Geoengineering: Can Intervention in the Climate System Really Reduce Climate Risk? The challenges of minimizing climate change have lead many experts to think of solutions outside the box where conservation efforts are not enough. 'Climate intervention' is one such category that eludes the mindset of the general public and mass media. 'Geoengineering: can intervention in the climate system really reduce climate risk?' is a presentation by Dr. Ken Caldeira that explores the advantages and disadvantages of applying climate intervention to the current climate problem. Written by: Anonymous Date: May 31, 2010 Dr. Caldeira was invited by the Institute for Sustainable Energy, Environment and Economy (www.iseee.ca) of the University of Calgary. His research at the Carnegie Department of Global Ecology (http://dge.stanford.edu) at Stanford University investigates scientific solutions to sustainability and the environment. The correlation between his and the ISEEE's objective in "developing cost-effective solutions to the environmental challenges of energy production and use" brought Dr. Caldeira to Calgary to speak about his developing research. Although Dr. Caldeira makes a strong case in favour of climate intervention, primarily using stratospheric aerosols, a significant part of his presentation details the ecological consequences of these technologies. An entire segment of the presentation is dedicated to unanticipated outcomes - namely, how ecosystems respond to artificial contaminants in the atmosphere. As fallout enters the atmosphere, there are questions of how it will affect our ecosystems. For example, as excess carbon dioxide ends up in the ocean, it mixes with water to form carbonic acid and can corrode the coral reefs and harm marine organisms. Emissions reduction is not an effective way to cause the earth to start cooling - it can only slow the rate at which the earth is warming. Dr. Caldeira asserts that "there is no practical way to reduce emissions (in this century)... other than direct intervention in the climate system." It is an interesting statement, namely because there is a widespread belief that climate change can be offset by local conservation efforts. However, it will not evade intolerable climate conditions in the future. The alternative solution to offset climate change is to introduce stratospheric aerosols in the stratosphere. This kind of intervention "can affect most climate change most of the time." A unified distribution of aerosols can reduce CO2 emissions by up to 90%. Other technological alternatives, such as satellite reflectors, artificial cloud albedo, and artificial surface albedo are either too expensive or too impractical to implement. Dr. Caldeira makes a case for stratospheric aerosols by citing a natural example of them at work. In 1991, the Mount Pinatubo volcanic eruption sent huge amounts of aerosols to the stratosphere, forming a layer of sulphuric acid haze. Global average temperatures dropped (by half a degree Celsius) and there was a significant reduction in the amount of sunlight reaching the earth's surface. Had the layer of haze been maintained, it would have been more than enough to "offset global warming... for the rest of the century." The downside of this is that the sulphuric haze would have to be maintained for as long as the cooling effect occurs. However, the direct costs would be minimal when compared to other options of adapting or dealing with climate change. Practical Considerations One of the costs of employing stratospheric aerosols is the idea that once people get on board with it and accept it as an easy 'technological fix' to climate change, they will relax emissions reduction efforts and end up emitting more greenhouse gases, making it necessary to increase the amount of aerosols in the atmosphere. There was a study that asked participants how much they would reduce emissions reduction after being told of various technologies that could essentially 'do it for them', and the results coincided with Caldeira's presumptions. Ethical Considerations There is a major ethical question that arises if we are able to control parts of the climate system - namely, the question of governing these technologies. Dr. Caldeira uses the example of being able to steer Hurricane Katrina from New Orleans and into rural Mississippi. Although the overall damage is lessened, there is still the 'intent' to damage parts of Mississippi, leading to lawsuits and criminal charges. Dr. Caldeira refrains from making personal judgements on such situations, instead referring the audience to question the social ramifications of controlling climate change. Dr. Caldeira leaves his speech on the note that more research money should be invested in pursuing alternative methods to reduce climate risk. The total amount invested thus far amounts to couple million dollars, with more money being invested in a Discovery Channel show dedicated to the same research topic than the actual research itself. Direct climate intervention, although in serious need of considerable research and investment, is still a rather small part in the bigger picture of energy conservation efforts. Key ideas lie with developing more efficient carbon energy systems, using industrial techniques to remove CO2 from the atmosphere, and adapting to climate change. Caldeira reiterates that our increased demands for well being leads to increased energy and emissions, which then harms our well-being. There are many intervention points, however. Conservation can reduce our levels of consumption without directly harming our well-being. The other intervention point is efficiency - how to increase output of goods and services using the same or smaller amounts of energy. Regardless of how we choose to intervene in the climate change system, there are many potential risks that we have to look at in order to make the most appropriate and educated decision.