SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
geoengineering
The Dangerous Politics of Climate Engineering
The idea that humans can manipulate the Earth to reduce the risks of climate change relies on and perpetuates a futile sense of human control and domination over our planet.
Jul 21, 2024
Climate scientists around the world are now projecting warming of at least 2.5°C within this century. As U.S. and other wealthy governments fail to phase out fossil fuels, investments in climate engineering—technological interventions to manipulate the climate—have been increasing.
We’re seeing this play out in real time in Massachusetts. This August, a team of researchers plans to dump 6,600 gallons of sodium hydroxide into ocean waters just south of Martha’s Vineyard. Next summer, they intend to dump a staggering 66,000 gallons of sodium hydroxide into the Gulf of Maine. They call it the “LOC-NESS” experiment, and it’s intended to test a new geoengineering technique called “ocean alkalinity enhancement.” They plan to make ocean waters less acidic, causing them to draw carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. They hope if alkaline substances were dumped at truly massive scales it could offset a portion of human caused emissions.
There are many serious concerns with manipulating the ocean environment in an attempt to address climate change. Sodium hydroxide is a dangerous substance that causes chemical burns on contact with humans or marine life. The dumping locations are home to at least eight endangered species, including the critically endangered North Atlantic right whale. This experiment will alter the ocean environment, creating new risks to many already threatened marine species.
Rather than supporting manipulations of Earth’s systems, humanity needs to deploy existing solutions that center ecological integrity, environmental justice, and human rights.
Dozens of reputable studies also cast doubt on the safety and efficacy of ocean alkalinity enhancement. At least two gigatons of alkaline material would have to be dumped continuously by every bulk carrier and cargo ship in the world in order to capture only 4% of current CO2 emissions. Additionally, mining on the scale the project requires, as well as transporting the mined materials to ships for dumping, likely causes more greenhouse gasses to be emitted than it removes from the atmosphere after it’s dumped in the ocean.
The idea that humans can manipulate the Earth to reduce the risks of climate change relies on and perpetuates a futile sense of human control and domination over our planet. This false sense of control emerges directly from the technological optimism of billionaires who are enthusiastically advocating for more geoengineering research, like those funding the LOC-NESS project. In addition to wasting money that could instead be used to fund wind and solar projects already proven to reduce emissions, climate engineering diverts attention away from the equitable phaseout of fossil fuels that is urgently needed to avoid further climate catastrophe.
The scientists involved in the LOC-NESS experiment say they are not advocating for immediate deployment of marine geoengineering—just to develop the technologies and information that society may need in the future if we do decide to geoengineer. However, the history of multiple technological advances shows that after a technology is developed, the scientists involved lose control over what happens next. This disconnect is clearly demonstrated in the film Oppenheimer, when the U.S. military comes to transport the nuclear bomb away from Los Alamos. In a telling moment, Oppenheimer asks to be kept up-to-date about when the technology will be used. The military general responds with a clear message—the job of the Los Alamos scientists is done and they will no longer be involved. As the saying goes, history tends to repeat itself.
Despite the powerful influence of those advocating for climate engineering, concerned citizens around the world are mobilizing against it. The United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity has established an effective moratorium on geoengineering, making exceptions only for small-scale research projects conducted in a controlled environment—which the LOC-NESS experiment is not. Indigenous People in particular have led resistance to many geoengineering experiments, which frequently target Indigenous lands for deployment.
Rather than supporting manipulations of Earth’s systems, humanity needs to deploy existing solutions that center ecological integrity, environmental justice, and human rights. Recognizing that climate chaos is a symptom, and not the core problem, is essential for effective transformative change. We must oppose projects like LOC-NESS and focus on guiding our world toward a healthy, just, and sustainable future.
Keep ReadingShow Less
False Climate Solution of Geoengineering Could Cause Heatwaves Thousands of Miles Away
"We need more regional geoengineering modeling studies like this work to characterize these unintended side effects before they have a chance to play out in the real world," said the study's lead author.
