The main issue
with the concept of Antropocene is that it doesn’t give specific indications
about the real roots of global environmental changes. Because of that, even
individuals deeply concerned by climate change and other environmental
degradation might end up advocating “false good ideas” and techno fixes, such
as geoengineering. Geoengineering, or climate engineering, refers to
“deliberate large-scale intervention in the Earth’s natural systems to
counteract climate change” (1). It consists mainly in two categories: Solar
geoengineering and Carbon geoengineering. Solar Radiation Management techniques
aim to decrease temperature rise caused by increased greenhouse gases emissions
by reflecting or blocking a small proportion of the Sun’s energy. Regarding
Carbon geoengineering, Carbon dioxide Removal techniques consist in removing
carbon dioxide from the atmosphere in order to decrease greenhouse effect and
ocean acidification (1).
Paul Crutzen,
the scientist who coined the term Anthropocene, considers geoengineering as a
possible “plan B” to solve climate change and proposes stratospheric aerosol
injection (of sulfate aerosols) as a means to block a portion of the sun’s
radiation and cool Earth (2). Such an idea is inspired by volcano Pinatubo
which injected 20 megatons of sulfur dioxide gas into the stratosphere during
an eruption in 1991, producing a sulfate aerosol cloud that has caused global cooling
for a couple of years (3). Crutzen is not an isolated case, other respected
climate scientists adopt the same position, such as Tom Wigley, who published a
study advocated the same approach in combination with mitigation (reductions in
greenhouse gas emissions) (4).
Even at the
global level, geoengineering is starting to be considered. For instance the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the U.N-convened group has
mentioned geoengineering in the final paragraph of its 2013 ‘Summary for
Policymakers’. The IPPC represents the consensus position of the international
scientific community, thus suggesting that geoengineering is now on the
scientific agenda (5). Piers Foster, climate-change researcher and one of the
authors of the summary says that we will have to consider the option of
geoengineering if we do not start reducing emissions (6) Ken Caldeira, climate
researcher and geoengineering proponent sees the inclusion of geoengineering in
the IPCC report as “a reflection of growing governmental interest in these
ideas” (5).
Thus, it is time
to take geoengineering seriously. International norms should be put into place
and governments should research the risks of this plan B before considering unproven
technofixes as viable options. We should also be careful about research and
tests on geoengineering. Indeed, as Naomi Klein demonstrates in ‘This Changes
everything”, research might lead to implementation: Hiroshima and Nagasaki were
bombed less than a month after the first successful nuclear test.
The National
Academy of Sciences released a study in 2015 on albedo modification (reflecting
sunlight away from the planet) and carbon sequestration. They concluded
unequivocally that we cannot geoengineer our way out the climate crisis and
that scientists have no clue what geoengineering would really do to the planet
(7). Its authors even chose to opt for the term “climate intervention” instead
of using “geoengineering” because they felt that “’engineering’ implied a level
of control that is illusory”. In “20 reasons geoengineering might be a bad
idea”, climatologist Alan Robock also argues that the cure of geoengineering
will be worse than the disease of climate change (3). Some of the worst
consequences listed that stratospheric injection of sulfate aerosols would have
are (3): adverse effects on regional climate (potentially reducing
precipitation and creating drought); increased ozone depletion; greater acid
deposition that would harm the ecosystem, affect public health and potentially
exceed biological thresholds, bringing unknown consequences. Broader worrying consequences
to geoengineering include (3): potential human errors in the design and
operation of such complex mechanical systems; the stress produced on ecosystems
and society in case of abrupt shift in deployment that would cause rapid
climate warming; incapacity to go back or stop effects caused by geoengineering;
potentially high costs that could be used instead for clean energy, energy efficiency
and other investments. Other issues concern the commercial control of
technology and the potential military use of the technology that may aspire to
control nature. In our capitalist system, if it is not governments but private
companies that end up controlling geoengineering systems, there would be the
risk that shareholder profits are valued over the public good (3).
Geoengineering sounds like a really undemocratic idea. Even if governments end
up being the ones controlling the technology, it doesn’t sound democratic to
impose to the Earth’s citizens such risky human interventions on nature. The
question of how multiple governments would unanimously agree to start climate
intervention also arises. In a context of climate change historically caused by
industrialized nations, it sounds unfair for the Global South to even consider
a risky plan B to tackle climate change. Considering geoengineering is a way to
refuse considerably cutting down greenhouse gases emissions and to move away
from solutions that would enable global climate justice. Thinking about
geoengineering as an option may actually undermine mitigation. The discussion
shifts from reducing emissions to emitting as much while sucking up CO2 (5). It
encourages emitters and ‘business as usual’ to carry on and it is a solution in
the service of capitalism.
The concept of Capitalocene can be helpful here because it shows that if it is our model of development that is largely responsible for climate change and other environmental changes, more capitalism (with more growth and technology) cannot be the solution to solve the problem it has caused. The term of Capitalocene gives the indication that techno-fixes aren’t real solutions and that it is urgent to question our economic system, model of development and way of life that are unsustainable if we wish to cut down emissions. Pete Smith, a University of Aberdeen professor said “if we go into thinking we can continue to emit as we are at the moment, and these negative emissions technologies (geoengineering) are there and they’re going to save us in the future, I think that’s extremely risky” (8). The priority should be to find real alternatives and sustainable ways of development that would ensure global justice. In 2010, the World Peoples’ Conference on Climate Change and the Rights of Mother Earth, held in Bolivia brought together more than 25,000 citizens and produced a People’s Agreement (with the contribution of seventeen working groups) which explicitly refused geoengineering as a solution to tackle climate change (5).
The concept of Capitalocene can be helpful here because it shows that if it is our model of development that is largely responsible for climate change and other environmental changes, more capitalism (with more growth and technology) cannot be the solution to solve the problem it has caused. The term of Capitalocene gives the indication that techno-fixes aren’t real solutions and that it is urgent to question our economic system, model of development and way of life that are unsustainable if we wish to cut down emissions. Pete Smith, a University of Aberdeen professor said “if we go into thinking we can continue to emit as we are at the moment, and these negative emissions technologies (geoengineering) are there and they’re going to save us in the future, I think that’s extremely risky” (8). The priority should be to find real alternatives and sustainable ways of development that would ensure global justice. In 2010, the World Peoples’ Conference on Climate Change and the Rights of Mother Earth, held in Bolivia brought together more than 25,000 citizens and produced a People’s Agreement (with the contribution of seventeen working groups) which explicitly refused geoengineering as a solution to tackle climate change (5).
Soon, it will be
time to decide which direction we choose to go.