How Not to Understand Something

Three approaches to trying to understand the benefits and risks of geoengineering:

1.???? science-based, carefully controlled experiments using natural materials

2.???? banning research based on ignorance and anti-science conspiracy theorizing

3.???? uncontrolled release of chemicals by unaccountable private actors

Which do you choose?

With global warming accelerating, there is an increasingly valid argument that in addition to the necessity of reducing (to zero) emissions of carbon dioxide, some sort of mitigation of the effects of high concentrations of carbon in the atmosphere will be needed.

Some approaches to the problem involve removing the carbon from the atmosphere and sequestering it in some way. This is technically and economically challenging, and looks to be a very slow response to the enormous concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, but does not seem likely to have any unintended consequences.

Another set of approaches involve tinkering with the atmospheric system to block some of the solar radiation entering the earth's atmosphere, thus reducing the warming of the planet. Such 'geoengineering' is scientifically controversial, and could have massive, even catastrophic side effects.

However, little is actually known about the reaction of the atmospheric system to intervention, and scientific organizations have advocated limited and carefully controlled experiments. This led to approach 1) above, an example of which was a study initiated by the University of Washington, which was funded in part by Bill Gates and other private organizations. The project built on deep expertise from printing research to determine how to disperse a fine aerosol. The system was deployed on a decommissioned Navy vessel in the San Francisco Bay, and proceeded to run tests using saltwater. The city where the ship was docked – Alameda – commissioned studies that concluded there were no environmental, health, safety, or other risks to the experiments. Nevertheless, there were objections raised that cited vague risks to the atmospheric system, and the city council cancelled the study.

Alameda, close to Berkeley and across the bay from San Francisco, can be described as pro-environment and liberal. But, it turns out that this is an example of a ‘horseshoe’ issue, where the extreme left and right wings meet. Eight Republican-led state legislatures have introduced bills banning geoengineering, and one – Tennessee – passed the legislation, which was signed by Republican Governor Bill Lee. No scientific evidence was presented in the Tennessee legislature, nor were any studies conducted or referenced. The conspiracy-theorist-in-chief, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., has connected geoengineering research to his chemtrail fantasy. See approach 2) above.

Several environmental groups have actively opposed geoengineering research, but not all have done so. Fred Krupp, president of the Environmental Defense Fund, has said: “As pressure grows to geoengineer the planet, we damn well better have the science to understand as well as we can what the benefits might be and what the downsides might be, before decisions are made.” But the controversy over the idea that careful scientific experimentation should be carried out so that we can learn about potential options and their risks has occurred in – and is contributing to – a vacuum in regulation and a lack of acceptable standards. And we know what happens when there is a vacuum.

Enter approach 3). A startup has formed to sell ‘cooling credits’ online to customers who want to offset their personal carbon emissions. When they sell enough credits, they drive into the hills above Silicon Valley in an RV, fill balloons with sulfur dioxide (the chemical that produces acid rain) and helium, and release them with no controls or permissions. It’s like ‘Breaking Bad pilot meets geoengineering’ (except Walter White knew his chemistry). They have read some papers and posted a calculation (which could fit on the back of a large napkin), which they use to determine how much of the gas to pump into their balloon. Helpfully, at the end of the page with their calculations, they write “As with all our work here, please let us know if you think we've made a mistake and we'll correct!” Of course, it’s not clear how they would “correct” the releases they have already made if they turned out to be wrong.

Treating geoengineering like a new app on which you can do A/B testing is not exactly encouraging, but this is where we are: careful science, introduced gradually with public consent and peer review gets shut down by the loudest voices, truthers induce legislatures to ban scientific research, all while a private entity plays with the environment.

?