A Charles Sturt University (CSU) expert in the public ethics surrounding climate change is concerned that governments worldwide will use geoengineering as a ‘cheap option’ for addressing global climate change.
Professor Clive Hamilton, with the University’s Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics, said geoengineering is already being investigated around the world.
“Scientists and engineers are currently investigating methods to manipulate the Earth's cloud cover, change the oceans' chemical composition and blanket the planet with a layer of sunlight-reflecting particles,” Professor Hamilton said, noting that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is due to report on geoengineering for the first time in September 2013.
“We often hear ‘whatever we may eventually decide about deploying these climate engineering schemes, we should at least do the research so that we can be prepared. After all, more information is always a good thing’.
“But is it? While most of those engaged in geoengineering research are motivated by a desire to protect the Earth and its inhabitants, the political context in which the emerging research program is occurring makes even the most ethical research potentially dangerous.”
Professor Hamilton noted that within the scientific community it was virtually taboo to talk about geoengineering until 2006, when an article by Nobel prize-winning atmospheric chemist Paul Crutzen opened the floodgates. “The critics feared that by merely researching ‘Plan B’, that is, geoengineering, governments would be let off the hook of doing something about climate change.
“The risk of ‘moral hazard’ remains high. Even if an extensive research program proves that geoengineering is an inferior substitute to cutting carbon emissions, the availability of the option may result in its implementation regardless. Modern politics is replete with examples of poor policies made to appear desirable, or at least necessary, by the clever use of ‘spin’,” he said.
“I note that already people close to the fossil fuel industry have begun to talk of geoengineering as a substitute for carbon emission abatement. They are being backed by some economists, who readily conclude that geoengineering should be pursued as ‘Plan A’ if that’s what their ’cost curves’ indicate.
“As the consequences of a warming globe become more apparent over coming decades, a readily available, seemingly effective alternative to emission-cutting could determine the kind of action taken. Politicians will be tempted to seize upon any apparently plausible method that will get them ‘off the hook’.
Social
Explore the world of social