Rogue Geoengineers on the Loose!

Over the past posts I have concentrated on different types of geoengineering schemes, their viability and public opinions on the matter. This has allowed me to form an opinion that geoengineering (both CDR and SRM) is an attractive management strategy and although portraying uncertainties, requires time and technology to develop before used in climate management. Currently, at the end of 2016, I believe that we still know too little about SRM schemes and fine-tuned trials should now be conducted to improve the deployment. I also believe that CDR schemes such as artificial trees show great potential but need more time to innovate to be both efficient and economically viable. Therefore, in my opinion we can expect a future where geoengineering provides us with more time to regulate our carbon levels.

However, this post aims to concentrate on the global implementation of geoengineering and the politics that arise when deciding who practices it and when. In previous posts, I have only slightly touched upon the threat that unilateral actors may have on the global climate, especially when acting without sufficient research.  The World Economic Forum (2013) highlighted that island states threatened by sea level rise may have nothing to lose, or even a well-funded individual may wish to take the climate issue into his own hands. Currently, both actors would be able to engage in geoengineering without international or scientific consent, providing they have the funds.  The approaches would most likely be high impact, low cost (e.g aerosol spraying and ocean fertilisation) which also contain the highest uncertainty.

Such was the case in 2012, when the American entrepreneur, Russ George (founder of Planktos Inc) attempted to restore salmon populations and reduce atmospheric CO2 by dumping 120 tonnes of iron sulphate (FeSO4) along Canada's West coast. What followed was a planktonic bloom spreading over 10,000 square kilometres. However, George made no investigation into potential side effects or ecological damages this large scale experiment could have, and simply acted of his own accord. Rightly so, Naomi Klein from the New York Times labelled George as a 'rogue geoengineer'.

Russ George dumping iron sulphate into Canadian waters without scientific or governmental approval (Source: http://newenergytimes.com)

What is of most concern, is that the example above took place during a period when climate change impacts were still not substantial. If we were to look into the future, say 50 years, it would not be wrong to say that rogue geoengineers such as George may be plentiful and have new and exciting technologies to test on our complex earth systems. Only a few years ago, Bill Gates set aside millions on geoengineering research, investing in Intellectual Ventures, who are currently developing the 'StratoShield', an 18-mile high hose supported by balloons, releasing aerosols into the stratosphere.

The 'StratoShield' aerosol pumper (Source: www.intellectualventureslab.com)

Although novel and innovative, issues of governance arise when understanding the deployment of such technologies. Will rogue actors such as George or Intellectual Ventures deploy these innovations or will it be down to a global decision. Furthermore, Millard-Ball, 2012 suggests that nations at risk may see these novel ideas as a final 'silver bullet' to end their climate change conundrum, without considering other nations that are likely to be affected. In some cases, private actors may deploy geoengineering to generate tradable carbon credits and in others, nations can use it as a quick fix.


Governance:

The growing interest in geoengineering schemes calls for the international community to bring to light the issues surrounding geoengineering governance in a global response to climate change (MacNaghten & Owen, 2011). Regulations should be set to prevent geoengineering techniques from being used in military, hostile or private gain purposes. A working group should be set up to investigate the specifics of individual geonengineering scheme deployments and must clearly evaluate the risks and reconsiderations to all global regions before implementation. What takes priority in the near-term is the development of a more general framework for understanding and managing geoengineering. Over time, this can be redesigned and restructured, but for now, this will give grounds for global governance of this strategy.

Answers to last week's quiz: 1-B, 2-D, 3-C, 4-C, 5-A, 6-A