Should solar geo-engineering research be discouraged, or banned?:

[GE Morton]

This week's (Nov. 12, 2021) issue of Science includes a policy forum on whether research on solar geo-engineering (SG) techniques for managing climate change should be pursued.

https://www.sciencemagazinedigital.org/ ... ember_2021
(You'll probably need a subscription to read the article)

Some climate scientists and climate activists argue that such research should not be undertaken, for several reasons, but mainly due to the "moral hazard" that promising SG technologies will undermine efforts to reduce carbon emissions. See the "taxonomy" below.

There are three main technologies being considered, all of which aim to reduce the amount of sunlight reaching the Earth --- stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI); marine cloud brightening (MCB); and cirrus cloud thinning (CCT):

All of the objections to SG cite potential (and hypothetical) risks of using the technologies. The philosophical question is, does the possibility that use of a technology may intentionally or unintentionally do harm constitute a valid argument against researching the technology? How else could we identify and quantify those risks?

Thoughts?

--------------
A taxonomy of concerns about solar geoengineering (SG)
Bullet points indicate examples of potential concerns.

PHYSICAL RISKS OF BENEVOLENT DEPLOYMENT
Side effects of perturbing radiative forcing. Physical consequences other than those arising from an idealized reduction in insolation

* Stratospheric sulfates cause ozone loss
* Iodine from sea salt spray increased methane lifetime
* Scattered light alters ecosystems
* Health hazard when aerosols add to particulate matter at surface

Exacerbation of climate changes. SG increases the deviation of a climatic variable in some region from the preindustrial.

* Change in drought frequency
* Increased nitrate contribution to particulate matter (PM2.5) due to reduced warming

Accidents

* Termination due to catastrophic failure of deployment system

Incompetence

* Errors in quantities deployed

INJUSTICE
Moral hazard. Unjust reduction in emissions cuts, better termed “mitigation inhibition”

Political exploitation. SG exploited by a group to advance their private interest against the collective interest in emissions cuts

* A petrostate covertly funds civil society groups to exaggerate benefits of SG and lobby for deployment and for slowing emissions cuts

* The industries that will implement SG promote SG

Collective addiction

* Irrational technological optimism serves as a collective excuse for delay

Procedural injustice

* Unilateral deployment

Distributive injustice

* SG is deployed for polar cooling, disproportionally benefitting relatively wealthy mid-latitude countries while doing little to reduce peak temperatures in the tropics.

CONFLICT
Malevolent use

* Weaponization of weather control
* Termination due to destruction of deployment system

Exacerbation of existing conflicts

* Conflict exacerbated by realized or perceived unequal impacts or benefits
* Conflict arises from attribution of weatherrelated disasters to an SG program
* Conflict arises from perceived illegitimacy of SG deployment

HUMANITY AND NATURE
Earth becomes more of an artifact. Deliberately altering climate—whatever the harms or benefits—makes Earth appear more of an artifact of human political choices.

Slippery slope to enhancement. If SG becomes widely accepted, there will be temptations to use the technology to tailor climate for humanity’s benefit rather than to reduce climate changes.

* A combination of increased CO2 concentrations and SG is used to decrease pole-to-equator gradients and increase biological productivity, nudging the climate toward “equitable” climates.
------------

The issues are raised in an NAS study, "Reflecting Sunlight: Recommendations for Solar Geoengineering Research and Research Governance." It is available here:

https://www.nap.edu/download/25762

[Pattern-chaser]

All of the objections to SG cite potential (and hypothetical) risks of using the technologies. The philosophical question is, does the possibility that use of a technology may intentionally or unintentionally do harm constitute a valid argument against researching the technology? How else could we identify and quantify those risks?

Thoughts?

I think we should consider any and all possibilities for combatting the mess we've made of our planet. But we should also remain very aware of the potential harm that any such possibility might raise. Is there really any more to say than that?

[stevie]

Some climate scientists and climate activists argue that such research should not be undertaken, for several reasons, but mainly due to the "moral hazard" that promising SG technologies will undermine efforts to reduce carbon emissions.

I do not believe in successful reduction of carbon emissions, so that appears to be a silly argument.

[Sy Borg]

All of the objections to SG cite potential (and hypothetical) risks of using the technologies. The philosophical question is, does the possibility that use of a technology may intentionally or unintentionally do harm constitute a valid argument against researching the technology? How else could we identify and quantify those risks?

Thoughts?

I think we should consider any and all possibilities for combatting the mess we've made of our planet. But we should also remain very aware of the potential harm that any such possibility might raise. Is there really any more to say than that?

Agreed. Such a question is difficult enough for planetary scientists to solve, given the complexity of the Earth's interconnected systems, let alone regular people on a philosophy forum.

[LuckyR]

All of the objections to SG cite potential (and hypothetical) risks of using the technologies. The philosophical question is, does the possibility that use of a technology may intentionally or unintentionally do harm constitute a valid argument against researching the technology? How else could we identify and quantify those risks?

Thoughts?

This ban might make some sense if not using the technologies was risk-free. Alas, that is the opposite of the truth. There is no risk-free path. The options are the known risk of not using the technologies vs the possible risks of using them. Whichever is lower overall is the best choice. Obviously, opinions will differ on how the statistics shake out. Lobbyists will be well paid to advance the agendas of various wealthy stakeholders.

[Pattern-chaser]

Lobbyists will be well paid to advance the agendas of various wealthy stakeholders.

Yes, at the COP26 conference, there are 500 lobbyists registered to fossil-fuel companies. That's bigger than the delegations of any country attending the conference!

[Sculptor1]

There are no interventions that wll not also lead to some negative consequences.
I've heard about orbital reflectors.
Spiking the clouds to increase reflectivity.
ANd much more.
My view is that the only really sustainable solutions would be to NOT rely on super high tech solutions but to limit human impact by reducing populations and replacing natural envionments that have led to GW, deforestation, reduction in coral and other sealife and making do with resources that can be replaced and recycled.

[Sculptor1]

Lobbyists will be well paid to advance the agendas of various wealthy stakeholders.

Yes, at the COP26 conference, there are 500 lobbyists registered to fossil-fuel companies. That's bigger than the delegations of any country attending the conference!

COP26 is running into overtime ATM.
I allowed to think that this might be a positive thing, yet the news today is that the extra time is being used to WATER DOWN the committments.

[LuckyR]

There are no interventions that wll not also lead to some negative consequences.
I've heard about orbital reflectors.
Spiking the clouds to increase reflectivity.
ANd much more.
My view is that the only really sustainable solutions would be to NOT rely on super high tech solutions but to limit human impact by reducing populations and replacing natural envionments that have led to GW, deforestation, reduction in coral and other sealife and making do with resources that can be replaced and recycled.

Well this issue is better thought of as requiring both short term and long term strategies. Reducing populations are an effective (likely the best and most effective) long term solution. The mentioned tech fixes fall into the short term category. Thus they are not substitutes for one another.

[Sculptor1]

There are no interventions that wll not also lead to some negative consequences.
I've heard about orbital reflectors.
Spiking the clouds to increase reflectivity.
ANd much more.
My view is that the only really sustainable solutions would be to NOT rely on super high tech solutions but to limit human impact by reducing populations and replacing natural envionments that have led to GW, deforestation, reduction in coral and other sealife and making do with resources that can be replaced and recycled.

Well this issue is better thought of as requiring both short term and long term strategies. Reducing populations are an effective (likely the best and most effective) long term solution. The mentioned tech fixes fall into the short term category. Thus they are not substitutes for one another.

Population control is an all encompassing and necessary solution. BUT I do not think it will ever happen. But we can dream. I read lot of sci fi

[Sy Borg]

Lobbyists will be well paid to advance the agendas of various wealthy stakeholders.

Yes, at the COP26 conference, there are 500 lobbyists registered to fossil-fuel companies. That's bigger than the delegations of any country attending the conference!

In hindsight, all of this was inevitable.

Societies around the world progressed rapidly for many decades, using primarily fossil fuels. So fossil fuel companies naturally became some of the wealthiest, largest, most powerful and influential entities in the world. So it's inevitable that they will focus on returns to shareholders, to try to squeeze every last dollar out of their existing infrastructure.

Why would fossil fuel companies waste all their billions (trillions?) in infrastructure just to be a good global citizen? What's in it for them? After all, fossil fuel billionaires and their families and friends personally face negligible threats from climate change, being amongst the most protected people on the planet. Nothing significant will happen until it's in the interests of fossil fuel companies to change.

Again, in hindsight, all of this has been inevitable. If there are other intelligent, industrialised being living on other worlds, it would not surprise if this kind of power tussle is a standard dynamic in civilisations that attempt to progress to Kardashev Type 1 capabilities. In fact, such energy and environmental crises would be the very reason for "the great filter" - the Fermi paradox explanation positing that that civilisations will tend to destroy themselves.

[GE Morton]

Why would fossil fuel companies waste all their billions (trillions?) in infrastructure just to be a good global citizen?

They are not global citizens (whatever that means). They consider their obligations to be to their stockholders, employees, and customers, not to an abstraction.

[Sy Borg]

Why would fossil fuel companies waste all their billions (trillions?) in infrastructure just to be a good global citizen?

They are not global citizens (whatever that means). They consider their obligations to be to their stockholders, employees, and customers, not to an abstraction.

An abstraction like the utter destruction of climate change and the trillions it costs other sectors of society and the destruction of habitats through warming, fires and floods?

Mere trivia when compared with the profits of fossil fuel billionaires!

[Bradskii]

I don't know if you can see it where you are reading this, but there's this fusion reactor we've got that's pouring more free energy onto anyone who needs it than they'll actually know what to do with. If it can be converted into a useable form.

So hands up who thinks that we should spend all that money we saved up for a rainy day (or sunny day if we're going to be accurate) in increasing the efficiency of the systems that we have already and developing new ones...OK. Hands down

Now hands up who think we should direct all that money into working out ways to prevent some of that free energy from reaching us in the first place...and hands down.

The first option wins.

[Tegularius]

As I see it, there are overtly two major concerns regarding climate change. The first is obvious in that it's continuously changing for the worse. The second part is what technologies will be employed to arrest its descent into eventual chaos. The more complicated its implementation, the more things can go wrong. Since true testing is not available or very limited, its success will depend mostly on theories. If those turn out to be wrong or even partially wrong prior to its execution, what damage may ensue will be piled on what the experiment was designed to prevent. We cannot be sure of any technological solution, since such can only be experimental across the entire planet. It seems we have arrived at the point where we're forced into a type of Russian roulette strategy with the environment.