Changing Surroundings: Geo-engineering Our Way Out of Climate Change

Introduction

As climate change becomes inevitable, the public, government, and scientific community will begin to consider the idea of altering the climate in order to prevent further change.  These processes and projects are known as geo-engineering.  They center on the principle that if we can not muster the social will or technological ingenuity to prevent a changing climate we will have to reengineer nature to prevent climate change’s worst extremes, or reverse the process.  There are many different ideas on the table, all of which should be viewed skeptically given the complexity of our ecological systems and the scale of change altering the Earth’s climate implies.  Currently, there are tests being proposed and postponed in the UK that would use an enormous hose to inject sulfates into the stratosphere, cooling the planet.  Such projects bring with them a host of international governance issues.  All geo-engineering projects propose actions with global implications and their effects will traverse national boundaries.  Some projects may indirectly harm other nations; which raises the question of who will be held responsible when that happens.  What institutions, if any, will have authority over geo-engineering?  Will there be an international decision making and approval process or will nations act unilaterally?  Without these questions answered the prospects for a successful project are slim, or conversely, the chances of an ill-conceived project are greater. 

As a result of the complexity of Earth’s climate systems geo-engineering is a risky and controversial subject; however it can easily be viewed as a last second fix.  Thus it is incredibly important to understand the issues at stake.  To do this I will be discussing multiple proposed geo-engineering fixes to climate change and their possible ecological, political, and legal impacts.  Outside of that I will be reviewing the aforementioned sulfur injection project, the SPICE project, and the governance and approval mechanisms that are currently being used to regulate it.  Geo-engineering is a dangerous path which humanity seems headed for.  Adequate safeguards against reckless project implementation are not in place.  As a result, international regimes need to be formed to ensure that anything implemented does not create a cycle of projects of ever increasing scale.

General Mechanics of Geo-Engineering Processes

The vast majority of geo-engineering concepts revolve around the idea of Solar Radiation Management (SRM).  This involves decreasing the amount of radiative forcing in the climate system through one of three basic mechanisms.  The first two are related, in that they redirect solar radiation.  First, we can increase the albedo (reflectivity) of various surfaces on the planet or of the atmosphere.  By increasing the albedo of various portions of Earth’s surface we allow solar radiation to enter the atmosphere in the first place and for carbon dioxide to absorb the excess solar radiation (Climate Change Saskatchewan, 1999).  By increasing the albedo of the upper atmosphere we ensure that less solar radiation enters Earth’s climate system.  The second mechanism is limits the amount of solar radiation entering the atmosphere in the first place; so the amount of energy within Earth’s climate system will drop (Climate Change Saskatchewan, 11999).  The final mechanism differs from the first two in that it reduces the amount of infrared radiation given off not the amount of energy kept within the climate system as a whole.  This is done by increasing the uptake of greenhouse gases (GHGs) through various direct or indirect means and sequestering it somewhere. 

These mechanisms reduce the amount of radiative forcing but not the total amount of carbon dioxide entering the atmosphere.  As a result, any problems not related to near term changes in average temperature are still a problem.  (I say near term because with carbon emissions still increasing the geo-engineering projects will all have to be scaled up until emissions are cut.)  One of the most important problems that will remain is ocean acidification and the subsequent loss of biodiversity (Wigley, 2006).  Less immediate but more dangerous is the reversal of the ocean’s uptake of carbon, some centuries into the future, which would require even greater scaling of the projects.  This is centuries into the future but it makes one point poignant, geo-engineering is a short-term fix meant to ease the transition off of fossil fuels.  This fact needs to be kept in mind if geo-engineering is going to be successful in the long-term.  So, keeping in mind that most projects are not a permanent fix to the climate crisis, what are our geo-engineering options?

Iron Seeding

The first option we will be exploring is seeding the oceans with iron.  Through seeding blooms of phytoplankton are created which increase the amount of carbon dioxide that is absorbed from the atmosphere.  This reduces the amount of radiative forcing and subsequently global average temperatures will drop.  Seeding would take place in high nutrient, low chlorophyll areas where there are normally iron deficiencies and, as a result, low levels of phytoplankton.  Once the bloom takes place carbon will be sequestered in the bodies of the phytoplankton through photosynthesis.  With the death of the phytoplankton an unknown amount of carbon will be transported into the deep ocean where it will remain for centuries (Blaustein, 2011).  

Despite the benefits of natural carbon sequestration, there are a few second order problems associated with iron fertilization that will prohibit its long-term use.  Prominent among them is the continued acidification of the ocean.  When CO₂ is sequestered in the bodies of phytoplankton, after bloom, the density of surface CO₂ decreases, decreasing acidity at the surface.  The CO₂ is then turned into organic CO₂, through photosynthesis, and settles to the ocean bed where marine animals and bacteria turn it back into CO₂ through respiration.  Acidification is thereby increased in the deeper waters (deeper than the surface) (NOAA, 2010).  With continued acidification there will be numerous biological effects.  Its primary effect will be the disruption of the life cycles of different marine animals.  The severity of the effects will depend on numerous factors, including how fast each specific species can adapt to or move with the changing circumstances.  Further knowledge of the role acidification may play in ocean ecosystems can be drawn from current research on the role CO₂ and temperature oscillations played in mass extinction events (Vezina, 2008).  

