文章 Articles

Coming back down to earth

As global warming intensifies, demands for human manipulation of the climate system are likely to grow. But carrying out geoengineering plans could prove a political and logistical nightmare, says Mike Hulme.

Article image

[This article was originally published by Yale Environment 360 on June 7 and is used here with permission.]

In May, J Craig Venter announced that his team had successfully developed the first self-replicating cell to be controlled entirely by synthetic DNA. Not artificial life exactly, but certainly something different: a synthetic cell in which humans had intervened deliberately with the express purpose of changing the genetic structure and characteristics of a natural organism.

Humans are lining up comparable purposeful interventions in the functioning of another physical system – not the microscopic system of a bacterium, but the macroscopic planetary system that fashions and delivers all our climates. The range of such potential climate-intervention technologies, from altering how much of the sun’s energy strikes the Earth to removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, continues to expand against a backdrop of anxiety that humanity may inadvertently be pushing global climate toward a dangerous state.

These two new ventures – manipulating the biological functions of cells and manipulating the physical functioning of the climate system – may be seen as simply the latest steps in the enduring human project of seeking control over the physical world. Hominid mastery of fire in the Paleolithic brought about radical changes in the possibilities for human life, and the manufacture of antibiotic drugs in the twentieth century opened up a wide range of new medical treatments that have reduced suffering and extended human life. Designing self-replicating cells and re-tuning global climate may therefore appear as inevitable developments in our ingenuity and our ability to manipulate the world around us.

But compared to the questions raised by Venter’s biotechnologies, two categorically different sets of questions arise about climate manipulation: how do we judge the risks of unintended consequences? And who is entitled to initiate the large-scale deployment of a climate-intervention technology – and under what circumstances?

Proponents are suggesting two broad categories of technologies to roll back global warming. The first, solar-radiation management (SRM), calls for altering the solar-radiation budget of the planet, using such technologies as mirrors in space, aerosols in the stratosphere, and cloud whitening over the oceans. And then there are technologies, grouped under the category of carbon-dioxide removal (CDR), that propose to accelerate the removal of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere by fertilising the oceans with iron, extracting CO2 from the atmosphere, or sequestering CO2 by heating biomass in oxygen-free kilns and burying the charcoal underground. (See also chinadialogue’s series on geoengineering here, here, here, here and here).

Such interventions would bring about, if not exactly artificial climates, then certainly synthetic ones. The calls for significant investments in these technologies have grown in boldness and urgency over the last few years. Whether from government agencies or private investors such as Richard Branson or the company Climos, resources are being directed into pursuing something akin to Venter’s vision of synthetically controlled cells, but the “cell” in question here is the planetary climate.

Both genres of climate intervention technologies raise serious ethical questions about the propriety of such manipulations, about their accordance with the collective will of people on Earth and about the unforeseen side effects of such interventions. But the proposition of creating synthetic climates through solar-radiation management (less so with carbon-dioxide removal) introduces a range of additional concerns not shared with microscopic cellular manipulation. These concerns arise from the brute fact that there is only one climate system with which to experiment, and it is the one we live with. If it is planetary-scale manipulation of climate that is desired – and it is – then experimentation has to be conducted on a planetary scale to prove the effectiveness, or not, of the technology.

The first concern is the risk of unintended consequences. Given that it is not possible to conduct large-scale planetary experiments in solar-radiation management before going “live” with the technology, risk assessments have to fall back on using virtual climates generated by computer models. The Earth system models currently used to explore the possible future effects of rising atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases are the same ones that have to be used to explore the simulated consequences of a variety of solar-radiation interventions.

Using aerosols to offset the additional planetary heating caused by greenhouse gases is a relatively straightforward theoretical calculation; it is a case of simple planetary budgeting. Much harder is to know what this “re-balancing” of the global heat budget will do to atmospheric and ocean dynamics around the world. These are the dynamics that make weather happen at particular times and in particular places and which – through various combinations of rain, wind, temperature and humidity – shape ecological processes and human social practices. The dangers and opportunities associated with climate occur through these local weather phenomena, not through an abstract index of global temperature.

