CAJ - Opinions against Geoengineering

Opinions against Geoengineering

As Geoengineering is a large global scale project and involves significant changes to our environment, this issue has become somewhat controversial among scientists. Some of them claim that the intervention into the Earth’s climate system could have severe consequences. Instead of improving global warming, Geoengineering techniques would worsen the whole situation...well, so they claim.

In this post I will present you some of the arguments against Geoengineering. 

Most of the scientists are sceptical when it comes to spraying aerosols in the air to make the Earth more reflective. Dr. Charlton-Perez, a lecturer of Meteorology, fears that the particles would not only absorb the Sun’s heat but also the heat energy that comes from the Earth. He also fears that the stabilisation of the Earth’s climate could reduce the upwelling of air. This would seem like a big problem in the tropics since rain falls when the air moves rapidly. This climate stabilisation, as a result, would reduce precipitation in the tropics. As a matter of fact, rainfall around the tropics could be reduced to 30%. This would significantly impact rainforests in South America and Asia. It’s quite scary if we consider the fact that tropics play an essential role in the Earth’s climate as the trees capture high amounts of carbon.

He also claims that it would lead to an increasing drought in Africa.

He backs up his arguments with a study his team carried out to measure what negative effects Geoengineering techniques could have. The study considered what would happen if carbon dioxide levels quadrupled in the atmosphere. This extreme situation showed that without intervention, temperatures could rise by 4C, far above the 2C level considered dangerous. After that, they reduced the temperature rise to zero - the level it should be after Geoengineering measure will have been introduced.

In the simulation, they have pumped up a huge amount of sulphur dioxide into the stratosphere. The amount is equivalent to five volcanic eruptions of the Mount Pinatubo in 1991 which, as a result of its eruption, reduced global temperatures by 0,5C in the following years.

The sulphate particles in the model did not only reflect incoming sunlight, but also heat rising from the Earth’s surface. As a consequence, it reduced the temperature difference between the lower and upper atmosphere which is the engine that drives cloud formation and rainfall.

Scientists worry that an adaptation to this drastic change could threaten to the flora and fauna as well as people.

Interesting, isn’t it?

Another argument he states which is worth mentioning is that Geoengineering effects will not be the same everywhere. This leads to the future possibility of conflict between nations that might benefit from it and the ones which might suffer from it. He points out that governance over Geoengineering is another issue that speaks against climate intervention. This issue concerns Dr. Matthew Watson, a lecturer of the University of Bristol, too. He points out that strong, sensible and reasonable governance is crucial for this global-scale project, even on small-scale outdoor experiments.