Over the last century, humanity has rapidly developed technology and the world economy. It is not a secret that the comfort of modern man has its price. One of the advanced technologies is AI. Artificial intelligence appeared quite recently and, despite its advantages and possible applications, it is quite obvious that this is an imperfect technology that must be used very carefully. Like artificial intelligence, geoengineering is also a relatively new and completely unexplored technology. Particular attention is given to geoengineering in the book This Changes Everything Capitalism vs The Climate by Naomi Klein. The author argues that the current rapid climate change is provoked by capitalism as the dominant form of socio-economic relations between people. Being a social and environmental activist, Klein shows that humanity has all the reasons for fearing cardinal climate change in the near future. At the same time, the author points out that geoengineering, being a little-known technology, cannot yet be used to prevent global warming. Geoengineering, being underdeveloped technology, can be harmful to the environment, therefore, in order to prevent global climate change, it is necessary to refrain from using such powerful and poorly understood technology in favor of more acceptable options.
Geoengineering is an unpredictable and underdeveloped technology. Unfortunately, mankind continues to show its infantilism and continue to believe in the power of its own technologies and hope for a simple solution to complex problems. So the very problem is global warming, emerged from the short-sighted and rash use of technology. Mankind has begun to burn fossil fuels and pollute the atmosphere without considering possible consequences. This led to global climate change. So Brad Plumer argues that reducing carbon dioxide emissions at this stage will not help and the temperature will rise by 1.5 ° C per decade even with a significant restriction on the use of fossil fuels. Therefore, it is necessary to resort to more radical measures such as geoengineering (Plumer, 2015). This is a typical example of how problems arising from the use of one imperfect technology are being tried with another imperfect but already more extensive technology. As Naomi Klein noted, “geoengineering has always had a distinctly retro quality, not quite steampunk, but it definitely harkens back to more confident times, when taking control over the weather seemed like the next exciting frontier of scientific innovation—not a last-ditch attempt to save ourselves from incineration” (Klein, 2014, p. 222). Thus, instead of admitting mistakes and imperfections of our own technologies, humanity is trying to solve the problems of climate change through even more risky and unpredictable methods. “Nuclear power and geoengineering are not solutions to the ecological crisis; they are a doubling down on exactly the kind of reckless, short-term thinking that got us into this mess. Just as we spewed greenhouse gases into the atmosphere thinking that tomorrow would never come, both of these hugely high-risk technologies would create even more dangerous forms of waste, and neither has a discernible exit strategy” (Klein, p. 56). Given the catastrophic situation with climate change on the planet Earth, geoengineering, despite possible negative consequences, can become a saving tool. However, while this technology is not fully understood and the long-term consequences of its use are unknown, geoengineering should not be used. Such caution is necessary because such an imperfect technology is capable of damaging the environment.
Geoengineering can be dangerous to the environment and cause significant damage. Geoengineering is a general concept that includes several completely different technologies that were created to prevent global climate change. In addition to all sorts of technologies that should somehow limit the amount of solar energy entering the Earth’s atmosphere and heating it, there is a technology for “fertilizing” the oceans. This technology involves adding to the oceans, chemical fertilizers, which would contribute to the growth of plankton biomass. Plankton in large quantities would help select carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and keep it in the waters of the oceans. Rhian Waller in his article “Iron Fertilization: Savior to Climate Change or Ocean Dumping?” noted that in 2012 a group of scientists sponsored by entrepreneur Russ George independently conducted such an experiment by dropping 200 thousand pounds of iron sulphate into the waters of the North Pacific Ocean. The actions of scientists were severely criticized because they acted without international consent and did not worry about the negative consequences of their experiment. “Far from being a savior, this experiment is being called a large scale dumping of waste into our oceans” (Waller, 2012). Such experiments show human arrogance and confidence that experiments can be conducted with the environment without considering possible consequences. Sallie Chisholm, who investigates marine microorganisms at MIT, commented on such actions, “Proponents of research on geoengineering simply keep ignoring the fact that the biosphere is a player (not just a responder) in whatever we do, and its trajectory cannot be predicted. It is a living breathing collection of organisms (mostly microorganisms) that are evolving every second—a ‘self-organizing, complex, adaptive system” (Klein, 2014, p. 231). Proponents of the use of geoengineering may argue that ocean fertilizer can work and help reduce the carbon dioxide level in the atmosphere. Nevertheless, such an experiment should not have been conducted since the possible negative consequences outweigh the possible positive ones. Mankind cannot conduct an experiment with the environment using risky technologies and hope for a positive outcome of unpredictable actions. There are many other ways to influence the Earth’s climate change without exposing the environment to additional risk.
