Is Geoengineering a Necessary Climate Change Adaptation Strategy - Literature review Example

Employing the Precautionary Principle to evaluating whether geoengineering is a necessary climate change adaptation strategy Introduction The changes in the climate that we are experiencing in the 21st century, is mainly caused by the rise in the level of greenhouse gas; because of human activities, such as - agriculture, deforestation and burning fossil fuels. There is now a comprehensive belief that a global warming of more than 2° Celsius over pre-industrial state would be harmful and should be averted. However, even though rising concerns regarding climate change is there and countries from around the world along with lots of international bodies try to agree on the minimisation of global CO2 discharge, it has continued to rise nonetheless. Experts argue that much more fruitful future attempts are urgently needed to decrease the greenhouse gas discharge than they have been till now. They also suggest that, additional plans are needed as well because, it is unavoidably necessary to cool down the globe within this century. According to Habib, this type of action might engage geoengineering, which is known as the careful large-scale intercession in the global climate system, in order to handle global warming. Even though, Geoengineering at present is at an improvement phase, the proposals of it are being taken seriously by expert and scientists all over the world consisting the Royal Society, the UK and the American Meteorological Society (Corner). Geoengineering & recent findings Burns and Strauss stated that, geoengineering is a conscious intercession in the climate process to prevent unnatural global warming. In recent years, the analysis of geoengineering have aggravated among policy makers, scientists and other keen bystanders due to its immense future potentials as an effective tool for keeping global warming at bay. The probability that one state may one-sidedly utilise geoengineering technology has become a point of argument in these debates, and this resulted in substantive examination into climate interruption research and employment. The outcomes of the review of geoengineering acted out in 2009 by the UK Royal Society, which included the research, cost, risks climate effects and governance demands for different measures. The possible usefulness of geoengineering in response to climate change was explained and various latest actions to settle proper governance of research exercises were investigated (The Royal Society). Key findings suggest that geoengineering technology is not a magic bullet, and it is not a substitute to emissions minimisation. Reducing global greenhouse gas discharges must be our highest preference. And the experts strongly argue that geoengineering may be helpful to minimise the global greenhouse gas discharges. According to Corner, there are some dilemmas and potential risks regarding the environmental and social impacts, effectiveness and costs associated with geoengineering. The notoriety of geoengineering will be fixed by the various scientific, social, technical and legal factors. As a result, much more research is required on this topic, as well as regulation system and public engagement for both the utilisation and probable large-scale examination of geoengineering. Geoengineering techniques The Royal Society has released the outcomes of a latest research about the impacts of geoengineering on the climate. It provides a detailed evaluation of the various techniques and considers the possible ability and unintended reactions they may pose. The study splits geoengineering techniques into two basic sections - CDR and SRM (Gwynne 11-11). According to Zhang, Yanzhu and Alfred, Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) methods, are the expedition of natural geological withstanding processes that extract CO2 from the atmosphere. They address the origin of climate alteration and the increasing CO2 gatherings. Therefore, they have rather low risks and uncertainties. On the other hand, these methods act slowly to remove global temperatures. Hamilton suggested that, the Solar Radiation Management (SRM) Method presents a tiny percentage of the solar heat into space. SRM methods can operate quickly during a climate catastrophe. Nonetheless, they only remove some, not all, effects of climate change, and at the same time, they can probably create other problems. These methods also do not change the CO2 levels and thus, fail to approach the effects of gathering CO2, consisting ocean acidification. Challenges of Geoengineering Analysts and Policy makers worry about the consequences of the independent deployment of geoengineering on global stability and peace. Unilateral deployment is taken as a challenge to the global order, concerning of both security and legitimacy of the system (Lin). Raffensperger, Carolyn and Joel mentioned that, climate scientists and experts have also showed concerns about independent geoengineering. For instance, Lawrence states that it is simple to envision a future scenario where certain assertive nations start to launch large-scale test of geoengineering tryouts on their own. It is common for them to perform unilaterally what they adopt as their best interest, uninterested of any global outcry about its aftermaths on the rest of the world. Challengers of geoengineering technology have used the independent scenario to debate against it deployment and research. ETC Group is undoubtedly the bluntest critic of the process, and has diagnosed "unilateral" being