Geo-Engineering as a Technocratic Approach to Managing Climate Change - Term Paper Example

Is geo-engineering a necessary emergency policy, or a dangerous consequence of a technocratic approach to managing climate change? Global warming is one of the most controversial topics in the modern world. Some scientists are of the view that global warming is a manmade problem whereas others are of the view that it is a natural problem. In other words, some people accuse human and his injudicious activities for atmospheric temperature rise whereas others believe that variations in in the intensity of solar radiations are causing atmospheric temperature rise. According to Nicholas Stern (2007), earth’s climate is rapidly changing because of increases in greenhouse gases caused by human activities1. “Prominent scientists such as Frederick Seitz, Ph.D. Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D., S. Fred Singer, Ph.D, Patrick J. Michaels, Ph.D. and Robert C. Balling, Jr. Ph. D. have expressed doubts over climate change and challenged the consensus of mainstream scientists”2. In any case, it is a fact that atmospheric temperature is increasing gradually over the last few decades. Even though the controversies surrounding global warming seem to be never ending, efforts are already started from scientific communities to reduce the carbon dioxide contents of atmosphere in order to prevent atmospheric temperature rise. The 2009, Copenhagen Accord on climate change clearly states the necessities of preventing atmospheric temperature beyond certain limits in order to sustain all life forms of earth. We underline that climate change is one of the greatest challenges of our time. We emphasize our strong political will to urgently combat climate change in accordance with the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities. To achieve the ultimate objective of the Convention to stabilize greenhouse gas concentration in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system, we shall, recognizing the scientific view that the increase in global temperature should be below 2 degrees Celsius, on the basis of equity and in the context of sustainable development, enhance our long-term cooperative action to combat climate change3. Geo-engineering or climate engineering is one of the rapidly growing engineering branches which study about the ways to manipulate the planetary environment to prevent anthropogenic changes in atmospheric chemistry. Carbon dioxide removal or reduction from atmosphere is one of the major options suggested by the geo-engineers to counter global warming problems since carbon dioxide is the major villain which causes global warming. Solar radiation management is also considered by geo-engineers to counter the threats of global arming. However, meteorologists such as John Coleman, founder of the Weather Channel are of the view that, “even if global warming is something to worry about, its dangerous to look to government to fix the climate”4. This paper tries to answer the question; is geo-engineering a necessary emergency policy, or a dangerous consequence of a technocratic approach to managing climate change? Many people have the belief that the existing technologies and counter measures are good enough to counter the global warming problems for hundreds of years more whereas others are of the view that it is difficult for the human to control atmospheric temperature rise using existing technologies. S. Pacala and R. Socolow (2004) pointed out many strategies to counter atmospheric temperature rise problems. Substitution of gas for coal and storage of carbon captured from power plants are some of such strategies5. Carbon emissions from coal plants are almost double that from natural gas power plants. In other words, if all the coal plants are replaced by natural gas power plants, carbon emission can be reduced considerably. It should be noted that natural gases are abundant on earth atmosphere compared to coal or fossil fuels. Instead of allowing carbon dioxide emitted by the power plants to liberate to atmosphere, it is possible to store such CO2 so that atmosphere may not be affected by such emissions. Deep oceanic sequestration and deep terrestrial sequestration are two of the major strategies suggested by scientists for the safe disposal of CO2 stored from the power plants. However, huge investments and proper technologies are necessary to implement these strategies successfully. According to DEFRA (Department of Environment: Food and Rural Affairs), “Options need to be considered carefully as there could be negative knock-on effects that are not immediately obvious which could have a wider impact”6. It should be noted that we may not think about the future consequences when we implement certain technologies which appear to be good at the surface level. For example, we never thought about the future environmental problems, when we started to 3exploit fossil fuels for our energy needs. Same way, the disposal of CO2 deep into the underground or into outer space should be considered only after the careful evaluations of the future consequences. According to Stephen H. Schneider (2008), some of the schemes we can think about the prevention of global warming are “(1) increase temperatures in high latitudes, (2) increase precipitation, (3) decrease sea ice, and (4) create irrigation opportunities or to offset potential global warming by spreading dust in the stratosphere to reflect away an equivalent amount of solar energy”7. In the context of one geoengineering proposal, the deliberate use of augmented stratospheric aerosols as a seemingly inexpensive advertent attempt to offset a few watts per square metre of inadvertent global-scale heating from anthropogenic greenhouse gases, it is likely that stratospheric dust cooling could not possibly be a perfect regional balance to greenhouse warming owing to the very patchy nature of the greenhouse forcing itself. That is, aerosols injected in the stratosphere would, owing to high winds and a lifetime measured in years, become relatively uniformly distributed in zonal bands over the hemisphere. This means that they would reflect sunlight back to space relatively uniformly around latitude zones. Their reflection of sunlight would also vary with latitude because the amount of incoming sunlight and its relative angle to the Earth changes with latitude and season8. Even though greenhouse gases have the ability