Climate Controlled

How do we regulate the weather-changing technologies of geoengineering?
The Brilliant Device (2009)The Brilliant Device (2009). Images from the Spyfrost Project

Jason Blackstock, a young scholar with an almost luminous sense of self-confidence, has been gaming out the future in recent months. He’s been training his mental telescope on the year 2031, and the nagging question of whether our world will be consumed by a new, climate-related geopolitics. A senior fellow at the Centre for International Governance Innovation in Waterloo, Ontario, he is developing a bracing scenario with specific relevance to Canadians: after decades of global warming, the summer sea ice in the Arctic has vanished entirely, opening up new trade routes and vast oil and gas reserves in the Far North. China and the Pacific Rim nations, meanwhile, are enduring ever-worsening repercussions of climate change: volatile storms, food riots, and rising sea levels that displace millions of people. “Suddenly,” he says, drawing out the tale like the pitch for a thriller, “some countries say, ‘Screw it. We have to cool this down.’”

How? A bloc of Asian nations underwrites an aggressive geoengineering effort that uses specially designed aircraft to disperse thousands of tonnes of sulfate aerosols into the upper atmosphere. The goal: to reduce global temperatures and calm regional weather patterns. Relative to the costs of environmental mayhem, this high-leverage project is alluringly affordable and promises quick results. Indeed, the halo of high-altitude particles succeeds in reflecting enough sunlight into space that ocean temperatures begin to drop — so much so that the summer sea ice in the Arctic refreezes.

Blackstock continues the plot line: Arctic oil and gas exploration halts, triggering a recession as investors anticipate rising energy prices. Resource-rich northern nations, which have reaped a climate change dividend in the Arctic, now find their commercial interests directly threatened by the geoengineering efforts of southern countries hit by global warming symptoms. “There’s nothing to say this conflict doesn’t turn into a hot war over climate issues,” he says.

Geoengineering is often described as the Plan B of the climate change fight — something to try if preventive measures like wind turbines, hybrid buses, and energy-efficient windows don’t stop global temperatures from rising to dangerous levels. These Asimovian technologies range from such extreme interventions as artificially whitening clouds with salt particles, to more low-tech solutions like painting rooftops in light colours. (The premise of both is to cool the planet’s surface by reflecting sunlight back into space.) They’re not all abstractions. During the 2008 Summer Olympics in Beijing, the Chinese government shot silver iodide rockets into the sky to disperse rain clouds — the first time a host country has manipulated the climate to guarantee good weather to visiting athletes and spectators.

The popular debate over geoengineering is nothing if not radioactive. To many environmentalists, the intentional manipulation of the earth’s climate using largely untested methods ranks right up there with genetically modified foods and biofuels as prime examples of mankind’s tragic compulsion to engineer its way out of its problems. Yet proponents of geoengineering research say that if the international community can’t find ways to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions, we’ll have no choice but to look into alternative ways of addressing climate change. Blackstock draws an analogy with human health: the best way to prevent lung cancer is to refrain from smoking, but that doesn’t mean researchers shouldn’t look for ways to treat the disease.

This debate will never be just technical, even though much of the discussion so far has focused on the potential environmental consequences of what could happen to the earth’s natural systems if scientists figure out how to deliberately alter the atmosphere. But if we are forced to consider geoengineering solutions to combat catastrophic climate change, the global community will be venturing into an utterly new and unpredictable form of geopolitics — a world where the purveyors of such technologies could incite unprecedented conflict. That these systems will need to be regulated is self-evident. As for how we go about laying down the ground rules for managing the research, that is a conversation best had now, well before the genie is out of the bottle.

Scientists have long fantasized about manipulating the climate. The early nineteenth-century American meteorologist James Espy — a.k.a “the storm king” — suggested that vast forest fires lit in the Appalachians would produce a column of hot air, and the resulting convection in the atmosphere would bring rain to the east coast. (He didn’t actually try the experiment but lectured extensively about storm systems.) During World War II, the British air force burned thousands of barrels of oil around airstrips to disperse fog. Afterwards, US scientists investigated techniques for diverting hurricanes that attracted the attention of naval tacticians intrigued by the possibility of steering violent storms into enemy vessels. During the Vietnam War, the US military put these ideas into practice by conducting top secret cloud-seeding missions meant to trigger monsoons and hamper North Vietnamese troop movements.

Following revelations in the 1970s about the covert use of weather warfare, the United Nations approved the Environment Modification Convention (ENMOD), which prohibited employing the environment as a weapon. To date, more than seventy nations, including Canada, the US, and Russia, have signed the treaty. It’s believed by some that ENMOD could be used to oppose future geoengineering technologies, even in a non-military context.

After ENMOD and Vietnam, the field of geoengineering research became a scientific backwater, and remained so until the Dutch chemist Paul J. Crutzen, who won a Nobel Prize for ozone studies, suggested that deliberate climate modification could be a solution to climate change. In a widely read 2006 essay, he asked whether sulfate aerosols should be fired into the atmosphere to cool the planet. He posed this question fifteen years after the dramatic eruption of Mount Pinatubo led to falling temperatures worldwide. That event produced unexpected proof of concept for renegade climate scientists who felt the greenhouse effect could be mitigated by finding ways to artificially reduce global temperatures.

Since Crutzen’s shot across the bow, a small but growing number of scientists have begun devising geoengineering systems. Perhaps the best known is University of Calgary physicist David Keith, who has spent five years developing a device — known variously as a carbon scrubber or an artificial tree — meant to capture and store carbon dioxide from ambient air. There’s also Edinburgh engineer Stephen Salter, who has investigated how to whiten clouds to increase their ability to reflect solar radiation. And two years ago, a joint Indian and German research team set out to investigate the use of iron sulfate particles to fertilize ocean water and accelerate algae production; the scientists have hypothesized that algae blooms will absorb carbon dioxide as they grow and naturally sequester it when they die.

These experiments have played out against a backdrop of increasingly futile international climate change negotiations; the steady rise in global temperatures and atmospheric carbon concentrations; and mounting evidence of disturbing natural developments, such as melting glaciers and the rapid disappearance of the polar ice caps. In 2009, President Barack Obama’s top science adviser, John Holdren, gave the still-obscure field a public relations boost when he suggested that geoengineering must be considered: “We don’t have the luxury of taking any approach off the table.” Steven Chu, the US secretary of energy, chimed in by advocating for the widespread use of white roofs.

Those pronouncements, though heavily hedged, triggered a media frenzy about the theoretical pros and cons of geoengineering. Advocates like Keith took to the pages of the New York Times to argue that if the world can’t kick its carbon habit, governments must think ahead to Plan B solutions. “If we don’t know whether it works and what the potential consequences would be, we’ll be in really bad shape,” adds Thomas Homer-Dixon, the chair of global systems at the Balsillie School in Waterloo, who has written extensively about global politics and the future of energy. Some high-leverage technologies, like blasting aerosols into the atmosphere, are already cheap enough that “a lot of actors could do it on a substantial scale,” he says. “Unilateral action is a strong motivation for getting the governance right.”

Environmental groups, in turn, hustled to denounce these untested technologies as scary, science fiction–style manipulations, arguing that they would work against efforts to reduce carbon use. Yet despite the stakes of this debate, there is no formal centre for discussion about geoengineering and how such a technology might fit into climate change policy. There are no broadly accepted protocols for geoengineering experiments, and no multilateral body tasked with probing the policy issues and establishing ground rules. Members of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change — the global institution principally responsible for the Kyoto Protocol and whatever succeeds it — haven’t paid any serious attention to these nascent technologies, focusing instead on mitigation.

For our part, the Canadian government hasn’t done anything to help develop a policy framework for geoengineering. Ottawa has placed a big bet on technologies meant to store carbon in spent oil and gas wells, but has otherwise contributed nothing useful to global discussions about tackling climate change. By sharp contrast, the British Parliament has made a sustained effort to raise questions about the environmental and political consequences of geoengineering. The UK is driving this debate because it has invested heavily in progressive climate change policy, and thus has a keen sense of the limitations of such measures as clean energy. In 2008, the British House of Commons’ science and technology committee released a report entitled The Regulation of Geoengineering. In a precedent-setting move, the American Congress’s science and technology committee held its own hearings on these issues.

Blackstock describes that unique binational exercise as “a very reasoned, thorough conversation.” Interestingly, Canadian fingerprints are all over the final UK report: Blackstock and Keith gave extensive testimony, as did the Ottawa not-for-profit ETC Group (the Action Group on Erosion, Technology, and Concentration), whose activists have emerged as the most outspoken and well-informed critics of the technology. The report called on the government to push research and urge international bodies to begin formulating rules. “The science of geoengineering is not sufficiently advanced to make the technology predictable, but this of itself is not grounds for refusing to develop regulatory frameworks, or for banning it,” the report concluded, adding, “Serious consideration for the regulatory arrangements for geoengineering needs to start now, not once highly disruptive climate change is under way.”
Home · Page 1 of 2 · Next

8 comment(s)

Wa sky watcherMay 10, 2011 08:53 EST

I respect the author of this article for doing some research, and for even writing this article. However what is obvious to me, is how these scientists think they can get away with saying they are \"researching\" without actually doing stratospheric aerosol geo-engineering already. What kind of data can you come up with unless you are actually putting the mega-tons of chemicals in the atmoshphere?? You see, my point is it is already on-going and has been for years now. Aluminum levels in soil samples, snow-packs and other water tables, and even our bodies directly, are sky-rocketing in these nations currently engaging in \"chemtrails\". This is not a \"futuristic\" idea, this is current day genocide. Mountains of evidence exist, and i\'m tired of it being swept under the rug. The mass genocide is underway, and frankly I\'m appalled people like Bill Gates support this. Just google Bill Gates and de-population, or Monsanto and aluminum resistent seeds. Do your own research, and dont beleive articles such as this which paint a \"purposed pretty picture\" for this type of earth altering. Where is the debate, the discussions, the vote???

watch the documentary \'What in the World are they Spraying\' available on youtube. Get informed, get involved.

this article did nothing to show the side of the data that is currently available to prove geo-engineering is currently underway, and folks the Truth is out there. it\'s poisoning on the grandest scale.

Captain ZenMay 10, 2011 08:54 EST

Strange you do not mention the ionization of the upper atmosphere with the use off Tesla coils, and what is done at HAARP in Alaska. By lack of mentioning that all this writing loses its credibility, sorry to say. Have a nice time researching what's really going on.

ChrisMay 15, 2011 19:36 EST

\"Members of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change ... haven’t paid any serious attention to these nascent technologies, focusing instead on mitigation.\"

Of course this is the correct approach in terms of cost effectiveness, efficiacy, and solving the cause of the problem: high human population of seven billion growing exponentially, and each rightly wanted a energy-rich quality life-style. The energy our society emits is huge at an annual 30 billion tonnes of C02.

So what to do? Much more effective to feed human\'s insatiable appetite for more energy by safe economical thorium molten-salt nuclear reactors.

http://energyfromthorium.com/faq/

This IS a disruptive technology that China and other nations are developing to market.

Paul KishimotoMay 17, 2011 08:39 EST

Conspiracy theories and accompanying hysterics aside, there are a couple of very real concerns about geoengineering.

David Keith is exactly right that a policy debate is needed. Critical to that debate is providing useful information about potential geoengineering technologies. This means setting a standard of scientific review, including who should be reviewing. Technologists, like Keith, with a personal stake in the field invariably tend to argue for the validity of their own work and attack that of others. This is good science, but the public still needs someone to weigh and evaluate competing claims.

Another concern that the article speaks to is moral hazard. This is the economic idea that the guarantee or real possibility of insulation from harm increases an individual's tolerance for risk. The uninsured are more likely than the insured to be careful about their health, driving, home fire safety, etc.

Due to long climactic time scales, most of the effects of near-term emissions will occur decades in the future. One may be tempted to believe that geoengineering will become viable and allow us to save ourselves when those problems manifest, but ideally it should operate in concert with immediate cuts to emissions.

Bill BradbrookeMay 19, 2011 12:13 EST

A policy framework for geo-engineering, I couldn\\\'t agree more! And the very first piece of this framework must be agreement on the triggers for regulatory measures based on comprehensive, settled science.

When considering highly disruptive climate change, what change are we talking about? For instance, if melting arctic pack ice is not due to the warming effect of green house gases but is due instead to disintegration of the deep ocean conveyor in the North Atlantic, if sea levels are not rising – at all, if unusual weather patterns are occurring as global surface temperatures cool, if deep solar minimums are harbingers of ice ages, the world may be on the verge of a precipitous cold spell. Science has not settled this uncertainty. Cross disciplinary evidence is only beginning to emerge. Data are still incomplete.

Personally, I do not remember when a eugenicist at the county fair could determine by a few skull measurements whether your child would be above or below normal intelligence. However, I do remember when shoe stores used x-ray machines to measure children’s shoe sizes, and I certainly remember the story of the sorcerer’s apprentice. We must not leap to conclusions beyond our knowledge.

Our policy framework for geo-engineering must begin with the steps necessary to define the problem before we get to regulatory measures to provide a solution.

JakJune 05, 2011 19:29 EST

I could say something about over reactionary, bicycle riding, cappuccino sucking, tree hugging, do gooders, but I won't.

Al ZiehmerJune 30, 2011 10:03 EST

So, if I came up with a new and novel way of robbing you of your money, technically I have not broken any laws. Even better, I can continue to rob you, your family, friends and loved ones as long as I can say that I have no knowledge that such a thing is occurring.

Now for another parallel; I could gather funding from governments, philanthropists, and private NGO stakeholders to aid buying the loyalty of Universities and affiliated corporate labs and begin open air "research" activities with no limits, on a large scale, as long as I deny that full implementation is underway because there are currently no laws governing "research" at present. Especially if the so called "unintended unknow unknowns" are beneficial to striking right to the heart of the source of Co2 (Russian roulette through collateral, population reduction) - This "benefit" would remain as an unspoken bonus to the stakeholders who's neo economy is based around the "sustainable development programme" where every body is assigned a negative carbon value.

Folks, we already bare witness to SRM SAG. Look up!
The day the likes of Keith and his ilk get caught with their hand in the nano powder jar cannot arrive soon enough. "Climate Change" is man made - damn right! Made by forcing our ecosystems to the breaking point by stratospheric geoengineering. Then the finger will be pointed at mankind's misuse of resources as the mortality rates increase.

The Devil himself could not have devised a better plan to deceive so many.
They don't need to stop.
They don't intend on stopping.
We (you) must stop them. - Do your part to expose and bring these criminals down.

Deborah SomfayJuly 08, 2011 12:26 EST

Great article John!
Let\'s see..today I took shots of chemtrails over Kitchener -Waterloo.July 1 they were going at it all day! What arrogance! One just needs to google the date and chem-trails Canada and up they pop!As a citizen of this planet I have a right to know what the hell they are spraying up there and what is landing in my yard! Is anyone getting angry out there!? Such silence from our politicians (not surprisingly) and obvious pretending of many geo-engineers to not know what we\'re talking about, is disgraceful and disgusting.We are not idiots! I am wondering who the hell we can turn to to get some answers..truth..such a foreign word these days..sad to say. We need this subject brought up more frequently on television and other media sources but I think tv is the way to get it out more in the open to the average member of the public..The Agenda did one programme on geo-engineering but we need far more than that to expose this activity.David Suzuki..where are you buddy!? Anyone?!

Add a comment

  
I agree to walrusmagazine.com’s comments policy.

Canada & its place in the world. Published by
the non-profit charitable Walrus Foundation
TwitterFacebookTumblr
The Walrus SoapBox
The Walrus Laughs
Walrus TV