Jun 21, 2024
A study published Friday found that a cloud engineering technique designed to cool parts of the western United States could inadvertently stoke heatwaves from North America to Europe, underscoring why many scientists reject geoengineering as a false climate solution.
The study, published in the journal Nature Climate Change, concludes that marine cloud brightening (MCB)—"a geoengineering proposal to cool atmospheric temperatures and reduce climate change impacts"—in the "remote mid-latitudes or proximate subtropics" of the northern Pacific Ocean—would decrease "the relative risk of dangerous summer heat exposure by 55% and 16%, respectively."
However, the researchers found that regions including Africa's Sahel, central North America, Europe, and northeastern Asia would "experience exacerbated heat stress and hotter summers with MCB than would otherwise occur under global warming."
Additionally, the study shows that MCB would be less effective over time and could "even increase heat stress in the western United States" and beyond by mid-century.
University of California San Diego researcher Jessica Wan, who led the study, toldThe Guardian that MCB "can be very effective for the U.S. West Coast if done now, but it may be ineffective there in the future and could cause heatwaves in Europe."
The study's authors said the paper's findings are especially troubling given the dearth of international MCB regulation.
"There is really no solar geoengineering governance right now. That is scary," said Wan. "Science and policy need to be developed together. We don't want to be in a situation where one region is forced to do geoengineering to combat what another part of the world has done to respond to droughts and heatwaves."
As New Scientistreported:
The MCB experiments that have taken place so far in Australia and California haven't been of a sufficiently large scale to cause detectable climate effects, but they suggest that regional geoengineering could be closer to reality than previously thought, says Wan. "We need more regional geoengineering modeling studies like this work to characterize these unintended side effects before they have a chance to play out in the real world."
In Australia, researchers are experimenting with geoengineering techniques in an effort to cool the Great Barrier Reef and decelerate its bleaching. In California, scientists from the University of Washington sprayed sea salt flecks over a decommissioned aircraft carrier in the San Francisco Bay in hushed testing that was halted by the city of Alameda last month over safety concerns.
"We strongly welcome Alameda City Council's unanimous decision to say no to the first open-air marine cloud brightening experiment in the U.S.," Mary Church of the Center for International Environmental Law said after the halt. "Key concerns raised by council members focused on lack of sufficient information, notice, and transparency. The rejection rightfully reflects the gravity of what's at stake for both local and global communities."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Climate Envoy John Kerry’s Disturbing Sci-Fi Approach to the Climate Crisis
When it comes to sustainable farming and the climate crisis, the former Secretary of State seems to be more interested in science fiction than science fact.
May 31, 2023
John Kerry, the former Senator, Secretary of State and Presidential candidate, has been saying some odd and disturbing things about the climate crisis—and how to go about addressing it. When questioned in a recent BBC interview about his country’s slow pace away from fossil fuels, Kerry said not to worry because, “I’m told by scientists that 50% of the reductions we have to make (to get to near zero emissions) by 2050 or 2045 are going to come from technologies we don’t yet have.”
One might think that suggesting the planet would be saved by technologies yet to be discovered would be ridiculous enough. But Kerry doubled down. Although he admitted that industrial agriculture, and especially factory farms, are major contributors to greenhouse gas emissions, he pushed back on the idea of reducing meat consumption as a step in the right direction. He assured the public that future technology might allow us all to keep on eating all the ‘meat’ we want because, “[t]here is a lot of research being done now that will change the way meat is produced….And we don't know some of the answers to these."
Kerry is also a long-term supporter of genetically engineered (GE) crops and claims, with no evidence provided, that growing GE crops will help address the climate crisis. In reality, these commodity crops which take up almost half the cropland in the U.S. are not designed to address climate, but rather to tolerate massive amounts of herbicides. This major increase in herbicide use is only great for the bottom line of Bayer/Monsanto and other chemical companies. The massive monocultures of GE crops significantly deplete the soil, and the manufacture and use of these herbicides increases emissions of greenhouse gases and these herbicides while also killing soil microbes thereby further degrading the soil’s ability to sequester carbon. But again, Kerry seems to be more interested in science fiction than science fact.
