Geoengineering is a dangerous game

We should not experiment on the only planet we have

Photo by NOAA on Unsplash

Geoengineering has been touted as a solution to everything from climate change to shifting rain patterns for crops. But it isn't science, it is Russian roulette.

Geoengineering is the deliberate manipulation of the Earth's climate, usually in an attempt to mitigate the effects of global warming. It has been touted as a silver bullet solution to everything from climate change to shifting rain patterns for crops. But geoengineering is not science, it is theory.

In 2022, after only briefing considering the idea of geoengineering, the International Panel on Climate Change in their Sixth Assessment report, discussed more substantively the use of geoengineering. They wrote:

“. . . while [geoengineering] may be effective in alleviating anthropogenic climate warming either locally or globally, it would not maintain 10 the climate in a present-day state nor return the climate to a pre-industrial state.”

Further, the report concluded that there is “low confidence in understanding the climate response to SRM at the regional level.”¹

In March 2019, the UN Environmental Assembly considered a resolution to assess solar geoengineering methods (SRM) and current and future governance, but the resolution was blocked by the United States, Brazil and Saudi Arabia.

There ought to be a law . . .

There are laws that can protect us against actions that “significantly affect the quality of the human environment,”² and geoengineering certainly fits that definition in the National Environmental Policy Act. But there is good news and bad news. Bad news is that there are categorical exclusions and one of those is any experiment by the National Science Foundation where research and technical studies are exempt, barring “extraordinary circumstances.”³ Good news is that those "extraordinary circumstances” include “weather modification, or other techniques that may alter a local environment.”⁴ Then more bad news: simply having “long term effects” is not sufficient to trigger the bar to the experiments,⁵ so damages beyond long term effects must be identified as a real threat. Finally, back to good news: the review must be done early in the research and develpment phase of the project to comply with NEPA.⁶

In addition to NEPA, the Clean Air Act controls the emission of categories of chemicals into the air, including sulfate aerosols which would impact ambient air quality, ⁷ and would need permitting for the emission or seek approval to potentially change ambient air quality.

The Clean Water Act, the Marine Mammal Protection Act and the Marine Protection and Research & Sanctuaries Act are also triggered by geoengineering.

Are States aware?

Yes, at least Rhode Island has proposed legislation that requires review of “any and all contemplated geoengineering activities.”⁸

And there is always state tort law to address damages using strict liability, nuisance (private and public), negligence, ultrahazardous activities and trespass. The possibilities are endless, but once the damage is undone there is no way to put the parties back into the position they were in prior to the unadviseable experimentation on the earth.

What is Geoengineering and why is it such a bad option?

There are two main types of geoengineering: solar radiation management (SRM) and carbon dioxide removal (CDR). Solar radiation management attempts to reflect some of the sun's heat back into space, while carbon dioxide removal seeks to remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere.

Solar radiation management is a dangerous and misguided attempt to mitigate climate change. It does not address the root cause of global warming, and it could have disastrous unintended consequences. Solar radiation management could cause droughts, floods, and other extreme weather events. It could also disrupt the global food supply and impact human health.

Carbon dioxide removal is a more promising approach to geoengineering, but it is still in the early stages of development. There are many potential methods of carbon dioxide removal, but most of them are unproven and untested. Carbon dioxide removal could have negative impacts on the environment and human health, so it must be carefully monitored and regulated.

Geoengineering is a dangerous gamble with the future of our planet. It is not a substitute for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and taking other action to mitigate climate change. Geoengineering could have catastrophic consequences, and it should only be used as a last resort.

Some of the risks associated with SRM are:

(1) Global dimming, resulting in reduced vitamin D absorption in humans and animals;

(2) Reduced photosynthesis so less crop growth;

(3) Sulfate aerosols contaminate the air, damage lungs and buildings;

(4) increased humidity due to fewer winter freezes, leading to more molds, mildews, fungi and corresponding allergies; and

(5) incredible uncertainties for every region on earth.

The National Academies is supporting research in solar radiation.⁹ August 12, 2022 in the National Academies Proceedings, the research of Cornell-led team describes their goal to replicate the mechanism of volcanos that has led to long term cooling of the earth as a mitigation strategy.¹⁰ When a volcano erupts, it sends sulfate aerosols into the stratosphere, blocking rays of sunlight from entering the Earth’s atmosphere. This method will artificially create this cooling effect by the putting aerosolized sulfates into the atmosphere.