to increase atmospheric temperature, it should be noted that sun is the major villain in causing global warming. The intensity of solar radiations has been increased a lot in the past few decades because of various processes going on inside the sun. It is impossible for us to control solar variations or solar processes; however, it is possible for us to make certain changes in our atmosphere with the help geo-engineering so that a portion of the sunlight can be reflected back. One of the major reasons for atmospheric temperature rise is the inability of atmosphere to reflect back solar radiations because of the increased contents of greenhouse gases in atmosphere at present. Using suitable technologies like augmented stratospheric aerosols, it is possible to block certain amount of solar radiations from reaching our atmosphere. Wind and cloud covering cannot be controlled by manmade technologies. In other words, even if we could manage some solar radiations to reflect back, it is difficult for us to maintain uniform atmospheric temperature everywhere because of the anomalies in controlling cloud cover and wind. In other words, some regions could be heated with excess while others with less heat even if we are able to control the solar radiations from reaching earth. This would cause unexpected weather calamities and natural disasters. Clouds have the ability to counter atmospheric temperature rise. Geo-engineers are currently concentrating their focus more on creating artificial clouds capable of preventing atmospheric temperature rise. Brighter clouds have the ability to cool our planet. The cloud related planet cooling technology is given below. An attraction of the cloud-based approach is that it gets around some of those issues. It uses nothing more than seawater, it doesn’t require things to be lifted tens of kilometres into the sky, it can be tested on a local or regional scale and it can be turned off instantaneously. For water vapor to form into clouds, the atmosphere needs to contain particles for the water vapor to condense on, called cloud condensation nuclei. Air that is well supplied with these nuclei will contain many small water droplets. In air that has a smaller number of nuclei, condensation will form fewer, larger drops. Clouds consisting of small droplets are more reflective than those with larger ones, and under some conditions they will also last longer. So if you were to inject condensation nuclei into clouds you would, other things being equal, make them brighter9 Turbine-fitted vessels that would spray out a mist 10 Even though artificial creation of brighter clouds seems to be a feasible option to counter the atmospheric temperature rise, many scientists foresee some dangers also. The interactions between artificially made brighter clouds and other natural clouds cannot be predicted. Moreover, the sustainability of artificially created brighter clouds for longer periods is also questionable because of the huge changes taking place in atmosphere virtually in ever second. In short, creation of brighter clouds as an alternate option to counter atmospheric temperature rise need to be researched further before the implementation. Increase precipitation is another option suggested by geo-engineers for global warming problems. Technology has advanced a lot so that it is possible to cause rainfalls using artificial means. Rainfalls have the ability to reduce atmospheric temperature rise, however it is difficult to use this technology extensively all over the world to cause rain and to reduce atmospheric temperature rise. At present huge ice blocks from Polar Regions are melting and reaching seas because of global warming. Thus sea level is getting raised day by day because of ice melting from Polar Regions. It should be noted that ice blocks in Polar Regions play a vital role in keeping the atmospheric temperature from increasing. Create irrigation opportunities or to offset potential global warming by spreading dust in the stratosphere to reflect away an equivalent amount of solar energy is another strategy suggested by the scientists to counter atmospheric temperature rise problems. However, the consequences of putting dust in stratosphere need to be studied or researched well before implementing it. According to Dessler & Parson (2006), “CO2 does not cause catastrophic disasters- actually it would be beneficial to our environment and our economy”11. Many people have the belief that CO2 is extremely dangerous to the environment when we consider the sustainability of life one earth is concerned. They are knowingly or unknowingly forget about the fact that CO2 is helping plants in photosynthesis process which is generating food for all living forms including human on earth. It should be noted that human do not have the natural ability to generate food. We are actually helping plants to make food for us. Plants on the other hand need the support of CO2 for preparing food. In short, CO2 is actually helping us rather than causing problems to us. In assessments for policymakers, climate scientists usually give a range of estimates for the temperature response at the earths surface to a doubling of carbon dioxide, sometimes called the "climate sensitivity." This range of 1.5 0C to 4.50C is arrived at by using deterministic climate models and is not a probability range. One of the scientists involved in preparing the IPCCs 1990 report commented in an interview that [w]hat they were very keen for us to do at IPCC, and modelers refused and we didnt do it, was to say weve got this range 1.5-4.5?, what are the probability limits of that? You cant do it. Its not the same as experimental error. The range has nothing to do with probability-it is not a normal distribution or a skewed distribution. Who knows what it is?12 In other words, even scientific community does not have unique opinions with respect to the reduction of CO2 as a mean to counter atmospheric temperature rise. As mentioned earlier, one of the major drawbacks of scientific achievements is the fact that the consequences of these achievements will not be addressed properly at the time of introduction of these achievements. In an effort to raise the living standards, scientific people often may not bother much to investigate about the consequences of their achievements. Nobody knows what will happen if we reduce CO2 beyond certain limits in an effort to stop atmospheric temperature rise. Nobody