Sorry Robock, Here is 5 Reasons Why Geoengineering May Be a Good Idea

Having read 20 reasons why geoengineering may be a bad idea by Alan Robock (2008) I felt inclined to argue against some of the main issues he has raised having now formed an opinion on the matter after weeks of research and blogging.

Robock's (2008) much cited article on the negatives of geoengineering provided me with a platform to contest his concerns (Source: http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pdf/20Reasons.pdf).

1. 'Effects on regional climate, plants and ozone depletion' are all manageable or short term:

Robock makes reference to unknown meteorological implications in a range of regions from aerosol spraying, using the Mount Pinatubo eruption (1991) as an example. Robock's fear is not one to be taken lightly but it does not present strong enough grounds to completely neglect any aerosol spraying methods. I previously highlighted the need for controlled fine tune spraying experiments by scientists to better understand the regional implications of aerosol spraying. Over time these small side effects will be managed and spraying will become more efficient and better understood. Robock also makes reference to plants which again was explored and it was suggested that further photosynthesis could result from aerosol spraying (Caldiera et al, 2013).  The ozone depletion was highlighted as being relatively small scale with effects diminishing over time, especially when experiments are done in controlled conditions and at small scales. Further information on these counterarguments can be found on this previous blog post.

2. 'Cost' is likely to decrease with competitive innovation:

Robock highlights that currently CDR schemes are too expensive to be implemented globally at a scale that is likely to make a difference. However, I have formed the opinion that these technologies will become extremely cost efficient as their demand increases and competition toughens. In the short term it is unlikely that air capture will be economically viable but with new innovative companies already appearing, it is a viable long term solution with some authors (Pielke, 2009) already suggesting similar costs between air capture and other mitigation approaches. Further information can be found on this previous blog post.

3. 'Moral authority' and 'undermining emissions mitigation' are not concerns when geoengineering is used as a conjunctive strategy:

Many scientists fear that geoengineering strategies will justify further carbon emissions as SRM or CDR are seen by politicians and the public as a silver bullet cure. However, throughout all my blog posts I took the clear stance that this would not be the case if geoengineering were to be implemented. In a cartoon analysis, I highlighted a need for integrated approaches without hidden political agendas. Through exploring Lovelock's views I came to the conclusion that our real moral authority lies in mending our feverish Earth through using geoengineering as a time buying strategy to allow for further emissions reductions and stricter policy making.

4. 'Military use', 'commercial control' and overall 'control of the thermostat' can be managed under a global framework: 

In a recent post I made reference to 'rogue engineers' who aim to take geoengineering into their own hands and use it for military, commercial or personal purposes. In a post on iron fertilisation I also highlighted the issues of 'nutrient robbing' that may occur where changes in one location can affect downstream locations. Robock raises awareness to each of these issues and concludes continuing with such a strategy would be too risky when so many concerns are attached. However, these concerns can be answered through the generation of restrictions under a global governance unit for geoengineering practice. Countries should come together to form a framework for managing and understanding geoengineering to prevent issues of governance, commerciality and military usage surrounding this strategy. In the short term this agency will require restructuring but with time it can become a global management body for geoengineering practices.

5. 'Unexpected consequences', 'no going back' and 'public scepticism' are built on a poor understanding of the term geoengineering:

Robock is right to say that if geoengineering schemes were implemented globally at this point in time then there would likely be severe irreversible impacts. However, there is yet time to understand more about these potential side effects through small, controlled trials. With further studies, mitigation for knock on impacts can be developed and the irreversibility of geoengineering reduced. As explored previously through public perspectives on geoengineering, this uncertainty is routed in deteriorated connotations of the term, often misaligning it with conspiracies and mistrust stories. The term geoengineering takes on many meanings and understood in a variety of contexts. Therefore, it is no surprise that the public remain sceptical and blur the science and fiction surrounding the term. The term must be redefined to be provided with greater authority in the scientific and public community as a potential mitigation strategy and not simply a fictional fantasy.

Conclusive Thoughts:

Through contesting Robock's arguments I have brought together each of my blog posts to highlight their relevance in the larger picture of the geoengineering debate. Having started this blog uncertain about the path I would take, I have now firmed my view, with the likes of David Keith and Paul Crutzen, as a scientists urging for further research into geoengineering and its potential as a future climate strategy.