Why Geo-Engineering may not be the solution

Up until now I have focused on different forms of geo-engineering, discussing both the benefits and drawbacks of these methods. In this post I wish to look into some of the reasons why Geo-Engineering as a whole may not be a feasible solution to anthropogenic climate change. This blog will focus a few key areas, these being: the effect Geo-Engineering can have on regional climate, human error, the neglect of cutting emissions, possible catastrophe,alternative uses of Geo-Engineering (commercial and military) and controlling the temperature.

Effect on regional climate

Geo-Engineering can have a profound effect on regional climate including altering rainfall patterns, surface albedo and local temperatures. A paper from 2016 investigated the effects of solar dimming (reducing the amount of sunlight reaching Earth) through geo-engineering on crop production. Although not fully understood, a number of crop-climate simulations have estimated that crops would be negatively affected by changes in solar radiation and rainfall patterns caused by solar dimming. Importantly, this paper concluded that despite geo-engineering impacting crop yields, when the geo-engineering is turned off, the crops recover to previous levels. The fact that geo-engineering methods do not have lasting effects on crops is beneficial but this does not ignore the fact that crop yields in certain areas may decline under the effect of certain geo-engineering schemes. This must be considered where determining whether to implement certain programmes.

Human error and possible catastrophe

Human miscalculation and societal problems could also bring about major problems for geoengineering. It has been established that, with certain solar geo-engineering techniques, a halting of the process could accelerate warming faster than we are currently seeing. Baum and Maher Jr.(2013) discussed the idea of a double catastrophe linked to stratospheric aerosols. The possibility of political conflict or war leading to the interruption of aerosol injection could destabilise the climate leading to rapid warming. In such instances, the use of geo-engineering could have more negative impacts than business as usual and the reliance on sustaining aerosol injection leaves the planet vulnerable to unintended and unexpected consequences.

Neglect of cutting emissions

Funding and focus on geo-engineering techniques could mean that cutting emissions is neglected. Some have suggested that geo-engineering should be used alongside cutting emissions and that reducing GHG emissions should be the priority. In practice however, this may not be the case as funding would then have to be divided between the two, meaning the technology progresses at a slower rate. Cutting GHG emissions is the most straightforward and lowest risk strategy for reducing the effects of climate change and therefore it may not be necessary to employ a riskier strategy such as geo-engineering. Many forms of geo-engineering are only short term solutions (particularly solar geo-engineering) and they are not understood well enough. Humanity needs to react to climate change now and the most effective and straightforward way to do this is through reducing emissions. Geo-engineering methods would only distract from this objective.

Figure 1: Should we be focusing on cutting greenhouse gas emissions?

Alternative uses of Geo-Engineering

Worryingly, the purpose for carrying out Geo-Engineering methods may not be centred on addressing climate change. Geo-Engineering could also be used for financial gain as well as military use. There is evidence that in the mid-20th century, global superpowers were exploring methods for altering climate to gain an advantage in battlefield warfare. There are existing global agreements such as the ‘Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques’ that was signed in 1976 but it is hard to see no military use of geo-engineering in some form in the future. Many companies supplying geo-engineering may find ways of making their technology more expensive to national governments thus profiting greatly from geo-engineering rather than using it for the greater good. The commercialisation of geo-engineering would set a dangerous precedent that could cause more problems than benefits. I believe that in order to be effective, geo-engineering must be solely used to modify climate as a response to climate change rather than for military or financial gain but realistically it would be very difficult to achieve this.

Controlling the temperature

There are also political issues surrounding the controlling of global temperatures. For example, countries at higher latitudes may want a warmer climate to allow them to grow more crops for export but this may adversely affect countries at lower latitudes. This brings about big debates between nations on what temperature to set climate. Every country would have an agenda and therefore agreeing a ‘temperature setting’ would be difficult and very time consuming. This is time that the planet doesn’t have and therefore geo-engineering may not be the best solution for climate change.

To sum up, it is clear that there are many potential drawbacks to geo-engineering as a whole. Despite this, I still feel that certain methods should not be ignored entirely. If they can be effectively implemented in such a way that they are low risk, work alongside reducing GHG emissions and do not have the potential to be exploited then it is worthwhile considering them as an option. This is a lot to expect but only once these criteria are met do I feel that certain geo-engineering methods should be considered for implementation.