SHOULD GEOENGINEERING BE OUTLAWED?

Introduction to geoengineering?

Geoengineering or climate engineering refers to the very large scale technological

intervention to cause alterations in the Earth’s natural process to minimize the adverse effects

caused due to processes like global warming (US Govt. Accountability Office, 2001).

Principally, there are two main types of geoengineering solutions proposed to combat global

warming –

 Solar radiation management (SRM) which aims to reduce the amount of sunlight

absorbed into the earth by deflecting the sunlight way, or increase the albedo or

‘reflectivity’ of the Earth’s atmosphere. Several techniques may be used for this. Surface

based techniques such as protecting glaciers by covering them with a blanket layer of

artificial snow (Harvey, 2020), developing mirror complexes (Project MEER:ReflEction,

2019), or covering areas in the arctic with hollow glass beads to lower temperatures

(Niiler, 2019). Troposphere based techniques like ‘marine cloud brightening’ which

sprays fine particles of sea water onto clouds to increase their reflectivity (National

Research Council, 2015). Upper atmosphere based techniques like creative reflective,

stratospheric sulfate, or self-levitating aerosols (Keith, 2010). And space based techniques

like space sunshade to obstruct solar radiation with the use of space mirrors or dust, etc.

(Bewick, Sanchez and Mclnnes, 2012).

 Carbon dioxide removal (CDR) which aims to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide in the

atmosphere by removing CO2 artificially and also fostering natural processes and

organisms like trees which remove CO 2 naturally. Several techniques have been proposed

such as, creating biochar to make terra preta by mixing it into the soil, developing Bio-
 energy with carbon capture and storage (Obersteiner et al., 2001), carbon air capture,

afforestation and reforestation, and ocean fertilization (Matear and Elliott, 2004).

Potential Benefits of geoengineering

It is true that geoengineering is a drastic measure and coupled with the fact that it is done on

an extremely large scale, it is not untrue that there may be potential adverse effects. However,

given so, experts remind us that the adverse effects of geoengineering should be viewed in

the context of the adverse effects of global warming and climate change themselves

(Honegger, Michaelowa and Butzengeiger-Geyer, 2012). The main benefit of geoengineering

is that it can achieve results quicker than natural processes and the eventual reversal of effects

through reduction of climate harming behavior by humans. It offer may offer a speedy

temporary solution of reversing some aspects of global warming to preserve the natural

climate and allow the effects of traditional practices which are slower in nature to catch up

for ultimately making a positive effect. Therefore the use of geoengineering is recommended

along with other measures to cut emission of greenhouse gases (Wigley, 2006). All types of

measures to limit adverse climate changes, and also geoengineering measures to effectual

beneficial changes have limitations endemic to them – political, economic and physical

limitations (Lenton and Vaughan, 2009) and therefore geoengineering techniques have been

suggested as a part of a larger groups of practices to effectuate climate restoration (Shepherd,

2009). Conservative practices like mitigation and adaptation (Board, 2015), and conservation

of resources are recommended to be used along with geoengineering practices.

Risks and uncertainties regarding geoengineering

Geoengineering operations work at a massive scale, and projects can continue over

substantial periods of time, with effects being felt over a consideration area. The potential

risks of geoengineering mainly stem from its very large scope.

Uncertain adverse effects - Since, the large scale geoengineerings projects in concern mainly

up till now exist at a theoretical level, it is difficult to estimate the indirect effects, especially

those manifesting over long periods of time. For instance, as per Hegerl and Soloman (2009),

while the primary effects of Solar Radiation Management (SRM) practices are more

straightforward to estimate at a theoretical level, secondary regional long-term effects which

do not stem from radiation – such as alteration of regional monsoon patterns are difficult to

estimate, and therefore uncertain. Other such potential drastic alterations of weather patterns

include droughts in Asia and Africa, acidification of the ocean, ozone layer damage,

alteration of the chemistry of the troposphere (Robock 2014)

Our inability to estimate potential uncertainties of SRM practices expose a gap in our depth

of knowledge and a lack of complete understanding of global climate dynamics and cloud

formation (Royal Society, 2009). Advocates for geoengineering point out that such

uncertainties are precisely the reason why further research on geoengineering should continue

(Horton et al., 2016). However, as per Russell et al. (2012), it will be difficult to remove

uncertainties as they are based around the physical limitations of each technique, which are

different across techniques and hence cannot be generalized to the degree desirable. Another

justification against continuation of geoengineering research by Robock et. al. (2010) argues

that since geoengineering interventions need to be effected at a large scale to achieve their

potential effectiveness, there is no way of experimenting to iron out of the defects or adverse

effects without conducting full-scale operations.

Transnational effects and political concerns - A study by Williamson and Bodle (2016)

provides a list of potential effects of each of the currently widely considered geoengineering

techniques, and also shows that the potential impacts of geoengineering activities would be

felt on an international scale. For instance, if stratospheric aerosols are injected in the

northern hemisphere, as part of SRM practices, it can cause droughts in the Sahel, whereas

injecting in the southern hemisphere instead can lead to greening of the region (Haywood et

al., 2013). Other than environmental effects, potential effects can be non-environmental as

well (Liu and Chen, 2015). Any decisions regarding geoengineering has to be taken while

considering such potential adverse effects (Burns and Nicholson, 2017). The International

Convention on Biological Diversity has opposed field-testing of geoengineering and also

instituted a de facto moratorium on the same in 2010 (CBD, 2010), a stance which it has

reaffirmed again in 2016.