If the goal of climate engineering is simply to reset the global temperature dial at its nineteenth or late-twentieth century register, that might be possible to do. But in the process of doing so, significant perturbations to regional climate conditions, and inter-annual variability around those conditions, are likely to be introduced. Even if changes in the frequency and intensity of storms and precipitation were to be a zero-sum game globally, the distributional effects of such changes will create winners and losers. Such phenomena as El Niño, the Asian monsoon and the Arctic Oscillation will not remain unaffected. And given the far-from-adequate ability of Earth system models to simulate the regional-scale dynamics of the hydrological system, no one should be confident that the full risks of solar-radiation management interventions will be revealed and quantified.

Which brings us to the second question that sets apart the project to fashion a synthetic climate from the project to create synthetic self-replicating cells: under what future scenario could one imagine full-scale deployment of solar-radiation management taking place? Many commentators have drawn attention to the multi-layered issues of financing, ethics, governance, geopolitics and public opinion that surround most of these solar-radiation intervention technologies. These were very much to the fore at the Asilomar International Conference on Climate Intervention Technologies in California earlier this year.

And yet a number of senior and significant voices in the scientific academy and policy community continue to speak of the urgency with which solar-radiation management research should be pursued. They offer these putative control technologies as another option in the portfolio of climate-management strategies, with climate manipulation joining climate-change mitigation and climate adaptation in a trinity of strategies available for policymakers. At the very least, it is argued, solar-radiation management should be available as a backstop technology if the world finds itself in a climate emergency when a dangerous tipping point needs to be avoided.

But can we imagine a possible scenario under which the decision to proceed to full deployment of solar-radiation management might be made? Let us assume the injection of aerosols into the stratosphere had been placed at the top of the list of climate-intervention technologies. Let us also assume that the basic operational mechanics of getting aerosols into the optimal layers of the stratosphere for maximum solar shielding had been figured out. One possible scenario might look something like this:

It is January 2028 and the United Kingdom, one of the permanent members of the UN Security Council, puts forward a formal resolution to start the systematic injection of sulphate aerosols into the stratosphere. The UK’s argument is that, with Arctic sea-ice extent the previous summer having shrunk to just 25% of its late-twentieth century value, with monitors in Canadian permafrost identifying increased rates of methane release, and with the explosion at a nuclear reactor in China two years earlier leading to a moratorium on all new nuclear power plant construction, such direct climate-remediation measures are called for.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) provides a report for the Security Council on the regional climatic risks of such intervention. Based on the best Earth system models, the IPCC offers probabilistic predictions of the 10-year mean changes in regional rainfall around the world that would result from sustained aerosol injection.

The 15 members of the Security Council argue over the evidence. In particular, they spend much time weighing the probabilities that the Asian monsoon might be weakened as a result. Security Council members also argue about how long the initial aerosol injection should continue – for one year, three years or five years. Against a background of vociferous, and at times violent, globally-coordinated public campaigns (both in favour of and against such intervention), the Security Council votes 11 to two in favour, with two abstentions. The deployment will proceed for a one-year period, after which a full evaluation will be conducted.

Over the following months, protestors attempt to sabotage some of the planes being used to inject aerosols, and direct-action groups affiliated with HOME (Hands Off Mother Earth) send up their own aircraft in symbolic efforts to scrub the aerosols from the stratosphere. After one year the deployment is temporarily halted and climate data are evaluated.

Global temperature has indeed fallen from the previous 10-year mean of 15.23 degrees Celsius (the 1961-1990 average was 14 degrees) to just 14.57 degrees Celsius, the coolest year on the planet since 2014. But regional climate anomalies have been large and variable. Of most concern was a failure of the Asian monsoon, at the cost of US$50 billion (339 billion yuan) to the Indian economy, and the most intense cyclone season in the South China Sea for 20 years.

