Geo-Engineering Risk Potential Not An Excuse for Inaction, Scientist Says
by Matthew McDermott, New York, NY 
on 01. 8.09
Lake drying up under Australian drought conditions, photo: Tim via flickr
TreeHugger’s run a couple of pieces about geo-engineering strategies in the past few weeks, some of which have brought out some spirited comments, so it’s fortuitous then that in a recent interview for Yale Environment 360, David Keith of the University of Calgary (someone who most recently been researching CCS technologies and has been writing about geo-engineering for some time) weighs in on some of the issues that perennially crop up: The moral hazard of geo-engineering and risk of unintended consequences, and (my favorite) if we deploy this sort of technology, whether humanity really is ready to start do this sort of planetary management. Here are some highlights:
Risk Depends on Technique
In the intro to the piece, interviewer Jeff Goodell points out that the risks of geo-engineering vary depending on technique. Some which mimic natural carbon cycles (such as ocean iron fertilization) are less risky, while others which attempt to change the albedo of the planet (shooting particles into the stratosphere by stimulating volcanic eruption, artificial cloud formation) might be worse.
On the risks associated with geo-engineering Keith said,
Well, the risks depend partly on what methods you actually use doing the geoengineering. If you put sulfur in the stratosphere, there's some possibility you'll decrease the amount of ozone in the stratosphere because we've observed that with volcanoes and sulfur in the stratosphere. And if you put some advanced engineered particles in the stratosphere like I've spent some time thinking about, it might be those particles have some completely unexpected environmental impact that we don't know about.After all, there’s a painfully long history of us doing engineering interventions in the earth’s systems to solve one problem, and we just end up creating another problem. But despite that history, that’s not an excuse for doing nothing.
Geo-Engineering a Distraction From Reducing Emissions?
That’s a really hard question, and I have different views depending on which side of the bed I get up on in the morning. I guess if you're a total rationalist, the answer is we certainly should not put all of our efforts into cutting emissions. We should put most of our current money and work into cutting emissions, but we do need to figure out what to do in this worst case scenario.
Are Humans Ready to Engineer the Planet?
Though the technology isn’t there yet, Keith was asked whether he sees it as inevitable that humans will someday engineer the entire planet, and are we morally ready to do so. Keith replied that it could happen:
Yeah, I think it’s true. It’s not something I necessarily want to see. But I think unless humans have some war that sets back human civilization, we will grow into doing a kind of planetary management. I think we’ll end up being in the gardening business with this planet.But I think we’d be better to do that much slower rather than quicker. And my hope would be we cut emissions enough that we don’t need to geoengineer in the short-term, because I think that while technically we might be able to do this, humans are probably morally unready, or society is unready, to figure out how they’d use the power that comes from our technology to manipulate the planet.
Read the entire original piece, Geoengineering: The Prospect of Manipulating the Planet, to find out Keith’s views on whether climate change is really a threat to human civilization, what might happen if aliens land on the White House lawn with a box that could control climate, and the how carbon offsets can give a false sense of security for airline passengers.
Geo-Engineering
Andy Revkin on Geoengineering
Think Ocean Geo-Engineering is a Good Idea? Think Again Australian Scientists Urge
Ocean Iron Fertilization Test in South Atlantic Given Go Ahead
Follow @TreeHugger on Twitter & get our headlines with @TH_rss!
Thirsty for more? Check out these related articles:
- What the Heck are Carbon Emissions, Anyway?
- We Love 5min.com for Simple DIY Solutions
- Obama Swats a Fly Ninja-Style; PETA Gets Fired Up (Video!)
- Is School Food Harming Kids? Enlist a Labor Day Eat-In To Promote Fresh, Healthy Food
- Quickly Calculate The Carbon of Your Flights
- Take it from a Beatle: Cut Your Carbon Footprint by Making Mondays Meat-Free
I just wanted to point out that Keith works at the University of Calgary (which is located in Calgary, Alberta, Canada).
" I think unless humans have some war that sets back human civilization, we will grow into doing a kind of planetary management.
But I think we’d be better to do that much slower rather than quicker. And my hope would be we cut emissions enough that we don’t need to geoengineer in the short-term, because I think that while technically we might be able to do this, humans are probably morally unready, or society is unready, to figure out how they’d use the power that comes from our technology to manipulate the planet."
That's one of the most insightful geo-engineering comments I've heard from anyone working on it.
@Dalila: if he is in Alberta, then he probably has first-hand knowledge of how damaging mankind's ill-considered attempts to modify and control parts of the planet can be.
Engineering the planet implies one world authority that can do that, and there isn't any such thing. The worlds geo-engineering efforts will likely be multi-focal, and we can assume some governments will do nothing, and some will do idiotic things.
I think, over time, more and more effort will go into protecting against the geoengineering mis-steps misguided countries make.
@Anthony
He would have first hand insight to the natural disaster that is Alberta, also remember that it is the mindset of Alberta in general which has allowed such a large portion of the province to be turned into a toxic waste land with endless expansion in sight. Dalila's comment holds true, the man and his ideology has more than likely been tainted.
"But I think unless humans have some war that sets back human civilization, we will grow into doing a kind of planetary management."
I hope for the sake of all life on earth (not just humans) that human civilization does crumble before "planetary management" could ever be contemplated. To even believe at this point that we may be capable of such a feat is laughable and an example of the arrogance of our species. 99.99% of everything we have done with our technology up to this point has only served to compromise life on earth.
The problem I have with Geo-Engineering climate problems is that it approaches the situation ONLY from a "humans did this we need to STOP it". As I will continue to point out until someone listens, climate change is NORMAL. Stuff changes. Interfering with change is not only arrogant but dangerous.
Yes, humans have an impact, So we need to reduce our footprint, so that we can be sure the change that is happening is what is supposed to happen. Then we need to develop strategies to cope with the natural cycles of Gaia so that food and shelter are available for all humans without unduly stressing the resources other creatures need.
Extreme climate change has driven technological advances in the past . . .from fire and fur clothes to force air heating, humans have come up with ways to mitigate the effects of weather. It can do it again, helping us learn to live in greater harmony with our lovely planet and each other in thoughtfully designed, sustainable communities!
Climate change also stimulates evolution, forcing things to adapt. Humans are here because stuff changed and other stuff died and opened niches for us. Change is GOOD sometimes. Are we really ready to play god and stop our planet from continuing to evolve?
'Extreme climate change has driven technological advances in the past '
Actually, no. Whilst mild climate change has certainly encouraged human ingenuity (the invention of agriculture being foremost amongst these), extreme climate change has never happened during humanity's relatively short tenure upon this planet. Such perspectives are fundamentally misunderstanding the nature of the changes that humanity has ALREADY set in motion through CO2 emissions. This is what worries me. Feedback loops offer the very real possibility (even relative likelihood) of change that is literally orders of magnitude above any experienced previously. We are talking about the whole world as a perpetual storm. We are talking about the die off of all the species humanity depends upon. We are talking about circumstances that the worst disaster movies cannot predict. I wish this were not the case. But it is.
Those who rail against discussions of geo-engineering DO NOT UNDERSTAND the challenge (s) we face. That is my argument with them. There is still time. But not much - and what needs to be achieved CANNOT be done through emissions reductions alone (leaving aside the actual probability of all the old cars and coal plants suddenly being given up anytime soon).