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
Up to half of the foreigners residing in China have departed over the past few years. The decline is particularly evident among US students, with their numbers plummeting by 98 percent, dwindling from 11,639 in the 2018-2019 academic year to a mere 211 in 2021-2022. Despite Beijing attributing the exodus to COVID-19 lockdowns, a closer examination of the data reveals that a significant portion left just before and after the lockdowns. Some foreigners who weathered the never-ending lockdowns finally decided to leave, as they were afraid that Beijing could reimpose lockdowns. However, COVID-19 is just one of many reasons that China’s
Due to enduring the Kafkaesque situation of having two accidents in 30 minutes, one involving an accident with an ambulance, I would like to share my personal experience. Both cases show the loopholes of Taiwanese law, which is a driving factor for the terrible traffic conditions in the nation. I was driving my scooter on the main road in Taoyuan’s Yangmei District (楊梅). Despite there being no cars behind me, a young man in an old car made a sudden left turn and I bumped into his vehicle. At first, the man tried to run away, but was blocked by other
The pre-eminent authority on the English language, the Oxford English Dictionary (OED), last month issued an update to one of its entries, adding the term “Chinese dragon” to its lexicon for the first time. The Chinese word long (龍) has for a long time been translated simply as “dragon,” but many commentators opposed this, believing that the traditional Western concept of a dragon is represented by the embodiment of a fearsome, wicked monster that must be killed. It was deemed unsuitable to use a wicked and inauspicious Western dragon to refer to an auspicious Chinese dragon, so it was recommended that a
My recent trip to Taiwan to vote in the presidential and legislative elections was a simple civil duty. Yet, it was still an eye-opening experience for a long-time US resident, given the similarity in political divisions of the two-party system in both countries. As the Washington Post said: “This isn’t just an election year. It’s the year of elections.” Taiwan’s election was to choose between pro-democracy and pro-China. To a good extent, the US election in November would also be the decision time for defending democracy. The strength of a democratic society lies in the quality of its people, who