one of the powerful reasons to not to apply or approach geoengineering (Burns and Strauss). Precautionary Principle If an activity poses threats of danger to human health and environment, precautionary acts should be performed even if a few cause-and-effect connections are not fully and scientifically settled. For a while, the public health and environmental organisations have been fighting to find measures to protect human health and the environment in the event of scientific uncertainty regarding the causes and effects. According to Raffensperger and Tickner, we are at an exciting point in the history of the Earth. But, we are face to face with remarkable challenges to save the environment and human health. On the other hand, we have choices to fundamentally modify the way things have been done so far. Experts think that, we do not have to be fearful of any threat anymore because, precaution is a leading principle we can apply to prevent environmental risk. The method of employing precautionary principles: Identifying the possible threat and characterise the problem The problem: Miller, Henry and Gregory pointed out that, geoengineering the climate is a weighty phenomenon of a complex factor that exceeds the boundaries between ethics, science, culture, environment and economy. This type of problem is known as “vicious problem”. In addition to that, this kind of problem is explained as a complication that is hard, if not impossible, to fix because of the contradictory, changing and incomplete requirements that are usually hard to identify. The term “vicious” does not mean hateful, but relatively addresses the intricacy of the problem and the struggle to resolution. The potential threat: The threats of large-scale geoengineering are many, and not many scientists would envision with any confidence about the final results of any particular plot.  Put separately and more stately, maximum reputable climate experts and scientists are suspicious of large-scale geoengineering. Performing any such operation might well turn the world in total much worse off in the future (Nightingale, Paul and Rose). Understanding the uncertainty and risks associated with the problem According to Zhang and Posch, geoengineering, if proposed to be deployed on a global scale, would cause major interruptions to the human - environment system and will create new problems and risks with huge uncertainty and irregular employment of the system around the world. Apart from the substantial effects, clashing attitudes emerge from environmental, social and economic worldviews in the global society. The intertwisted sociotechnical intricacy and clashing attitudes make geoengineering technology a complex and wicked issue. Not any of the geoengineering methods assessed so far, offers an instant solution to the complexity of climate change or removes the demand for continued CO2 discharge minimisations. In most cases, CO2 removal processes would be preferable to Solar Radiation Management techniques, because they efficiently rebound the climate system adjacent to its original condition, and as a result, they engage fewer risks and uncertainties. Compared to Carbon Dioxide Removal techniques, Solar Radiation Management methods are expected to be relatively less costly and would take less time to have an impact on the climate once applied. Among the Carbon Dioxide reduction methods evaluated, not one has yet been proved to be efficient at a reasonable cost, with decent side effects (Zhang, Yanzhu and Alfred). In this regard, Miller and Conko argued that, the length to which methods engaging large-scale control of Earth processes (like ocean fertilisation), may insulate carbon affordably and dependably without unsatisfactory environmental impacts, is not yet clearly known. However, there are noticeable uncertainties about geoengineering deployment results and supplementary risks. The application of any voluminous Solar Radiation Management technique would generate further risks and therefore, should only be initiated for a limited period and in parallel with traditional reduction or Carbon Dioxide Removal techniques. Much more requirements to be acknowledged here about the climate and environmental effects and social aftermaths (intended and unintended) prior to considering any large-scale test or deployment of this method (Gwynne 11-11). Technical aspects: Environmental impacts, cost, feasibility and side effects Most of the studies conducted on the usability of geoengineering suggest that, geoengineering of the global climate is highly unlikely to be technically achievable. However, the technology to achieve the goal is barely generated, and there are huge uncertainties concerning its feasibility, effectiveness, environmental impacts and costs (The Royal Society). The human dimension and global aspects According to Shepherd, the adaptability of geoengineering is likely to be fixed as much by legal, social, political and ethical factors as by scientific issues. The climate of the globe has already been altered on an international scale by temperature change, and geoengineering techniques would modify it additionally, by design. As a result, there are complex and intense communal and global governance matters that would require to be taken care of; if geoengineering technology is ever to become a decent method for taking care of the climate shift (as they are already being applied in the removals of CO2 discharges). Methods for evaluation Habib suggests that, as geoengineering is a developing issue, until currently, there has been little consultation on the relative integrity of alternative techniques, or proper criteria by which these methods should be evaluated. The goal of both SRM and CDR processes is to intercede in the global climate system, therefore, assessment styles and principles must consist of relevant technological and scientific aspects. Recommendation The Royal Society mentioned that, in order to secure that geoengineering techniques can be appropriately assessed and implemented responsibly and efficiently should the demand grows, three types of works are advised - a. Globally coordinated technological development and research on the already identified more assuring techniques, b. Global collaborative actions in order to further evaluate and assess the environmental impacts, benefits, feasibilities, opportunities and risks offered by geoengineering, and the related governance matters, and c. The improvement and application of governance structures in order to lead both the development and research in the brief term and also probable deployment in the long-run, consisting of the launching of a public dialogue system and stakeholder engagement. The most predictable and safest method of dealing with climate change is to act early and take effective actions to remove greenhouse gas emissions as soon as possible. No geoengineering process can serve an easy or instantly acceptable substitute solution to the critical situation of climate alteration. Associates to the UN Structure Assembly on Climate Change should make more serious efforts towards modifying and accepting climate change, and in specific to agreeing to global emissions removals of at least 50 percent of greenhouse gases within the year 2050 and much more afterwards (Zhang, Yanzhu and Posch). These researchers further suggested that, as there are many hazards correlated with the geoengineering method and it is vital that they should not be neglected, consequently, it is uniformly relevant that research on geoengineering should not be hindered by unfounded anxieties. Unilateral deployment creates one such anxiety. The recognized threat of independent geoengineering has emerged large over consultations of climate manipulations, inhibiting arguments and depressing logical scientific research. Actions should be taken in order to disclose this peril as myth, and to prove the multilateral tilt built in the geoengineering affair. This rationale of multilateralism cannot in any way secure global concern about geoengineering, yet it does suggest planning for gaining cooperation and consensus. With success dependent on collaboration, it is time to give away fears that slow down attempts to handle climate change on a timely, informed and comprehensive basis. Conclusion Given the confusions and risks, it would be wise to apply a precautionary measure to employ geoengineering technology. As a result, more scientific and logical data will be needed to enable probable risks to be evaluated, and either accepted or rejected. Possibly useful techniques therefore should be the subject of more precise research and study, especially on their probable environmental effects (as well as on socio-economic and technological factors). Geoengineering gives rise to a range of authority issues that would require to be solved in advance before the implementation of any planetary-scale experiment programmes or deployments. Finally settlements about the probable application would require collaborative consideration by several global Conventions. So it can be said that, geoengineering, like alternative developing issues of technology, needs smooth frameworks of regulation and governance, which can be fitted in the lights of fresh analysis and evidence. References Barkley, Hunter C. Geoengineering. New York: Nova Science Publishers, 2010. Print. Blasing,, T.J. "Recent Greenhouse Gas Concentrations". Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (CDIAC) Datasets n. pag. Web. 8 May 2016. Burns, Wil C. G and Andrew L Strauss. Climate Change Geoengineering. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013. Print. Corner, Adam. Geoengineering The Climate: The Social And Ethical Implications. 1st ed. Environment, 2010. Web. 8 May 2016. Geoengineering The Climate. 1st ed. London: The Royal Society, 2009. Web. 8 May 2016. Gwynne, Peter. "Panel Highlights Risks Of Geoengineering Techniques". Physics World 28.3 (2015): 11-11. Web. Habib, Benjamin. Week 09.1 - Ben Habib: Introducing Week 9. 2016. Web. 9 May 2016. Hamilton, Clive. Earthmasters. Crows Nest, A: Allen & Unwin, 2013. Print. Lin, Herb. "Large-Scale Geoengineering And Threats To National Security". Lawfare. N.p., 2015. Web. 8 May 2016. MILLER, HENRY I. and GREGORY CONKO. The Perils Of Precaution. 1st ed. 2001. Web. 8 May 2016. Nightingale, Paul and Rose Cairns. The Security Implications Of Geoengineering: Blame, Imposed Agreement And The Security Of Critical Infrastructure. 1st ed. 2014. Web. 8 May 2016. Raffensperger, Carolyn and Joel A Tickner. Protecting Public Health & The Environment. Washington, D.C.: Island Press, 1999. Print. Shepherd, J. G. "Geoengineering The Climate: An Overview And Update". Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences 370.1974 (2012): 4166-4175. Web. 8 May 2016. The Royal Society,. Geoengineering The Climate: Science, Governance And Uncertainty. 2009. Print. The Royal Society,. Professor John Shepherd FRS Geoengineering DM.Mov. 2010. Web. 8 May 2016. Zhang, Yanzhu and Alfred Posch. "The Wickedness And Complexity Of Decision Making In Geoengineering". Challenges 5.2 (2014): 390-408. Web. Read More