Is a deal in sight?

I've returned home to Eazrah to follow what's shaping up to be the planet's largest climate change conference in history, the Conference of the Parties (COP) 21. Delegates from nearly 200 nations are meeting to broker an international deal on how to tackle climate change and keep global temperature rises to a safe level.

Ahead of the talks geoengineering has gained mixed media attention: some scientists peddling it as a fall-back should emissions not fall fast enough, others warning of its perils.

A major question will be whether countries will be able to pledge to cut their greenhouse gas emissions low enough to ensure global warming doesn't reach dangerous levels. If they cannot come to an agreement, then removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere or reducing incoming solar radiation may be the only other option.

It will certainly be interesting to see the outcome of the talks, and whether there is any support for geoengineering by their close.

We need to talk about geoengineering

After a longer-than-expected stay I am leaving Saskreeta now. During my stay, I've learnt about one aborted SRM programme, a widespread conspiracy theory that's emerged in response to SRM technology. I've been thinking a lot about David Keith's message, his warning that geoengineering shouldn't be written off as a moral hazard and neglected in public debate. It's led me to look a bit further into the ethics of geoengineering and societal problems with where it might lead. 

 

Duncan LcLaren, University of Lancaster, researches the justice implications of geoengineering. Earlier this year LcLaren wrote an essay following a talk at a SRM Science conference. 

 

LcLaren, like Keith, argues that geoengineering discussions must be had. He acknowledges that there are a number of potential ethical and justice-related problems associated with geoengineering.

LcLaren speculates about the potential consequences of geoengineering - from the risk of such a technology being commercialised to militarised. If geoengieering programmes became commercialised, it's highly likely that a geoengineering lobby would soon emerge, who would fight fiercely to ensure the programmes were never taken down, maybe even despite negative side effects. Just look at tobacco and gun lobbies as examples. On the other hand, if weather-controlling technologies were developed could they then be weaponized? This prospect is certainly sinister.
 

Another major concern about geoengineering is that there really is no experimental phase. Sure, theoretical work and simulations can be done in a laboratory setting. But to truly understand the effects of any technology it needs to be tested out in full scale. However, with geoengineering that cannot be done in safely controlled environments: it can only be done on a scale that could affect climate and whole populations. This may not be safe. If the experiment fails, then we face the full effects of climate change; if it goes wrong, we could be faced with something even worse. The stakes are high.

 
But LcLaren argues that these issues and concerns won't be solved by ignoring it in public forums. Instead, he claims the key is openness and anticipation of possible problems before they arise, so regulatory and political precautions can be put in place.

Image from iMeda Connection

Especially when one considers the success/failure rate even in some of the most tightly regulated scientific fields. In medicine for example, decades of research are usually done on a molecule before it even reaches a clinical trial. Even if there is years of theoretical evidence, proof of concepts and laboratory work suggesting a drug will be effective and safe, most of the time it isn't.
Why should the same not occur with a technology like geoengineering? Especially when one considers all the known (and unknown?) unknowns in our climate system. How could we possibly claim to know how a global-scale technology will work before it is implemented.

Geoengineering is not the first scientific endeavour to ask society serious questions, and it won't be the last either. On several other scientific issues - GM crops or human genetic modification, for example -serious debate has been already and continues to be held; discussions have been had, conclusions made and, where necessary, official bans have been put in place to prevent the implementation of technology where it is deemed unethical or unwanted. 

Public engagement is surely necessary for geoengineering too. But as Stilgoe (2014) points out, such engagement must be broad and should extend past the preserve of academia to incorporate marginal and minority communities. Research indicates that people in higher social classes and positions of power may be more susceptible to moral hazards and unethical behaviour than others, so it's crucial to engage people from all sectors of society to avoid such risks. The quality of engagement will be important as well - ensuring that all vested interests are transparent. Inclusivity and transparency in engagement are two points that LcLaren also encourages.
 

Just as had happened with GM foods and human genetic modification, we must decide upon, and draw red lines which cannot be crossed by geoengineers - whilst geoengineering research itself is still in its nascence. But this can only be done with public engagement, for geoeingeering experiments could affect us all.

Moral hazards and the need for debate

This Ted Talk from David Keith is a few years old now, but much of it still seems relevant today. Keith is professor of engineering at Harvard University and has been very vocal on the topic of geoengineering for many years. In this speech he introduces the idea of using stratospheric aerosols as a form of solar radiation management. As you can see from the comments, many of his views are highly controversial.

His weak argument for stratospheric aerosol injection (the sort researched by SPICE) certainly isn't convincing. However cheap it may be, Keith massively overlooks key concerns with this technology (continued ocean acidification to name but one). 

But this Ted Talk isn't meant to be a hard sell for stratospheric aerosols, right? Keith's key message comes in the latter half of his talk and is worth taking note of.

He claims that geoengineering hasn't been spoken about enough because it poses a moral hazard. In other words, something that could allow us to carry on with business as usual, in the knowledge that we have a get-out-of-jail-free card should things get prickly: merely acknowledging it as a future possibility might lessen our impetus to reduce emissions in the first place.

But by omitting geoengineering from political forums on how to tackle climate change, we are missing out on discussing important questions: who would authorize such technology? Who would control it? How would it be governed? What temperature would we set the planet at?!

It's certainly important to have these discussions openly in advance of geoengineering technologies being developed or even deployed - especially if we reach a situation where global warming could spiral comletely out of our control and somebody decides to rashly implement a quick-and-dirty techno-fix. We need to have serious debate about geoengineering, even if the outcome of such discussions is that under no circumstances will it be used to engineer the climate - that would still be a valuable conclusion and could be enshrined in law.

Otherwise, Keith warns, we run the risk of engineers deploying technology that could affect the entire planet, without these concerns having been discussed and without proper regulation and governance procedures being put in place.

Chemtrails, contrails and conspiracy theories

I've become aware of a conspiracy theory that geoengineering is already being secretly implemeted. The theory goes that governments around the globe are using aeroplanes to spray toxic "chemtrails" across the sky.

Chemtrails (chemical trails) supposedly differ from "contrails" (condensation trails) by lingering in the sky for hours longer than contrails, which vanish after a few seconds. There are several forums in which people have given accounts and posted alleged videos and photos of chemtrails.

They range from the paranoid to the hysterical.

So far I've seen no credible evidence for chemtrails (everyone knows how easily photographs and videos can be doctored, and I noticed that one repeat video uploader had a YouTube profile image reading "9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB" - serial conspiracy theorist ahoy?). But this conspiracy theory has piqued my interest nonetheless. Bear with me whilst I explain.  

Whether or not the theory is a direct response to the SPICE project in particular, I can't be certain. But it does seem to originate in the similarities between proposed methods for stratospheric particle injection put forward for solar radiation management, and the production of chemtrails. The conspiracists actually describe the chemtrails as geoengineering so they have certainly made a link between the two.

Figure 1. Alleged chemtrails. Source: Geoengineering Watch

The theory is so widespread that David Keith, leading geoengineering scientist at Harvard University, has published a response including two fundamental reasons why it should be taken with a pinch of salt: lack of evidence supporting the theory and lack of motivation for governments to do such a thing.

Whether or not a paranoid conspiracy theorist would be convinced by Keith is debateable, especially given the fact that he himself is a prominent geoengineer who many of the consiracists seem to suspect is involved.

But I'm not getting involved with the conspiracy theory itself.

What struck me is that this theory has a substantial following. Whether or not it's correct doesn't change the fact that a signifcant amount of people here are actually scared of the possibility of a technology that could spray chemicals into the atmosphere and modify the weather.

That fear does resonate with me: it raises questions in my head about how ethical it is to develop a technology of which peope are this fearful, especially given that a technology as large-scale and far-reaching as stratospheric particle injection could ultimately affect anyone on the planet.

It also highlights how crucial total transparency is in scientific research to avoid public paranoia. Making information as open and accessible as possible in the first place is surely the easiest way to prevent people speculating on what may or may not be happening.