Why geoengineering can’t turn down the global thermostat
When the Royal Society do a report on something, they do it properly. Their latest, ‘Geoengineering the climate: Science Governance and Uncertainty’ – is the product of a year’s worth of work by some of the most prestigious scientists in the world.
And we should be grateful that they took the time, because based on a cursory glance, it looks like they’ve produced a thoughtful and detailed summary of proposals for so-called ‘geoengineering’ – or trying to deliberately manipulate the planet’s climate.
What do they say? Well you can read the summary for yourself, but let’s take a couple of quotes from the summary that give the flavour of it:
And, commenting on proposals for ‘Solar Radiation Management’ – trying to reduce the amount of the sun’s energy that hits the Earth by pumping reflective aerosols like Sulphur Dioxide into the atmosphere, or suspending mirrors in space – they point out that as well as being technically dubious:
So – they’re being very, very cautious. The report is couched in the language of risk – from the risk that geoengineering will become technologically viable, to the risk that there will be unforeseeable and serious side affects to these schemes, to the risk that there will be no robust way to include planet-scale geoengineering within strong political frameworks.
Nevertheless, they conclude, further levels of research would be a good idea – equivalent to keeping a ‘watching brief’ on the subject, if you like.
Sir David King – it should never take priority over reducing emissions
The government’s ex-chief scientist shared his views on the report on this morning’s Today programme, picking up first on this need for further research:
The last point he raises is the key one – and it’s why, I think, the Royal Society have been so careful to caveat their report and base it all around their central conclusion: that geoengineering is in no way a ‘Plan B’ alternative to reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
Our chief scientist – vested interests could use it to argue for avoiding action
Dr Doug Parr, our chief scientist, spoke at the launch of the report. Doug and I had a chat about his views of the report and geoengineering more generally, and he had this to say:
For an example of a group using geoengineering to argue against mitigation, Doug pointed me to the American Enterprise Institute’s webpage entitled ‘Governing Geoengineering,’ which begins:
Another particularly disingenuous example came from Bjorn Lomborg recently who also suggested geo-engineering as an alternative to cutting our emissions. So already we can see the potential for geoengineering to be used as an argument for not reducing greenhouse gases. Doug continued:
The Media
So, of concern here is not so much what the Royal Society say in a cautious scientific exploration of the topic, but how their work gets presented. Indeed, a quick look at the coverage of the report shows a spread of headlines:
From the cautious:
Hopes dashed for geo-engineering solutions (The Financial Times)
To the ambiguous:
Engineering a Climate Solution (The New York Times)
Investment in geo-engineering needed immediately, says Royal Society (The Guardian)
To the positively enthusiastic:
Cloud ships and artificial trees could offer last hope to save climate, say British experts(The Daily Mail)
Geo-engineering should be developed as insurance against dangerous climate change(The Telegraph)
and
Could mechanical trees save the world? (BBC)
Clearly, however careful the Royal Society were, there’s still going to be a tussle over this. But the interesting bottom line for me is that the Royal Society have emphatically put the nail in the coffin of the argument that geoengineering could be an alternative to reducing carbon emissions.
Read the report: Geoengineering the climate: Science Governance and Uncertainty »