Existing means of cutting down greenhouse gases is no longer enough to tackle the effect of Global Warming. Altering our planet’s temperature is hardly new; and the human civilization has been responsible for changing the Earth’s environment for centuries, often to our detriment. Industrial activities have affected the atmosphere over 150 years threatening to raise the world’s temperature levels to disastrous levels, even if we decide to stop releasing carbon into the atmosphere. At the same time, urbanization, construction of dams and deforestation has altered wind patterns and water cycles, triggering occasional droughts or creation of barren lands.
So, what is new?
Simply that, these have worsened the effects of Global Warming. And if we do not focus on the root causes and work towards reducing its impact, it could result in an unprecedented global catastrophe.
This is where the need for Geoengineering is felt…
Geoengineering
Geoengineering deliberately manipulates the Earth’s climate to fight against the effects of global warming. It’s not a “techno fix” that will solve global warming; but it is an approach that can give us time to plan changes to our societies and economies to reduce the climate disaster. Controversial, yet this approach involves large-scale engineering projects designed to cool the Earth in case, the ongoing efforts to cut carbon dioxide emissions fail to curb global warming.
The advantage of Geoengineering is that, it can slow the increase in temperatures, change the river paths, and delay the potentially catastrophic events. No surprise that it has received higher attention in the halls of power. Today, its status has moved from being a “fringe idea” to a “focused effort”.
But will it not face stiff resistance? Yes, without a doubt. There are two parts to this issue:
a. Who will own? Who will regulate? : Implementing any of the Geoengineering technical methods could lead to tension among countries. Who decides what the ideal target temperature would be? Who makes sure if it’s being actually used? Which technologies from which countries will be deployed? Who decides the parameters to monitor its good and bad effects? What if an unfriendly-nation makes attempts here, to the displeasure of other countries? Can it be used for military or strategic purposes – how do we decide? Then, there is the issue of “passing the buck” – who takes blame if the Geoengineering efforts in one country causes drought in a cyclone season in another country? Would this even be relevant to think that, the drought had nothing to do with the ongoing efforts? It’s quite a set of tricky questions of liability.
b. Any unforeseen side effects? Many scientists think that there is no coordinated effort yet to assess the potential risks of the approaches proposed. This could lead to severe side effects, which is why little money has been spent today on this research. Some have even ruled out Geoengineering efforts entirely. Only time and extensive research will tell if such a measure intended to modify the Earth at the planetary scale will be risky or not.
In spite of the possible harm, why advocate for Geoengineering?
Perhaps, due to the fact that the alternative to No-Geoengineering could be worse – there is a continuous growth in carbon dioxide emissions and lack of effective political response to global warming.
The global Institutions we rely on do not seem to look beyond short-term roadblocks or regional interests. On the other hand, scientists and experts are creating a high awareness among the people about the speed and intensity of environmental changes due to global warming. And though we know what it would take to reduce global warming, there is lesser time and not much interest in moving faster.
This could make Geoengineering necessary: it gives us time to act. That is if it implemented wisely. The deployment does not really have to be done globally, though it would have the highest impact. It can be started in a smaller proportion: for ex: some experiments and models have shown that intervention in merely the polar regions would be adequate to hold-off critical events such as the ice-cap collapse or the massive methane release.
The efforts can be gradually scaled up if the situations become worse; the advantage being they can also be easily shut down with small temperature spikes, in case there are unacceptable and harmful side effects.
In a nut shell…
Geoengineering may seem like the last resort or a final attempt to curb global warming; however the need for it is only increasing with time. The scientists and researchers have a million dollar question hovering over their heads though:
Will this be a cure to the huge problem facing human civilization or would it be worse than the disease itself?
Only continued and extensive research effort can provide an answer. It is imperative that funding has to be increased for Geoengineering research, building the kind of models and simulations required for us to understand the approaches that are safe and those that are dangerous with surprising consequences.
The overall goal must be remembered: that of to reduce and then eliminate greenhouse gases and emissions as quickly as humanly possible. This would require both political will and courage among people globally. The very fact that experts are supporting research into Geoengineering shows how desperate the climate crisis has become today.
Slipping back into complacency is perhaps not a good solution, as we’d simply be setting ourselves up for a far greater disaster down the road. India is making inroads into acknowledging this staring issue. They can look at win-win methods, such that they will more than ‘pay for themselves’ while helping to moderate temperature through the abnormally high carbon loads in the atmosphere.
