Geo-Engineering: The Dilemna

There's been a lot of talk about where or not humanity should try to engineer itself out of global warming.

At this point the question isn't so much about whether or not humans should try to geo-engineer the planet, because unfortunately geo-engineering has started already. Most arguments against geo-engineering boil down to three basic ideas.

1) It's inherently immoral-
I would consider this a legitimate philosophical position. But the problem is that humans have already put the earth into a big unplanned geo-engineering project. As on Oregon teacher pointed out, "No matter what the outcome we're in the test tube." Some people might protest with a certain amount of the legitimately that not all humans are equally responsible. Certainly there are significant differences between countries, wealth levels, regions within the same country, and to some extent from individual choices. Also the leaders of certain industries such as the main US auto-manufacturers have made choices such as promoting big clunky cars, and working against public transit. Not to mention the unholy alliances between big oil, big coal, and the military industrial complex, which have consistently underrated any attempt to develop alternative or even low carbon energy sources.
However if not all humans are equally responsible for the problem, we are all stuck in the test tube. And often it's the poorest people who have historically been responsible for the least greenhouse gas emissions who suffer the most severe consequences of global warming such as hurricanes, droughts, and crop failure.
So if geo-engineering is immoral, unfortunately a geo-engineering fix for global warming wouldn't be the first experiment.

2) If we have a geo-engineering fix for global warming people will use it as an excuse to not cut greenhouse gas emissions.-
I admit a certain bias against that type of argument. Certainly there are people who think geo-engineering should be the whole solution, and that energy conservation, renewables, and low carbon energy sources needn't be explored. And I have no truck with them. But at the same time, earth may already be past the point where emissions cuts alone are enough. And some people carry this argument to the point of saying that humanity needs to experience the consequences of global warming, or even "bottom out" in order to have any real incentive to change. And frankly, I've never been a fan of "bottom out" style arguments being applied to large groups of people, including many who aren't yet born. Finally, I can't help thinking about scenarios where a degraded planet and low quality of life becomes "normal" for large numbers of people. Something which is found not just in eco-dystopian science fiction such as Soylent Green and Silent Running, but also in slums around the world and in drought ridden communities such as the one described by Xinran in her book "The Good Women of China".

3) The possibility of unforeseen consequences-
To me this argument is ultimately the strongest case against geo-engineering in order to stave off global warming. The Irish saying "Better the devil ye know.", may seem all to fitting with a look at history. Ozone depleting chemicals, DDT, endocrine disrupting pollutants, the introduction of rabbits to Australia, the removal of wolves from North America, introduction fire suppression, the Bhopal gas tragedy, and a long, long list of other cases that would lead one wonder about what sort of "side effects" could result from a geo-engineering fix for global climate change. Given the track record, one can't help but find the claim that adding particles to the atmosphere to reflect sunlight "shouldn't" have any unforseen effects on the atmosphere less than reassuring.

But that said, it should be noted that not all engineering fixes are equally high risk. Geo-engineering approaches can be as conservative as painting roofs white, and mass tree-planting, or as filled with unkowns as seeding the seas with iron, adding sulfur particles to the atmosphere, and putting shades in to lower the amount of sunlight hitting the earth at certain times.

Some of the arguments in favor of geo-engineering include:

1) Global warming is already happening and we may not be able to lower the amount of greenhouses gases in time to prevent earth from passing a tipping point, where the effects could become wild an unpredictable.-
Of course, the idea of a tipping point is somewhat uncertain. But there is little doubt that global warming is already here. Even some conservatives who object to drastic action have started to shift from arguing that global warming is non-existant to arguing that the consequences aren't going to be all that serious. Hence all the talk about "moderate global warming" in many new articles and even books. But the even with changes in greenhouse gas emissions we are already dealing with the amount of greenhouse gas that has been added to the atmosphere.

2) That geo-engineering can be implemented more quickly, than fundamental changes in the world's energy utilization. -
This may be true. However, questions must be asked about resource allocation and how much money that might go to a particular mitigating technique, might have otherwise gone to wind/solar energy, energy conservation, public transit, carbon recycling, development of newer 2nd/3rd/4th generation biofuels and new renewable energy concepts.

