Is geo-engineering a Possible Solution to Climate Change?

Is Geo-Engineering a Possible Solution to Climate Change?

I attended multiple sessions on geo-engineering this past week and yes, I think at this point, geo-engineering is going to have to be implemented, at least on some scale, as just one of the many solutions, in hopes of mitigating and tackling climate change going forward. That being said, I do not believe that any of the geo-engineering options available to us, at this current moment, are good solutions, as they have not been made feasible yet. Some are closer than others, but even then, are far too costly to implement and also, no where near carbon negative, in the process. Of all of the possible geo-engineering strategies, the three that I learned most about, in the past week, were Solar Radiation Modification Technologies (SRM), Large Scale Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR), and opportunities for Enhanced Weathering. Many of the talks I attended focused on the financial and technological implementation arms in relation to  countries’ respective NDC’s (Nationally Determined Contributions), and in getting in line with pre-industrial carbon levels, both because those were my biggest areas of interest at the convention, as well as because there can not be technology, without finance.

The first day I was at the convention, Monday, December 10th, I went to an informal session on Section 8b, of what is now the Katowice Climate Protocol. In this informal section, along with the plenary high level negotiations I was able to attend on December 11th, I heard much of the same things, in regards to geo-engineering. Similar to what Dean Husic mentioned in her blog on geo-engineering, the scientists have now convinced the respective countries of the conference, as well as myself, that becoming carbon neutral is no longer good enough on its own. If you look at the IPCC 1.5 report, we know that a 1.5 degree celsius increase from pre-industrial levels is rapidly approaching, and will show devastating evidence of climate change, much more severe than the examples we already see happening around the world today. Previously, it was thought that two degrees was a good parameter, but the new evidence presented at COP 24, and in the IPCC 1.5 report, indicates that that may be too generous of a limit. The greatest problem with the equation is that we are already at 1.1 degrees warming, and on track to rise much greater than 2 degrees, much faster than previously projected. On top of that already difficult statement, carbon dioxide has a half life of 27 years and a residence life of 20-200 years in the atmosphere, making it one of the longest lasting greenhouse gases. What this means, is that even if the planet went carbon neutral yesterday, all of the existing carbon emitted on that last day, say it was yesterday, would take another 200 years to be naturally expunged through the environment. If that were the case, the planet would surely rise more than two degrees, having devastating results on all ecosystems. While the reality is grim, it is the reality. Rather than panicking, we have to work with what we’ve got and do the best we can to fix it. From COP24, through the experts that lead the panels, and the scientists on the forefront of this research, I learned that geo-engineering is needed to be implemented, in some way, here in the near future, if the planet has any hopes of combating climate change. But again, as mentioned previously, none of the technologies are ready, nor are they implementable on any type of scale, due to financing, regulations, the technologies not quite actually existing, and a whole host of other reasons.

The first type of geo-engineering I will talk about, the scientist insisted was not actually geo-engineering. In fact, the scientist leading the panel, Dr. David Beerling, got into a decently heated argument, via a question from the audience whether, in fact, Enhanced Weathering is considered geo-engineering or not. The doctor insisted that it was simply fertilizing the soil. For those of you who do not know what geo-engineering is, it is the deliberate, large scale, manipulation of an environment, in an attempt to affect the earth's climate, and in doing so, it will counteract the negative effects of global warming. Enhanced weathering is carbon dioxide removal through bicarbonate storage and then ultimately underwater deposition. Enhanced weathering is done first by applying silicate rocks to croplands, and in doing so, it will be able to harness natural climate reactions that have been occurring naturally in the environment for the past hundreds of millions of years. This is a semi sort of natural carbon sequestration on a very large scale, and it does have some very possible real benefits. Such benefits can be crop protection, reversing soil acidification, replenishing soil micronutrients, reversing silica stripping, and improving soil health, just to name a few. In the United States, we silica strip 21 million tons per year, and alongside the United States, China and India also mine heavily. China, the United States, and India being the three largest carbon dioxide emitters in the world, are ironically the three countries best equipped, logistically and natural resource wise, for carbon dioxide sequestration through advanced weathering. Around the world, dispersed heavily in the three mentioned countries, as well as many others around the world, there are billions of tons of basalt piled up, as a waste product. Companies pile up basalt, in waste reserves, as they dig past it, to find other more desirable gems and metals and stones. Enhanced weathering was tested at the University of Illinois on a small crop, just a few hectares of land, and it produced a 15% higher crop yield, on the affected farmland. While this is very significant, as one third of global cropland is at risk and severely damaged, and a 15% increase in crop yield could mean billions of dollars more, even on small farms, the research was not proven and required more testing, as to how much was sequestered into the ocean. What was said, however, was that this method had a large potential for nitrogen capture, as well. The one thing that I really wanted to ask the panelists, but did not have a chance, due to time, was how they predicted that the increased absorption of carbon dioxide into the sea would affect marine ecosystems in the oceans and consequently, the entire atmosphere, much later down the chain of events.

