The storm seemed to come out of nowhere. It blanketed Beijing’s rooftops with snow and paralysed traffic on a dozen motorways. The city is suffering from a decade-long drought and has not seen this much precipitation in months. This is by no means normal.
In fact, that February 2009 storm was the result of an amazing confluence of cold air, cloudy skies and 313 rods of silver iodide fired into the atmosphere by meteorological engineers who wanted to create some meteorological changes out of thin air. Their success in manipulating the weather highlights a growing risk that has yet to be discussed with the international seriousness it deserves. What would happen if someone in our warming world decided to manipulate the climate?
A recent RAND Corporation analysis found that technologies capable of blocking the sun’s rays or sucking large amounts of carbon out of the air are not out of reach. They could have world-changing consequences that make Beijing’s blizzard seem mild by comparison. Yet the international community has yet to reach any real consensus on the fundamental questions of when, how or by whom such technologies will be used.
“Some of these technologies have become almost taboo,” says Emmi Yonekura, a physical scientist at the RAND Corporation who helped lead the study. “But if we don’t combine action with climate change mitigation, there could be real pressure to turn to them in the future. We want to make sure we can do this safely and with some understanding from the international community.”
Lyndon Johnson received his first presidential briefing on climate change in 1965. At the time, geoengineering – the intentional manipulation of the climate – was seen as one of the only possible solutions. Since then, options have ranged from the whimsical (throwing billions of white balls into the ocean to soak up sunlight) to the daunting (unfurling a giant reflective web between the Earth and the sun). A scientific journal admits that these ideas may sound “wacky and disturbing”, but they could give us an emergency brake if we fail to stop global warming.
Yonekura worked with Michelle Grisé, a researcher at the RAND Corporation and an expert in international law, to research the current state of geoengineering, where it is going, and what the international community should be prepared for. They found that geoengineering technology is evolving rapidly. What is lagging behind is policy.
Their analyses focus on two main directions of ongoing research.
One way to remove carbon pollution from the air. This could involve large filters and underground pumps, or it could mean seeding the oceans with phytoplankton and planting new forests to absorb the carbon. It would be expensive. It would be slow. But it would directly target the problem, slowing or even reversing the accumulation of atmospheric carbon that contributes to global warming.
Another option would be to try to block some of the sun’s energy – not with giant space nets, but with tiny particles suspended in the stratosphere or sprinkled on clouds so that they reflect more light. This method is quick and relatively cheap – but carbon will continue to build up in the atmosphere. If we let these sunlight-blocking particles dissipate, their impact on the climate could be equivalent to opening a shaken bottle of carbonated water.
“If two countries have different interests, you find that can lead to conflict,” says Griese. “What we found is that there’s really no roadmap on how to deal with the issues that may arise as these technologies mature.”
It only takes one country – watching crops wither or water sources dry up – to decide to seize the opportunity to launch a global climate experiment.
It only takes one country – watching crops wither or water sources dry up – to decide to seize the opportunity to launch a global climate experiment. The impacts could quickly spiral out of control. In 1991, for example, the eruption of Mount Pinatubo ejected large amounts of gas and dust particles into the upper atmosphere. These particles lowered global temperatures by about half a degree Celsius, proving that it could be done. But this then altered the rapids, causing Northern Europe to experience unusually warm winters and the Middle East to freeze over.
Even carbon removal technologies, often seen as necessary to avoid the worst outcomes of climate change, have drawbacks that could pit one country against another. Researchers have found that these technologies can damage ecosystems, and some require large amounts of water and energy. Even the planting of a new forest can deplete water resources and increase agricultural runoff – burdens that fall mainly on less developed countries that would otherwise have enough space to plant new forests.
Yet the international community has yet to build the kind of guardrails you’d expect for potentially world-changing technologies. That’s at least partly because it wants to focus on the only sure way to a carbon-free future – and that’s reducing carbon emissions. Anything else is just a temporary painkiller, says one expert. It may make us feel better, but it doesn’t solve the problem.
There are no international agreements or enforcement mechanisms that directly address geoengineering. This is a blind spot that the international community should now address
As a result, there is no single regulatory body that oversees geoengineering on a global scale. Instead, there are laws and treaties that cover different areas but can provide some guidance on regulating geoengineering. For example, the Law of the Sea can prevent ocean modification, such as dropping a billion white balls, and a 1976 treaty prohibits the use of weather modification (e.g., creating blizzards) as a weapon. However, there are no international agreements or enforcement mechanisms that directly address geoengineering.
This is a blind spot that the international community should address now, the researchers write, because the potential risks remain theoretical. World leaders should establish international agreements on geoengineering with provisions to ensure that the technology is well researched, properly regulated and adequately supported before it is used. They also need to establish clear sanctions if any country does not follow the rules.
“We need to think very carefully about how we address this through international law and really make it work,” Grise said. “How do we attribute harm? How do we build consensus when these technologies can have very different impacts on different communities? How do we integrate potentially disadvantaged communities and make sure their voices are heard?”
The U.S. National Intelligence Council warned last year that the lack of any international dialogue on geoengineering increases the risk that a country – or even an organisation – will try to go it alone in a way that could spark conflict. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has also urged the U.S. to co-operate with other countries on geoengineering research. The Royal Society added that it would be “highly undesirable” if these technologies matured without international oversight.
The fact that they might work means that the pressure to use them will almost certainly keep rising as global temperatures rise. This puts an exclamation mark on the need to take the right measures now. Since Lyndon Johnson was first briefed by the President on climate change, every decade has been warmer than the last.