India – one of the rotating members of the Security Council – and China now trigger an emergency debate calling for a permanent ban on deployment of aerosol-injection technologies. The IPCC argues that one year’s data prove nothing about the efficacy or impact of solar-radiation management. But against a background of further global protests, led by the new popular civic movements in China and India, the Security Council now splits five votes to five, with five abstentions. Turmoil ensues as two Canadian billionaires unilaterally continue aerosol injection.

Of course, one could create a hundred other scenarios under which the story of solar-radiation management may unfold. But I use this one to draw attention to the profound political obstacles and humanitarian risks that shadow attempts to engineer the climate through solar-radiation management. The organisation HOME already exists, seeking to mobilise people everywhere to tell climate engineers to proceed no further with climate manipulation.

The technical body supporting the work of the UN Convention on Biological Diversity has recently proposed a draft text along the following lines: “No climate-related geo-engineering activities [should] take place until there is an adequate scientific basis on which to justify such activities and appropriate consideration of the associated risks for the environment and biodiversity and associated social, economic and cultural impacts.” [Emphasis added.]

Words such as “adequate” and “appropriate” offer new grounds for contention in an already argumentative world. If the politics of climate-mitigation policy under the guise of the Kyoto Protocol have proved intractable, just wait until we see the geopolitics surrounding the negotiation of the first protocol on engineering synthetic climates. In the name of saving the planet from inadvertent greenhouse-gas exacerbated climate change, climate engineers may simply be offering us one Promethean fire to offset the effects of another.
 

Mike Hulme is professor of climate change at Britain’s University of East Anglia.

Copyright © 2010 Yale Environment 360

Homepage image from HowIsEarth.com


 

Now more than ever…

chinadialogue is at the heart of the battle for truth on climate change and its challenges at this critical time.

Our readers are valued by us and now, for the first time, we are asking for your support to help maintain the rigorous, honest reporting and analysis on climate change that you value in a 'post-truth' era.

Support chinadialogue

发表评论 Post a comment

评论通过管理员审核后翻译成中文或英文。 最大字符 1200。

Comments are translated into either Chinese or English after being moderated. Maximum characters 1200.

评论 comments

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous

现实点吧

让我们想象一下,现今的人口增长是人类驱动的全球挑战爆发的根源,而人类和那些知识渊博的人们却执意回避这个话题。这样的行为怎么能被认为是正确的呢?谁允许对科学报以沉默?这些威胁我们所有人的事务,谁有权否认它们的存在呢?难道没有人觉得专家有义务警告人类,在这样一个可怕的生存环境里,以后我们的孩子们随时都可能面临险境吗?

Becoming reality-oriented....

Let us imagine for a moment that the growth of the human population today is the “mother” of human-driven global challenges looming before humankind and knowledgeable people willfully refuse to speak about it. How can that behavior be construed as correct? On what authority is silence in response to science condoned? Who has the right to deny the existence of knowledge of something that threatens all of us? Is there no one who has determined that experts have a “duty to warn” humanity in such dire circumstances as exist when the very future of children everywhere could be put at risk soon?

Steven Earl Salmony

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous

忽悠

通过人为因素改变我们地球的气候这件事情,就像我们目前-也许是永远-不可能准确预报后天的天气一样,不靠谱。我们为了解决这个气候变化的问题,也许会产生一个比什么气候变化更大的人类灾难。那些聪明绝顶的科学家想到他们发明的原子裂变以及后来的原子弹对我们社会的影响了嘛?这其实不过是短短的80年以前的事情,可是我们对此都毫无能力,更何况这个要牵涉全球几十亿人的什么地球工程了。现在的形势不是已经很明显了嘛?!西班牙、以及支持新能源的德国现在感觉吃不消了,上了新能源的当;更别提大力宣传绿色环保的澳大利亚陆克文政府了,干脆倒台算数,那时候陆克文信誓旦旦要开发CCS技术,彻底解决这个温室气体排放问题。最近美国的碳排放交易法案胎死腹中,短期内也不会有什么大举动;法国在世界上的碳税创举早就成故事和笑谈-这些都说明什么呢?说明做好事不容易,比做坏事难。中国的水灾、泥石流、地震以及极端天气,俄罗斯的火灾,巴基斯坦的特大洪灾等等,不都说明了实际上对灾害的预防和适应能力的提高不应该是各国政府关注的重点嘛?人类向来就是这样,不撞南墙心不死,问题是,谁也不知道这堵墙到底在哪儿。

