Twelve months ago, geoengineering seemed little more than the fancy of science fiction writers and fringe scientists. Now, an increasing number of people are viewing it as a viable – if extreme – option for curbing global warming. This shift was hammered home today by Dr. John Holdren, President Obama’s science advisor, in his first interview since being confirmed to the office. Given the enormous challenges presented by global warming, Holdren stated that geoengineering “…has got to be looked at. … We don’t have the luxury of taking any approach off the table.”
Holdren is right. The coupling between people and the planet is now at the point where radical action is needed to avoid a shift in climate that could have a catastrophic impact on society. And while conventional technologies might suffice in the short term to bring carbon dioxide levels down and otherwise manage global warming, they will eventually run out of steam…
Emerging technologies are going to take some time to mature to the point at which they can play a major role in combating global warming. Joseph Romm for one is highly skeptical of the role that “breakthrough technologies” will play over the next fifty years. But at some point they will be essential. And as long as the innovation pipeline remains full, they will begin to provide new solutions to the challenges being faced.
This maturation of emerging technologies is already being seen with geoengineering. The past few years have seen a number of technologies mature to the point where “tinkering” with the environment on a grand scale is looking increasingly feasible. But it is the audacity of scientists and engineers who have suddenly realized “we can do this” that is really driving the rapidly growing field. On the back of relatively small advances in science and technology, experts are suddenly beginning to think “this isn’t science fiction – it might actually work!”
This could be good news for future generations, but there are tremendous challenges ahead. Clearly, there is the challenge of developing and deploying engineering projects on a massive scale. But just as serious are the ethical issues that need to be grappled with.
Back in January, I asked the question “Does geoengineering need a dose of geoethics?” I cautiously suggested it might be a good idea, before things move along too far. But discussions around geoengineering are now moving so fast that I would say deep and inclusive discussions of what is right and what is appropriate are essential, and needed urgently. The problem here is not so much that geoengineering is a bad idea, but that there is an awful lot that could go horribly wrong.
Think about it for a moment:
- The history of environmental interventions is not good (in fact it is almost uniformly bad) – what guarantees do we have that geoengineering will fare any better?
- There’s a good chance that major geoengineering projects will be the equivalent of one-shot hypothesis driven science. In other words, while scientific progress usually relies on a process of getting things wrong and learning from the mistakes (more fancily known as “hypothesis testing”), tinkering with the planet won’t afford us too many second shots.
- The earth’s environment is non-linear and out of equilibrium – tinkering is more than likely to lead to unexpected consequences.
- Geoengineering solutions will cross national boundaries, requiring many groups to be involved in decision-making – unless individual countries decide that the dangers of not acting are so severe that accepted ethical practices don’t count.
- This leads on to the questions of “who pays,” “who benefits,” and “who pays the price?” Failure to resolve these early on will create a huge global problems.
- Finally, the social and ethical consequences of causing harm through intervention are very different from those associated with harm that results from inaction. Thus geoengineering interventions that go wrong may potentially end up having a far more profound impact on society than changes in climate which the interventions were aimed at mitigating.
If geoengineering is to be taken seriously – as I think it should – these and other issues must be on the table at the very beginning of the process. Because without the appropriate “geoethics” framework, the odds are less than favourable for us getting it right.
The worst that could possibly happen is that geoengineering is used as a last ditch, deparate attempt to correct an already out of whack environment. Because in reality, “last ditch” usually equates to just “last.” The way round this is to ensure that discissions are not only informed by the best science and technology, but also underpinned by broader social and ethical considertions, from the get-go.
Fortunately, there still seems to be a reasonable chance of this happening.