Using AI to address ag and climate is not only a sci-fi fantasy, it is incredibly dangerous and damaging.
Such irresponsible, blind faith in technology statements are not just from any politician—Kerry is Biden’s Special Presidential Envoy for Climate. And unfortunately, Kerry is at it again, this time advocating spending millions of dollars promoting Artificial Intelligence (AI) as a climate solution. In doing so, he has teamed up with current USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack, whom Kerry seriously considered as a running mate when he ran for president in 2004.
A little background on Secretary Vilsack is key to this story. Starting with his governorship of Iowa and extending to now his third term as U.S. Secretary of Agriculture, Vilsack has been a tireless supporter of industrial agriculture, factory farms, and highly invasive agritech including genetic engineering, nanotechnology, robotics and AI. To push this agenda, Vilsack is spearheading an international effort dubbed Agriculture Innovation Mission for Climate (AIM). Though not yet two years old, AIM has raised $13 billion and counting, and includes corporate agritech partners such as BASF, Bayer/Monsanto and Syngenta, along with a couple hundred other industrial ag companies and organizations. The idea is to use these billions to “buy out” the agricultural research at universities and countries around the globe to move them away from local and sustainable priorities and push towards these high-tech priorities which will profit AIM’s corporate partners.
Vilsack and Kerry stood side-by-side early this May to mark the end of AIM’s three day “summit” on food and climate issues. There they announced the winner of the organization’s competition entitled, “AIM for Climate Grand Challenge: Leveraging the Power of AI and Machine-Learning.” The winner received a multimillion-dollar grant to push this agenda. Using AI to address ag and climate is not only a sci-fi fantasy, it is incredibly dangerous and damaging. Never mind that 70-80% of the world’s food is provided by small family farms who know their farms and communities’ needs far better than AIM-promoted computers or robots. Moreover, imagine the dystopian scenario were AIM to succeed in having countries replace these hundreds of millions of local farmers who have farmed their land for many generations with AI and sensor operators. These farmers would lose their livelihoods, communities would be decimated, and irreplaceable Indigenous knowledge of soil, seeds and food would be lost.
As AIM spends billions on research of costly and dangerous experimental technologies, we need to promote solutions already proven to work—ecological farming practices rooted in agroecological principles.
As AIM spends billions on research of costly and dangerous experimental technologies, we need to promote solutions already proven to work—ecological farming practices rooted in agroecological principles. Hundreds of organizations and farm groups, particularly in the global South, are doing just that and opposing the AIM agenda in the international arena. Last year, The International Alliance on Climate and Agriculture (IACA) was formed to help in this critical climate effort. IACA is bringing together civil society leaders, activists, farmers, Indigenous peoples, and other stakeholders to collectively promote ecological food systems as a major mitigation and adaptation solution to the climate crisis.
This broad grassroots coalition developed the BROAD system, which incorporates ecological farming including organic, agroecological, biodynamic and other sustainable practices that work with nature rather than destroying it. BROAD is an acronym for systems that are: 1) Biodiverse, 2) Regenerative, 3) Organic, 4) Appropriate Scale, and 5) Democratic.
Our current industrial agriculture system is responsible for at least 25 to 30% of greenhouse gas emissions, yet there is little discussion about this critical connection between food systems and climate change. Clearly, if we do not transition swiftly to ecological food systems, any hope of climate stability or world food security will be unattainable. In addition to reducing GHGs and ensuring food and water security, ecological food systems generate vital benefits such as protecting biodiversity, soil, water, wildlife, livelihoods and jobs, socioeconomic equity, and more. This, rather than speculative, experimental AI, is what we need to save food, farming, and our planet.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular