Feb 15, 2009
Geoengineering argument deconstructed
Alex Steffan:
What is more, the proper deployment of geoengineering megaprojects would have to be executed through precisely such the kind of international political process of which the megaproject crowd despair, and be subject to just as many delays and constraints as any other international negotiation. Unilateral mega-scale geoengineering on the part of any one nation (much less any one corporation) is pretty much as close to an obvious cause for war as I can imagine, and, given the possible consequences, quite likely could legally qualify as a crime against humanity. There’s no short-cut through the politics here. [...]
First, in order for this point to have any validity, geoengineering mega-projects would have to work. So far, we have no proof that any of them actually would work, and numerous reasons to believe that many of them could go disastrously awry.
I’m all for reducing carbon emissions – for a number of reasons.
But we need to be thinking about what do if attempts to stop or reverse global warming fail (or if it turns out that we are wrong about the causes of global warming). Not large scale mega-engineering projects, but thinking about how to invent climate-flexible solutions. I say “climate flexible” because we don’t know specifically what types of climate change and extreme weather will occur.
Related posts (autogenerated):
I would be happy to loan you my copy of Cool It by Bjorn Lomborg if you like.
Yeah, the comments section of that article was especially good. And I also recommend Lomborg, he’s got a very distinct brainpan that’s worth sifting through, especially if you disagree with him.
[...] As for the “mainstream” sustainability movement – those situated between Al Gore and Alex Steffen on the sustainability scale, let’s say – about the most you can say is that there’s an agreement that the use of carbon should be reduced. Other than that, there’s a pretty healthy debate going on everything from food miles to geoengineering. [...]