4.7 Should We Geoengineer Our Climate?

What is your view on geoengineering? Should it be used to prevent our planet warming? Post your views into the discussion.

There are a number of arguments, both for and against geoengineering, which are backed up by valid evidence and opinions. Firstly, there is the general acceptance that, yes, the Earth is warming, and to a greater extent than can be explained by natural background climate fluctuations. I think we can generally agree on this. There is also strong evidence that the cause of this warming is an increase of “greenhouse” gases, and that this increase is cause by anthropogenic factors, ie us. We are burning fossil fuels at a huge rate, deforesting vast areas of the planet and generally pumping gases like CO2 into our atmosphere. The predictions of what effects these changes are likely to have are all different, depending on the scenario they are based upon, but none of them are good. They point to more severe droughts, more intense flooding and a huge loss in biodiversity as a result.

So what are the answers? How should we respond to this? We obviously have to do something. it would be lovely to believe that the world could quickly cease to use fossil fuels, that all power could be harnessed from renewable sources. Geoengineering is another option. I agree with the majority of the scientific community who have commented on this field (as far as I can tell, that is) that we should be exploring these options, but with the hope that they will never have to be deployed. it shouldn't take us off track to find better, more fundable, longer lasting solutions. The implementation of geoengineering, even of research projects, does of course come with its own huge bundle of problems regarding ownership, funding and profits, let alone what adverse effects it might have. But surely we can’t answer the question without at first trying to gather as many facts about it as possible? Below is a quote from the forward of “Geoengineering The Climate”, written by Martin Rees, the president of the Royal Society in 2010, which I think sums up the argument quite well.

“The continuing rise in the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases, mainly caused by the burning of fossil fuels, is driving changes in the Earth's climate. The long-term consequences will be exceedingly threatening, especially if nations continue 'business as usual' in the coming decades. Most nations now recognise the need to shift to a low-carbon economy, and nothing should divert us from the main priority of reducing global greenhouse gas emissions. But if such reductions achieve too little, too late, there will surely be pressure to consider a 'plan B' to seek ways to counteract the climatic effects of greenhouse gas emissions by 'geoengineering'.

Many proposals for geoengineering have already been made but the subject is bedevilled by much doubt and confusion. Some schemes are manifestly far-fetched; others are more credible, and are being investigated by reputable scientists; some are being promoted over-optimistically. In this report, the Royal Society aims to provide an authoritative and balanced assessment of the main geoengineering options. Far more detailed study would be needed before any method could even be seriously considered for deployment on the requisite international scale. Moreover, it is already clear than none offers a 'silver bullet', and that some options are far more problematic than others.”