Global climate change remains one of the most important problems faced by mankind, but in addition to geoengineering, there are many other ways to solve environmental problems. Geoengineering is a set of radical, underdeveloped technologies with a high level of risk of causing additional environmental damage. Surprising is the fact that the popularization and promotion of these technologies are companies that are not interested in reducing the use of fossil fuels, but in creating conditions in which the use of this fuel would be possible for the longest possible time. Thus, fossil fuel and automotive companies are actively promoting climate management ideas only to avoid the possibility of introducing stringent restrictions on the volume of carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere. Naomi Klein asks the same question, “if the danger of climate change is sufficiently grave and imminent for governments to be considering science-fiction solutions, isn’t it also grave and imminent enough for them to consider just plain science-based solutions?” (Klein, 2014 p. 243). Thus, geoengineering is the last chance to save the fragile ecosystem of our planet with the help of radical, large-scale manipulations with the environment. At the same time, the most obvious methods to influence global warming are declared belated and ineffective. The reduction of carbon dioxide emissions to the atmosphere of our planet is declared ineffective by many scientists and politicians, although no real restrictions have ever been imposed. The fact is that the entire world capitalist economy is based on the use of fossil fuels. As David Biello remarked, “Oil is the lubricant of the global economy” (Biello, 2007). As a journalist of Scientific America, Biello writes an article on the environment and in the next publication “10 Solutions for Climate Change” gives a list of obvious solutions to global warming. The author’s proposals include the refusal to use fossil fuels, the improvement of construction technologies, the use of alternative energy sources, and the more efficient use of electricity by people (Biello, 2007). Such obvious solutions turned out to be the least realistic, as mankind is more likely to look for ways to prevent global warming, but at the same time try to preserve the current way of life. That is why the suggestions of David Biello and other similar scientists are not taken seriously. People are ready to take risky experiments to manage the ecology of an entire planet if only they can leave the opportunity to move around on their personal car and consume the goods to which they are so accustomed. Climate change did not happen quickly; this is the result of a century-long unthinking human activity, the consequences that have only just begun to manifest. Nevertheless, to solve such a long-term problem, mankind is going to use geoengineering technologies that promise a quick result. Instead of using risky methods of geoengineering, it is worthwhile to look at the obvious but long-term methods of combating global warming, such as the gradual refusal to use fossil fuels. In addition, geoengineering projects can cost a lot of money.
In addition to the fact that geoengineering technologies are very large-scale and global, they can also require large material and social resources to make them real. Alan Robock in his work “Benefits, risks, and costs of stratospheric geoengineering” suggests spraying in the stratosphere of sulfate aerosol precursors. These aerosols should prevent some of the sun’s rays from entering the atmosphere and thus stop its further heating. The author gives several possible ways of spraying aerosols in the stratosphere and they are all theoretically very expensive. The cheapest way is spraying aerosols from aircraft. However, even this method will require billions of dollars annually. Also, despite very high costs, the possible positive effects are much inferior to possible negative consequences for the environment (Robock, 2009). Nevertheless, there are many people who support the idea of using geoengineering technologies as this will preserve the current capitalist model of the world economy. Instead of investing huge amounts of money in dubious geoengineering technologies, these funds could be spent on building renewable energy and thus reducing carbon dioxide emissions. “Renewables are, in fact, much more reliable than power based on extraction, since those energy models require continuous new inputs to avoid a crash, whereas once the initial investment has been made in renewable energy infrastructure, nature provides the raw materials for free” (Klein, 2014, p. 361). Perhaps some geoengineering technologies, despite the high cost, could provide an effective solution to the problem of global warming. However, on the other hand, these same funds can be directed toward renewable energy, which is guaranteed to help in the fight against global warming. Thus, instead of spending huge amounts of money on technologies that are likely to help, and most likely only harm the environment, it is necessary to develop renewable energy and reduce the use of fossil fuels.
