Rucha Shrikant Mapari is a second-year master’s student at the Department of Geopolitics and International Relations at Manipal Academy of Higher Education (Institution of Eminence), Manipal, India.
The Paris Agreement determines the collective target of limiting the global average temperature to 1.5 to 2 degrees Celsius. Yet, the international efforts to cut down fossil fuel consumption, reduce carbon emissions, and mitigate the impacts of climate change have not been adequate and effective. Large sections of the population, especially from the Global South, are already experiencing the most adverse effects of climate change. Heat waves, changing precipitation patterns, and rising sea levels and sea temperatures have become major threats to many developing countries’ economies and societies. Among many solutions for mitigation and adaptation, intentional climate engineering (ICE), also known as geoengineering, is being projected as an easy and viable technological solution. As climate change vulnerabilities grow, it is important to understand the developments surrounding geoengineering technologies, their impact on the future of climate change discourses, and the international politics around them.
What is Geoengineering?
Climate engineering, also at times referred to as geoengineering, is an emerging set of technologies that could artificially manipulate the earth’s climate and partially curb the impacts of the aggravating issue of climate change. Unlike weather modification techniques that are temporal and local, the effect of geoengineering will be on a planetary scale and last for a relatively long time. There are two types of technologies, namely, carbon dioxide removal (CDR or Carbon geoengineering) and solar radiation management/modification (SRM or Solar geoengineering). They can be described as ‘intervening technologies’ given the manual and intentional efforts to alter the climatic condition that suits humankind.
Carbon geoengineering focuses on reducing the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere by storing it underground or in the ocean. On the other hand, the main objective of solar geoengineering is to cool down the Earth’s temperature by limiting the amount of incoming sunlight by reflecting it into space using technology. CDR addresses the carbon emissions, i.e. the cause of climate change, whereas SRM controls the rising temperature, i.e. one of the impacts of climate change. Many technologies are being researched under both types. Particularly in the solar geoengineering domain, four major technologies are being researched: marine cloud brightening, cirrus cloud thinning, space-based technology, and stratospheric aerosol injection. Yet, the Stratospheric Aerosol Injection (SAI) technique is being pursued and discussed the most due to perceived affordability and feasibility.
Stratospheric Aerosol Injection (SAI): Advantages and Disadvantages
Inspired by the biggest volcanic explosion in Northwest Philippines in 1991 and the consequential phenomenon of cooling down of atmospheric temperature, the SAI technique refers to injecting particulate matter, preferably particles of sulphur compound, in the stratospheric level that will reflect solar radiation and create a cooling effect. The technology is suggested to be cheaper among other solar geoengineering techniques with its potential to deliver quick results as compared to the ongoing mitigation efforts. Hence, in the case of the failure to achieve Paris targets in the given time, SAI technology is being increasingly pursued as a ‘Plan B’ to counter the global warming effect.
Many SAI researchers and scientists have claimed the advantages of developing such technology to cope with the growing intensity of climate change, especially benefitting the most vulnerable states from the global south. Some climate change experts defend the necessity of such technology by explaining the need for further research and development. Dale Jamieson notes that “we may reach a point where intentional climate change (ICC) is the lesser of two evils.” The ‘arm of the future’ argument by Stephen Gardiner suggests that “if climate sensitivity were very high, having carried out R&D would leave us better off.” Nobel laureate Paul Crutzen, while recommending caution around the research, argued that a “scientific taboo around climate engineering was undesirable and unsustainable.” The US government has passed a bill to fund research into SAI. The lead Harvard scientist David Keith explains the benefits of research as to be prepared for facilitation as and when required.
Yet, some states from the global south themselves have strongly opposed further development of any kind of solar geoengineering. For example, the African Ministerial Conference on Environment (AMCEN) has called for global governance for the non-use of SRM. Many private organizations and academicians have come together to propose an ‘International non-use agreement on Solar Geoengineering’. The agreement strictly condemns outdoor experimentation and deployment and calls for no public investment, no patent and no institutional support. The opponents of SAI technology have expressed fears about the technology deployment. Although these criticisms can be summarized from varied perspectives, this article attempts to provide an overview of technological and geopolitical perspectives.
Technological perspective
Irrespective of security concerns, the technology itself brings forth many questions of reliability and legitimacy.
The Broad Scope of Technology Deployment
An example of a geoengineering experiment of SAI designed by Harvard University (now terminated) can help understand the scope and magnitude of the technology. A project led by climate scientist Dr David Keith plans to build a fleet of 95 planes that would take 60 thousand flights per year. The flights would inject 10 million tonnes of sulphur annually. The result is speculated to be a cooling down of the earth’s temperature by 0.3 degrees Celsius after 15 years. Similar to SAI, the experiments of marine cloud brightening (MCB) involve spraying aerosols into clouds over the ocean. Many states, like Australia and the US, have carried out outdoor experiments of MCB only to be paused later for technical or environmental reasons.
Uncertainty and Risks of Experiments
The experiment only considers the scientific perspective of the technology. It also assumes a successful result only if ‘other things remain constant’. However, the massive scale, long duration and technology of the experiment cannot be fixed in a specific controlled situation, and any error has the potential to change the regional and international climatic dynamics. Yet, without experimenting in a real environment, neither technology can be tested, nor would the impact be understood. Past events suggest that the development of technology would definitely lead to the deployment of technology (slippery slope phenomenon). However, given the political support of some states for expediting the deployment, some experts doubt the intention of the experiment to be much more political than technical. Additionally, there is a potential threat of rapid global warming if deployment is stopped suddenly. Hence, the possibility of ‘termination shock’ leading to the permanent deployment of technology cannot be denied either.
