Time for geoengineering governance?

For the third year in a row, 2016 set a record for the highest global average surface temperatures. The global mean surface temperature is now 1.1 degrees celsius above pre-industrial levels. The Paris Agreement on climate change, while a breakthrough in international cooperation, is still weak in ambition. Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere — above 400 parts per million (highest in at least the past 800,000 years) – will stay there for a long time. The impacts are likely to be severe: Rising sea levels; heat and water stress affecting health, mortality, agricultural yields and industrial output; and billions of dollars of damage to infrastructure.

The foreboding of climate catastrophe has pushed some climate scientists and engineers to conduct research on climate geoengineering, defined as the deliberate large-scale intervention in earth’s climate system, to limit adverse global warming. The case rests on two arguments: To limit climate risks, net emissions must fall to zero; and cutting emissions does not eliminate risks because of gases already in the atmosphere. 

One category of technologies — carbon dioxide removal to reduce atmospheric concentrations — includes bio-energy with carbon capture and storage, direct air capture, and ocean fertilisation (adding nutrients to stimulate marine food production to absorb CO2). The other category is solar radiation management, or solar geoengineering, to reflect sunlight and reduce the amount of infrared radiation getting trapped by greenhouse gases. Proposed technologies include brightening marine clouds, and deploying space mirrors. But the most discussed is injecting the stratosphere with reflective sulphate aerosols. 

These are not yet proven technologies. But they have been proposed for a while. Solar geoengineering was mentioned in the first report on climate change to President Lyndon Johnson in 1965, and was discussed in reports of the US National Research Council (NRC) in 1977, 1983 and 1992. In 2000, the first 3-D general circulation modeling of solar geoengineering scenarios was done by an Indian scientist, G Bala of the Indian Institute of Science, and Ken Caldeira of Stanford. The research community remained small until 2006, when Nobel Laureate Paul Crutzen called for “active scientific research” in stratospheric aerosol injection. Since then, the number of research papers has sharply risen. Assessments of the scientific literature have been published by the Royal Society (2009), IPCC (2013), NRC (2015), and in Europe in 2015.

Harvard has just launched the Solar Geoengineering Research Program (under David Keith), which is planning a field experiment in the next few months to put particles (likely, ice crystals and limestone) into the stratosphere. The China Geoengineering Program began in 2015, to analyse impacts at a regional level. Japanese scholars are assessing attitudes in the Asia-Pacific to geoengineering. The Council on Energy, Environment and Water has organised regular conferences (2011, 2012, 2014, 2016) to discuss the governance of geoengineering research and technologies.

The challenge is, indeed, governance. There are material concerns about unilateral action in an uncertain technological field. How would these technologies impact rainfall, the hydrological cycle, tropical forests, the ozone layer, or the oceans? What would happen to temperatures if the intervention were stopped after a period of deployment (the so-called “termination effect”)? Could technology be used with less benign intentions? 

There are ethical concerns too. Could geoengineering reduce incentives to take necessary action on climate mitigation? Once developed, would the temptations to deploy be too strong to resist? Should humankind hubristically interfere with nature at a planetary scale? Is it not already? Who bears responsibility for trans-border and inter-generational impacts? 

Will national governance suffice? If not, are there forums for international governance? In 2010, the Convention on Biological Diversity imposed an unenforceable moratorium on geoengineering experiments. No other international rules exist. But several forums could be relevant: Applicable to all geoengineering methods (UNFCCC; the dormant UN Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques); to specific methods (Montreal Protocol; MARPOL 73/78; UN Outer Space Treaties); to specific substances (Convention on Long Range Transboundary Air Pollution; International Maritime Organization); or to specific geographies (Antarctic Treaty System; UN Convention on the Law of the Sea). In 2017, the Carnegie Climate Geoengineering Governance Initiative was launched, to initiate dialogue and develop governance frameworks. 

What should India do? First, the Department of Science and Technology should assess ongoing research in India and elsewhere, and identify uncertainties relevant for India (impact on monsoons, for instance). Second, Indian universities and think-tanks should collaborate to develop governance templates (for laboratory research, field experiments, and large-scale deployment) and test their applicability and legitimacy. Third, India should call for all national geoengineering research programmes to voluntarily report to an international forum. Fourth, it could consider joining an international research programme, taking account of research capacities, funding mechanisms, liability rules, and intellectual property.

Leading scientists emphasise there is a difference between supporting geoengineering research and favouring deployment. But if governance arrangements did not develop, we would effectively tilt in favour of geoengineering, presenting the world with a fait accompli. Scientific research, transparency, public engagement, and the application of the precautionary principle must go hand-in-hand. An inclusive approach to understanding ethical, legal, moral, political, and technological concerns is needed. India must add its voice to the conversation.
 

The writer is CEO, Council on Energy, Environment and Water (http://ceew.in) and co-author of Climate Change: A Risk Assessment. In 2011, he co-chaired the international governance working group of the Royal Society’s Solar Radiation Management Governance Initiative. @GhoshArunabha