• woodrow wilson center
  • ecsp

New Security Beat

Subscribe:
  • rss
  • mail-to
  • Who We Are
  • Topics
    • Population
    • Environment
    • Security
    • Health
    • Development
  • Columns
    • China Environment Forum
    • Choke Point
    • Dot-Mom
    • Friday Podcasts
    • Navigating the Poles
    • Reading Radar
  • Multimedia
    • Water Stories (Podcast Series)
    • Backdraft (Podcast Series)
    • Tracking the Energy Titans (Interactive)
  • Films
    • Water, Conflict, and Peacebuilding (Animated Short)
    • Paving the Way (Ethiopia)
    • Broken Landscape (India)
    • Scaling the Mountain (Nepal)
    • Healthy People, Healthy Environment (Tanzania)
  • Publications
  • Events
  • Contact Us

NewSecurityBeat

The blog of the Wilson Center's Environmental Change and Security Program
  • Guest Contributor

    Climate Engineering is Untested and Dangerous

    August 20, 2009 By James R. Fleming

    A response to Bjørn Lomborg’s “Climate engineering: It’s cheap and effective”

    The famous mathematician John von Neumann called climate engineering a “thoroughly ‘abnormal’ industry,” arguing that large-scale interventions, including solar radiation management, were not necessarily rational undertakings and could have “rather fantastic effects” on a scale difficult to imagine. Tinkering with the Earth’s heat budget or the atmosphere’s general circulation, he said, “will merge each nation’s affairs with those of every other, more thoroughly than the threat of a nuclear or any other war may already have done”—and possibly leading to “forms of climatic warfare as yet unimagined.”

    Almost four decades later, Yale economist William Nordhaus used geoengineering scenarios in his dynamic integrated climate economy (DICE) model to calculate the balance between economic growth (or decline) and climate change, as part of a 1992 National Academy of Sciences study on the policy implications of greenhouse warming. Calling geoengineering a hypothetical technology that could “provide costless mitigation of climate change,” Nordhaus came to the controversial conclusion that geoengineering produces major benefits, whereas emissions stabilization and climate stabilization are projected to be worse than inaction. He believes that geoengineering is, at present, “the only economically competitive technology to offset global warming.”

    Bjørn Lomborg, trained in political theory and notorious for attempting “to redirect global priorities away from current environmental concerns,” downplayed climate change in his first book, The Skeptical Environmentalist. He has now changed his tone, admitting in a Globe and Mail op-ed that “global warming means more people will die from the heat”—and advocating the apparent cost-effectiveness of planetary climate engineering. In his op-ed, he presents dichotomous choices that are not mutually exclusive: Shall we plant trees? Cut emissions? Adapt? Or “focus on a technological solution to warming?”

    Isn’t it more reasonable to pursue the first three strategies simultaneously, with new energy technologies and efficiencies? As MIT atmospheric scientist Ron Prinn said, “How can you engineer a system whose behavior you don’t understand?”

    Lomborg’s article cites an un-refereed economic analysis by Eric Bickel and Lee Lane that reaches the same conclusion as Nordhaus did in 1992 by tinkering with his DICE model. Climate modeler Alan Robock calls their work “a biased economic analysis of geoengineering,” and warns that solar radiation management would cause increased damage to the stratospheric ozone layer and may in fact shut down the Indian monsoon. Any reduction in the sun’s direct radiation will cripple solar power generators and turn the blue sky milky white, even on a “clear” day. Since this type of geoengineering would also block starlight, it would mark the end of ground-based astronomy and the end of stargazing as we know it; only the brightest stars would remain visible in the night sky.

    The “tiny investment” in climate engineering Lomborg is advocating as an alternative to carbon emission reductions means the oceans would continue to acidify by absorbing carbon dioxide. I don’t have enough space to critique the plan to create a post-modern El Niño with 1,900 robotic ships in the Pacific Ocean spraying sea-water mist.

    In the 1830s the meteorologist James Espy was laughed out of Congress for proposing a $1:$2,000 cost/benefit ratio for making “artificial volcanoes” to enhance rainfall. He wanted to set fire to the Eastern deciduous forests, but he had not taken into account the indirect costs. Neither has Lomborg or his economists.

    At a recent National Academy of Science meeting on geoengineering, planetary scientist Brian Toon told the audience that we don’t have the technology to engineer the planet. I added that we don’t have the wisdom either. Global climate engineering is untested and untestable, and dangerous beyond belief.

    James Rodger Fleming, a former Wilson Center Fellow, is a historian of science and technology at Colby College and author of Fixing the Sky, soon to be released by Columbia University Press.