Political considerations - Due to the large scale of geoengineering, since the effects would be

felt outside the boundary of any one country, the initiation of any project would require

international consent and cooperation. Considering that concerns about climate change

geoengineering stands on a different footing in different countries, who also share different

ecological risk tolerance, and their internal political concerns, and the fact that countries

would potentially face the adverse effects to a different degree than each other, it is not

surprising that geoengineering faces predominantly opposition at the international stage. Such

political opposition can halt geoengineering projects midway, such as stratospheric aerosol

spraying project, which if halted midway, can cause catastrophic results such as rapid climate

warming (Wigley, 2006).

Undermining existing environmental policies - Geoengineering might potentially introduce is

policy related and political in nature. It can serve as the perfect excuse for high carbon

emitter to avoid reductions in greenhouse gas emissions (ETC Group, 2016). According to

Olson (2011), a technological fix like geoengineering can undermine policy directions and

governmental efforts to control the underlying causes of climate change – i.e. emission of

greenhouse gases. As per Lin (2013), there is a high possibility that geoengineering will

undermine traditional practices of climate management. The 2009 report by the Royal

Society of UK, considered one of the first comprehensive analysis of geoengineering

technologies at the Governmental level has classified geoengineering as intrinsically

unethical as it involves a direct and dangerous modification of the Earth’s natural systems,

and classifies geoengineering as strictly insurance policies or options of a last resort (Royal

Society, 2009).

After-effects - A valid concern expressed against the utilization of geoengineering practices is

the ‘termination effect’ (Armeni and Redgwell, 2015) or what will happen once these

temporary interventions – as most geoengineering practices are meant to be- are stopped.

Stoppage of CDR practices would mean cessation of greenhouse games being removed from

the atmosphere which would lead to increased levels of accumulation, and stoppage of SMR

practices would consequently lead to the increase in temperatures (Nassiry, Pickard and

Scott, 2017). Coupled with the already stated indirect political effects such as the reduction in

stringency of laws requiring reduced emissions from industries, initiation of geoengineering

practices have a high likelihood of causing dependence. The Intergovernmental Panel on

Climate Change (IPCC) has taken cognizance of the fact and has commented that once
geoengineering practices start, they would be impossible to stop without resultant widespread

adverse effects on the climate (IPCC, 2007).

Deliberate misuse and weaponization - There is also a possibility of misuse of

geoengineering technologies since the effect of such practices are felt transnationally

(Robock, 2015). It would not be farfetched to suggest that geoengineering technologies could

be used as weapons as they are capable of altering the climate of neighboring counties and

inducing natural calamities or disasters, or interfering with nature dependent production

activities like farming. (Fuhr, 2016a). It cannot be denied that the United States does have a

history of trying to manipulate the weather for military purposes, as seen in Vietnam by

trying to induce rain to flood enemy supply lines and disrupt Buddhist monks engaged in

anti-war protest (Fleming, 2007).

It is true that the United Nations (UN) has an international Convention on the prohibition of

Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques (ENMOD)

which has been signed by over 85 nations, but there would be serious legal debate whether

adverse side effects of geoengineering technologies (perhaps intentional) would fall under the

Convention (Armeni and Redgwell, 2015).

Conclusion

Geoengineering is a controversial topic amongst environmentalists. As discussed, the radical

large scale measures of geoengineering can bring relatively quicker changes in climate than

traditional climate management practices. It is not in doubt, that there are fantastic potential

benefits – the operative words here being potential. However, currently, the discussion
around benefits of geoengineering are overshadows by the potential risks and uncertainties

which range from adverse unintended international effects on the climate and beyond,

potential dependency, laxness in current prohibition regimes, and long term concerns around

nefarious use of the technology. Due to the large scale of the technology it is indeed difficult

to launch a prototype for a sandbox experimentation. However, it is undeniable that effects of

global warming have currently manifested at an undeniable rate, and thus it should indeed be

at least a Plan B concern to have radical measures such s geoengineering as a resort, at least

in the conceptual form. Researching geoengineering technologies even in theoretical form

will indeed require capital, manpower and policy investments, at a national and international

stage, but outright banning research is arguably a myopic line of thinking, which narrows the

horizon. Unilateral implementation of geoengineering practices should therefore be

absolutely outlawed, but researching new practices at a conceptual level should definitely not

be.

References

Armeni, C., & Redgwell, C. (2015). International legal and regulatory issues of climate
geoengineering governance: rethinking the approach. Climate Geoengineering
Governance Working Paper Series: 021.

Bewick, R., Sanchez, J. P., & McInnes, C. R. (2012). Gravitationally bound geoengineering
dust shade at the inner Lagrange point. Advances in space research, 50(10), 1405-1410.

Board, O. S., & National Research Council. (2015). Climate intervention: Reflecting sunlight
to cool earth. National Academies Press.

