Geoengineering: Cloudy science clears

When does junk science turn sound? Perhaps when it concerns climate change and geoengineering. It's a risky proposition, yet the likelihood of missing the window to curb climate change is growing, and a geoengineering contingency plan may prove useful.

Geoengineering entails the large-scale manipulation of climate processes to curb or limit the effects of global climate change. Proposals focus on increasing the earth's albedo, limiting the amount of sunlight that strikes the earth, and reducing the concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere - the chief greenhouse gas (GHG).

Industrialization, first attempted by the British in the 19th century and then proliferated throughout the world, can be thought of as a giant geoengineering experiment of sorts, just unintentional and in reverse. Humans have worked diligently to extract carbon from the ground and to burn it to produce energy. This excess carbon now needs to go back underground or into the oceans, lest global temperatures continue to increase.

The facts

The projections for climate change offer a sobering reality. The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere during the pre-industrial age measured 280 ppm. That has increased dramatically to form the inverted and now familiar hockey stick graph. In 2008, according to measurements taken at the Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii, the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere external pageattainedcall_made 386 ppm. It continues to increase at the rate of slightly more than 2 ppm per year.

The 2007 IPCC external pageFourth Assessment Reportcall_made asserted that in order to stabilize the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere below 400 ppm, the world would have to reduce emissions by 85 percent to 50 percent by 2050. So doing, nevertheless, still commits the world to a 2 - 2.4 degree global increase in temperatures and a .4 to 1.4 meter rise in sea levels. By 2100, the report estimates, sea levels could swell anywhere from 9-88 cm depending on the scenario. These models, however, only consider sea level rises due to thermal expansion of the oceans, and do not take into account melting of the Greenland and Antarctica ice sheets. The estimates therefore could be low.

Some concur. Dr James E Hansen from the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York is among the most vocal. In a 2007 external pagearticlecall_made, Hansen asserted that the global climate system might be approaching a tipping point. Tipping points occur when climate change achieves a new state or plateau that triggers positive feedback loops. The summer melting of the polar ice cap, which serves to reflect much of the sun's energy back into space, and the thawing of the Siberian tundra, which stores large quantities of methane gas, another warming agent, could accelerate climate change and lead to more rapid sea level rises than forecast.

The external pageRepublic of Maldivescall_made is taking such concerns to heart. Member of the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS), Maldives has set aside funds in its budget to save up for a new home. Lying just a meter or two above sea level, most of the islands in the Maldives archipelago could disappear, forcing the population to resettle.

Dithering

This reality raises pressing security concerns. Roughly one-third of the world's population, 2.75 billion people, external pagewill livecall_made within 96 kilometers of the coast by 2025. Rising sea levels could generate large numbers of climate refugees, endanger global stability and put pressure on inland settlements and water resources. (This external pagemapcall_made reveals the impact of rising sea levels and the capacity for dislocation.) 

Politically, curbing global warming is nearly intractable. The profound lack of urgency is due in large part to the imperceptibility of long-term climate changes. Yet other factors also contribute. A collective action problem plagues the individual level of analysis. The low price of fossil fuels, at least for the moment and relative to alternatives, permits individuals to consume prodigally and hinders the emergence of political pressures for reform.

At the national level, established interests such as the utility and oil industries, as well as others, are notorious for lobbying vigorously to steer clear of costly regulations. And in the international arena, the clash between developed and developing countries and their respective responsibilities to reduce emissions stymie progress.

Moreover, the estimated costs of any emissions reduction scheme further suppress appetites for reform. The 2006 Stern Review, an often-cited external pagestudycall_made, estimated that 1 percent of GDP would have to be invested to avoid the worst effects of climate change. Two years later, Sir Nicholas Stern external pagerevisedcall_madehis estimates and announced 2 percent of GDP may be necessary to compensate for observed accelerations in climate change.

Yet more than almost any other issue, this global problem necessitates a global solution. The diplomatic record is inauspicious. From the 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) to Kyoto, on to Bali, and soon on to Copenhagen, reluctance has prevailed. The US delegation to Bali under the former Bush administration capitulated just minutes before the conference's close and under significant pressure from other delegations, agreeing ultimately to continue talks to finalize a new multilateral treaty to replace Kyoto in Copenhagen in December 2009.

The new US administration appears more amenable. On the White House website, US President Barack Obama external pagestatescall_made that his environmental policy is to reduce GHG emissions by 80 percent by 2050. True to form, he mentions no details. Yet his disposition remains propitious.

