We humans don’t tend to just sit around and wait to be killed, so it’s a fair bet we’ll mount some sort of bid to save ourselves from the ravages of climate change.
But scientists fear attempts to ‘geoengineer’ the weather to mitigate the effects of global warming could go badly wrong and even spark a brutal global conflict.
Geoengineering is a word referring to ‘deliberate large-scale intervention in the Earth’s natural systems to counteract climate change’, according to Oxford University.
There are various ideas about how to halt or even reverse global warming.
Some academics believe we could lower levels of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere by fertilising the oceans with iron salts to stimulate the growth of huge blooms of algae, in the hope the organisms will absorb carbon dioxide pumped out by human society.
Other ideas include spraying salt water high into the atmosphere to ‘whiten’ clouds in the Arctic region so they reflect heat back into space or even using modified planes to pump chemicals called sulphates into the sky (a process called stratospheric aerosol injection)
The dangers are obvious. Firstly, weather systems on Earth are so complex that we simply can’t predict the effects of interfering with the climate.
Then there’s the major risk of conflict between nations who launch their own unilateral attempts to alter their climate.
So what will happen if one nation-state launches a geoengineering project which then causes drought, flooding or some other disaster to hit a rival?
We asked Clive Hamilton, a professor of public ethics at Charles Sturt University in Canberra and global authority on climate change, about the risks posed by geoengineering.
He said: ‘If those harmed by a flood or drought believed the death and destruction were caused by someone manipulating the weather, how would they react?
‘If another nation were engineering the climate, its denials would fall on deaf ears, and not just because humans naturally look for someone to blame.
‘If a nation had embarked on sulphur dioxide spraying it would be virtually impossible to work out whether an extreme weather event somewhere in the world was due to natural variability, human-induced climate change or climate manipulation.’
Unfortunately, potential flashpoints in the world are already becoming clear.
‘The government of China, faced with a catastrophic drought in the north of the country, might decide its survival demands rapid global cooling,’ Hamilton added.
‘But sending up the planes to spray sulphur dioxide might deprive India and Pakistan of their monsoon rains, bringing on famine.
‘Three nuclear-armed nations would then be in conflict over weather patterns affecting the survival of millions of their citizens.’
It’s likely that democratic nations may be unable to carry out geoengineering projects due to public fears about interfering with the climate – but no such limits will apply to the leaders of nations like China or Russia.
‘It’s hard to know who might first be tempted to regulate the global climate,’ Hamilton continued.
‘Given the severe environmental and geopolitical risks, and the deep ethical divide over whether humans should “play God”, governments in democratic countries may be hamstrung.
‘Authoritarian leaders who do not need public approval are likely to have a freer hand. Do we want Vladimir Putin or Xi Jinping controlling our weather?
‘A dictator with his hand on the global thermostat is a scary prospect. Would the US government send up fighters to shoot down the planes spraying sulphur dioxide?’
The academic called for immediate action to stop geoengineering causing conflicts.
‘Reaching a global consensus to regulate the Earth’s climate would bring on a huge political storm in liberal democratic countries,’ he said.
‘But desperate times call for desperate measures, and we don’t know how desperate we would be if the world warms by three or four degrees, which is now very likely.
‘In the circumstances, the only acceptable answer is a global agreement to regulate research into geoengineering.
‘If it ever comes to deployment, conflict could be avoided only if an inclusive international institution makes the decision.
‘Without it, one nation would control the climate of others, and those others will be tempted to engage in their own “counter-geoengineering”.
‘And then we really are in trouble.’
Source: Read Full Article