Burns, W., & Nicholson, S. (2017). Bioenergy and carbon capture with storage (BECCS): the
prospects and challenges of an emerging climate policy response. Journal of
Environmental Studies and Sciences, 7(4), 527-534.
CBD. (2010). COP Decision. Retrieved 27 October 2020, from
https://www.cbd.int/decision/cop/?id=12299

ETC Group (2016). Geoengineering at COP 13’. Briefing for delegates. Berlin: ETC Group.
Retrieved 27 October 2020, from http://www.etcgroup.org/
sites/www.etcgroup.org/files/files/final_geoengineering_brief_cop_13_web.pdf.

Fleming, J. R. (2007). The climate engineers. The Wilson Quarterly (1976-), 31(2), 46-60.

Fuhr, L. (2016). Radical realism about climate change. Project Syndicate, 2.

Harvey, C. (2020). GEOENGINEERING: Can we refreeze the Arctic? Scientists are

beginning to ask. Retrieved 27 October 2020, from
https://www.eenews.net/stories/1060075503

Haywood, J. M., Jones, A., Bellouin, N., & Stephenson, D. (2013). Asymmetric forcing from
stratospheric aerosols impacts Sahelian rainfall. Nature Climate Change, 3(7), 660-665.

Hegerl, G. C., & Solomon, S. (2009). Risks of climate engineering. Science, 325(5943), 955-
956.

Honegger, M., Michaelowa, A., & Butzengeiger-Geyer, S. (2012). Climate engineering:

avoiding Pandora’s Box through research and governance. Fridtjof Nansens Institutt
Climate Policy Perspectives.

Horton, J. B., Keith, D. W., & Honegger, M. (2016). Implications of the Paris Agreement for
carbon dioxide removal and solar geoengineering. Viewpoints. Harvard Project on
Climate Agreements, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA.

IPCC (2007). Summary for policymakers’, in Climate change 2007: the physical science
basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge and New York, NY: Cambridge
University Press.

Keith, D. W. (2010). Photophoretic levitation of engineered aerosols for geoengineering.

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107(38), 16428-16431.

Lenton, T. M., & Vaughan, N. E. (2009). The radiative forcing potential of different climate
geoengineering options. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 9(15), 5539-5561.

Lin, A. C. (2013). Does geoengineering present a moral hazard. Ecology LQ, 40, 673.
Liu, Z., & Chen, Y. (2015). Impacts, risks, and governance of climate engineering. Advances
in Climate Change Research, 6(3-4), 197-201.

Matear, R. J., & Elliott, B. (2004). Enhancement of oceanic uptake of anthropogenic CO2 by
macronutrient fertilization. Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans, 109(C4).

Nassiry, D., Pickard, S., & Scott, A. (2017). Implications of geoengineering for developing
countries.

National Research Council (2015). Climate Intervention: Reflecting Sunlight to Cool Earth.
doi: 10.17226/18988

Niiler, E. (2019). Can Tiny Glass Beads Keep Arctic Ice From Melting? Maaaybe. Retrieved
27 October 2020, from https://www.wired.com/story/geoengineering-tiny-glass-beads-
prevent-arctic-ice-from-melting/#:~:text=Maaaybe,-A%20geoengineering
%20nonprofit&text=Making%20the%20surface%20more%20reflective,heat%20and
%20reduce%20its%20melting.

Obersteiner, M., Azar, C., Kossmeier, S., Mechler, R., Moellersten, K., Nilsson, S., ... & Yan,
J. (2001). Managing climate risk.

Olson, R. L. (2011). Geoengineering for decision makers. Science and Technology

Innovation Program, Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, Washington,
DC, 39.

Project MEER:ReflEction. (2019). Project MEER:ReflEction. Retrieved 27 October 2020,

from https://sites.google.com/meerreflection.com/meerreflection

Robock, A. (2015). The CIA asked me about controlling the climate–this is why we should
worry. The Guardian, 17.

Robock, A., Bunzl, M., Kravitz, B., & Stenchikov, G. L. (2010). A test for geoengineering?.
Science, 327(5965), 530-531.

Robock, A. (2014). Stratospheric aerosol geoengineering. Environ. Sci. Technol, 38, 162-
185.

Russell, L. M., Rasch, P. J., Mace, G. M., Jackson, R. B., Shepherd, J., Liss, P., ... & Boyd, P.
W. (2012). Ecosystem impacts of geoengineering: a review for developing a science plan.
Ambio, 41(4), 350-369.
Royal Society (Great Britain). (2009). Geoengineering the climate: Science, governance and
uncertainty. Royal Society.

Shepherd, J. G. (2009). Geoengineering the climate: science, governance and uncertainty.

Royal Society.

US Government Accountability Office. (2011). Climate Engineering: Technical Status,

Future Directions and Potential Responses.

Wigley, T. M. (2006). A combined mitigation/geoengineering approach to climate

stabilization. Science, 314(5798), 452-454.

Williamson, P., & Bodle, R. (2016). Update on climate geoengineering in relation to the
convention on biological diversity: potential impacts and regulatory framework.
Montreal, QC: Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity.