The Flaws of Geo-Engineerig - English

Pie in the Sky

By Peter Newell19.11.2013Economics, Global Policy, Science

International Climate Politics might have shortcomings but a world with weak commitments is still better than one without any commitments at all.

2a2d3106ef.jpg

As another UN climate meeting comes and goes it is easy to mock the failings of climate diplomacy, as Bjorn Lomborg does in his “recent article()”:http://www.theeuropean-magazine.com/bjorn-lomborg/7590-the-failure-of-climate-talks in The European. The catalogue of failed commitments he describes is hard to dispute, though what he ignores is that a world with weak commitments to act is better than his preference for a world without any commitments at all.

Where we really differ, however, is in what to do about the current situation: go for grand geo-engineering projects and ‘new’ (but unspecified) energy sources or create the incentives (including a new deal on climate) for the scaling up of the vast potential of tried and tested renewable energies. Here I spell out why I prefer the latter.

Flawed assumptions

First, it would be risky and very costly to throw money after completely untried and untested geo-engineering projects instead of up-scaling and improving the accessibility of existing and proven clean energy technologies. The money spent on renewable energy (RE) annually will pale into insignificance in comparison to pursuing extravagant and un-regulated experiments. To take just one suggestion, delivering enough aerosol to counter projected warming would cost between $2-$8 billion each year according to studies, and that’s just one of a range of approaches some of which rise to $390bn a year, way more than annual spending on renewables and “without the guarantee of results()”:http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2012/09/engineering-earths-climate-feasible-and-affordable-but-not-advisable/!

The chances are it also wouldn’t work. UEA climate scientist Naomi Vaughan warns, “as soon as you stop any type of solar radiation management, the rate of warming is extremely fast – the system readjusts”. Seeking to artificially generate a cooling effect through injecting sulphur dioxide into the atmosphere, mimicking the effect produced by “volcanoes” that Lomborg advocates, could only delay global warming rather than prevent it. Other adverse effects of CO2 emissions, like the acidification of the oceans, “would continue()”:http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2011/01/bjorn-lomborg-on-10-oclock-live/ as before.

Second, it is naive to think that nations will allow disruptive geo-engineering solutions to be pursued without some form of global oversight or agreement. So in fact the messy politics of climate diplomacy will not be bypassed by going for elaborate techno-fixes. Similarly, lack of leadership is not going to be solved by absolving governments of any responsibilities other than to pump money into new engineering and energy solutions that may take decades to yield results and at what cost environmentally and financially?

Third, many of the solutions already exist. A clean energy revolution is possible. Far from renewables being driven by ‘well-meaning westerners’, India and China are stealing the lead with ambitious national targets and flourishing export industries. Renewables will account for nearly half of the increase in global power generation to 2035—with China generating more than the US, Japan and the EU combined while Brazil is already a world-leader in renewable energy and is set to almost double its output from renewables by “2035()”:World%20Energy%20Outlook%202013.

Fourth, there are many opportunities to re-direct the vast amount of money that is currently wasted on fossil fuel subsidies to supporting this clean energy revolution. Globally, subsidies to fossil fuels are in the order of US$ 600 billion per year, of which about US$ 100 billion is provided “to producers()”:http://www.iisd.org/gsi/fossil-fuel-subsidies (and not poorer consumers). If even a fraction of this were diverted to lower carbon forms of energy their impact could be hugely enhanced.

Far from being a waste of time, stronger targets at international, regional and national level drive investment opportunities: the $4 trillion industry that benefits from climate policy and is already sustaining “a large number of jobs()”:http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/dec/02/climate-renewable-energy-carbon-emissions and growth. The potential from renewable energy sector development is estimated at 3 million jobs in Europe by 2020 and then there are the benefits of reduced spending on energy imports: in 2011 net imports of fuels to the EU amounted to EUR 388 billion (Europe 2020 targets – Climate and Energy). Ultimately “what investors are after()”:http://www.chathamhouse.org/publications/papers/view/109217 are ‘long, loud, legal’ signals about the direction of change: long term time frames, legal commitments and positive state support.

A global accord, which binds all countries to address this issue and commit resources to it, is surely one way of sending these signals. They also reduce the bill for adaptation. The costs increase the longer we fail to deliver effective mitigation commitments- adaptation “costs will double()”:http://www.climateactiontracker.org/ with a 3°C temperature rise.

Who pays?

Finally, there are basic questions of morality and responsibility. How would small island states and those living in the front line of climate change react to proposals to abandon all efforts to agree on cuts to greenhouse gas emissions and merely throw money after untried and untested geo-engineering solutions? How much compensation would people want for giving up their homes and livelihoods while we keep our fingers crossed that techno-fixes will yet save us all?

Wishing away the complications of global climate policy while writing off the potential of renewable energy in preference for extravagant techno-fixes surely presents the most dangerous way forward of all. As “Dr. Watson()”:http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2012/09/engineering-earths-climate-feasible-and-affordable-but-not-advisable, leader of a geo-engineering project, puts it: “…we must not get drawn into discussion where economics becomes the key driver. Impact on humanity and ecosystems must be, and continue to be, of primary consideration.”

COMMENTS

MOST COMMENTED

Most People Are Rationally Ignorant

What decisions would we make if we deliberated carefully about public policy? Alexander Görlach sat down with Stanford's James Fishkin to discuss deliberative democracy, parliamentary discontent, and the future of the two-party system.

A Violent Tea Party?

For many Europeans the massacre in Arizona is another evidence that political violence is spreading in the United States but this unfortunate event was the deed of a mentally ill person, not a political activist. There is no evidence of an increasing political extremism tearing America apart. Using

Passage to India

The US and Russia don't agree on much - but they are both keen to develop a good relationship with India. How do we know? Look at the arms trade.

"Cities are making us more human"

More than 50 percent of the world's population now live in cities – and there is no end of urbanization in sight. Harvard economist Edward Glaeser believes urbanization to be a solution to many unanswered problems: pollution, depression and a lack of creativity. He spoke with Lars Mensel about the

No Glove, No Love

Contrary to the mantras repeated by the press, HIV infections are not increasing. We need to move away from activist scare tactics and towards complex risk management strategies.

Perfection Is Not A Useful Concept

Nick Bostrom directs the Future of Humanity Institute at Oxford University. He talked with Martin Eiermann about existential risks, genetic enhancements and the importance of ethical discourses about technological progress.

Mobile Sliding Menu