The use of geoengineering technologies should be limited by law. The fact is that experiments on climate change can lead to negative consequences for countries that did not participate in the application of geoengineering technologies. Sarah Fetch gives an example of how the uncontrolled use of such technologies can affect political stability, “Another very concerning scenario would be if one country launched airplanes or other devices to spray aerosols into the atmosphere, and another country thought that this would harm them—if there are no applicable laws to resolve the dispute, we have the makings of a military conflict” (Fetch, 2018). At the moment, there is a unique situation in which there are many organizations interested in conducting experimental application of geoengineering technologies. Fortunately, in many countries, there are already legislative provisions regulating all activities related to the environment. On the other hand, there are many territories where such legal norms do not apply and can become a testing ground for geotechnics. However, unlike legislative norms, pollution of the environment does not recognize state borders and the harm done at one point of the globe can affect the ecology of the whole planet. The consequence of this legal vacuum is the situation with a group of scientists, funded by Russ George who dumped hundreds of tons of iron sulphate into the North Atlantic without any consequences for themselves (Waller, 2012). This secret experiment was recognized by many scientists as another meaningless pollution of the ocean. In order that such situations do not recur, it is necessary to create certain legal restrictions for the use of geoengineering that would apply to all countries. Although this seems very problematic since it is extremely unlikely that all countries of the world will support such an international initiative, nevertheless it needs to be done as ill-considered experiments with the climate that will eventually affect all the inhabitants of the planet.
Geoengineering is a set of poorly understood technologies at this stage that can provide a quick solution to the problem of global warming, but also carry a great danger to the environment. Therefore, geoengineering should be considerably limited by legislation, and the funds that were earmarked for such projects are redirected to the development of renewable energy. It is worth noting that the ultimate goal is to combat global warming and geoengineering can be useful but should be used with extreme caution. There are many adherents of this technology ready to take risks, but ill-considered interference in the complex ecosystem of the planet can have catastrophic consequences. Therefore, instead of mindlessly using large-scale and potentially dangerous technologies in order to eliminate the consequences of the mindless use of technology by previous generations, it is worthwhile to think about what everyone can do to preserve the environment. If each person consumes less, wastes less and drives less, environmental problems can be solved without using dangerous geoengineering technologies.
Work Cited
Biello, David. “10 Solutions for Climate Change”. Scientific American. Nov 26, 2007.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/10-solutions-for-climate-change/
Fecht, Sarah. “We Need Laws on Geoengineering, ASAP”. Columbia University. March 20, 2018.
http://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2018/03/20/geoengineering-climate-law-book/
Klein, Naomi. This Changes Everything Capitalism vs The Climate. ALFRED A. KNOPF CANADA, 2014.
Plumer, Brad. “Geoengineering is a ludicrous way to deal with climate change. Let’s consider it anyway”. VOX. Feb 12, 2015.
https://www.vox.com/2015/2/12/8020533/geoengineering-climate-change
Robock, Alan. “Benefits, risks, and costs of stratospheric geoengineering”. AGU100. Oct 2, 2009.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2009GL039209
Waller, Rhian. “Iron Fertilization: Savior to Climate Change or Ocean Dumping?”. National Geographic. Oct 18, 2012.
https://blog.nationalgeographic.org/2012/10/18/iron-fertilization-savior-to-climate-change-or-ocean-dumping/