The schemes

The prospective costs of geoengineering schemes, conversely, amount to a fraction of the costs of reducing emissions. David G Victor, a professor at Stanford University and an adjunct senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, noted in a November 2008 external pagearticlecall_madein the Oxford Review of Economic Policy that "early estimates suggest that the discounted present cost of a geoengineering program extended into perpetuity is of the order of $100 billion, which compares favorably with the $1 trillion order-of-magnitude costs for mitigation."

Several geoengineering schemes have been suggested. One is to increase the earth's reflectivity or albedo by spraying sulfur dioxide or synthetic aerosols into the stratosphere. external pageAnother ideacall_made, set forth by Professors Stephen Saltner and John Lantham, is to spray salt into the troposphere using a flotilla of Flettner vessels to cloud-seed, which would generate additional clouds and reflect more sunlight back into space.

As of yet, salt is not considered a pollutant. But sulfur dioxide, which causes acid rain, has already been the target of international regulation. The notion of "whitening" the surface of the earth, i.e. painting roofs white, has also been brainstormed. Its impact, however, remains dubitable.

To decrease the amount of sunlight striking the planet, some have external pageconsideredcall_made deploying massive sunshields into space. The obstacles to overcome are multitudinous and the unintended consequences could be grave.

Finally, a number of proposals have focused on actually removing CO2 from the atmosphere, so-called "carbon sequestration." Plans include fertilizing the oceans with iron to spur phytoplankton growth and planting more trees. Both would remove CO2 from the atmosphere automatically while undergoing life processes. The problem with fertilizing the oceans, however, is surging acidification, which dissolves the shells of marine animals and destroys coral reefs, a first line of defense against coastal erosion. 
 
The experts

Experts remain divided on geoengineering's final merits, but interests are piqued. Researchers at the University of East Anglia (UEA) in the UK concluded the first comprehensive external pageassessmentcall_madeof the climate cooling potential of different geoengineering schemes in late January 2009. They reckon that "enhancing carbon sinks could bring CO2 back to its pre-industrial level, but not before 2100 - and only when combined with strong mitigation of CO2 emissions."

Moreover, "stratospheric aerosol injections and sunshades in space have by far the greatest potential to cool the climate by 2050 - but also carry the greatest risk."

Not to be outdone, scientists at the Royal Society in the UK launched their own external pagestudycall_made into the potential for various geoengineering schemes. The chair of the Royal Society working group undertaking the study, Professor John Shepherd, noted, "Some of these proposals seem fantastical, and may prove to be so. Our study aims to separate the science from the science fiction and offer recommendations on which options deserve serious consideration."

Dr Ken Caldeira from the Department of Ecology at the Carnegie Institution for Science stated in a external pagetestimonycall_made before the British House of Commons: "We need a climate engineering research and development plan. The widespread desire for the "good life" afforded by economic growth and development places us increasingly at risk of profound and widespread climate damage […] prudence demands that we consider what we might do if cuts in carbon dioxide emissions prove too little or too late to avoid unacceptable climate damage."

Elsewhere, a May 2008 external pageworkshopcall_made on geoengineering at the Council on Foreign Relations highlighted the potential benefits of unilateral geoengineering. If the international political process to curb climate change stays bogged down, a small group of wealthy, like-minded nations could conceivably undertake geoengineering projects on their own and mitigate exposure to the most pernicious effects of climate change. However, the workshop cautions that without coordination, some states may decide to undertake dangerous geoengineering projects that could do more harm than good.

Fund the science

With US President Obama set on curbing anthropogenic warming of the earth's atmosphere, geoengineering deserves further consideration. Studies in the UK are under way. The US - historically the world's foremost emitter - should follow suit. Providing added funding for the science is the first step to ascertaining the true potential, both good and bad, of any geoengineering scheme. 
 
There looms, at last, the risk of moral hazard - relying exclusively on geoengineering as a means to tackle climate change as technological solutions begin to crystallize. Obama should use his normative influence to caution emphatically against taking the easy way out.

Geology Professor Steve Wojtal, Oberlin College, told the ISN Security Watch: "I am afraid that the global society will need to draw upon the full range of options to address the issue of climate change effectively. I believe, however, that there are a wide range of unintended consequences that can arise when we attempt to use what I call a 'technological fix' to address a problem that has arisen as a result of rampant technology."

Geoengineering may help, but it's no Plan A.