Although the effects of climate change are becoming increasingly apparent, the progress toward reducing greenhouse gas emissions remains as disappointing as ever, leading some to tout new technological solutions that could supposedly save the day.
For example, David Keith, an applied physics professor at Harvard University, would have us consider geoengineering — that is, deliberate, large-scale and highly risky interventions in the Earth’s climate system.
At the UN environmental conference in Nairobi, Kenya in March, the US and Saudi Arabia blocked an effort to scrutinize geoengineering and its implications for international governance.
Meanwhile, Keith’s Stratospheric Controlled Perturbation Experiment (SCoPEx) in the US — which aims to test a form of geoengineering known as solar radiation management — seems to be moving forward.
Solar radiation management depends on so-called stratospheric aerosol injection, whereby a high-altitude balloon sprays large quantities of inorganic particles into the stratosphere with the goal of reflecting some sunlight back into space. SCoPEx would send a balloon equipped with scientific instruments about 20km above the ground to test the reflectivity of various substances.
Yet the technical aspects of the experiment are far less important than its political, social and geopolitical implications. After all, the risks of geoengineering could not be more serious.
If deployed at scale, solar radiation management could disrupt the monsoons in Asia and cause droughts in Africa, affecting the food and water supplies of 2 billion people.
The use of sulfuric acid — the most studied option, and the one SCoPEx initially intended to test — could further deplete the ozone layer. (More recently, SCoPEx has been mentioning only carbonates.)
The launch of an independent advisory committee for SCoPEx seems to be aimed at lending legitimacy to a kind of experiment that the rest of the world has agreed is too dangerous to allow.
Moreover, the panel’s membership is exclusively US-based, and mostly linked to elite institutions, which raises questions about whose interests are being served.
These concerns are reinforced by the fact that the SCoPEx pitch is fundamentally manipulative. The results from a “small-scale” experiment would not amount to a credible assessment of the effects of deploying solar radiation management at the scale needed for geoengineering.
As climate scientists have made clear, the only way to know how solar radiation management would affect the climate is to deploy it over several decades on a massive scale. Otherwise, its effects could not be distinguished from other climate variables and “climate noise.”
Given that geoengineering is, by nature, not testable, all experiments like SCoPEx can do is create momentum for larger and longer experiments. Once millions of dollars have been sunk into creating the relevant institutions and employing large numbers of people, it becomes easier to argue that even more data should be collected and, finally, that the technology should be deployed.
In this sense, projects such as SCoPEx set a new and dangerous precedent for the unilateral implementation of geoengineering technologies by billionaires and vested interests.
As the Center for International Environmental Law and the Heinrich Boll Foundation’s recent report Fuel to Fire says, fossil-fuel companies have been investing in geoengineering for decades.
For them, the promise of a technological get-out-of-jail-free card is an ideal pretext for continuing their highly profitable, destructive activities.
Keith’s own company, Carbon Engineering, recently received US$68 million from Occidental Petroleum, Chevron and coal giant BHP to develop another potentially dangerous geoengineering approach — direct air capture, which takes carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, to be used or stored. Among the company’s original funders are Canadian oil sands financier N. Murray Edwards (as well as Microsoft founder Bill Gates).
Allowing such projects to move forward with no political mandate or institutional oversight could entrench a system of self-regulation that is grossly inadequate for technologies as consequential as geoengineering.
That is why the UN Convention on Biodiversity (CBD) has asked governments not to allow any geoengineering activities to be carried out until “a global, transparent, and effective control and regulatory mechanism” is put in place — a mechanism that adheres to a “precautionary approach.”
The CBD decision made an exception for small-scale experiments, but only under certain conditions, which SCoPEx does not meet: among them, carrying out experiments in “controlled settings” and acquiring the free, prior, and informed consent of indigenous peoples and local communities who might be affected.
Furthermore, in the case of SCoPEx, no critical voices from civil society or developing-country governments seem to have been considered.
SCoPEx’s promoters appear determined to take advantage of the US’s failure to ratify the CBD.
Rather than allow fossil-fuel companies that have ravaged the planet for profit to continue to act in their own interests, the world must establish a strong, multilateral democratic regulatory mechanism, which includes the option to ban certain technologies.
Until such an international system is in place, experiments such as SCoPEx — which threaten to act as a Trojan horse for deploying dangerous technologies at scale — must not be allowed to move forward.
Silvia Ribeiro is the Latin America director for ETC Group.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
A gap appears to be emerging between Washington’s foreign policy elites and the broader American public on how the United States should respond to China’s rise. From my vantage working at a think tank in Washington, DC, and through regular travel around the United States, I increasingly experience two distinct discussions. This divergence — between America’s elite hawkishness and public caution — may become one of the least appreciated and most consequential external factors influencing Taiwan’s security environment in the years ahead. Within the American policy community, the dominant view of China has grown unmistakably tough. Many members of Congress, as
The Hong Kong government on Monday gazetted sweeping amendments to the implementation rules of Article 43 of its National Security Law. There was no legislative debate, no public consultation and no transition period. By the time the ink dried on the gazette, the new powers were already in force. This move effectively bypassed Hong Kong’s Legislative Council. The rules were enacted by the Hong Kong chief executive, in conjunction with the Committee for Safeguarding National Security — a body shielded from judicial review and accountable only to Beijing. What is presented as “procedural refinement” is, in substance, a shift away from
The shifting geopolitical tectonic plates of this year have placed Beijing in a profound strategic dilemma. As Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) prepares for a high-stakes summit with US President Donald Trump, the traditional power dynamics of the China-Japan-US triangle have been destabilized by the diplomatic success of Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi in Washington. For the Chinese leadership, the anxiety is two-fold: There is a visceral fear of being encircled by a hardened security alliance, and a secondary risk of being left in a vulnerable position by a transactional deal between Washington and Tokyo that might inadvertently empower Japan
After declaring Iran’s military “gone,” US President Donald Trump appealed to the UK, France, Japan and South Korea — as well as China, Iran’s strategic partner — to send minesweepers and naval forces to reopen the Strait of Hormuz. When allies balked, the request turned into a warning: NATO would face “a very bad” future if it refused. The prevailing wisdom is that Trump faces a credibility problem: having spent years insulting allies, he finds they would not rally when he needs them. That is true, but superficial, as though a structural collapse could be caused by wounded feelings. Something
RSS