This article is also available in Italian / Questo articolo è disponibile anche in italiano

Large-scale experimentation with geoengineering, or climate engineering, could entail risks and unintended consequences “on environmental, socioeconomic, justice, public policy and geopolitical dimensions, as well as on the global commons and national jurisdictions”. For this motivation, ethical guidelines are needed to steer geoengineering research, says the American Geophysical Union (AGU). Yesterday, on Wednesday the 23rd of October it published the Ethical Framework Principles for Climate Intervention Research. This report was drafted with the support of an international team of scientists and experts and recommends five principles for the ethical use of geoengineering. This science that has been attracting the attention of many researchers and economic players, since it is considered one of the possible solutions to global warming.

But why does geoengineering need ethical guidance? The report is not the first of its kind: it was inspired by previous initiatives developed for research on nuclear weapons, human cloning and genetic engineering, issues that are now giving way to an open debate on how to respond to the climate crisis. It is the AGU that takes on the implications of scientific research by supporting the idea that scientists “have an ethical obligation to weigh the social benefits of their research against the costs and risks to human and animal welfare” and “other potential impacts on the environment and society”.

What is climate engineering

The report identifies no less than sixteen ‘climate interventions’ and divides them into two macro categories, according to how these could counter global warming. The first category is that of CDR interventions, Carbon Dioxide Removal and includes solutions to directly remove remove carbon dioxide or other greenhouse gases directly from the atmosphere, thus limiting their climate-altering effect. Such strategies include both ‘land-based’ and ‘ocean-based’ solutions: they would use both the capacity of soils, wetlands and forests, and the capacity of the oceans to absorb CO₂ from the atmosphere. This means leveraging what in technical terms is defined the biogeochemical carbon cycle. Solutions include reforestation projects, wetland and peatland restoration, blue carbon management and ocean fertilisation.

The other category of geo-engineering is SRM, Solar Radiation Modification. This encompasses climate interventions to reduce temperatures by acting on the flow of solar radiation, thus the energy and heat input and output in the Earth system. “Space reflectors and umbrellas”, “modification of the Earth's albedo” or “injection of aerosols into the atmosphere” are just some of the possible solutions to cool our planet.

Climate intervention, pros and cons

In search of clarification regarding SMR and the injection of aerosols into the stratosphere, Renewable Matter asked Daniele Visioni, an expert in this particular geo-engineering solution and among the authors of the Ethical Framework Principles for Climate Intervention Research. According to Visioni, “the biggest negative repercussions we are currently facing will result from the continued warming of the planet. Floods, extreme events, heat waves. Nothing will be predictable in a planet out of balance”.

In the case of SAI, Stratospheric Aerosol Injection, “the potential is to slow or stop future global warming through a partial reduction in incoming solar radiation. We know this can happen because we observed global cooling after the Pinatubo eruption in 1991, which cooled the planet for almost two years by a few tenths of a degree. Geo-engineering solutions therefore represent an opportunity and “if applied conscientiously, these could reduce these climatic and ecological risks”.

But what is the meaning of “conscientious” or “ethical” use? Is there another side of it? “The possible implications are primarily social: How will a deliberate climate intervention made by a nation change international power relations? Who decides whether to use SAI or not? Can one nation stop another? Given the current international disorder, what can we expect? What will we do when the risks of climate change lead the population, or part of the population, to demand geoengineering?” These are the concerns raised by Visioni.

At the same time, the researcher is reassuring, stating that currently these solutions mostly belong to the “academic sphere, with purely modelling studies and very few concrete engineering systems”. However, he points out that “some start-ups (one in particular, called Make Sunset) are discussing to perform demonstrative actions, such as launching weather balloons with modest amounts of sulphur that can reach the stratosphere’.

The five ethical principles for geoengineering

Along with opportunities, geoengineering comes also with great perplexities, against which the AGU's five principles would act as an antidote. The first principle is a call for responsible research. For Janice R. Lachance, acting CEO of the AGU, “climate engineering should not replace the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions”. This is a core concept of climate research and action supported by the report, which calls for addressing the “root causes” of global warming rather than “the symptoms”. Research should also be based on international and ecological justice and be characterised by transparency and autonomy, thus being free from external pressures or financial interests.

Space should also be given to inclusiveness, to protect “any community that might be spiritually, culturally, ethically or materially affected” and that should always be granted access to deliberative processes. Finally, who should evaluate the implementation of these interventions? With the last principle, the AGU suggests the creation of councils and commissions to favour a public, inclusive and transparent assessment of the risks and benefits of geoengineering, a science that is bound to cause debate.

Image: Envato