GEOENGINEERING

A more common form of geoengineering (though not strictly recognized as such by the UN) is Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS), which to date has focused mainly on the natural biological process of re-afforestation on a global scale, thus increasing the carbon sink potential of trees to absorb more carbon from the atmosphere.

The less conventional form of CCS – very much in its infancy – is a more complex technology, based around capturing CO2 from industries, such as steel or cement factories, or coal-fired power plants, then sequestering (isolating) the collected gas underground. Currently there are almost 200 projects worldwide, mostly still in the development stage.

A further variation on the same theme is Carbon Capture Utilization and Storage (CCUS) which incorporates the re-use of the collected carbon, to manufacture concrete, or steel, or plastics, etc. Chevron, one of the world’s larger producers of oil and gas, prides itself on the incorporation of CCS within its sustainability agenda, and that it is also actively exploring possibilities to integrate CCUS methodologies.

Though afforestation and other CCS techniques are not regarded by the United Nations as pure geoengineering, they are both processes which it says can be a vital component in the mix to reduce carbon emissions. So, what about those methods the UN does classify as the real thing? Could any of the seemingly off-the-wall techniques really work, in large scale form, on a long-term basis? The answer is … ‘Possibly’.

But first, we need to understand the basics of global heating, which is caused in the main, by increased CO2 in the atmosphere – as a result of human activity – acting as a blanket around the earth, which in turn traps the sun’s radiation, thus causing our atmosphere to increase in temperature. This is the prime cause of all the events we now face, and know, as climate change: unprecedented heatwaves, raging forest infernos, devastating floods, and increasingly intense hurricanes, etc., etc. 

The wide variety of geoengineering proposals divide into two main areas: (1) lowering the sun’s potential to heat our planet, and (2) reducing the amount of carbon already contaminating the system. Thus, making roofs and mountains white, or sending mirrors skyward, aim to reflect more of the sun’s rays back into space, while fertilizing the oceans with iron sulphate, or Direct Air Capture (DAC) to suck CO2 out of the air, are ways to reduce CO2 pollution.

These geoengineering ideas seem to cover a spectrum from just possible to almost ridiculous, with the afore-mentioned technique of Direct Air Capture towards the far end of the spectrum. It involves using a chemical sorbent and large fans to move air through a filter, the CO2 captured being utilized for CCS. This might work in the laboratory, but could it have any serious impact on a global scale? Well, some would argue, it’s not as far ‘off-the-planet’ as the scheme to shoot moon dust into space, in order to deflect the sun’s Earth-bound rays!

One method that does at least appear feasible is Surface Albedo Modification, which encompasses presenting a whiter surface to the sun, thus increasing reflection of the sun’s rays away from the earth, back into space. Painting roof tops white, or bleaching mountaintops (thus returning Kilimanjaro, to its former frozen glory, in a visual sense at least) are some of the innovative ideas to achieve such a goal.

Geoengineering is a controversial area, with many experts calling for a moratorium on these artificial methods of climate manipulation, fearing unintended consequences of some techniques, such as multiple mirrors in space, or fertilizing the oceans. There’s also a fear that geoengineering may engender the retention of fossil fuels in the overall energy mix … ‘Now we can control the climate, we don’t need to get rid of coal, oil and gas’. But the fact we are even discussing these hitherto barely-imaginable ideas, does at least demonstrate the seriousness of our situation.

The bottom line for all of this, is that humanity has to control the climate crisis, or humanity and the planet as we know it are doomed. And we cannot trust the oil industry to voluntarily slow the sale and use of fossil fuels, in order to reduce carbon emissions. Exxon and others have been sowing doubt about the legitimacy of climate change science for many decades, while their first obligation is to maintain enormous company profits (supported by government subsidies) for as long as possible. Peter Kalmus, a climate scientist at NASA, remarks:

“Geoengineering, like direct air capture, is a deeply uncertain techno-solution that fossil fuel executives love to push to take pressure off their core business of selling oil, gas, and coal.”

The severity of our plight is underlined by a recent report on ‘Planetary Boundaries’ – the template for which was devised in 2009 – in which respected scientists speak of six of nine boundaries being breached, including: climate, water, biodiversity, and land use. Two more – air pollution and ocean acidity – are close to the brink. A broken boundary indicates the system has been driven beyond the safe and stable state which existed up to the industrial revolution era. The contributing scientists said:

“This (2023) update finds that six of the nine boundaries are transgressed, suggesting that Earth is now well outside the safe operating space for humanity.”

In simple terms – though none of this can really be termed simple – many experts feel CO2 removal technologies are less controversial than Solar Radiation Modification (SRM) because of fears that SRM, in particular, could have unknown environmental knock-on impacts, plus the lack of global related governance.

Nevertheless, one SRM option considered plausible by scientists is the spraying of aerosol particles, such as sulphur, into the stratosphere. These particles would deflect the sun’s rays, resulting in a cooling effect on the planet (possibly by 1C, or more). Such a technique has never been tested fully and would only linger temporarily, requiring constant trips by aircraft to spray more aerosols to replenish the reflective material … at enormous cost. Who pays? Who implements? What framework governs, and adjudicates on success or failure? What safeguards are there in case of negative impacts?

In recent years, support has risen to research solar engineering, due in-the-main to any serious response by governments to cut emissions quickly enough to offset the disastrous consequences of global heating. A recently released report from the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) calls for further study of the options. The Executive Director of UNEP, Inger Andersen, writes:

“Make no mistake: there are no quick fixes to the climate crisis. Yet current efforts remain insufficient. As a result, increasing voices are calling for and preparing alternative ‘emergency’ options to keep global temperature rise in check.”

She adds that there is little research on the large-scale adoption of solar geoengineering, which is fraught with scientific uncertainties and ethical issues; and that this “speculative technology” merely masks the warming caused by the burning of fossil fuels, and should not be considered a substitute for cutting emissions.

In support of this sentiment, Lili Fuhr, Deputy Director of Climate and Energy at the Center for International Environmental Law, states:

“The idea that we could take control of the global thermostat and dial down temperature levels to a desired state has been debunked by the scientific community again and again. But it is a very attractive idea for big polluters and governments who are unwilling to invest in the radical system change transformation that is so urgently needed.”

So, there we have it. Geoengineering splits into two main areas: carbon capture and solar radiation modification; carbon capture being slightly less problematic, but both only under serious consideration, due to lack of action by governments and industry, related to any meaningful reduction in our use of fossil fuels.

Maybe we can adopt some of the less-confronting geoengineering ideas, to help the cause, but wouldn’t it be so much simpler to do what the planet is telling us, and work in a genuine sense towards the elimination of fossil fuel usage … for the sake of our children: yours and my children!