    Topics: climate change, climate engineering, economics, environmental security, Guest Contributor
    • http://www.blogger.com/profile/12871749575352820527 ECSP Staff

      From David G. Victor:

      I think geoengineering is untested and unknown–it is probably dangerous, but it may be less dangerous (in some extreme circumstances) than doing nothing. For more, please see the Foreign Affairs article I coauthored with M. Granger Morgan, Jay Apt, John Steinbruner, and Katharine Ricke, "The Geoengineering Option":
      http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/64829/david-g-victor-m-granger-morgan-jay-apt-john-steinbruner-and-kat/the-geoengineering-option

    • http://www.blogger.com/profile/18337694112852162181 Geoff Dabelko

      Whether one thinks geoengineering is the answer, crazy, or somewhere in the middle, there seems precious little discussion of the political appeal of Bjorn Lomborg's argument in the face of difficult political and economic decisions. As agreeing to serious mitigation steps becomes more and more problematic, won't there be those who push geoengineering as a "get out of jail free" card or a way to punt tough political decisions further down the road. Seems that those serious about addressing climate change need to be ready with reasons why to date geoengineering does not present real alternatives to making tough choices and tough choices now. Saying it is just crazy and the stuff of science fiction may be both correct and woefully insufficient. Jim Fleming's post gives us the scientific and historical basis for the former. Now we need some sustained political attention address the latter with ready counter-punches to anticipated political arguments.

    • Stacy

      First, I think we need to admit that our species is already geo-engineering the global climate. We know that a host of our activities are changing the climate in substantial ways and we repeatedly chose to continue to do so — despite knowing that millions are likely to die as a result. This fact alone should make us skeptical of "geo-engineering solutions." Are we to believe that the same political and economic institutions that continue the long march toward a warmer and more dangerous climate, if given even more power to alter a climatic system we don't entirely understand, will do so for the common good and the cheapest cost?

      Other aspects of this debate concern me, of course. It sounds very much like the miracle that nuclear power promised 60 years ago and continues to promise today. How much more renewable energy miht we now be using if we had spent the 100s of billions of dollars dedictated to nuclear power on serious energy efficiency and solar, wind, tidal power production? Probably the most important political issue (for me) is that we know there are hundreds of polices that would actually help to mitigate GGH emissions and prepare for adaptations to come — instead of doing the things we know how to do, some people want to spend billions on risky and highly uncertain geoengineering strategies.

    • Jeremy Jonas

      How might geoengineering effect global security?

    • http://www.blogger.com/profile/18337694112852162181 Geoff Dabelko

      In terms of roles for security institutions (ie how should the US military treat geoengineering in the 2010 QDR), it strikes me security institutions will want to keep track of such efforts, particularly done on the open seas, because there are such low thresholds to entry so to speak. A crazy millionaire with a big yacht can potentially take it upon himself to try to save the world by firing particulates into the atmosphere or seeing the oceans. Someone needs to keep track of such activities. Second, other countries (and at times their militaries) have demonstrated a willingness to do cloud seeding for purposes of generating rain. Security institutions would want to track such efforts and perhaps proactively integrate norms of restraint in military to military interactions.

    • http://www.colby.edu/profile/jfleming James Fleming

      You may wish to look at the work of atmospheric scientist Alan Robok, whose models show that attempts to cool the Earth by sulfate aerosols injected into the stratosphere (using military hardware) could shut down the Indian monsoon and cause drought in Africa. Thus, a well-intentioned geoengineering act could exacerbate international tensions and even lead to conflict.

      References:
      Robock, Alan. "20 Reasons Why Geoengineering May Be a Bad Idea." Bull. Atomic Scientists 64, 2 (2008): 14-18, 59.

      Robock, Alan, et al. "Regional Climate Responses to Geoengineering with Tropical and Arctic SO2 Injections. J. Geophys. Research 113 (2008): D16101.

Join the Conversation

  • RSS
  • subscribe
  • facebook
  • G+
  • twitter
  • iTunes
  • podomatic
  • youtube
Tweets by NewSecurityBeat

Trending Stories

  • unfccclogo1
  • Pop at COP: Population and Family Planning at the UN Climate Negotiations

Featured Media

Backdraft Podcast

play Backdraft
Podcasts

More »

What You're Saying

  • Shoring Up Stability New Report Addresses Climate and Fragility Risks in the Lake Chad Region
    Caius Keys: Nice job -- well done!
  • shutterstock_1700781691 Mountains and Molehills: Medical Waste in China and the U.S.
    GRAMPA: it seems that we will be the cause of our own extinction. it wont be global warming but the...
  • 49890944808_c7d6dfef74_c Why Feminism Is Good for Your Health
    Boston andMe: You are saying the world is run by a patriarchy yet all of the most powerful people and countries in...

Related Stories

No related stories.

  • woodrow
  • ecsp
  • RSS Feed
  • YouTube
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Home
  • Who We Are
  • Publications
  • Events
  • Wilson Center
  • Contact Us
  • Print Friendly Page

© Copyright 2007-2021. Environmental Change and Security Program.

Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. All rights reserved.

Developed by Vico Rock Media

Environmental Change and Security Program

Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars

Ronald Reagan Building and International Trade Center

  • One Woodrow Wilson Plaza
  • 1300 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
  • Washington, DC 20004-3027

T 202-691-4000