pierrehumbert have called for a moratorium on geoengineering techniques.
Ineffectiveness
The effectiveness of the schemes proposed may fall short of predictions. In the example of ocean iron fertilization, for example, the amount of carbon dioxide removed from the atmosphere may be much lower than predicted, as carbon taken up by plankton may be released back into the atmosphere from dead plankton, rather than being carried to the bottom of the sea and sequestered.
Incomplete solution to CO2 emissions
Techniques that do not remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere may control global warming, but do not reduce other effects from these gases, such as ocean acidification. Whilst not an argument against geoengineering per se, this is an argument against reliance on geoengineering to the exclusion of greenhouse gas reduction.
Control and predictability problems
Many members of the scientific and technical communities fear that the full effects of various geoengineering schemes are not fully understood. The failure of the ambitious Biosphere 2 facility is one example of a complex project that was unsuccessful because scientists still have a limited understanding of how earth systems work together.
Performance of the systems may become ineffective, unpredictable or unstable as a result of external events, such as volcanic eruptions, phytoplankton blooms, El Nino, solar flares, etc., potentially leading to profound and unpredictable disruption to the climate system.
It may be difficult to predict the effectiveness of projects, with models of techniques giving widely varying results. In the instances of systems which involve tipping points, this may result in irreversible effects. Climate modelling is far from an exact science even when applied to comparatively well-understood natural climate systems, and it is made more complex by the need to understand novel and unnatural processes which by definition lack relevant observation data.
Side effects
The techniques themselves may cause significant foreseen or unforeseen harm. For example, the use of reflective balloons may result in significant litter, which may be harmful to wildlife.
Ozone depletion is a risk of some geoengineering techniques, notably those involving sulfur delivery into the stratosphere.
The active nature of geoengineering may in some cases create a clear division between winners and losers. Most of the proposed interventions are regional, such as albedo modification in the Arctic. Necessarily, such interventions compel those in the affected regions to tolerate the effects of geoengineering for the supposed benefit of the global climate.
There may be unintended climatic consequences, such as changes to the hydrological cycle including droughts or floods, caused by the geoengineering techniques, but possibly not predicted by the models used to plan them. Such effects may be cumulative or chaotic in nature, making prediction and control very difficult.
Unreliable systems
The performance of the interventions may be inconsistent due to mechanical failure, non-availability of consumables or funding problems.
The geoengineering techniques would, in many instances, be vulnerable to being switched off or deliberately destroyed. As examples, cloud making ships could be switched off or sunk and space mirrors could be tilted to make them useless. Anyone capable of exerting such power may seek to abuse it for commercial gain, military advantage or simple terrorism.
Weaponisation
Weaponisation of geoengineering techniques is generally prohibited by the Environmental Modification Convention. However, this does not eliminate the risk. Geoengineering techniques may be used as a weapon of mass destruction, creating droughts or famines designed to destroy or disable an enemy. They could also be used simply to make battlefield conditions more favourable to one side or the other in a war (such as in Operation Popeye). For example, laser-guided weapons are confounded by clouds, and thus switching off cloud machines would favour forces using such weapons, and switching them on would favour ground forces defending against them.
Whilst laws or treaties may prevent the manipulation of the climate as a weapon of war, it could be argued that geoengineering is itself a manipulation, and thus destroying or disabling the geoengineering structures is not prohibited. A new legal framework may be necessary in the event that large-scale geoengineering becomes established.
Effect on sunlight, sky and clouds
Managing solar radiation using aerosols or cloud cover will change the ratio between direct and indirect solar radiation. This may affect plant life and solar energy. There will be a significant effect on the appearance of the sky from aerosol projects, notably a hazing of blue skies and a change in the appearance of sunsets. Aerosols may affect the formation of clouds, especially cirrus clouds.
Moral hazard
The existence of such techniques may reduce the political and social impetus to reduce carbon emissions.
Other criticism comes from those who see geoengineering projects as reacting to the symptoms of global warming rather than addressing the real causes of climate change. Because geoengineering is a form of controlling the risks associated with global warming, it leads to a moral hazard problem. The problem is that knowledge that geoengineering is possible could lead to climate impacts seeming less fearsome, which could in turn lead to a weaker commitment to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. It could be argued that pursuing geoengineering solutions sends the message that humans can continue to live out of harmony with the Earth as long as we have enough clever technological solutions to preserve human life. This disregard for the overall health of Earth's ecosystems and natural environments is an affront to proponents of sustainable development.
Lack of global control
Geoengineering opens up various political and economic issues. David Keith argues that the cost of geoengineering the Earth is within the realm of small countries, large corporations, or even very wealthy individuals. Steve Rayner agrees that not all geoengineering possibilities are expensive, and that some, such as ocean iron fertilisation, are within the reach of very wealthy individuals, calling them "Greenfingers" (after the fictional Goldfinger). David Victor suggests that geoengineering is within the reach of any individual who has a small fraction of the bank account of Bill Gates, who takes it upon him or her self to be the "self-appointed protector of the planet".
This effectively eliminates any control over who gets to decide when to cool the Earth and how often this should be done. The resulting power would be enormous, and could not necessarily be readily controlled by legal, political or regulatory systems. These legal and regulatory systems may themselves be far less powerful than the geoengineers controlling the climate become.
"Pirate" geoengineering
It is quite feasible for unregulated carbon offsetting firms to set up unregulated, unsupervised and dangerous "pirate geoengineering" projects in order to sell carbon credits to individuals and firms.
Geoengineering schemes have the potential to cause significant environmental damage, and may even end up releasing further greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Opposition to some early schemes has been intense, with respected environmental groups campaigning against them. If and when geoengineering projects become widespread, there is a significant risk that a proportion of such schemes will come to be regarded as "pirate" by various commentators.
Implementation issues
There is no general consensus that geoengineering is safe, appropriate or effective, for the reasons listed above. The issue of moral hazard means that many environmental groups and campaigners are reluctant to advocate geoengineering for fear of reducing the imperative to cut greenhouse gas emissions.
All proposed geoengineering techniques require implementation on a relatively large scale, in order to make a significant difference to the Earth's climate. The least costly schemes are budgeted at a cost of millions, with many more complex schemes such as space sunshade costing far more.
Many techniques, again such as space sunshade, require a complex technical development process before they are ready to be implemented. There is no clear institutional mechanism for handling this research and development process. As a result, many promising techniques do not have the engineering development or experimental evidence to determine their feasibility or efficacy at present.
Once a technique has been developed and tested, its implementation is still likely to be difficult. Climate change is by nature a global problem, and therefore no one institution, company or government is responsible for it. The substantial costs of most geoengineering techniques therefore cannot currently be apportioned. Roll-out of such technologies is therefore likely to be delayed until these issues can be resolved. A notable exception is the use of small albedo manipulation projects, known as cool roof, in which the colour of roofing or paving surfaces can be manipulated to reflect solar radiation back into space. These can be, and are, implemented by individuals, companies and governments without controversy.
Due to the radical changes caused by geoengineering interventions, legal issues are also an impediment to implementation. The changes resulting from geoengineering necessarily benefit some people and disadvantage others. There may therefore be legal challenges to the implementation of geoengineering techniques by those adversely affected by them.
See also
External links
-
- Overview of articles on geoengineering from the sustainability site Worldchanging
-
-
- at the
- – Lifeboat Foundation ClimateShield
- BBC News
- Wired Magazine
- Time Magazine
-
-
-
|
| |
|
|
