The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and many other reputable scientific authorities have shown that global warming is a fact. Average temperatures are rising. If they continue to do so at the same rate, our planet will be between 1.5 and 4 degrees warmer, possibly even more, by the end of this century. Many climatologists believe that this will have serious consequences for our ecosystems and our food supply.
Some scientists are so concerned that they have already begun to devise ways of reversing the trend – actually cooling the Earth down – should ‘push come to shove’. This process is known as climate engineering or ‘geo-engineering’. One proposal is to inject a fine mist of sulphur dioxide particles into the upper atmosphere, thus creating a ‘stratoshield’ against the sun’s rays. The effect would be similar to that following a major volcanic eruption. Other suggestions include ‘bleaching’ clouds to make them more reflective, or even sending vast mirrors into orbit. These technologies are all designed to intercept the sun’s rays. Scientists are also developing ways in which to draw CO2 out of the atmosphere and store it safely out of harm’s way: the process known as carbon sequestration. One means of doing so might be to seed the oceans with iron. This will promote algae growth and the algae will absorb and store CO2. Some minerals such as olivine (a form of basalt) also have the potential to sequester carbon when heated.
As yet, however, the effects of applying such technologies are far from certain. It could be that the arid desert regions become even more arid, or that vital components of our climate system such as the Gulf Stream are seriously disrupted. In other words, climate engineering carries risks. It is certainly controversial and raises numerous questions. How can the risks be balanced against those of doing nothing: climate engineering versus climate change? Which countries are, or should be, in charge of the climate engineering efforts and how is this to be decided?
It is essential to consider the alternatives, if indeed there are any. There have been many international climate conferences, climate agreements, climate protocols and climate treaties, but so far none has succeeded in reducing global carbon emissions. The controversy surrounding the 2009 Copenhagen Climate Conference severely dented confidence in international climate politics. The discussion about climate engineering is currently largely confined to scientific circles. It will, however, expand into the political and public arenas before long.
The Rathenau Institute is conducting research into various forms of climate engineering. Our aim is to identify the main issues which will inform the imminent debate, and to bring the various societal stakeholders together.
