METU/SFL Spring 2024

DBE
SHO3A
UPPER – INTERMEDIATE GROUP

PREPARATION FOR THE CLASS DEBATE

Read the texts below to get ready for the upcoming class debate on geoengineering.
PART I. Read the entry for “geoengineering” from the Britannica Encyclopedia.
Geoengineering is the large-scale manipulation of a specific process aimed to control Earth’s climate. Global
climate is controlled by the amount of solar radiation received by Earth and also by the fate of
this energy within the Earth system—that is, how much is absorbed by Earth’s surface and how much is
reflected or reradiated back into space. The reflection of solar radiation is controlled by several mechanisms,
including cloud coverage and the presence of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide (CO2) in the
atmosphere. If geoengineering proposals are to influence global climate in any meaningful way, they must
intentionally alter the influence of one of these controlling mechanisms.

Geoengineering proposals were first developed in the middle of the 20th century. Such proposals were
designed to alter weather systems in order to obtain more favorable climate conditions on a regional scale.
One of the best-known techniques is cloud seeding, a process that attempts to bring rain to dry farmland
by spreading particles of silver iodide or solid carbon dioxide into rain-bearing clouds. Cloud seeding has also
been used in attempts to weaken tropical storms. In addition, the US military suggested that nuclear
weapons might be used as tools to alter regional climates and make certain areas of the world more favorable
for human habitation. This proposal, however, has not been tested.

Cloud seeding works on a regional scale, seeking to influence weather systems for the benefit of agriculture.
However, present-day geoengineering proposals have focused on the global scale, particularly as evidence has
mounted of increasing CO2 in the atmosphere and thus the prospect of global warming. Two fundamentally
different approaches to the problem of global climate change have arisen. The first approach proposes the
use of technologies that would increase the reflection of solar radiation, and thus reduce the heating effect of
sunlight upon the Earth. Stratospheric sulphur injection is one of the techniques that are proposed under this
approach. This technique involves forming an aerosol layer of sulphur in the stratosphere to reflect more solar
radiation. Proponents of this technique believe that sulphur injection essentially would mimic the atmospheric
effects that follow volcanic eruptions. The 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines, which is often
cited as the inspiration of this proposal, placed large amounts of sulphur dioxide into the atmosphere. This
aerosol layer lowered average temperatures around the world by about 0.5 °C over the following few years.
To produce an artificial aerosol layer, sulphur particles could be spread into the stratosphere by aircraft.

Altering Earth’s heat budget by reflecting more sunlight back into space might offset rising temperatures, but
it would do nothing to solve the problem of the rising amount of CO2 in Earth’s atmosphere. The second
geoengineering approach focuses on this problem: it proposes to remove CO2 from the air and store it in
areas where it cannot interact with Earth’s atmosphere. This approach has the potential to counteract both
rising temperatures and rising carbon-dioxide levels. In addition, reducing CO2 in the air could address the
problem of ocean acidification. Vast amounts of CO2 in the air are taken up by the oceans and mixed with
seawater to form carbonic acid (H2CO3). As the amount of carbonic acid rises in the ocean, it lowers the pH of
seawater. Such ocean acidification could result in damage to coral reefs and other organisms such as sea
urchins. Reducing the concentration of CO2 would slow and perhaps eventually halt the production of
carbonic acid, which in turn would reduce ocean acidification.

1
Several carbon-removal geoengineering schemes have been considered so far. These include carbon burial
and direct air capture. Among these, carbon burial involves the pumping of pressurized CO 2 deep
underground or in the deep ocean and storing it there for extended periods of time. In 2019, some 49.3
million metric tons (54.3 million tons) of carbon dioxide were injected underground in the United States.
Although the majority of existing carbon-burial facilities occur in the United States and Europe,
CCUS investment has expanded worldwide since 2017, with several governments, such as those of China and
Australia, announcing plans to expand their capacity.

To some scientists, global-scale geoengineering proposals border on science fiction. Geoengineering is also
controversial because it aims to modify global climate—a phenomenon that is not yet fully understood and
cannot be altered without risk. In the popular press, there have been reports that view geoengineering as the
final option to prevent climate change if all other measures to reduce CO2 emissions fail in the coming
decades. Several studies advocate that rigorous testing should be done before the implementation of any
geoengineering proposal so that unintended consequences would be avoided. Each proposal described below
would differ from the others in its potential efficiency, complexity, cost, safety considerations, and unknown
effects on the planet, and all of them should be thoroughly evaluated before being implemented. Despite this,
no proposed scheme has been purposefully tested, even as a small-scale pilot study, and hence the efficiency,
cost, safety, or timescale of any scheme has never been evaluated.
Adapted from https://www.britannica.com/science/geoengineering/Carbon-removal-proposals

PART II. Read the debate between two climate professors, Mike Hulme and David Keith, on whether climate
engineering could provide a solution to climate change.
Can geoengineering save the world? The basic idea behind geoengineering (or climate engineering) is that
humans can artificially moderate the Earth's climate, allowing us to control temperature, thereby avoiding the
negative impacts of climate change. There are a number of methods suggested to achieve this scientific
wizardry, including placing huge reflectors in space or using aerosols to reduce the amount of carbon in the
air.