Deception

This issue of manmade factors causing climate change on our planet, is the same as not being able to accurately predict the day after tomorrow's forcast at present -- perhaps forever; both are unreliable. In order to solve this climate change problem, we may produce a human catastrophe that is even bigger than climate change. Did those highly intelligent scientists think about how their discovery of atomic fission and later the atomic bomb would affect our society? This happened just 80 years ago, but we had no abilities to prevent this, much less geoengineering that involves the world's billions of people. Isnt' the current trend very obvious?! Spain and supporter-of-new-energy Germany feel that it is too much to endure because they were fooled by new energy sources; not to mention the vigorous promotion of environmental protection by Australia's Rudd Administration, and when Kevin Rudd pledged to develop CCS technology to completely solve the problem of greenhouse gas emissions, it led to his downfall. Recently, a U.S. carbon emissions trading bill died in its early stages and there won't be any big initiatives in the near future. France's inititive to implement a carbon tax has become a story and a joke -- what do all these examples illistrate? It shows that good things don't come easy, and it is harder than doing bad things. Don't China's floods, mudslides, earthquakes and extreme weather, Russia's fire disaster, Pakistan's enormous flood, etc. all show that prevention against disasters and the ability to adapt should be the focus of each country's government? Humans were always like this, "they don't give up until they hit the south wall" (stubborn). The problem is, no one knows where the wall is.

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous

只有地球新工程才能挽救地球人类

地球人类一个家功过理应有问责!
······
----人类新意服务共同体

Only geoengineering can save humans

Humans should be accountable for achievements and mistakes!
······
----human innovative services community

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous

人为操控是一个危险的尝试

作为工作在交通部门的专门研究气体减排的政策分析师,我意识到在该领域内日益增多的讨论,关于通过地质工程改变气候变化趋势,具体来说,就是在大气中放入能让全球气温冷却的气体。例如,在航运业中,二氧化硫具有冷却大气的潜在作用。要让地球变冷,一个可能的办法就是在公开海域释放足够的二氧化硫,使其冷却地球的效应超过二氧化碳的暖化效应。

我认为这是一个危险的尝试。不可否认,全球变暖对于人类是与日俱增的挑战,然而,传统污染物(如二氧化硫)对于人类健康的损害也是确确实实的。这样做仅仅针对温室气体,而忽略了全局的风险。更重要的是,我们对大规模地质工程知之甚少。向大气中充入大量的冷却气体可能引发一些我们完全无法预料的可怕后果。如果地质工程造成不理想的结果,其过程可逆吗?代价又是什么?
Haifeng

(此评论由董鹤冰翻译)

Human manipulation is a dangerous attempt

As a policy analyst who is working on air emission reduction in transportation sector, I am aware of increasing discussions about geo-engineering in climate change in the transportation sector, namely dumping aerosols with global cooling effects into the atmosphere. For example, in the shipping industry, the Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) can potentially cool the atmosphere. One potential method to cool the world is to emit enough SO2 from the open ocean and let the cooling effect of SO2 outweigh the warming effect of CO2.

For me, it is a dangerous attempt. Admittedly, global warming is increasing challenging to human beings. However, it has been proved that conventional pollutants (i.e. SO2) are dangerous to human health too. Only targeting at the GHG risks omitting the big picture. More importantly, our information to large scale geo-engineering is rare. Pouring a large amount of cooling aerosols may trigger dangerous consequences which we cannot fully anticipate. If the geo-engineering creates unpleasant result, is the process reversible? At what cost?
Haifeng
http://sites.google.com/site/legendhfwang/