Green Design

How Do We Intelligently Discuss Politicized Geoengineering

June 6th, 2008 Posted in Climate Change, Green News

Ever since I wrote about my support for a ban on geoengineering research, I've found myself more involved in a debate about geoengineering, climate science and politics than I anticipated being. Mostly this has meant a bunch of email -- some supportive, some outraged -- and more than a few calls from reporters working on geoengineering stories.

Now I find myself in a strange position, trying to find a useful stance in what has become an incredibly politicized debate. I'd be interested to hear readers' ideas about what a useful debate about geoengineering might look like, given the very real politics swirling around the subject.

Concerns about both politicization and unintended consequences lead me, earlier, to call for a ban on funding geoengineering research:

A number of marine scientists have called for a ban on any geo-engineering of the oceans. Climate scientist Raymond Pierrehumbert's proposed 10 year moratorium on geo-engineering efforts goes farther still. I'd like to propose a further step: what if we table all discussion of geo-engineering as a strategy for 10 years, primarily by instituting a moratorium on funding research into any specific geo-engineering interventions.

So I'm already deeply, deeply skeptical of geoengineering, both on technical and political grounds: I think it's likely to fail if tried -- or succeed in disastrous ways -- and it's already being used as part of an argument against acting to prevent catastrophic climate change.

But we're entering a new, more dangerous moment in this debate: one where the U.S. conservative messaging machine is gearing up a three-pronged attack on the growing (but still fragile) consensus that the U.S. needs to lead on climate change.

The first part of that assault is an intensification in the on-going attack on scientists. The history here is long and clear.

The second part is a fear, uncertainty and doubt campaign scaring people about the costs of action and equating cap-and-trade systems and other greenhouse-gas reduction measures with socialism, if not outright communism:

For a century, an ambitious, arrogant, unscrupulous knowledge class — social planners, scientists, intellectuals, experts and their left-wing political allies — arrogated to themselves the right to rule either in the name of the oppressed working class (communism) or, in its more benign form, by virtue of their superior expertise in achieving the highest social progress by means of state planning (socialism)...

Just as the ash heap of history beckoned, the intellectual left was handed the ultimate salvation: environmentalism. Now the experts will regulate your life not in the name of the proletariat or Fabian socialism but — even better — in the name of Earth itself.

But the third attack is simply to question whether we need to do anything at all, since (the wingnuts claim) carbon sequestration and geoengineering are right around the corner. Geoengineering, especially, has become beloved of the far right:

By physically altering the planet on a global scale, geoengineering projects would theoretically offset warming caused by the build-up of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The concept was dismissed as fringe science when it was first introduced in the 1960s. Now, what once seemed like science fiction is not only being deemed feasible, but necessary, said experts at a panel convened here Tuesday by the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, a conservative think tank.

Of course, the prospect of geoengineering raises a host of objections. Take, for instance, Rutgers meteorologist Alan Robock's article in the latest issue of Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 20 Reasons Why Geoengineering May Be a Bad Idea, in which he lays out a host of rational causes for deep concern about the very prospect of geoengineering, like ocean acidification, ozone depletion, human error, military uses and rapid warming if deployment stops. Says Robock:

I wouldn’t advocate actual small-scale stratospheric experiments unless comprehensive climate modeling results could first show that we could avoid at least all of the potential consequences we know about. Due to the inherent natural variability of the climate system, this task is not trivial.

This is a dangerous moment, one where words count, and geoengineering is being used to very direct (and dishonest) rhetorical purposes. In a very real way, discussions of geoengineering play into the political hands of those in the U.S. who would like to see climate change action blocked.

But at the same time, in order to have a worthwhile discussion about how to confront climate change and other planetary problems, we need to acknowledge both the full extent of human influence on the Earth and the need for intelligent planetary managemet.

To make matters worse, the American political debate is notoriously blind to nuance, so no discussion which is premised on numerous caveats and conditions will do: the boundaries of discussion need to fit in a 60-second soundbite at the very least.

So, how do we have a rational discussion about geoengineering and planetary management, which acknowledges the uses to which those who are unscrupulous on the issue may put that discussion, and yet leaves room for well-intentioned people to debate?

Perhaps that space doesn't exist. Perhaps the best we can do for now is simply say even discussing geoengineering is totally off the table until we get climate change policy and carbon pricing in place.

But maybe there's a clever solution here, a way to frame the debate that impedes nefarious manipulation but leaves open a space for honest discussion.

Ideas?

Help us change the world - DONATE NOW!

(Posted by Alex Steffen in Climate Change at 4:36 PM)