Anthropocenic Limitations to Climate Engineering

Jeroen Oomen

doi:10.3390/h8040186

Abstract

The development of climate engineering research has historically depended on mostly western, holistic perceptions of climate and climate change. Determinations of climate and climate change as a global system have played a defining role in the development of climate engineering. As a result, climate engineering research in general, and solar radiation management (SRM) in particular, is primarily engaged in research of quantified, whole-Earth solutions. I argue that in the potential act of solar radiation management, a view of climate change that relies on the holistic western science of the climatic system is enshrined. This view, dependent on a deliberative intentionality that seems connected to anthropocenic notions of responsibility and control, profoundly influences the assumptions and research methods connected to climate engineering. While this may not necessarily be to the detriment of climate engineering proposals—in fact, it may be the only workable conception of SRM—it is a conceptual limit to the enterprise that has to be acknowledged. Additionally, in terms of governance, reliability, and cultural acceptance, this limit could be a fundamental objection to future experimentation (or implementation).

Highlights

On 1 June 2017, the president of the United States announced that the United States would withdraw from United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change Paris Agreement
Objections to solar radiation management (SRM), on the other hand, include the unpredictability of intervening in climate systems (Hulme 2014), the potential weaponization of climate control techniques (Barkham 2015), questions about ‘whose hands would be on the thermostat’ (Nerlich and Jaspal 2012), and the politics inherent to these invasive technologies
It raises questions about the effectiveness of climate engineering technologies in lowering global surface temperatures, while marginalizing considerations of uncertainty. It brings into view model-based discussions about the effect of SRM on regional precipitation, or about the global distribution and availability of land for the use of carbon capture and its uptake potential in the form of BECCS or afforestation. Awareness of both the benefits and the limitations of this global view may be widespread among climate scientists, but this awareness soon dissipates among other audiences—especially those political communities that shape the global climate goals

Summary

Introduction

On 1 June 2017, the president of the United States announced that the United States would withdraw from United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change Paris Agreement. Global emissions tend to either rise or stabilize, showing no sign of the sharp reduction needed to achieve the set political goals (Le Quéré et al 2018) In response to this lethargy and its associated anxieties, scientists have started to look at climate engineering, the ‘deliberate large-scale manipulation of the planetary environment to counteract anthropogenic climate change’, as a possible addition to the climate change portfolio Climate engineering research in general, and solar radiation management (SRM) in particular, primarily engages with quantified, whole-Earth solutions This view, dependent on a deliberative scientific intentionality that seems connected to anthropocenic notions of responsibility and control, profoundly influences climate engineering’s assumptions and research methods. In terms of governance, reliability, and cultural acceptance, this limit could be a fundamental objection to future experimentation (or implementation)

Wizards and Prophets of Climate Engineering

The Discovery of the Global

Climate Engineering and the Global View

Climate Engineering as Entanglement

Anthropocenic Limitations to Climate Engineering