The idea of geoengineering is scary. There is a reason why the trope of human hubris creating unintended consequences is ubiquitous in literature, and humanity trying to actively manage global temperatures seems like a cautionary tale waiting to be written.
Zeke, I enjoy reading your writing regardless the topic and do respect the analyses that you have posted earlier. I agree here with your trepidation. I must admit, don't apologise for my age, 80+, but one important ingredient that our Earth lacks today--- is leadership. Humans have a lousy record of change for the greater good. I try to be optimistic for our youngest generation but it is very difficult. I can only hope that they can show us how we should live together.
If you think that SRM will lead to less emissions reduction, then you are assuming to will continue to not take climate action seriously. If we continue to "choose to fail", as Kevin Anderson puts it, then we will fail. We should instead assume we will someday choose to succeed. When that day comes, SRM will be an important tool to fight the impacts of climate change and avoid tipping points. It is likely that SRM is *required* very soon in order to avoid tipping points such as an AMOC collapse, since emissions reduction and CDR will take decades to reduce warming and slow the melting of Greenland which produces the fresh water that is contributing to the slowdown of the AMOC. The costs and risks of SRM must be viewed in the context of *not* doing SRM. I believe the risks of not doing SRM greatly outweigh the risks of doing it.
Geoengineering just isn't something that humans have the governance capability to manage--and the reality of increasing conflict between world powers makes it unlikely we will gain it in the near future.
The risk of unintended consequences from most geoengineering 'solutions' is real and significant, which is why iron fertilisation of the oceans should be the only (or one of very few) geoengineering methods attempted. Iron fertilisation of the oceans has been shown to be safe, effective and natural so it should be trailed more seriously than it has been in the past.
Have you considered that high consuming "advanced" nations have a technology fetish? While their production, consumption, and irresponsible disposal practices destroy the atmosphere and many life forms, concerned people are distracted by the ideology that technology can save us.
The real problem is to be found in social economic practices that rely on infinite growth - so much so that when girls and women freely choose to have fewer babies, thus beginning the process of population reductions in already overcrowded areas of the earth, national leaders announce a fertility crisis. Why? Because declining populations threaten corporate profit rates. Any economic system that can't adjust to a smaller population is not an economic system worthy of the name. Supporting women's rights and changing economic practices is what we need to deal with the climate crisis.
I will admit that SRM proposals have major flaws, other than surface-based albedo enhancement through mirrors, which can be used TODAY with many co-benefits to agriculture and water preservation, without toxins. Hopefully, any weather disruptions it may cause will not be worse than those already gaining traction daily. What Zeke fails to accept is that by pursuing only GHG management, and perhaps magically managing to stop emissions relatively soon (a decade or two would be amazing), we will cross tipping points anyway before then, being egged on by the continuing rise in temperatures no matter what Zeke’s toy models suggest. The moral hazard argument is so weak: we are already not reducing emissions, so why insist that we not try SRM because…that might lead to not reducing emissions? Zeke, where is your logic?
Zeke calls SRM a gamble, but he is merely pursuing one gamble, with GHG management, over another. The time for GHG management to effectively control warming is at least 50 years too late.
This seems a workable and feasible action to consider and to continue with studies and experiments with stratospheric seeding.
This fills me with inspiration, until I remember why we can't have good things ("anymore").
As an apt analogy, imho: think of fighting climate change as supporting Ukraine. Most people were for it (and still do), and the US sent a lot of support for a couple of years. Then one party threw a wrench into the works and we have the real specter of Russia rolling over the Ukrainians. A terrible outcome, and not just for Ukraine; NATO and Europe invest in more measures to address the situation.
If we maintained or improved upon the temperatures with the stratospheric chemical seeding, I offer an analogy that saving Ukraine is the same as maintaining our global temperature average (or hemispheric.. average, or whatever). Russia winning is analogous to global warming winning.
If future humans, with all the weaknesses of today's pathetic example of humans, we can expect that the required strato-seeding will fall by the wayside at some point as people kick the can down the road for a week, then a month, then skipping years. As was mentioned, this could force the future humans (our grandchildren and theirs, too) to deal with the multi-trillion dollar disaster, probably by losing permanently.
Especially: "At the same time, I’m also cognizant that not treating the symptoms of climate change through something like SRM in the hopes that more suffering would speed up mitigation is arguably morally reprehensible in its own way."
Judging by the number of people commenting, this is a very intriguing topic. My position is unchanged and in synchrony with yours; research geoengineering aggressively but deploy it with utmost caution. Our root (I think) problem is overpopulation and we must bring our numbers down by at least three quarters.
My introduction to geo-engineering was via a number of science fiction novels read back in the early 1960s though they were published across a span of decades, but I remember that most of them incorporated a rather daunting learning curve for the geo-engineers with a fair bit of trial and error!
Zeke, I enjoy reading your writing regardless the topic and do respect the analyses that you have posted earlier. I agree here with your trepidation. I must admit, don't apologise for my age, 80+, but one important ingredient that our Earth lacks today--- is leadership. Humans have a lousy record of change for the greater good. I try to be optimistic for our youngest generation but it is very difficult. I can only hope that they can show us how we should live together.
