Progress in the way of Geo-engineering?

As I mentioned in the opening post of my blog the IPCC recently published their Fifth Assessment Report. I bring this report up again because something interesting was included in it – a paragraph on geo-engineering, well climate engineering, featured for the first time! It goes as follows ... 

IPCC 5th Assessment Report

Methods that aim to deliberately alter the climate

system to counter climate change, termed geoengineering,

have been proposed.  Limited evidence precludes a

comprehensive quantitative assessment of both

Solar Radiation Management (SRM) and Carbon Dioxide

Removal (CDR) and their impact on the climate system.  

CDR methods have biogeochemical and technological

limitations to their potential on a global scale.  

There is insufficient knowledge to quantify how much

CO2 emissions could be partially offset by CDR on a

century timescale.  Modelling indicates that SRM methods, 

if realizable, have the potential to substantially offset a

global temperature rise, but they would also modify 

the global water cycle, and would not reduce ocean 

acidification.  If SRM were terminated for any reason, 

there is high confidence that global surface temperatures 

would rise very rapidly to values consistent with the 

greenhouse gas forcing.CDR and SRM methods carry

side effects and long-term consequences on a global scale. 

(p. 21)

I don't know about you, but I think I agree with many others in thinking that the paragraph on climate engineering is neither in support nor does it entirely dismiss climate engineering. Despite this, however, a backlash has occurred in response to it from those, such as the ETC group, who are opposed to legitimizing ‘geo-engineering’. 

Ocean Fertilization in the eyes of the ETC

This backlash has occurred because in the eyes of some this inclusion of geo-engineering gives it legitimacy regardless of how 'layered with caveats it is' (Stilgoe, 2013). To date, proposals on geo-engineering have attracted controversy (Parson and Keith, 2013) and so this response is, I suppose, unsurprising. 

It does, however, prompt an interesting question of what the IPCC's inclusion of climate engineering will mean for the future addressing of climate change? More specifically, what will this mean for the contributions of Working Group III (WGIII) on climate mitigation that are to be published in April 2014. Are we witnessing a first step towards an acceptance of climate change methods?

#FirstStep

More realistically, perhaps, is the assertion that perhaps the IPCC have recognised that at some point we might need to use geo-engineering to mitigate climate change. 

As things stand, however, geo-engineering is in need of more research and development. In turn, this means competent and legitimate governance is required however there is currently no governance that exists beyond scientific review or national laws - meaning geo-engineering doesn't have any international legal control (Parson and Ernst, 2013). 

Recognising this as a void, guidelines, on the governance of geo-engineering research, have been proposed by the Solar Radiation Management Governance Initiative and Oxford Geo-engineering Programme. Their attempts to aid geo-engineering progress are however hindered as their proposals lack the specificity needed to aid operational governance and they fail to address key questions such as how the boundary between small and large scale geo-engineering should be defined and what level of regulation - science or government - is needed?  

Questions such as these are central to geo-engineering debates as they serve to polarise people, creating tensions as a result of geo-engineering's dual prospect as an activity that can involve large risk reduction and formation (Parson and Keith, 2013). 

A battle thus exists between those opposed and those in favour of geo-engineering. Those opposed to geo-engineering point out the environmental risks that are associated with it and the difficulties of having strict control over methods due to the broad categories used. Adding fuel to the fire of skeptics are also failed attempts of geo-engineering such as the ocean fertilisation project in Canada (Nature, 2012).

Workers on a Haida Salmon Restoration Corporation Boat releasing Iron Sulphate into the ocean

Where does this leave us then ...  

Currently, progress is being made through the use of climate study methods such as natural and anthropogenic analogs, climate modeling, field experiments and small scale tests to explore the use of geo-engineering (Robock and Kravitz, 2013). 

But it is also being limited by the deadlocked geo-engineering debate. At this stage, I can't help but agree with Parson and Keith (2013) when they point out that geo-engineering might actually be needed in the future and if research is blocked now, if we need to use it in the future we will be left with under-researched and risky methods. For this reason, I restate the four aims they advance for the progress of future research governance (see below) as they concurrently highlight the areas that hinder geo-engineering progress and highlight ways to facilitate it.  

1. To let low risk, scientifically valuable research proceed 

2. To give scientists guidance on the design of socially acceptable research 

3. To address legitimate public concern about reckless interventions or a thoughtless slide from small research to planetary manipulation

4. To end the current legal void that facilitates rogue projects

A geo-engineered planet

Thanks for reading!