3) That geo-engineering will put most of the responsibility on the wealthier nations of the world, who are responsible for the most historical greenhouse gas emissions.-
This is no doubt true. But with some emerging economies such as China, conflicts over who should pay for what are inevitable. Other economic arguments have suggested that some concepts may create jobs. Another problem is that it could be used by some parties in poor or emerging nations as an argument to pursue a course of development that relies heavily on fossil fuel, and ignore the development of renewables, biofuels, and low carbon options.

Needless to say that the number of suggestions and concepts in geo-engineering are evolving and that not ideas are equally risky ecologically or equally likely to succeed. New ideas are being churned out all the time. In evaluating these concepts I would suggest some basic questions that would have to be asked if any attempts at geo-engineering are made.

1) Does it address all the effects of greenhouse gases or only temperature changes?
This is important, because some suggestions such as painting roofs white, white-topping streets, or putting up solar shades in space may address the issue of rising temperatures, but not deal with problems such as ocean acidification or the changes in plant physiology that can occur at higher carbon levels. So far we don't know much about the latter or the ecological ramifications.

2) Does it actually lower greenhouse gas levels from the atmosphere? Which ones? At at what price per tonne? How much energy would be consumed?
Needless to say that removing the offending gases from the atmosphere is the most effective way to solve the problem. That is assuming that we can do so in sufficient quantities to make a differences. And that is where the issue of price becomes important. The amount of energy used is important because otherwise you could end up defeating the purpose. Some examples of removal ideas include "artificial trees" in which various polymers are used to absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and then are either buried in old mines and/or are reused after the carbon dioxide is either sequestered or recycled into new fuels. More basic suggestions include massive plantings of old fashioned trees, or the opinion of some atmospheric scientists that stricter controls on carbon dioxide emissions combined with some technologies that increase the amount of hydroxyl radicals found naturally in the atmosphere can decrease the amount of time that methane remains in the atmosphere. Additional low risk concepts include ideas such as carbon dioxide absorbing concrete, speeding up natural geological processes where carbon dioxide in absorbed into rocks.

3) What is the probability of ecological unknowns?
This is obviously the area that generates the most doubts. But it is safe to say that not all risks are created equal. The environmental risks of white paint used to paint roofs or perhaps white wash rocks or mounts in parts of the world can be understood for the most part by conventional environmental risk assessments used for any other paint. Carbon dioxide absorbed into rocks for the most part is likely to remain inert. But pressurized carbon dioxide stored underground could at the very least escape, and perhaps create the kind of natural disaster that occurred when Lake Nyos released a large carbon monoxide bubble killing both people and animals. Concepts that could involve a large number of uknowns would include adding sulfur or other particles to the atmosphere to lower incoming sunlight, or seeding the ocean with iron to increase the productivity of algae. In the case of the former we've already learned from problem with ozone depletion that messing with the atmosphere is risky business, and besides lower the levels of income sunlight could also affect the productivity of plants or even PV cells and solar thermal power plants. And the potential for unforeseen consequences of messing with the oceans are greater still. It has been suggested that raising algal productivity could result in fish kills, jellyfish blooms, or other ecological disasters. Or worse that much of the algae could decompose under anoxic conditions and be released as methane-which is seven times as potent a greenhouse gas as carbon dioxide.

4) Are there other environmental benefits?-

Concepts such as planting trees speak for themselves. Mass tree planting might be severely labor intensive and may not be a total solution. But the benefits of trees as far as cleaning water, removing other air pollutants, preventing erosion, and providing various economic goods in certain places. Other suggestions with side benefits could include soil enrichment. The idea of mandating that a certain percentage (5%-10%) of algal oil or algal crude be injected into old depleted oil wells, could effectively provide a "ride" on the coattails of an industry that has promised to provide an alternative to oil and a method of cleaning water. More radical ideas have included creating rainforests in what are now relative wastelands or creating new coral reefs by adding old train cars into certain waters. In some parts of the Himalayas artificial glaciers are being used as a way of storing/gathering water for crops and trees. If this was done on a large scale it could provide some temperature mitigation much like white roofs, increase plant growth, and mitigate the costs of global warming.

5) How will it be financed? What sort of jobs will be created and where? Is it a one time shot or can it be done continuously?

Obviously these questions are likely to determine how "sustainable" the plan is economically, and how strong the political will to continue the plan will remain over time. On the other hand if negative consequences emerge, changing course could become unpopular among certain portions of the population.

6) Is it reversible if negative consequences show up?

In short the conversation might be shifted from if geo-engineering should be used, to what forms of geo-engineering are acceptable and which are not.

Say Goodnight Readers!