Nazish Rizwan, School of Arts Humanities and Social Sciences

Research Question:

What are the ethical tensions surrounding geo engineering as a way to counter global climate change?

Abstract:

There are those who believe it is a field which is promising enough to counter climate change and may help countries adopt technologies which can artificially influence weather patterns for the better. On the other hand, there are those who are skeptic and heavily criticize such practices, asserting that this is only an excuse to look away from the ‘real’ issues of human activity since it takes away our emphasis from reducing the global carbon footprint.  Unimaginable and mind-boggling ideas are being talked about in the world. There are plenty of legal and political questions the practice of climate engineering demands to be answered; such as who will it benefit and whom will it harm the most? In this paper, I will discuss the ethical and moral questions surrounding the practice of geoengineering and embed them in context of the Anthropocene. For my research I have extensively read Clive Hamilton and Roy Scranton’s books and articles.

 

 

I have seen the swan and

 I have seen you

I have seen ambition without understanding in a variety of forms

-Marianne Moore “Critics and Connoisseurs”

 

 

The idea of geo engineering is necessarily an ethical question. The reason it is being ardently questioned and talked about is due to the magnanimity of its implications and the unknown possibilities it holds. It raises cries and concerns from the local to the global, because the ‘global’ will decide what happens to the ‘local’. The normal person i.e. laymen to whom this entire project is unknown are powerless in deciding whether or not they want a climate intervention. Some might look up to technology saving us at the end of the day, whereas others might be increasingly skeptical about the direction this will take.

The debate over the possibility of practicing full scale climate engineering is gaining momentum in the global North. According to Dr. Simon Nicholson, Co-Director of the Forum for Climate Engineering Assessment, there is no single country taking the lead on this; but the conversation is taking place cross nationally. The depth and magnitude of geo engineering possibilities raise many ethical, moral and political questions which scientist are trying to answer. Nicholson states that most of the social science research is taking place in the UK and Germany whereas the focus on the natural science of climate engineering is being done through computer modelling and simulations in particular labs and universities in USA. (Nicholson). The conversation has also accelerated now, because efforts by the UN and other international bodies for climate change mitigation and reduction in carbon dioxide emission are proving to be largely unsuccessful. The facts are straightforward, and telling that global capitalism cannot function in a carbon free world, and even if emissions are reduced by 90%, by 2050 we will still break the 2 degree threshold and face death and destruction as never before. (Leinen). In such a scenario, one is forced to think of alternatives, not only energy alternatives, but ones that focus on damage control. One of these alternatives is geo or climate engineering.

Geoengineering is commonly defined as the deliberate use of large-scale interventionist technology to change the weather in the short term, and in the long term can alter the climate of a place. The two major ways to achieve this are through Solar Radiation Management and Carbon Dioxide Removal. These include technologies such as Marine Cloud Brightening, Aerosol Spraying in the stratosphere and using Space Mirrors or reflectors. Carbon Dioxide Removal techniques include Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) and Ocean Fertilization and forest restoration.

If we really think about it, relentless and unmitigated CO2 emissions sound like ‘deliberate’ efforts to damage the planet. Of course, that is not the stated motive of industrialists or governments that are unable to regulate climate change, but it makes one think: What is the motive for geo engineering? Is it to save the Earth or to be able to continue to treat it the way it is already treated? It’s a dialogue one is reluctant to have with oneself whilst being confronted by the possibilities of science and technology. What is the ethical judgement for a factory owner who defends his position by saying all he wants to do is make a living, and his intention is not to pollute the air. Hamilton discusses whether or not intentions have a relationship with the consequences of an action. Is that wrong? Is global warming as intentional as geo engineering is? Professor Stephen Gardiner, of the University of Washington statesin an interview that

“There’s a temptation for the current generation particularly in the rich countries to take benefits now and pass the severe costs on to the future, Arguably that’s one of the big reasons we have failed so far on climate policy because we have succumbed to that temptation” (Readfearn)

