Will Individual Actions Do the Trick? Comparing Climate Change Mitigation Through Geoengineering Versus Reduced Vehicle Emissions

Abstract

Global temperatures have risen by about 1.1°C from pre-industrial levels, largely due to carbon dioxide (CO 2) emissions from human activities (Ritchie & Roser, 2017). With already-implemented climate policies remaining as they are, this increase could reach as high as 3.7°C by 2100 (Ritchie & Roser, 2017), well above the goal of keeping post-industrial warming within 1.5°C (IPCC, 2018). To comply with this goal, global emissions need to be net-zero by approximately 2050 (IPCC, 2018), adding to the sense of urgency. This leads to the question of what more can be done to combat climate change. One field of innovation that has gained a lot of attention is geoengineering, the use of technology in conjunction with Earth's natural processes to produce a desired result, such as mitigating climate change (Caldeira et al., 2013). Geoengineering proposals can be divided into two main categories: solar geoengineering to lower the Earth's temperature by partially blocking sunlight, and CO 2 removal to lower greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere (Caldeira et al., 2013). While geoengineering proposals in general have not been developed into useable technologies yet (Corner & Pidgeon, 2010; Suarez & van Aalst, 2017), there is significant debate over which geoengineering proposals (if any) would be the best to implement, considering factors such as relative effectiveness, cost, risk, and time requirement (Caldeira et al., 2013; Corner & Pidgeon, 2010). Additionally, one conclusion of research into the effectiveness of geoengineering proposals compared to directly reducing greenhouse gas emissions is that solar geoengineering is not a long-term, practical solution; instead,

Proposed solutions to anthropogenic climate change: A systematic literature review and a new way forward

“…Also, car sharing and demand management are suggested [ 126 , 127 ]. Other research has found that the highest reduction potential, in terms of private consumption habits, is flying less and using an electric vehicle (or living car-free) [ 40 , 128 ].…”

“…Much like carbon capture and storage solutions, geoengineering technologies are post-emission solutions [ 297 ], and thus may do little to actually curb GHG emissions and alter policies and consumption behavior. Geoengineering may in fact encourage complacency and reduce motivation for individual action such as using ‘climate-friendly’ modes of transport, reducing air travel, reducing meat consumption, and reducing electricity use [ 128 ]. Thus, while some geoengineering techniques may become viable in the future, significant GHG emissions reductions are still where most effort needs to be applied [ 298 ].…”