It is believed that coral and mollusks will be affected particularly badly by acidification.  As CO₂ mixes with the water at the surface it reacts with the water forming carbonic acid and lowering the partial pressure of CO₂ in the ocean allowing for further uptake of CO₂.  However, the carbonic acid then reacts with carbonate ions reducing carbonate ion concentrations which corals and mollusks need to build their shells (NOAA, 2010).  This stress could bring about the collapse of coral ecosystems, which are some of the most biodiverse in the world. 

Denitrification is also a concern. Once oceans are fertilized, deep ocean oxygen concentrations will drop causing organisms to use nitrogen to consume organic matter instead of oxygen (NOAA, 2010).  This results in the release of nitrous oxide (NO_X), a GHG with a global warming potential 298 times that of CO₂.  One molecule of NO_X can absorb and reemit 298 times as much solar radiation as CO₂.  As a result, iron fertilization may result in increased radiative forcing. 

Finally, it has been noted that iron fertilization draws needed resources from other areas reducing their productivity.  In studies in the Southern Ocean around Antarctica it was observed that increased biological productivity, due to the phytoplankton blooms, decreased productivity on the fringe of the subtropics.  Once fertilization ended global production would drop below the point before fertilization had been applied (NOAA, 2010).  With such large scale consequences the drawbacks of iron seeding seem to outweigh any benefits.  This leads me to turn away from the ocean and toward humanity’s final frontier, space.

Giant Mirrors in Space!!!

Another concept under consideration is the vaguely sci-fi notion of putting enormous mirrors in space to reflect some the Sun’s rays and thereby reducing the amount of solar radiation entering the Earth’s atmosphere.  A fleet of spacecraft which could keep their orbit at the inner Lagrange point between the Sun and Earth, 1.5 million km away, could cast a shadow that would subsume the Earth within its penumbra.  This could achieve the necessary decrease of 1.8% of solar radiation needed to bring temperatures back to stable levels.  This would not inhibit the chemical effects of increased atmospheric CO₂ including the aforementioned problems with ocean acidification and the fact that plants will begin emitting CO₂ once concentrations reach a certain level (Angel, 2006).  So once again, this is only a short term solution that must either be combined with other mitigation techniques or additional geo-engineering projects.  The required area for a screen large enough, according to Angel, would be 3.6 million km² (Angel, 2006).  That’s a little less than a third of the area of the entire United States including Alaska.  For this reason many mirror concepts have been thought of as space construction projects, where the material would be launched into orbit and robots would perform the necessary work.  With flyers though, there is no need for a massive space construction effort. 

Flyers could be launched in stacks using “capacitors of the type used to store 0.3 GJ at the National Ignition Facility” except they would have to be upgraded for a million shot lifetime (Angel, 2006).  .3 GJ is equivalent to the energy in 9.3 kg of coal.  The National Ignition Facility is a facility at Lawrence Livermore Labs in California which attempts to create nuclear fusion through the confinement of its target material by 192 lasers.  The capacitors provide the initial energy for the lasers. 

For the project to be completed within ten years multiple launchers have to be working simultaneously with each one operating “a million times on a 5-min cycle”, making a total of 5 launchers necessary (Angel, 2006).  Total capital costs for each launcher would be in the range of ~$30 billion, making the total cost for all 20 launchers equivalent to 5% of US GDP.  In order to launch the sunshade the electricity that would be stored in the capacitors would have to be generated, most likely with coal.  “~30kg of coal would be required for each kg (of sunshade) transported to L1” (Angel, 2006).  This is more than made up for by the fact that a kg of sunshade negates the warming potential of 30 tons of atmospheric carbon.  A conservative estimate for the cost of the actual flyers is about $50/kg coming to grand total of about $1 trillion for 16 trillion flyers.  This seems absurd since the cost of the closest similar object Angel can come up with, Iridium satellites, is ~$7000/kg.  (Iridium satellites would be similar to the mirrors in terms of the manner in which they orbit and the technology and materials needed to build them.)  Presumably, the scale of the production will be so great as to bring the cost of production down by a factor of more than 100.  Also, the timescale for the sequential launches and creation of the software that would be coordinating all 16 trillion flyers seems fanciful.  Initial software would have to be installed and patches or wholly new code would have to be transmitted to the flyers while they were in orbit, all while a new set of flyers was launched every 5 minutes.  Given the scale and cost of the project it seems there are more holistic measures that would work just as well and present less of a strain on our manufacturing capacity and resource base.  More holistic meaning more of the possible consequences of increased density of CO₂ in the atmosphere are dealt with, not just increased radiative forcing.

Bear in mind again, that none of the additional problems associated with increased CO₂ emissions will be mitigated.  Ocean acidification would still take place with the subsequent loss of species and habitat, the reversal of the ocean as a carbon sink, and the reversal of photosynthesis to respiration in plants will pose a threat.  Granted many of these problems are not supposed to take effect for many centuries even in business as usual emissions scenarios.  However, the fact that such a large project would be undertaken would most likely give the public the sense that the climate crisis had been averted.  At least, it should have been after an equivalent of a tenth of US GDP was spent on it.  
It also seems like a tremendous undertaking prone to setbacks of some sort.  Angel concedes that the program would be temporary and would not be a substitute for reductions in carbon emissions or further research and deployment of alternative energy technologies.  Yet, it does not seem that such a large project would be necessary considering the rate of turn over for the flyers, even if it was a period a decades. There are other less expensive, less complex, and more comprehensive solutions.  These alternative proposals can take the place of a sunshade at a greater deployment rate, also preventing sudden climatic shifts related to temperature increase.

The SPICE Project: Sulfate Particle Injection for Climate Engineering

Next is the dispersal of sulfur into the stratosphere to decrease the amount of solar radiation that reaches the troposphere and Earth’s surface.  There are currently plans for the testing and implementation of this idea in the UK, under the name: SPICE project.  SPICE stands for Stratospheric Particle Injection for Climate Engineering.  A tethered balloon will be attached to a 25 km long hose spraying sulfur into the stratosphere.  The first test was set to commence this fall and would have sprayed a fine mist of water into the stratosphere (Stilgoe, 2011).  Its purpose would be to check the safety of the design, in consultation with aeronautic, meteorological, and space industry experts.  It will also help researchers understand how the particles will disperse in the stratosphere (Hunt, 2011).  The basis for the idea comes from observations on the effects of aerosols shot into the atmosphere during volcanic eruptions.  There are concerns however, that sulfate injections could affect rainfall and other aspects of climate besides temperature (Cambridge, 2011).  Sulfates have been implicated in the creation of acid rain and as a result their use has gone down drastically.  Outside of that sulfate aerosols, which is what will most likely be used for the project, contribute to ozone depletion.  The sponsors of the SPICE project believe that in carefully measured quantities they can limit radiative forcing while having a negligible effect on the ozone layer. 

Since this is the first time that a project to engineer the global climate has been considered seriously enough to begin testing for implementation the decision making process is something that must be looked at.  Geo-engineering has the capability of allowing a small number of people to make decisions that impact the entire world.  I’ll talk more about options for regulating this later; right now the SPICE project offers a real life example of how this could potentially work.  Generally one would think with the potential of so many people being affected by the release of sulfates around the world the international community would create a formal deliberation process.  This is not the case however.  It seems that the UK and the scientists running the SPICE project are taking a wholly unilateral approach.  Instead of being guided or approved by some sort of governmental process the researchers are holding public deliberative workshops (similar to focus groups) that will explore public perceptions of generic geo-engineering proposals (Parkhill, 2011).  This seems more like a means of gauging how to present the project to the public in order to get the most favorable response instead of truly delving into the possible ramifications of the experiment/project with the parties at stake (the public, international governance structures, and the world at large).  Three workshops were created, one in Cardiff, one in Norwich and one in Nottingham (Parkhill, 2011).  Each workshop contained eight to twelve members, with gender, age, socio-economic status, educational level, ethnicity and location factoring into candidate selection (Parkhill, 2011).  In order to control for preconceptions about geo-engineering the participants were not informed the workshops would involve geo-engineering (Parkhill, 2011).  All they knew was they would be considering societal responses to climate change (Parkhill, 2011).  The workshops lasted a day and a half with participants receiving a homework assignment to complete and then going through a series of “practical (i.e. activities/discussions needed to extend beyond one day) and deliberative considerations (participants were able to reflect upon and explore their viewpoints, and those of others overnight)” (Parkhill, 2011).  The topic of the SPICE project was not brought up until the second day.  The first day served as a time to discuss three different options for dealing with climate change.  Geo-engineering being posited as one of those options (Parkhill, 2011).  This does not seem like the best way to measure the participants’ thoughts about the SPICE project or its potential impacts.  The methodology does not state whether or not climate change and its causes are even referred to.  A solid scientific understanding of the causes of climate change is necessary to determine whether a project to alleviate its side effects or prevent it all together is worthwhile.

A Good Idea

Klaus Lackner of the Earth Institute at Columbia University has created one piece of technology that offers a legitimate chance at overcoming the threats of abrupt climate change while minimizing externalities and possible conflicts stemming from them.  He has invented an ‘artificial tree’.  Unlike other geo-engineering proposals the ‘artificial tree’ is low impact.  Nothing additional needs to be added to the atmosphere or the climate system.  It appears to be the antithesis of climate engineering except for one fact; by using ‘artificial trees’ you are still aiming at changing the entire composition of the atmosphere anthropogenically.  In changing the make up of the atmosphere in an unnatural way we are still tampering with our environment, just like when excess amounts of GHGs were first put into the atmosphere.  We are conscious of the process now but to what extent remains to be seen. 

By using a calcium hydroxide, Ca(OH)₂, or a potassium or sodium hydroxide solution, the artificial tree can capture carbon dioxide out of the air.  The amount of CO₂ the tree captures over a given period of time is greater than the amount of energy generated by a windmill over that same interval.  This makes the ‘tree’ more efficient than a windmill though that comes with its own set of problems, all of which have been mentioned earlier.  First of all, while the ‘trees’ solve the problem of continued carbon buildup in the atmosphere and a race to create ever more expansive geo-engineering projects; it still does not solve the problem of increases in other GHGs.  Radiative forcing will be slowed down but in order to completely reverse the process one would have to reduce the level of CO₂ to a point lower than before the Industrial Revolution.   The effects this could have on Earth’s ecosystems are far reaching, equivalent to there being too great an amount of CO₂ in the atmosphere.  Additionally, society may believe that since we have found a way to capture carbon dioxide we do not have to worry about reducing emissions anymore but this is patently false.  Without reductions, as I just said, other GHGs will remain in the atmosphere making removing CO₂ a task that can not completely mitigate radiative forcing.  So while this does seem like the best idea on the market thus far it still requires a reasoned approach that takes into account the future with an aim towards reducing and hopefully eliminating GHG emissions.

The Political/Social Hurdles to Geo-Engineering

Another major feature of all geo-engineering concepts is that they are working to change the climate system of the entire Earth.  As mentioned before, the entire Earth is the property of numerous political entities national and international, bringing to mind collective action problems and the dichotomy of unilateral and multilateral action.  In the case of the SPICE project we have witnessed whole-hearted unilateral action.  No other nation was consulted, no international regimes or bodies were used in the decision making process, and there was barely even input from the United Kingdom’s own government.  While the tests were not harmful and laws were not broken (Marshall, 2011) the stake the public would eventually have in this requires additional oversight.  The focus groups are what the legitimacy of the project rests on; that is made clear through the design description.  However, we have not mentioned the possible or necessary legal and political structures which could or should be involved in the decision making process.  Since geo-engineering has the potential for such large consequences, determining who is held responsible for ensuing problems and how decisions are made as to whether or what extent the project should be continued are essential.

Some of these projects, such as SPICE, can be done by a large organization like a corporation or university.  So, in this instance, we have a small group of people being able to affect the entire world.  Three universities with the financial backing of the UK’s Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council were enough to put the project in motion (Marshall, 2011).  The only reason tests have been delayed is an independent advisory panel recommended a longer period of public input.  The UK government has not done anything despite a campaign by a Canadian NGO, the ETC Group, to put a halt to field testing.  The most tangible move against the project was a resolution proposed by Greek Minister of the European Parliament Kriton Arsenis.  The resolution “expresses its opposition to proposals for large scale geoengineering” (Marshall, 2011).  If the other branches of the European Union approve the resolution they could then officially push for it to be included in any agreement that comes out of the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development in June 2012.  However, there is very little preventing the project from commencing currently

Side-effects of Geo-Engineering

The potential positive and negative local effects of geo-engineering also need to be taken into account.  Not all areas will be affected uniformly and some areas are bound to get the short end of the stick.  In addition, it may be found during testing that the technologies can have beneficial local effects.  As a consequence, any geo-engineering projects created to have beneficial local effects may end up drawing necessary ecosystem services from another area.  Short or long term use of the technology then becomes much more dangerous than was first intended.  For instance, “cooling the Sahara might, for example, change wind flows, resulting in different temperatures and precipitation and even sea currents in other places” (Davies, 2009).  Small scale use brings with it a host of questions about geo-engineering’s applicability to sale within the free market.  For instance, if during the course of researching a project it is discovered that previously arid areas with particular climatological characteristics receive more precipitation will nation-states use this technology in an attempt to draw benefits out of it solely for their state?  If this is the case, where is the precipitation being drawn from?  It also raises questions about sovereignty.  If there is a drought in a state that is along the same tropospheric or stratospheric wind pattern is the state that performed the geo-engineering responsible or should they be held liable?  How can we know? International mandates prohibiting geo-engineering’s use in particular circumstances will be necessary if small-scale unilateral uses are going to be properly regulated.  Those measures must also be enforceable.  If they have no teeth governments will not abide by them.  Projects such as SPICE may be initiated even more easily with something less than focus groups for oversight.  

Who Influences Geo-Engineering Policy?

If geo-engineering is instituted as a solution to climate change through government, it will most likely come from direct executive authority or finance ministers since it is seen as a cheap solution to a problem that is possibly insurmountable otherwise (Virgoe, 2009).  Having political and financial leaders initiating the charge is not the way a program with potentially devastating effects for the environment should be implemented.  There needs to be reasoned debate in a forum of experts entailing extensive peer review.  This should be the responsibility of some kind of joint committee with representatives from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and representatives that encompass the diversity of nations signed on to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).  It does not look like this is how change will begin though.  The risk of politicians making a fool hardy or ill informed decision will grow as environmental or natural disasters increase (Virgoe, 2009).  The pressure that they need to act will likely come from the understanding that we have reached or are close to some kind of tipping point in the climate system.  At that point it may seem like the decision has already been made for them or the public may push for something drastic.  In light of this, institutions should be in place to reason out the possible consequences of geo-engineering and hopefully govern states’ ability to act unilaterally.

And this will all happen with the influence of the environmental movement over how climate change should be dealt with waning (Virgoe, 2009).  There is blanket disapproval for geo-engineering in the vast majority of the environmental movement because it is seen as tinkering with the climate system to an even greater extent than we already have.  Scientists’ research into the ways climate works constantly unearths new mechanisms or feedbacks we were not aware of before.  Thus, the possibility of having the presumptions our projects were based on debunked is great.  A lot of these feedbacks drastically change the system’s behavior or speed up the system’s change.  For example, were permafrost to melt it would increase the decay of organic material in a deoxygenated environment, causing the previously frozen soil to give off methane, a greenhouse gas that is about 72 times more potent than CO₂ over 20 years and 25 times more potent over 100 years (Forster, 2007).  With increased release of methane, warming would increase exponentially, causing an even greater release of methane and exacerbation of other problems related to the increase of average global temperatures (Lawrence, 2008).  With waning support for the environmental movement and the public’s attention to climate change decreasing (Davis, 2011) there is little chance that mitigation efforts outside geo-engineering will be instituted in time.  Other groups with interests outside of the environment will end up having more sway over climate change policy.

Another danger in geo-engineering governance is the possibility that it will be viewed as a way of getting around emissions reductions instead of a temporary band-aid or insurance against tipping points (Virgoe, 2009).  As noted previously, many geo-engineering concepts simply limit the amount of solar radiation that enters or remains in the atmosphere.  Policy makers must make it clear to their constituents that continued build up of GHGs will have effects that are equally as unacceptable as rising average global temperatures. 

Current international regimes dealing with environmental issues or problems are not conducive to the governance of geo-engineering projects.  Firstly, they are built to limit emissions or conduct research on a large or small scale depending on the problem.  For instance, the IPCC collects and analyzes weather, climate, and ecological data from around the world in order to create a coherent picture of what our climate is, is projected to be, and how we must react to it.  This is different, though not wholly, from overseeing projects that will be actively working on the environment with the express purpose of changing the global climate.  In the first instance, the Panel simply aggregates data and decides what new research projects it would like to fund; in the second case the governing body picks winners and losers, with Earth changing consequences.   The governing body’s role in choosing which geo-engineering project gets the green light would be similar to its decision-making process with the creation of aerospace projects, one would hope.  This does not seem like it will be the case though given the lack of oversight that is currently being given to the SPICE project.  So ultimately, as Virgoe points out, a “geo-engineering regime” will need to be designed in a way which ensures a geo-engineering intervention is appropriately calibrated and managed within a portfolio of climate change mitigation and adaptation measures, while attempting to minimize the moral hazard problem” (Virgoe, 2009). 

There is very little standing in the way of the creation of a geo-engineering regime, though there aren’t many powerful interests backing the use of geo-engineering as way to prevent climate change.  Bill Gates has been funding a cloud seeding project but he does not seem to be doing it for any reason other than that emissions cuts are not happening (Kintisch, 2010).  The main block is political will or the understanding that geo-engineering is an eminent problem.  Projects are being funded and researched; there is no buzz in the media about them however.  The other possibility is that, by creating the regime, legitimacy is lent to geo-engineering at a level it would not have achieved otherwise.  So while there is very little preventing a geo-engineering regime from being created there is also no will to create one.  We are still left with the question though, what will a geo-engineering regime look like?  If there is no basis for it in common international law where do we go for inspiration?

 Virgoe suggests that geo-engineering “would focus on setting targets, managing a process and cost-sharing” (Virgoe, 2009).  In other words the goal of the geo-engineering project would be as firmly established as possible, so as to not overshoot the limits of the climate system, and create unintended consequences, or not achieve the desired objective.  There would most likely be an oversight committee, judging what actions would be deemed necessary and what could be implemented successfully.  Finally, the costs of any unintended side-effects would need to be evenly distributed across the proponents of the regime or the international community as a whole (Virgoe, 2009).  That is probably the most worrisome part of the SPICE project.  Since the United Kingdom is proceeding with the program unilaterally, for now at least, there is no opportunity for damages to be paid to any state that is harmed by changes in weather patterns as a result of stratospheric sulfate injections.  These would end up having to be the foundation to any new regime.

Currently Applicable Laws

In terms of existing treaties or regimes there are a few things that could have bearing on the use of geo-engineering technology.  The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) governs states efforts at mitigation and adaptation to climate change through the annual meeting of the Conference of Parties.  Anything involving the use of ‘artificial trees’ as an additional carbon sink could go through the UNFCCC (Reynolds, 2011).  Ocean fertilization would be subject to international dumping laws, as well as numerous laws already put in place to govern the numerous experiments that have been done to test the viability of ocean fertilization, such as the London Convention and Protocol (Reynolds, 2011).  In 2008, the International Maritime Organization issued rules resolving that ocean fertilization fell under the regime’s authority and procedures for determining what types of activities would be considered legitimate scientific research (Reynolds, 2011).  In setting up the framework international teams of scientists from the signatory countries pooled their resources to determine the best means for determining legitimate testing.  This is much better than what has happened thus far with the SPICE project and shows that international regimes can be put in place to govern tests of these programs at least temporarily.  However, one is still relying on disparate groups to determine whether a project should go forward.  The London Convention and Protocol was made to deal with the dumping of waste into the ocean not the climatological effects of iron deposits being systematically seeded to induce algae blooms.  While for now it seems fine for regulation of geo-engineering to be dispersed across institutions that deal with the specific issue areas that the projects unintentionally fall under, more specific and expert institutions should be created in order to ensure a centralization of data and to understand the cross effects of each project.  It should be understood that while the IPCC aggregates climatological data; it does not forecast the possible consequences of possible geo-engineering climate ‘experiments’ running at the same time unless mandated too.  Even then, if it were to lay out scenarios or simply publish a review and opinion of geo-engineering literature, it would have no authority to act.  That would have to be left to the UNFCCC which could act to create an institution with the aforementioned authority.  Therefore, while the system as it is now is not completely without some sort of oversight or order imposed on it, it is not well managed.  Central decision-making on geo-engineering policy should become a priority for the environmental community then, as a result of the field’s infancy.  In spite of all the concerns I have stated regarding geo-engineering it seems like the only way to prevent a foolhardy project from being unilaterally prevented is for an international regime to be put in place to govern project proposals.  Without such measures a unilateral project seems inevitable, especially taking into consideration the Durban Accord and its failure to achieve binding emissions cuts.

In addition to the London Convention and Protocol, the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), the Convention on the Prohibition of Military or other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques, Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution, and the Montreal Protocol all have applications when it comes to regulating geo-engineering (Reynolds, 2011).  The CBD has already called for more stringent regulations regarding the potential impacts geo-engineering could have on biological diversity.  More specifically in 2010 the parties to the CBD stated:

“in the absence of science based, global and effective control and regulatory mechanisms for geo-engineering, and in accordance with the precautionary approach and Article 14 of the Convention that no climate-related geo-engineering activities that may affect biodiversity take place, until there is an adequate scientific basis on which to justify such activities and appropriate consideration of the associated risks for the environment and biodiversity and associated social, economic and cultural impacts, with the exception of small scale scientific data and are subject to a thorough prior assessment of the potential impacts in the environment” (Reynolds, 2011).

This is the strictest statement of prohibition on geo-engineering to date.  It is not as specific as to whether a geo-engineering proposal can or should be disregarded, which is its strength and its weakness.  On the one hand a geo-engineering proposal may never have enough scientific basis according to the Parties to the CBD’s standards and, as a result, experimentation may not even begin.  This would prohibit the proposal from ever having enough evidence to prove its safety, effectively stopping the proposition.  On the other hand, since there is no rubric for determining what a worthwhile geo-engineering project would look like it is possible for any amount of evidence to be deemed as giving the project enough basis for creation.  It all depends on the context.  This point was made in 2010 in the Report of the Tenth Meeting of the Conference of Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity in regards to testing of ocean fertilization methods.  The decision was made parallel to the Assessment Framework for Scientific Research Involving Ocean Fertilization, an amendment to the London Convention and Protocol, which put in place a specific way of judging whether experiments in ocean fertilization should progress.  If the specificity of the London Protocol could be merged with the stringency of the statements made by the parties to the CBD, we would have the best of both regulatory worlds.

Leaving the realm of iron fertilization regulation, the Montreal Protocol is especially pertinent right now with the SPICE project going forward.  The Montreal Protocol was created in 1987 and went into effect in 1989.  Its purpose is to prevent the spread of the hole in the ozone layer.  To do this, restrictions were put on the production and commercial use and sale of aerosols.  Industry was mandated to find and make replacement products for aerosols and Chlorofluorocarbons, in the form of Hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) and other products.  In addition there is continual drawdown of lesser but still prevalent and relevant ozone depleting compounds such as HCFCs.  Sulfates are possibly also ozone depleting substances, which could put them on the list of prohibited pollutants with further study.  So, the Montreal Protocol could regulate the SPICE project if it deemed that necessary.  However, as I have said before with other regimes, the protocol was made for emissions reduction, so it works off of previously collected data and prohibits with hindsight as a guide.  Geo-engineering regulation requires more of an attention to theory and the possible consequences of something that has not happened yet.

The Environmental Modification Convention could be used to stop a geo-engineering project from going forward or to litigate against the initiator of a geo-engineering project.  The Convention has a provision that prohibits the destruction of the environment as a tactic of war or conflict.  This probably would not be able to be applied directly to a state or entity that has carried out a geo-engineering project since there would probably be no malicious intent on their part.  However, one could approach it from the point of negligence and make the argument that geo-engineering is inherently dangerous because of the large scale of its intended effects and one’s inability to understand every possible outcome.  The Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution would work similarly, except it might only deal with a project like SPICE, where some kind of gas or particulate matter was scattered into the atmosphere to induce a climate shift (Reynolds, 2011).  However, “it is of limited applicability, as it is weak, focuses on only Europe’s air quality, and addresses pollution ‘which has adverse effects…at such a distance that it is not generally possible to distinguish the contribution of individual emissions sources or groups of sources” (Reynolds, 2011).

The Moral Hazard: Forgetting to Cut Emissions

According to Reynolds though, most of the friction to implementing geo-engineering is not technical or scientific but social (Reynolds, 2011).  The problem of the ‘moral hazard’ weighs in heavy here.  The ‘moral hazard’ theory states that if geo-engineering is instituted the feeling that it is necessary to decrease or even stop increasing the world’s carbon emissions will lessen to the point that we will force ourselves into a spiral of even greater geo-engineering projects to maintain our lifestyle (Corner, 2010).  This means that policy-makers must accompany the approval of any geo-engineering project with stringent and enforceable GHG emissions cuts.  Otherwise the public and our political institutions will lose sight of the fact that the point of the project was to buy time for us to cut emissions.

Despite the fact that geo-engineering is viewed by the majority of experts as at best a temporary relief valve from the pressures of climate there are still some scientists who believe it can be used as a solution in and of itself (Reynolds, 2011).  If this were the case cessation of whatever project was underway would have to be done gradually if it could be done at all and would be impossible if emissions had not been reduced because it would result in a dangerous and large temperature jump (Reynolds, 2011).  The institutions that would be created to maintain the systems would have to survive intact for centuries, a level of resilience that is not seen in practically any institution, excluding perhaps the Catholic Church (Reynolds 2011).  Despite the seeming impossibility of such a task however, new institutions dealing with the regulation of geo-engineering must be put in place.  These projects are already underway though and effective oversight is necessary to ensure rash projects are not carried out, producing more harm than good.

Governance Structure

I think geo-engineering will be attempted whether or not it is a good idea.  Attempts at it will be more likely if decisions are made disparately, under national supervision and away from the best scientists possible.  I also believe there are worthwhile methods of geo-engineering.  If one is put in place though, under unilateral conditions, it is likely that more will be instituted as well.  For instance, the SPICE project is commencing trials in the UK while ocean fertilization tests are being performed in the Southern Ocean.  The only thing that would prevent both projects from going forward at the same time is coordination between the individual bodies that regulate different pieces of the project.  If the number of projects being tested were to grow coordination among the different parties would be difficult.  In order to prevent nuclear proliferation across the world intergovernmental agencies were put in place to govern nuclear energy and weapons.  I believe the same is required to prevent local or global geo-engineering projects.

The most likely way for an institution governing geo-engineering to be created is through the United Nations.  Any body that is going to make decisions on the feasibility of geo-engineering projects will need a strong science advisory arm.  This can be modeled off of the UNFCCC’s Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice (SBSTA) or the new institution could use the IPCC and SBSTA in this role (Virgoe, 2009).  It would seem however, that while information sharing would be critical between the IPCC, SBSTA, and the science advisory arm of this new institution, the creation of a advisory group independent of IPCC and SBSTA would be necessary.  At its inception IPCC was criticized because the dissemination of its research and analysis was too slow for policymakers to be able to analyze it and make timely decisions.  Part of the reason is that the Earth gives up its data slowly.  The other side of the story is that there is a lot of work that goes into compiling data on that scale.  Piling more work into that institution is not a way to make it run more efficiently.  If there was simply a database of shared reports and data that could be drawn from between the two organizations then unnecessary labor hours would not be lost.  Of course people will argue that there will be turf wars between the organizations with the withholding of information on the part of one or another group.  I do not think the two institutions will be working at cross purposes however, especially if said new institution were created with the mandate to limit dangerous interventions in climate and ensure that any responses to abrupt climate change were carried out in reasoned manner.

In response to what a new agreement (convention) with the responsibility of governing geo-engineering projects would have to accomplish, Virgoe gives a list of six possible mandates.  First, it would need to have the ability to give a legal and political mandate for project deployment (Virgoe, 2009).  Second, it would choose the players who would be involved in the implementation and deployment of said project (Virgoe, 2009).  Third, create or designate a body to establish geo-engineering guidelines and establish budgets to be applied to geo-engineering research (Virgoe, 2009).  Fourth, it would have to establish what the balance between geo-engineering, adaptation, and mitigation should be keeping in mind the different feedbacks, sinks, and unknown unknowns that will inevitably play a part in the process (Virgoe, 2009).  Fifth, the body should not be exclusive and should contain high level representatives in order for its decisions to have meaning (Virgoe, 209).  And finally, it should seek to resolve the collective action problems that inevitably become important in a process like this.  These include cost-sharing and arbitration between parties that are creating and affected by externalities.  With the creation of an effective international regime for researching and governing geo-engineering hopefully we will be able to weed out bad ideas and implement good ideas safely and effectively.

Conclusion

The variety and power of many of the geo-engineering proposals being suggested currently necessitates an international regime with the ability to start and kill projects, inhibit governments from initiating unilateral geo-engineering programs, and create a long-term well-organized geo-engineering program for the future based around well thought out ideas like the ‘artificial tree’.  The current piecemeal approach to geo-engineering governance, relying on regimes and treaties not directly related to its purpose will have to go soon.  Projects are being initiated around the world with little oversight and no international input.  The SPICE project’s use of focus groups to determine public perception of geo-engineering as its only check is a perfect example.  We need independent science advisory panels with the best ecological and climatological data possible deciding which programs should get the green light and making sure that multiple programs aren’t running at the same time having dangerous overlapping effects.  There needs to be a multilateral decision-making process that will ensure that we are not using an ungodly amount of resources to send 16 trillion mirrors into space at 1 mirror every 5 minutes for the next decade using 20 launchers powered by capacitors used to create fusion reactions in California.  By ensuring there is a multilateral decision making process in place relatively soon before some sort of abrupt climate shift makes itself evident we can ensure a more rational approach to geo-engineering than should otherwise be expected.

Works Cited

Angel, R. "Feasibility of Cooling the Earth with a Cloud of Small Spacecraft near the Inner Lagrange Point (L1)." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 103.46 (2006): 17184-7189. Www.pnas.org. Web. 12 Nov. 2011.

Blaustein, Richard. "Fertilizing the Seas with Iron." BioScience 61.10 (2011): 840. American Institute of Biological Sciences. Web.

Buesseler, K. O. "The Effects of Iron Fertilization on Carbon Sequestration in the Southern Ocean." Science 304.5669 (2004): 414-17. Www.sciencemag.org. Web. 12 Nov. 2011.

Cambridge University. The SPICE Project. 14 Sept. 2011. Web. 12 Dec. 2011.

Corner, Adam, and Nick Pidgeon. "Geoengineering the Climate: The Social and Ethical Implications." Environment Magazine Jan.-Feb. 2010: 26-37.

Davies, Gareth T., Law and Policy Issues of Unilateral Geoengineering: Moving to a Managed World (January 29, 2009). Social Science Research Network. http://ssrn.com/abstract=1334625.

Davis, Tony. "The Frog and the Polar Bear: The Real Reasons Americans Aren’t Buying Climate Change | Grist." Grist | Environmental News, Commentary, Advice. 12 Dec. 2011. Web. 12 Dec. 2011.

"Energy Conversions Online." UnitJuggler Online Unit Converter. Web. 16 Dec. 2011. .\\

Forster, P., V. Ramaswamy, P. Artaxo, T. Berntsen, R. Betts, D.W. Fahey, J. Haywood, J. Lean, D.C. Lowe, G. Myhre, J. Nganga, R. Prinn, G. Raga, M. Schulz and R. Van Dorland (2007). "Changes in Atmospheric Constituents and in Radiative Forcing.". Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Humphreys, David. "Smoke and Mirrors: Some Reflections on the Science and Politics of Geoengineering." Journal of Environment & Development 20.2 (2011): 99-120.

Hunt, Hugh. "SPICE - Stratospheric Particle Injection for Climate Engineering." CUED: Www2 Server. Web. 13 Nov. 2011.

Kintisch, Eli. "Bill Gates Funding Geoengineering Research - ScienceInsider." Science/AAAS. 26 Jan. 2010. Web. 16 Dec. 2011.

Lackner, Klaus S., and Allen Wright. Laminar Scrubber Apparatus For Capturing Carbon Dioxide From Air and Methods of Use. THE TRUSTEES OF COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY IN THE CITY OF NEW YORK, Lackner, Klaus S., Wright, Allen, assignee. Patent WO2006023743. 3 Feb. 2006.

Lackner, K.S. "Capture of Carbon Dioxide from Ambient Air." The European Physical Journal Special Topics 176.1 (2009): 93-106. Berkeley.edu. Web.

Lawrence, David M., and Andrew G. Slater. "Incorporating Organic Soil into a Global Climate Model." Climate Dynamics 30 (2008): 145-60.

Marshall, Michael. "Political Backlash to Geoengineering Begins." New Scientist. Reed Business Information Ltd, 3 Oct. 2011. Web. 12 Dec. 2011.

"NIF: The "Crown Joule" of Laser Science." National Ignition Facility. Lawerence Livermore National Laboratory. Web. 13 Nov. 2011.

Parkhill, Karen, and Nick Pidgeon. Public Engagement on Geoengineering Research: Preliminary Report on the SPICE Deliberative Workshop. Understanding Risk Research Group. Cardiff University. Web. 14 Nov. 2011.

Reynolda, Jesse. "The Regulation of Climate Engineering." Law, Innovation, and Technology 3.1 (2011): 113-36

Climate Change Saskatchewan. (1999). Solar radiation management (geo-engineering). Retrieved from http://www.climatechangeask.com/html/learn_more/Solutions/GeoEngineering/Solar_Radiation_Management_/index.cfm

Stilgoe, Jack. "A Question of Intent." Nature Climate Change 1 (2011): 325-26.

NOAA. Office of General Counsel, (2010). Ocean fertilization: The potential for ocean fertilization for climate change mitigation. Retrieved from National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration website: http://www.gc.noaa.gov/documents/2010_climate_fert_rept_Congress_final.pdf

University of Bristol. SPICE Project Announced at British Science Festival. University of Bristol: News from the University. University of Bristol, 14 Sept. 2011. Web. 13 Nov. 2011.

Vézina, A. F., and O. Hoegh-Guldberg. "Effects of Ocean Acidification on Marine Ecosystems." Marine Ecology Progress Series 373 (2008): 199-201. Web. 12 Nov. 2011.

Virgoe, John. "International Governance of a Possible Geoengineering Intervention to Combat Climate Change." Climatic Change 95.1-2 (2009): 103-19.

Wigley, T. M. L. "A Combined Mitigation/Geoengineering Approach to Climate Stabilization." Science 314.5798 (2006): 452-54. Science/AAAS, 14 Sept. 2006. Web. 16 Dec. 2011.