OPINION: Democrats Discuss — Geoengineering: Hail Mary or heresy?
Lucy Thompson is a sophomore double majoring in geography and environmental studies. She is the Ohio University College Democrats communications director. The following article reflects the opinions and views of the author and does not represent the thoughts of the Ohio University College Democrats.
This is a submitted column. Please note that these views and opinions do not reflect those of The New Political.
Climate change and its adverse effects are being seen across the globe without real plans for large-scale action.
In the absence of action from governments, some scientists and leaders are researching and proposing the route of geoengineering. Geoengineering is not a new subject, but it has become increasingly present in climate and scientific circles.
Geoengineering generally refers to two methods of controlling the Earth’s temperature: carbon removal and solar geoengineering. Carbon removal is greatly increasing carbon sinks or investing in technology that could “suck” carbon out of the air. Solar geoengineering, however, is much more hotly discussed and includes injecting reflective aerosols into the atmosphere to reflect the sun’s rays away from the Earth’s surface.
Although geoengineering proposes innovative and potentially effective solutions to combat rising temperatures, there are many hurdles before the deployment of these technologies.
Little research has been done on the subject. This is partly because of scientific taboo with geoengineering, but that is currently changing. More complex issues with geoengineering are the ethical questions surrounding the subject and the potential impacts of deployment.
Geoengineering would lower global temperatures, but would not solve other equally pressing environmental issues connected to climate change. Ocean acidification, biodiversity loss, extinctions and many other environmental crises would not be solved by geoengineering, despite its heralding as a miracle solution. Furthermore, if geoengineering was deployed, it could allow for complacency with climate issues and the capitalistic consumption that fuels them.
Much of the research and discourse occurring around geoengineering is happening in wealthy and politically powerful regions. This is a dangerous power dynamic since geoengineering would affect global temperatures. Without the intervention of a global governmental entity, there is little done to check or regulate this research and possibly even deployment. This is especially important since it leads to another ethical issue — the negative externalities of geoengineering.
Geoengineering could have adverse effects on weather systems and crop success. Additionally, with this power imbalance, it is possible that a temperature point not universally beneficial could be chosen during deployment.
The global community would be indefinitely reliant on the upkeep of the aerosols if solar geoengineering is implemented. If solar geoengineering was suddenly stopped without the necessary changes to our energy usage and consumption, the world temperature would rapidly rise, which is incredibly dangerous when considering current power dynamics and necessary global cooperation surrounding geoengineering.
Geoengineering seems to stem from great hubris and people’s unwillingness to change their lifestyles in wealthy, developed nations. It would not address the root cause of climate catastrophe and instead would likely continue to hurt already vulnerable populations.
I can’t say that I hate geoengineering, even as a last-ditch effort to improve conditions for the global community, but current research and discourse are concerning.
In the fight against climate change, we must keep in mind future generations and our responsibility to be stewards of our environment. Geoengineering would pass on a broken, technologically-dependent world system to generations after us. As a society, we know what must be done to begin to right climate change. I hope it never comes to the point where geoengineering is necessary.