One of the authors of the study said:

Solar radiation modification is still theoretical, he said. For starters, it would require a small fleet of specialized, high-flying aircraft, and none currently exist with the ability to deliver an adequate payload of sulfur dioxide, which would naturally be converted to sulfate aerosols, at a high enough altitude.¹¹

This theoretical status of the research has not deterred the team from projected a start date of 2035.¹² Their scientific proof that this will work? Well, simply because we have the example of volcanos erupting in the past that resulted in short term cooling of the earth. Climatology has the inherent weakness of being unable to demonstrate proof in a laboratory or even any open field experiments because the atmosphere is big and complex and testing a subset of it is never definitive of what will happen in the atmosphere.

However, indigenous science is traditional knowledge gathered over centuries or millenia about the environment. Such areas like climate change which cannot be tested with western science, could benefit from indigenous science around the long term effects of volcanic activity. It is painfully apparent from the hubris expressed in the article that the authors have not consulted with indigenous people and tribes who might have indigenous scientific knowledge around volcano eruptions and the effects of cooling. The U.S. National Park Service recognizes this rich source of traditional knowledge of volcanic activity and effects, including the complex stories of Native Hawaiians.¹³ The Maori of the South Pacific region have stories around active volcanoes and you can even find some of these shared traditions in the Journal of Applied Volcanology.¹⁴ Traditional knowledge if shared, could reveal some of the results of the long term cooling particularly because western science cannot answer these questions. Understanding all the effects through sources of all valuable and essential knowledge, not just the isolated object of the study should be done before even thinking of beginning an experiment.

Photo by Li-An Lim on Unsplash

It is widely known among engineers, scientists and economists that shifting to nuclear power is the only action that is currently available that will actually slow the rate of increase of CO2 emissions, yet the emotional resistance to nuclear power is greater than the fear of climate change. Emotional responses and the drive to “do something” but not the thing that will actually work, will lead to unintended consequences and potentially put the entire planet at greater risk.

Unintended Consequences?

In a complex system you cannot just adjust the thermostat to achieve better human health, many other aspects of global health must be considered. The lead researcher in what may be the first assessment of global health from geoengineering, said:

“If geoengineering is about protecting populations on the frontlines of climate change, we should be able to add up the risks and benefits — especially in terms of neglected health burdens, such as mosquito-borne disease.”

The study conducted high and low changes in warming and found in the high warming scenario, that a billion extra people were at risk of malaria in the geoengineered world.¹⁵ 

The historic cooling event in 536 from the eruption of possibly multiple volcanos was described by the Roman statesman Cassiodorus that there was ". . . a dim moon, and a sun that lost its ‘wonted light’ and appeared ‘bluish,’ as if in ‘transitory eclipse throughout the whole year.’”¹⁶ It is thought that the complexity created in the ecosystem by this extreme cooling event likely brought about the First Justinian Plague of the Sixth Century. This plague led to succeeding pandemics that devastated the world killing 1/4 to 1/3 of the world's population, having profound effects on the future of the world.¹⁷ An experiment we do not want to repeat.

Frantically experimenting on earth with little to no certainty just increases the uncertainty that already exists around climate change. Better collaboration with those who understand indigenous science, making rational choices based on science that will actually reduce carbon emissions by addressing the root of the problem just makes more sense.

1. IPCC, Sixth Assessment Report, Group 3 Report at page. 2420 at https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg3/.

2. NEPA, 42 USC 4332 (C) at https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/4332 .

3. 45 CFR 640.3(b).

4. 45 CFR 640.3(b)(4).

5. 45 CFR 640.3(b).

6. Scientists’ Institute for Public Information v. Atomic Energy Commission (D.C. Cir. 1973) at https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/481/1079/292744/

7. Gerard and Hester, “Remaking the World to Savei it,” (2011) at https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228203433_Remaking_the_World_to_Save_It_Applying_US_Environmental_Laws_to_Climate_Engineering_Projects .

8. https://ribit.rofreg.com/legislations/1637.

9. https://www.nationalacademies.org/our-work/developing-a-research-agenda-and-research-governance-approaches-for-climate-intervention-strategies-that-reflect-sunlight-to-cool-earth

10. https://news.cornell.edu/stories/2022/08/upon-reflection-scientists-evaluate-earth-cooling-strategies

11. https://news.cornell.edu/stories/2022/08/upon-reflection-scientists-evaluate-earth-cooling-strategies

12. https://www.homelandsecuritynewswire.com/dr20220824-scientists-evaluate-earthcooling-strategies

13. https://www.nps.gov/subjects/volcanoes/traditional-knowledge-of-prehistoric-eruptions.htm

14. https://appliedvolc.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13617-014-0019-1

15. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-022-29613-w

16. https://www.historicalclimatology.com/features/something-cooled-the-world-in-the-sixth-century-what-was-it

17. https://www.historicalclimatology.com/features/something-cooled-the-world-in-the-sixth-century-what-was-it