Geoengineering: could we or should we make it work?

Abstract

Schemes to modify large-scale environment systems or control climate have been proposed for over 50 years to (i) increase temperatures in high latitudes, (ii) increase precipitation, (iii) decrease sea ice, (iv) create irrigation opportunities, or (v) offset potential global warming by injecting iron in the oceans or sea-salt aerosol in the marine boundary layer or spreading dust in the stratosphere to reflect away an amount of solar energy equivalent to the amount of heat trapped by increased greenhouse gases from human activities. These and other proposed geoengineering schemes are briefly reviewed. Recent schemes to intentionally modify climate have been proposed as either cheaper methods to counteract inadvertent climatic modifications than conventional mitigation techniques such as carbon taxes or pollutant emissions regulations or as a counter to rising emissions as governments delay policy action. Whereas proponents argue costeffectiveness or the need to be prepared if mitigation and adaptation policies are not strong enough or enacted quickly enough to avoid the worst widespread impacts, critics point to the uncertainty that (i) any geoengineering scheme would work as planned or (ii) that the many centuries of international political stability and cooperation needed for the continuous maintenance of such schemes to offset century-long inadvertent effects is socially feasible. Moreover, the potential exists for transboundary conflicts should negative climatic events occur during geoengineering activities.

Metaphors We Die By? Geoengineering, Metaphors, and the Argument From Catastrophe

“…"Geoengineering as a medical fix" The above article on 'hacking the planet' quotes one of the major players in the field, Stephen Schneider (1996Schneider ( , 2008, who was one of the first to use an extended medical metaphor or analogy to reframe the argument from catastrophe and to view the planet through the lens of addiction, withdrawal, medical treatment and so on, a framing that became quite prominent in the debate about geoengineering:…”

Climate Change: Evidence of Human Causes and Arguments for Emissions Reduction

“…Other geoengineering techniques include dumping iron in oceans to stimulate photosynthetic phytoplankton (Martin 1990;Smetacek and Naqvi 2008) and placing large shields at the L1 Lagrange point between Earth and the sun (Early 1989;Seifritz 1989). While geoengineering is highly controversial (Morton 2007), it is increasingly receiving serious attention (Crutzen 2006;Schneider 2008), largely motivated by humanity's perceived failure to adequately reduce greenhouse gas emissions.…”

An Analysis of the Optimal Mix of Global Energy Resources and the Potential Need for Geoengineering Using the CEAGOM Model

“…Some authors have suggested that geoengineering technology be explored for emergency preparedness in the event it becomes clear that the earth's climate is heading for a potentially catastrophic outcome. [20][21][22][23] It has even been suggested that the positive aspects of geoengineering may be attractive enough for some countries that they would be willing to undertake some geoengineering efforts unilaterally. [24] For these reasons, the National Academy of Sciences has recommended that careful research into geoengineering and its potential impacts be undertaken.…”