knows how adversely such an attempt may cause problems to the plants and other living things. Nobody knows how such a measure would cause problems in the environment. According to Daniel Sarewitz and Richard Nelson (2008), “Technological fixes do not offer a path to moral absolution, but to technical resolution”13. In other words we can fix the levels of CO2 in atmosphere technically; however we do not know the moral problems associated with it. For example, at the time of invention of nuclear energy, we thought that the struggle for energy needs is going to be ended. However, the destructive power of nuclear energy and the problems in operating nuclear power stations safely, forced us to rethink about the feasibility of relying heavily on nuclear energy for our future energy needs. Same way, nobody knows the natural problems which may arise due to the adjustments in the greenhouse gas contents in atmosphere using artificial means. “In the case of measuring greenhouse gas emissions, for example, key diplomatic acts, such as the 1992 Framework Convention and the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, provide some normative guidance for what kind of information emissions inventories should contain”14. “The major feature of the Kyoto Protocol is that it sets binding targets for 37 industrialized countries and the European community for reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions .These amount to an average of five per cent against 1990 levels over the five-year period 2008-2012”15. It should be noted that America and Europe are the most developed regions on earth. Industrialization and motor vehicle use are huge in these less heavily populated regions compared to that in more heavily populated regions such as Asia. As a result of that greenhouse gas emissions from these regions are more than that from other regions. Thus, the responsibilities of countries in these regions towards the environment are more than that of the countries from other regions. That is why Kyoto Protocol specifically asked industrialized countries to reduce their emission levels. The following illustration clearly reveals the CO@ emission caused by different regions and countries. 16 “Even a complete halt to carbon pollution would not bring the world’s temperatures down substantially for several centuries”17. Enough damage is already done by us to cause temperature rise for several years. It should be noted that it is impossible for us put the switches on and reduce the atmospheric temperature rise instantly. In fact our current efforts to reduce atmospheric temperature rise may yield results only after decades of years. However, it is impossible for us to stay idle because of these facts. A little effort made for environmental protection may bring dividends in future. Our environment or atmosphere is not fully belonging to us. It is intended for the future generation also. To conclude, amidst all the controversies surrounding global warming, one thing is for sure; atmospheric temperature is increasing unnaturally for the last few decades and it is impossible for living things to sustain life if it continues in this manner. Some people believe that atmospheric temperature rise is a natural activity whereas others are of the view that it is a manmade activity. In any case, it is necessary for us to seek options to counter the threats generated by global warming. It is impossible for us to control solar activities; however it is possible for us to block certain portions of solar radiations from reaching earth’s atmosphere. Cloud formation and artificial rain creation are some of the major strategies proposed by geo-engineers to counter the threats generated by atmospheric temperature rise. Another option suggested by these engineers is the storing of greenhouse gases generated by power plants disposing it safely in outer space or deep into the undergrounds. However, these proposed solutions should be analyzed further to know more about the possible consequences before implementing it. All artificial activities which go against the interests of the nature may have some kind of negative consequences. It is necessary to identify these consequences first before proceeding with the new technologies to counter global warming problems. In short, geo-engineering is a necessary emergency policy; however the dangerous consequence associated with these policies should be thoroughly researched prior to the implementation. Works Cited “Adapting to climate change”.2011. DEFRA. Web. 23 March 2012. “Copenhagen Accord”. 2009. Web. 23 March 2012. Dessler, Andrew E. and Parson Edward A. “The Science and Politics of Global Climate Change: A Guide to the Debate”. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006. Print Granados, Oriana Zill. “The Doubters of Global Warming”. 2007. Web. 23 March 2012. Jones, Nicola. “Sucking it Up”. NATURE. Vol 458|30 April 2009. Print “Kyoto Protocol United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change”. Web. 23 March 2012. Miller, Clark. “Hybrid Management: Boundary Organizations, Science Policy, and Environmental Governance in the Climate Regime”. Science, Technology, & Human Values, Vol. 26, No. 4, Special Issue: Boundary Organizations in Environmental Policy and Science (Autumn, 2001), pp. 478-500. Print Morton, Oliver. “Great White Hope”. 2009. NATURE. Vol 458|30 April 2009. Print Pacala S and Socolow, R. “Stabilization Wedges: Solving the Climate Problem for the Next 50 Years with Current Technologies”. 2004. Science (13 August 2004) 305(5686), pp.968-972. Print Strossel, John. “Weather Channel Founder Blasts Global-Warming Scam”. 2007. Humanevents.Com. December 10, 2007. EBSCOhost. Print Stern, Nicholas. “The Economics of Climate Change: the Stern Review”. 2007. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007. Print Schneider, Stephen H. “Geo-engineering: Could - or Should - We do it?”. 2008. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A. doi:10.1098/rsta.2008.0145 Print Shackley, Simon and Wynne, Brian. “Representing Uncertainty in Global Climate Change Science and Policy: Boundary-Ordering Devices and Authority”. 1996. Science, Technology, & Human Values, Vol. 21, No. 3 (Summer, 1996), pp. 275-302. Print Sarewitz Daniel and Nelson Richard. “Three Rules for Technological Fixes”. 2008. Nature. Vol 456|18/25 December 2008. Print “Time to Act”. Nature. Vol 458 | Issue no. 7242 | 30. April 2009 p.1077. Print Read More