Well written. True to my understanding of the state of affairs.
This is a much more reasonable take on the topic than another one I read recently, which was "Let's start SRM yesterday!"
Nice piece. For more on SRM, you can check out my substack dedicated to it: https://peteirvine.substack.com/
Amazing how humans are always tampering with things they know little about. Arrogance bordering on insanity.
If you think that SRM will lead to less emissions reduction, then you are assuming to will continue to not take climate action seriously. If we continue to "choose to fail", as Kevin Anderson puts it, then we will fail. We should instead assume we will someday choose to succeed. When that day comes, SRM will be an important tool to fight the impacts of climate change and avoid tipping points. It is likely that SRM is *required* very soon in order to avoid tipping points such as an AMOC collapse, since emissions reduction and CDR will take decades to reduce warming and slow the melting of Greenland which produces the fresh water that is contributing to the slowdown of the AMOC. The costs and risks of SRM must be viewed in the context of *not* doing SRM. I believe the risks of not doing SRM greatly outweigh the risks of doing it.
Thanks for this thoughtful piece.
The scientific uncertainties around geoengineering seem far more solvable than the geopolitical ones.
The calls for a Non-Use Agreement on Solar Geoengineering make clear the likelihood of considerable, and imo justified, resistance to the idea. Folks who want to learn more should find the open letter (https://www.solargeoeng.org/non-use-agreement/open-letter/) and briefing paper (https://www.solargeoeng.org/resources/briefing-notes/) from advocates of the agreement worth their time.
Geoengineering just isn't something that humans have the governance capability to manage--and the reality of increasing conflict between world powers makes it unlikely we will gain it in the near future.
The risk of unintended consequences from most geoengineering 'solutions' is real and significant, which is why iron fertilisation of the oceans should be the only (or one of very few) geoengineering methods attempted. Iron fertilisation of the oceans has been shown to be safe, effective and natural so it should be trailed more seriously than it has been in the past.
Have you considered that high consuming "advanced" nations have a technology fetish? While their production, consumption, and irresponsible disposal practices destroy the atmosphere and many life forms, concerned people are distracted by the ideology that technology can save us.
The real problem is to be found in social economic practices that rely on infinite growth - so much so that when girls and women freely choose to have fewer babies, thus beginning the process of population reductions in already overcrowded areas of the earth, national leaders announce a fertility crisis. Why? Because declining populations threaten corporate profit rates. Any economic system that can't adjust to a smaller population is not an economic system worthy of the name. Supporting women's rights and changing economic practices is what we need to deal with the climate crisis.
I will admit that SRM proposals have major flaws, other than surface-based albedo enhancement through mirrors, which can be used TODAY with many co-benefits to agriculture and water preservation, without toxins. Hopefully, any weather disruptions it may cause will not be worse than those already gaining traction daily. What Zeke fails to accept is that by pursuing only GHG management, and perhaps magically managing to stop emissions relatively soon (a decade or two would be amazing), we will cross tipping points anyway before then, being egged on by the continuing rise in temperatures no matter what Zeke’s toy models suggest. The moral hazard argument is so weak: we are already not reducing emissions, so why insist that we not try SRM because…that might lead to not reducing emissions? Zeke, where is your logic?
Zeke calls SRM a gamble, but he is merely pursuing one gamble, with GHG management, over another. The time for GHG management to effectively control warming is at least 50 years too late.
This seems a workable and feasible action to consider and to continue with studies and experiments with stratospheric seeding.
This fills me with inspiration, until I remember why we can't have good things ("anymore").
As an apt analogy, imho: think of fighting climate change as supporting Ukraine. Most people were for it (and still do), and the US sent a lot of support for a couple of years. Then one party threw a wrench into the works and we have the real specter of Russia rolling over the Ukrainians. A terrible outcome, and not just for Ukraine; NATO and Europe invest in more measures to address the situation.
If we maintained or improved upon the temperatures with the stratospheric chemical seeding, I offer an analogy that saving Ukraine is the same as maintaining our global temperature average (or hemispheric.. average, or whatever). Russia winning is analogous to global warming winning.
If future humans, with all the weaknesses of today's pathetic example of humans, we can expect that the required strato-seeding will fall by the wayside at some point as people kick the can down the road for a week, then a month, then skipping years. As was mentioned, this could force the future humans (our grandchildren and theirs, too) to deal with the multi-trillion dollar disaster, probably by losing permanently.
Well said.
Especially: "At the same time, I’m also cognizant that not treating the symptoms of climate change through something like SRM in the hopes that more suffering would speed up mitigation is arguably morally reprehensible in its own way."
Judging by the number of people commenting, this is a very intriguing topic. My position is unchanged and in synchrony with yours; research geoengineering aggressively but deploy it with utmost caution. Our root (I think) problem is overpopulation and we must bring our numbers down by at least three quarters.
Great summary of a complicated issue that need an open discussion.
Surely the technology to remove CO2 will improve and cost will come down in the coming decades? So the debt may not be as large as you think...
My introduction to geo-engineering was via a number of science fiction novels read back in the early 1960s though they were published across a span of decades, but I remember that most of them incorporated a rather daunting learning curve for the geo-engineers with a fair bit of trial and error!