The Taboo Topic of Geo-engineering

The environmental changes that face the world today are, from an environmental governance perspective, largely outside the range of past experiences. The nature of the environmental changes we face today are problematic and for that reason it's not surprising that political leaders, policymakers and managers are struggling to find effective global solutions.

Up to now, attempts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions have fell short of expectations. The significance of needing to put effective global governance systems in place is evidenced by the centrality of this issue at the Copenhagen Climate Conference in 2009. As my previous post on Climate Change for Beginners highlighted, the prospects for our future don’t paint a very happy picture as some of the Earth's key thresholds/boundaries have already been passed.

In light of this, more recently the ‘taboo topic’ of geo-engineering has rapidly become a serious research topic and is the subject concerning many a debates!

With the experts defining geo-engineering as …

‘The intentional large-scale manipulation of the environment, particularly manipulation that is intended to reduce undesired anthropogenic climate change’ (Keith, 2000)

... it seemingly offers a solution to resolve the problematic environmental changes we are faced with today (#winnerwinner). Oh how joyous one could be if this were the case! Unfortunately it is not (#ornot), in reality geo-engineering methods are couched in debates and implementation has consequently been hindered. 

Anyway, before we get ahead of ourselves lets have a look at what geo-engineering entails... 

In the major review by The Royal Society, geo-engineering methods were divided following these basic principles. The two categories are carbon dioxide removal (CDR) and solar radiation management (SRM).

Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR)

CDR methods comprise of techniques aimed to remove CO2 from the atmosphere. CDR directly addresses the issue of having undesired and dangerous concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere today. The methods have relatively low uncertainties and risks and as a result, in comparison to SRM, they are a sustainable option. Consequently the methods are more attractive in providing a solution to climate change as it addresses the root cause and has less risk. That said, the techniques have high costs and work slowly to reduce temperatures, which means implementation would need to be done fast if we want to look towards a cooling in the future.

Solar Radiation Management (SRM)

SRM methods involve techniques  which aim to reflect a small percentage of the sun’s light and heat – its solar radiation – back into space. In contrast to CDR, SRM methods work quickly and subsequently provide a desired time frame and potentially the only way in which global temperatures can be reduced in order to prevent a climate crisis. As a result of this, SRM is very much at the centre of debates surrounding the taboo topic of geo-engineering. While pro scientists advocate the quick results SRM brings, sceptics highlight the issue that not all climate change effects are reduced nor are the all important CO2 levels affected and consequently the wider effects of climate change itself are argued as not being addressed.

Geo-engineering methods get rated!

In August this year, The Oxford Conference on Negative Emission Technologies was held and the focus of discussions was on the urgent need to remove CO2 emissions from the atmosphere. To transform the Earth and fix environmental change a combination of methods (listed on the map below) is proposed as each CO2 sucker is not enough alone. 

Transforming Earth

A combination of methods or not, one thing that is for sure is that if we 'don't employ some of these technologies, we will go above 2°C'  - that means we need to take action immediately. So, is geo-engineering the fix to environmental change? If so, should both CDR or SRM be used, or just one? 

Fear not, these questions will be answered as I delve deeper into the geo-engineering debate, exploring the various techniques proposed, eventually comparing them to renewable energy methods to determine which, or maybe both, can and should be used to fix climate change!

Thanks for reading.