If it works well, it might be able to protect climate-vulnerable regions by keeping temperatures below 1.5°C while the world is decarbonising, write Vinayak Nambiar, Sijo Abraham & Mohammed Mofizur Rahman
Climate change, or more aptly, climate chaos, is arguably one of the major challenges of the 21st century, and is often considered an existential threat to humanity. It leaves no aspect of life untouched, including the economy, environment, health and livelihoods, regardless of which part of the world you reside. The global community has awoken to the risks involved, and there has been a ramp-up of efforts to mitigate the release of greenhouse gases, including the main culprit carbon dioxide, through a plethora of initiatives such as focusing on renewable energy, creating a circular economy, and even re-inventing what would drive future growth, with ‘green’ deals being considered by various influential governments worldwide.
However, recent research suggests that no matter how ambitious our efforts are, current emission trends indicate that it is unlikely we will be able to limit the temperature rise to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels. This is the warming limit that is supported by the world’s most climate-vulnerable countries, with warming above this point leaving us open to more extreme weather events, biodiversity loss on a scale previously unimaginable, agricultural depletion and unprecedented forced migration. The Global South, including the Indian subcontinent, will be particularly hard hit. Climate geoengineering is increasingly touted as a promising solution for this, a blanket term that contains quite a few radical, often controversial and potentially challenging to implement proposals.
Before we continue, we would like to point out that we are neither advocates nor opponents of geoengineering. We believe it is important to have a broader public discussion on a wider spectrum of possible climate options, and our goal in this article is to shed some light on one oft-neglected outside scientific circles, and lay out the unknowns, opportunities and obstacles involved, especially from a South Asian perspective. That being said, let’s start with a few definitions.
Under climate geoengineering, there are two major groups of proposed approaches; Solar Radiation Management (SRM) and Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR). SRM proposals aim to limit or reverse the temperature rise produced by higher greenhouse gas concentrations, by reflecting inbound sunlight back into space. The approach that has received most research attention would involve spraying tiny reflective particles into the upper atmosphere to reflect away some sunlight. The effects of SRM would be experienced rapidly, in the order of months after implementation, and this is why it is being researched – it’s the only known way to quickly stop or reverse the rise in global temperatures.
However, it is important to note that these effects would last only as long as the programme is maintained. SRM does not reduce the concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and there is the potential for disastrously abrupt warming of the global climate with sudden and permanent cessation of a high level of SRM cooling. As it is largely based on computer simulations, there is also significant uncertainty on what the actual impacts may be, including predicting the change in rainfall patterns and growth of plant life.
CDR on the other hand, involves removing carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases from the atmosphere by various means, ranging from reforestation/afforestation, restoration of wetlands, burning biomass to capture carbon and permanently storing it, fertilizing oceans to absorb more CO2 or even direct capture of CO2 from ambient air. Generally, CDR techniques are comparatively slow-acting and expensive to implement, but are less contentious and have been included in many models for achieving effective climate change mitigation.
What we find worrying is that climate geoengineering research as a whole has predominantly been conducted by Western academia, and in reality, countries in the Global South are often poorly represented in debates about these approaches, even though in many of the cases, those are the same countries that would be the most impacted.
This question of moral hazard surrounding geoengineering has been intensely argued, though again mostly in developed economies. A range of people, from policy makers to activists, have expressed concerns that CDR and SRM might be seen as “get out of jail” free cards that reduce the incentives for countries to move towards a net-zero carbon pathway. This becomes all the more serious when coupled with what is essentially limited research about the benefits and drawbacks of these methods. Encouraging SRM or CDR may significantly reduce allocation of resources to inclusive and reliable climate change mitigation and adaptation strategies, or even lead to total near-term disregard for them, leaving developing countries to suffer the consequences. For example, Global South countries have expressed their concern regarding the uncertainty of Bio-Energy and Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS) methods, which is a CDR technique. These projects may require large land areas, thereby competing with agricultural lands. Additionally, as previously stated, research has shown that SRM would involve tinkering with a complex system and it might have nasty side effects, with countries like India bearing the brunt if it goes wrong. It may in fact not be in the best interests of northern, developed countries like Norway or Canada too, who may prefer increased temperatures for agricultural productivity and other land uses.
Another cause for apprehension is the lack of an international agreement overseeing climate geoengineering. Currently these methods can be rolled out by any country independently, especially economically strong ones. This would certainly cause an imbalance of power in global politics, as such a country would potentially have control over the global thermostat, with negative repercussions in certain parts of the world. We first have to understand exactly what the effects of various geoengineering measures would be on a regional basis, and ensure that the needs of all nations are met when and if they are executed. This is an issue with global ramifications, and cannot be treated locally. It is therefore absolutely vital that there is a cohesive strategy that is transnational in nature, with defining principles for governance, research, development and possible implementation of these novel technologies. We urge India and other developing nations to take the lead to ensure justice, and ascertain that any and all measures need to consider the wishes of all stakeholders within these vulnerable regions.
As it stands, climate geoengineering could prove to be a complement to other climate solutions and not a silver bullet. If it works well, it might be able to protect climate-vulnerable regions by keeping temperatures below 1.5°C while the world is decarbonising. But the uncertainty and unpredictability around these techniques may have counterproductive implications worldwide, especially in the Global South. The global nature of these methods mandate a strong need for transparency within all the dimensions of these techniques, safeguarding equity as the central theme. However, it is absolutely clear that climate geoengineering is not a substitute for reducing carbon emissions and our focus must continue to be on weaning our economies off carbon, advocating sustainable behavioural practices and building strong resilience to climate change. By prioritising these pathways, we will hopefully never be pressed to use climate geoengineering to protect our planet.
Vinayak Nambiar is Anant Fellow for Climate Action; Sijo Abraham is Anant Fellow for Climate Action; and Mohammed Mofizur Rahman is Instructor, Anant Fellowship for Climate Action
