The failure in reducing CO2 emissions has brought the necessity to think about new techniques to reduce global warming. The continued emission of CO2 is causing the earth to get warmer and warmer and this is projected to have catastrophic effects in nearby future. Geoengineering includes any measure that is taken with a focus to modify the earth at a planetary level with a focus on reducing effects of global warming. This new technique of geoengineering intrigued me and I thought I should share the information with others because global warming affects the whole world, not a particular nation or an individual.
In the first article published by the Carnegie Institution in 2007 titled “Geoengineering: a quick fix with big risks,” the author mentions that geoengineering techniques focused on blocking sunlight from earth’s surface will eventually cool the planet. However, the researchers believe that reducing global temperature will alter weather patterns, especially reduction in tropical forest rainfall and cause greater storage of carbon in plants and soil. Eventually, if these geoengineering techniques were to fail or to be cancelled then the carbon will be released back to the atmosphere causing a global rise in temperature 20 times faster than what it is today. Finally, the author raises the main concern of the range of success the geoengineering techniques can bring about. With the catastrophic results expected from the failure or withdrawal of geoengineering techniques, the author mentions that geoengineering is a quick fix that has been suggested without proper analysis of risks.
"I hope I never need a parachute, but if my plane is going down in flames, I sure hope I have a parachute handy, I hope we'll never need geoengineering schemes, but if a climate catastrophe occurs, I sure hope we will have thought through our options carefully" - this sentence by the author at the end particularly caught my attention. While reading I felt that the sentence is foreshadowing the attitude different countries and individuals can have in future towards the issue of increased CO2 levels or increased global temperature. The countries that are going to be mostly affected by global warming include India, Bangladesh and other low lying areas. Is the author trying to say that the countries that are not going to be affected by climate change will not have any say on these new techniques introduced? Who and how will we decide where on atmosphere to install these techniques? Since its purpose is severing the whole world, will the negative consequences be shared as well? Will nations agree to have light scatterers on top of their region? If some countries agree to install the light scatters, will those countries demand compensation or incentives or do we have the moral obligation to compensate them? Scattering sunlight and reducing global temperature can be one solution; however, we are forgetting the easy solution of reducing CO2 emissions. The author mentions that given the current political and economical trend it is better to be pessimistic and believe that it is impossible to reduce CO2 emissions. If the scientific knowledge of CO2 emissions increasing global temperature is not going to impact the society positively then what is the use of science? Is science actually serving its purpose – to improve human lives?
Another article was published by the Carnegie Institution in January 2012 titled “Sunshade geoengineering more likely to improve global food security, research suggests,” which mentions about a “fix” that the researchers have found to reduce global temperature and this technique imitates volcano eruptions. The continuation of increase of global temperature is expected to have bad impacts on crop yield. However, sunshade geoengineering is expected to improve crop yield and food security. The researchers have proposed a model of cooling the planet by spraying small particles using high-flying planes and these small particles will scatter incoming sun rays back to the space. The computer study models have shown that the scattering of sunlight by these small particles will cool earth’s surface and will increase crop yield in most of the region. However, this technique can have unintended consequences in climate, especially for precipitation.
The author mentions - "The real world is much more complex than our climate models, so it would be premature to act based on model results like ours, but desperate people do desperate things. Therefore, it is important to understand the consequences of actions that do not strike us as being particularly good ideas." What is the conclusion from the study? Go to the next step and spray small particles in the atmosphere? Who will take the initiative? How will a proposal be created deciding over which countries the small particles are going to be sprayed? Are we “desperate” enough to forget the society and the predicted unintended consequences and implement the technology?
Now, I think that geoengineering techniques are quick fixes that we, desperate humans found out to prevent global warming and to protect our species and to keep life moving.