The next form of geo-engineering that I had a lot of interest in, was Solar Radiation Modification or Management (SRM). SRM technologies have two main principles, namely, reflecting more sunlight back into space and allowing more infrared radiation from Earth to escape, both in order to reduce Earth’s temperature. There are many SRM technologies and they all vary greatly, some of them being stratospheric aerosol injection, marine cloud brightening, cirrus thinning, and surface albedo modifications. No single SRM technology is yet ready for deployment. SRM technologies, like all geo-engineering and CDR technologies, could not be a substitute for reducing emissions, or for removing atmospheric carbon dioxide; all of these actions need to be performed in conjunction, if our planet has any hopes of surviving. The IPCC Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5 degrees celsius notes that, “SRM measures are not included in any of the available assessed pathways. Although some SRM measure may be theoretically effective in reducing an overshoot, they face large uncertainties and knowledge gaps as well as substantial risks, institutional and social constraints to deployment related to governance, ethics, and impacts on sustainable development. They also do not mitigate ocean acidification.” In large part, there is not enough information out, to weigh the pros and cons of SRM technologies. Nonetheless, testing is still going to be moving forward and outdoor experiments of certain methods are likely to begin soon; therefore, governance of these technologies will be extremely important going forward.

Last, but not least, is Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR). Large scale CDR can also be know as Negative Emissions or Carbon Drawdown, and CDR aims to remove carbon dioxide directly from the atmosphere, to be stored underground or beneath the ocean floor. If able to be deployed on a planetary scale, CDR could help to prevent ocean acidification and also slow the rate of global warming. But, again, like mentioned in the paragraph above with SRM technologies, CDR technologies are not to be and can not be a substitute for rapidly reducing greenhouse gas emissions. There are many proposed CDR technologies currently, technologies and methods such as afforestation and deforestation, ecosystem restoration, enhancing soil carbon content, bio-energy with carbon capture and storage, enhanced weather and ocean alkalinity, direct air capture and air storage, and ocean fertilization. Becoming carbon neutral, or getting as close to it, as quickly as possible, is one of the most important things we can do as a planet. I say this because the new nature and urgency of CDR that is now being considered, can at times, put a strain on its effective governance and it is noticeable that some groups are operating with a moral hazard and using the increased focus on CDR technologies to detract from reducing emissions, in the first place. Implementing CDR technologies, on the large scale required, could require extensive amounts of land, energy, and/or water, and possibly interfere with food production, manufacturing, or other activities. Moreover, some of the technologies could result in negative side effects from biodiversity, air, ground, water, and soil quality, and all types of others things, some that we have not even thought of yet. Following the same theme as Enhanced Weathering and SRM technologies, all CDR technologies are not yet ready for implementation. In many cases, there simply is not enough known about them, there is not enough real data on their negatives and their positives; therefore, scientists are not able to properly gauge which will be best going forward in combating climate change. Most importantly, these technologies cost a lot, both to research, and then to implement, on such a large scale, when the technologies become ready.

The provision of the Katowice Climate Protocol, in which countries pledge to increase funding is a great start towards trying to not warm the planet too much; I just hope that a lot of this funding goes towards geo-engineering research. If not, I hope that through education, countries start to realize that we have past the precipice. A lot of damage has been done to our planet and becoming carbon neutral is no longer enough. More has to be done.