Impact on Climate Change and Climate Actions
A simulation study intended to study MCB shows the extension of the transboundary impact of geoengineering. A technological intervention in a region to bring down temperature may have unintended negative results in another region, tampering with their climatic, temperature, and precipitation patterns. The researchers also observe that the “MCB effect can diminish or reverse as climate conditions change due to already dramatic human impacts.” As an inference, an experiment carried out in the present conditions may deliver the expected outcome but a similar experiment in the future will fail to bring similar results in changes in climatic conditions.
The solar geoengineering research is said not to be comprehensive as it does not consider the future impacts on the atmosphere. Many climate change experts are apprehensive about the ‘moral hazard’ – a fear that geoengineering technologies could replace the mitigation efforts and give way to the industries for unrestricted use of fossil fuels. The substitution effect will only derail the states from the path of achieving global targets set by the Paris Agreement and its other mechanisms. This would give a free hand for fossil fuel-dependent industries to continue utilising fossil fuels and contributing to carbon emissions.
Geopolitical perspective
Given the global scale of technology and its impact, the deployment is bound to have international repercussions. These geopolitical contestations challenge the existing climate regime.
The Global North-South Divide
International Relations (IR) researchers raise questions regarding the possibility of geopolitical competition over the control and execution of solar geoengineering at the global scale. The serious question that comes before execution, echoed in the literature of governance of geoengineering, is “Whose hand will be on the thermostat?” In any case, the majority of Global South countries will continue to depend on the Global North for technology, finance, and capacity development for climate action. Moreover, the global south will continue to be a victim of climate impacts if the global north shows reluctance to repay loss and damage.
The 6th United Nations Environment Assembly was convened in February 2024 in Nairobi, Kenya. Switzerland proposed the establishment of a scientific expert group to monitor further development of solar geoengineering. However, the global divide was evident when the state positions differed for and against solar geoengineering. While the proposal was strongly opposed by states led by an African coalition, the US objected to any broader consideration on the imposition of regulations on the research and development of SRM technologies. Taking a middle ground, the EU suggested wider expertise and assessment with a precautionary approach. Keeping the ambiguity, China, India and Russia did not put forth any clear stand. Therefore, IR experts fear the widening gap and growing divide between the global south and global north and the threat of climate colonialism.
Geopolitical and Security Concerns
The probable dependence of geoengineering technology on military infrastructure like aircraft and drones also suggests the potential for weaponization of the technology for intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance purposes. Adopting the same may lead to an increase in the military budget, defence expenditure, and arms build-up. If rival great powers start to compete in such technologies, an effort of a state may be countered by technological deployment by another state, leading to ‘counter geoengineering’. This term suggests that the rival state’s actions will create obstacles in achieving the expected results and in turn, the consequences could be much harsher and dangerous. Moreover, the possibility of non-state actors getting hold of this technology can only aggravate the security tensions, leaving the technology out of the control of international governance.
Solar Geoengineering and Climate Justice
The irreversible aftereffects of SAI may exacerbate the existing socioeconomic issues due to changes in temperature, precipitation, etc. and lead to civil unrest and interstate and regional tensions in the global south. The experiments carried out so far have conveniently denied consideration of environmentally sensitive regions, vulnerable indigenous communities, and future generations. The experiments have gained attention and attracted criticism due to the lack of commitment to climate justice. An indigenous ‘Saami’ community in Sweden was neither informed nor consulted while executing the Stratospheric Controlled Perturbation Experiment (SCoPEx), popularly known as ‘Harvard Project’, which was finally cancelled after an intervention by the Saami council and later by the Swedish government. A small US company carried out SRM experiments in Mexico without any consent from the government until the government declared a ban on such outdoor SRM experiments. This not only indicates a denial of procedural justice but also highlights the dominance of the global north over the global south with the unilateral implementation of policies in external territories.
A Regulatory Vacuum
The Environmental Modification Convention (ENMOD) has prohibited the hostile use of weather modification technology. However, the 1977 convention cannot be a reference point for an entirely new set of technologies. In the case of geoengineering, there are only two existing international agreements: The London Protocol ban on ocean fertilization (activities other than legitimate scientific research) and the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) moratorium on geoengineering. In 2010, the CBD stated:
“…in the absence of science-based, global, transparent and effective control and regulatory mechanisms for geoengineering, and in accordance with the precautionary approach and Article 14 of the Convention, that no climate-related geo-engineering activities that may affect biodiversity take place, until there is an adequate scientific basis on which to justify such activities and appropriate consideration of the associated risks for the environment and biodiversity and associated social, economic and cultural impacts, with the exception of small scale scientific research studies that would be conducted in a controlled setting…”
The convention partially bans geoengineering practices until specific conditions are met and advises a regulation and global governing authority. Parallel development of international policy along with scientific development is a prerequisite. However, in the 2024 UN Environment Assembly, geoengineering proponents questioned whether the ‘de facto’ moratorium should be acknowledged and how. The lack of regulations and monitoring authority for technology with global implications is not just a threat to the international system but also to a ‘socially just’ climate change action. Hence, internationally legitimate, valid, legal, and binding governance has become the need of the hour.
Conclusion
ICE is increasingly emerging as a method (rather, a substituting option) to cope with the impacts of climate change. Solar geoengineering artificially manipulates the global climate by cooling down the earth’s temperature. The cost-effectiveness and efficiency of the technology make it to be considered as an alternative to the ongoing climate mitigation actions. While some Western states proactively support the research with financial investments, some of the global south countries have expressed strong objections due to the uncertainty and risks involved. Hence, setting up an inclusive and just governance mechanism will be a prerequisite for any further progress.
Disclaimer: The views expressed in the article are personal.