It's a hugely controversial theory. One of the main counterarguments is that promoting a manmade solution
to climate change will lead to a decrease in other efforts to reduce human impact. But the popularity of
geoengineering is on the rise among some scientists and even received a nod from the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change in its recent climate change report. In a fast-flowing and sometimes heated debate,
climate professors David Keith and Mike Hulme set out the for and against:

David Keith: Gordon McKay professor of applied physics (SEAS) and professor of public policy at Harvard
Kennedy School

I take solar geoengineering seriously because evidence from atmospheric physics, climate models, and
observations strongly suggest that it could significantly reduce climate impacts to vulnerable people and
ecosystems over the next half century.

We have to make a choice between two alternatives: Our choice is between the status quo, doing nothing—
with almost no organized research on the subject—and commitment to a serious research program that will
develop geoengineering capabilities and improve understanding of the technology's risks and benefits. Given
this choice, I choose research; and if that research supports geoengineering's early promise, I would then
choose gradual deployment (use) of geoengineering techniques.

2
Mike Hulme: professor of climate and culture in the School of Social Science & Public Policy at King's College
London

David, your ambition to significantly reduce future climate impacts is one that we share along with many
others. But I am mystified by your faith that solar climate engineering is an effective way of achieving this.
More direct and assured methods would be to invest in new clean energy technologies.

My main argument against solar engineering is twofold. First, deliberately injecting sulphur into the
stratosphere could further destabilize regional climates. It may reduce global warming, but that it is not what
causes climate damage. It is regional weather that does that… changes that lead to extreme weather—
droughts in the US, floods in Pakistan, typhoons in Philippines.

My second argument is that the new technology is ungovernable. Even the gradual deployment you propose
will have enormous impact on all nations, all peoples, and all species. All of these affected agents therefore
need representation in any decisions that would be made. But looking at the current sad state of the UN
climate negotiations, I find it hard to imagine any scenario in which the world's nations will agree to a
thermostat in the sky.

Solar climate engineering is a flawed idea that is seeking an illusory solution to the wrong problem.

DK - You are correct that climate impacts are ultimately felt at the local scale as changes in soil moisture,
precipitation, or similar quantities. Precisely because of this concern, my team has studied regional responses
to geoengineering. In the first look at the effectiveness of solar geoengineering, we found—to our surprise—
that it can reduce changes in both temperature and precipitation. While there are claims in the popular press
that it will "destabilize regional climates," I know of no scientific paper that supports this.
I have no faith in geoengineering, but I have some faith in empirical science. It's true that we don't have
mechanisms for legitimate governance of this technology. Indeed, this technology could lead to large-scale
conflict. This is exactly why I and others have started efforts to encourage policymakers from around the
world to begin working on the problem.

MH - David, the point here is to what extent we can trust climate models to detect types of regional changes.
As the recent report from the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has shown, the most modern
climate models cannot simulate the effects of greenhouse gas accumulation on climate.
What you are claiming then is that we can rely upon these climate models to estimate accurately the
additional effects of added sulphur in the stratosphere. Frankly, I would not bet a dollar on such results, let
alone the fate of millions of people.

You may say that this is exactly why we need more research—to obtain bigger and better climate models.
What I am saying is we should not invest in technologies whose effectiveness is uncertain. We can never know
if they will benefit us. But what we can be sure about is that once additional pollutants are injected into the
skies, the real climate will not behave like the model climate at scales that matter for people.

As for getting political scientists to research new governance mechanisms for the global thermostat—you
again place more faith in human rationality than I do. We have had more than 20 years of a real-world
experiment into global climate governance: it's called the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. It's
hardly been a success! You must be a supreme optimist to expect that a new system of global governance can
be invented and maintained long enough for solar climate engineering to be effective.

DK: Well, then, assume for the moment that climate models tell us nothing about regional climate response,
then on what do you base your claim that solar geoengineering is of no use? As experts, we base our
conclusions on a breath of evidence from basic physics, observations, and climate models. These models make
good predictions of the climates of Earth and other planets. This is a triumph of science.
3
The same science that shows us that carbon dioxide will change the climate shows that scattering a bit more
sunlight will reduce that climate change. How you do you accept one and reject the other?

On the other points: I am not excited by an endless round of climate-model improvements nor do I think that
political scientists will solve this. We need less theory and more scientific research.

MH: David, I agree that we need less theory and more empiricism. And I don't dismiss climate models, but I
discriminate between what they are good for and what they are less good for. I have little faith in their skill at
the regional and local scales.

Another argument against intentional solar climate engineering is that it will introduce another reason for
antagonism between nations. There will be nations who will want to claim that any damaging weather
extreme after a sulphur injection was because of that injection, rather than because of natural causes or
greenhouse gases.

I am against solar climate engineering not because of some violation of Nature's integrity, which is the
argument used by some. I am against it because my observations of collective human governance capabilities
suggest to me that the risks of implementation greatly outweigh any benefits. There are safer ways of
reducing the dangers of climate change.

Adapted from https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/blog/climate-science-geoengineering-save-world