This temptation is one of the main ethical tensions that envelope the way we are dealing with climate change today. Climate scientists are constantly telling us that we have passed the tipping point, i.e, 400 parts per million of CO2 concentration in the air[1], a fact which makes it seem necessary for agreements like the Kyoto protocol or the Paris Agreement, to hold up;  but as countries such as USA are backing out or actively  dismissing claims that focus on the urgency of this issue, they are falling prey to these temptations of immediate economic benefits, leaving the later generations to deal with the mess being created. Hamilton elaborated on this as being moral corruption, an attitude based on self-deceit and notions of bad faith (Hamilton 162). This is particular to countries that are looking at geo engineering as a promising field because then they might just be able to spray aerosol in the stratosphere on their bad days and make a place cooler when its impacts elsewhere won’t be their problem. Hamilton fleshes out this moral corruption argument by quoting how it is mainly chemical industry which is funding the research for geo engineering technologies, and not the government. The government and militaries are surely interested and invested in this project, but the money is coming from chemical industries. [2] If there comes a time of ‘emergency’ in which climate engineering is, such as intense heat waves that end up killing a lot of people- it would be directly telling of governmental failure of controlling emissions.

An important point of discussion here would be the global North’s responsibility to the global South itself.  Who gets to make a strong case for or against the use of CDR or SRM? And are these cases treated on the basis of how powerful a country is financially, politically or through how much they actually require an intervention, as it is threatening their existence? In the case of Maldives which is under severe threat of drowning as sea levels around the island are rapidly rising, primarily because the global north is not willing to ‘change their ways’ and prevent global warming as fast as needed. (Hamilton, 166) There is established scientific consensus since the 1980’s that the world is warming up due to manmade or anthropogenic ‘efforts’.  The bulk of these efforts took place in the global north as industrial revolution sped up, and cities grew rapidly. When scientists and environmentalists started to pin point the damages this development was causing, most of the operations to produce goods and services were shifted to the under developed and developing states. Packaged to look like globalization and the spread of industry being beneficial for all countries (since it generates employments and raises living standards), it actually forced politically weaker countries to buy in the scheme and allow the production transfers. Today, when a cut-down in carbon emission is negotiated and promised, the world’s largest emitters, the guiltiest, are looked at to become trend setters and blame games ensue. This also gives rise to the prisoners dilemma, because if they aren’t doing it, why should we?

Roy Scranton, an ex US military officer who wrote a brilliant book called ‘Learning to Die in the Anthropocene’ defines climate change as a wicked problem. (Scranton).  Humanity has not faced such a complex, pressing, and bizarre issue ever before; which is probably why we have not been able to disentangle, and successfully solve it despite the numerous agreements, agencies and plans.  However, to think that we can ‘solve’ such magnanimous problems using techno-fixes such as Carbon Sequestration and Solar Radiation Management is an attitude of technological arrogance. Clive Hamilton presents this argument using the figure of the Greek titan Prometheus. The Prometheans want to reconstruct the world to suit their own interests, trying to play god and be all controlling, while Soterians are resistant to that idea and acknowledge the limits of human rationality.  Proponents of geo engineering live with a ‘technocratic rationalist worldview’ which binds them into thinking that the advancement of tech is the only superior way forward.  In an interview Hamilton eloquently says that,

“There is a view that if you are clever enough to understand atmospheric physics then you are clever enough to grasp the nuances of politics, social change, and ethics. As in the nuclear arms race, the allocation of authority to those with scientific expertise reflects the continued privileged of the hyper-rationality of physical science over the kinds of reasoning and knowledge valid in other spheres where the weakness of humans and their institutions are recognized and the lessons of history absorbed.” (LoPreto)

This statement neatly describes the strand of western anthropocentric thinking that places humanity at the center of the Earth’s systems, having the power and capacity to change and control it according to our interests. It is important to note here that ‘our interest’ is actually the interests of only a few who own the means of production, and have power which to define how a public entity such as the environment is being shaped, and affected negatively with air pollution levels swaying way over safety levels and water bodies being contaminated with wastes and oil spills. The ethical question here is who owns the environment? The skies and the oceans? Will any institution such as NASA, or its subsidiaries call for a public opinion, vote or consensus on practicing such methods or will that be over ridden by a select group of experts? The Royal Society in 2009, called for further research into CDR techniques, but this call was based on accepting how political leaders have failed to lobby against the vested interests of large corporations. Clive Hamilton writes that this also underlies the buying-time argument. Put simply, it is investing time and money on alternative technologies “just-in-case”.  Thus, climate scientist began drawing maps and researching the pros and cons of storing carbon elsewhere.  Conversely, Paul Edwards has explained in his book ‘‘A Vast Machine’, how climate science is primarily based on computer modelling and desk-based research. Those models and graphs are not able to predict exactly how these interventions will affect local eco systems, rainfall patterns, agricultural practices and livelihoods and lifestyles millions of people. To put things in perspective, Hamilton quotes an example of these effects by stating that “confidence among geoengineering scientists in the efficacy of solar radiation management was shaken by a study showing that the Indian monsoon could be seriously disrupted, affecting food supplies for up to 2 billion people” (Hamilton, 62).

It is commonly stated that we have reached past the ‘point of no return’ in terms of the damage done to the planet. In this context, such drastic interventionist technologies become exciting prospects and options to fall back onto. The future of our climate becomes less fearsome when we have something to hold on to, promises and efforts for reductions in emissions falter and fade out. This is the moral hazard argument, one of the most basic ethical questions concerning geo engineering. An amalgamation of behaviors like human psychology, greedy capital interests, and reliance on technology are shaping up our reactions and become deciding principles for moral stances. We do not want to listen to bad news, or if we do hear it, our brain puts that information at the back because the consequences are too dark, unimaginable and unpalatable. It goes to shows that, when we have a plan B, the determination to work hard enough for plan A fails. In the case of environmental efforts, this is the story which is unfolding.

As geo engineering was borne primarily out of military interests in the cold war period for climate control, another major ethical concern that lingers is whether or not these technologies may possibly be used in warfare. The geopolitical power dynamics will dictate how climate engineering is used. Once figured out, it is very likely to be used by governments and/or private security companies to be used as warfare technology. Similar to biological or chemical warfare, climate engineering can also be used to disrupt native ecosystems and create complex conditions for countries to deal with.  People who are doing research are not in control of such decisions, and thus potential misuse is one of the reasons scientists had been wary about the implications of research and development in this field.  For what purpose is it going to be used? It can be argued that the morality of something is not a thing in itself, rather in its use.  We must have the knowledge to defend ourselves. This idea can be used to mask the actual motives of climate control. Clive Hamilton argues that Geoengineering research is also defended on the grounds that having more awareness is not a bad thing as this is the best-option approach where research and development in this field is supported so countries are equipped to make the best decisions in crisis.

The climate engineering conference (CEC 2017) will take place in Berlin this year to assess latest developments in the field, and to foresee the direction in which technologies related to climate engineering may be deployed. According to the Event’s website, the conference is open to policy makers, academics, and also civil society organizations. (IASS PostDam). Few points of contention are that if the attendees are going to be predominantly white, highly privileged group of narrowly scientific men discussing the ‘rationale’ behind climate engineering, things might tilt in favor of the Prometheans. There have to be Soterians in the debate who can advocate for a more humanist way of dealing with the crisis we are in. Furthermore, it is crucial that in such discussions, the ethical questions must be raised and answered for.

 

 

 

Bibliography

 

Hamilton, Clive. Earthmasters: The Dawn of the Age of Climate Engineering. London and New Haven: Yale University Press, 2013.

IASS PostDam. Climate Engineering Conference. 2017. <http://www.ce-conference.org/cec17&gt;.

Leinen, Margaret. Ethics of Climate Change and Climate Engineering. University of California Television. January 2017. <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FTA24Dp2zhE&gt;.

LoPreto, Daniel. Earthmasters-Clive Hamilton. 4 February 2014. <http://www.full-stop.net/2014/02/04/reviews/daniel-lopreto/earthmasters-clive-hamilton/&gt;.

Nicholson, Simon. THE GLOBAL CONVERSATION ON CLIMATE ENGINEERING: FIVE MINUTES WITH DR. SIMON NICHOLSON GeorgeTown Journal of International Affairs. 4 May 2016. <http://journal.georgetown.edu/the-global-conversation-on-climate-engineering-five-minutes-with-dr-simon-nicholson/&gt;.

Readfearn, Graham. The Guardian. 31 July 2014. 2017. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jul/31/ethics-geoengineering-solutions-climate-change.

Scranton, Roy. Learning to Die in the Anthropocene. City Lights Books, 2015.

 

[1] Schwarts, John. “A Milestone for Carbon Dioxide in the Atmosphere.” The New York Times. July 2016. Acessed. 18 May 2017

[2] Rachel Carson, Silent Spring (1962; London: Penguin, 1965), p. 225