In general,
there could be a possibility to stop climate warming with Geoengineering
methods. It doesn’t matter whether with CDR or SRM they both give possible
solutions. But at what price? Most of the solution are implicating high risks
or uncertainties, because most solutions are just theories. Just a few scholars
actually believe in Geoengineering and most of them just with the condition of
more research. For example, Marchetti (1977) recommends the CO2 storage
underground as a temporally solution in a worst-case scenario. In addition,
some more scientists support this idea, but mostly with the condition of first
trying to reduce CO2 in a ‘normal way’.
’Climate geoengineering is best considered as a
potential complement to the mitigation of CO2 emissions, rather than as an
alternative to it.’ (Lenton and Vaughan 2009:5556)
This
represents quite well the general opinion to Geoengineering in the scientific
world. Moreover, the idea of CDR is far more popular, than SRM, because of
lower risks more abilities to control it. (Lenton and Vaughan 2009)
According
to Keith (2000) there are not just natural risks, but social aspects as well.
For example, the politics, it would be most likely that not every country wants
to go with geoengineered solutions. Therefore, just a few would make a
decision, which would affect everybody. The
questions of security, sovereignty and liability could lead to international
conflicts. Furthermore, Keith (2000) underlines the problem of environmental
ethnics. He stresses three main problems, which will arose by using
Geoengineering.
1.
The
problem of, if we do once, we will do it again.
2.
The
problem of, rather than solve the causes, we are just trying to fix the
problem.
3.
The
problem of, playing god in system we just barely understand.
He ends his
essay with a very good statement, which meaning I completely support.
‘Humanity may inevitably grow into
active planetary management, yet we would be wise to begin with a renewed commitment
to reduce our interference in natural systems rather than to act by balancing
one interference with another.’ (Keith 2000: 280)
Another good
and critical article, written by Robock (2008), gives 20 reasons why
Geoengineering may be a bad idea, which is by the way the headline of the
article as well. He concludes by warning about the risks of Geoengineering, but
at the same time encourage more theoretical research in this area. Moreover, he
sees the problem of increased atmospheric CO2 mainly in bad politics.
‘If global warming is a political problem more
than it is a technical problem, it follows that we don’t need geoengineering to
solve it.’ (Robock 2008: 18)
On account
of that I am going to focus in my next post on the political opinion concerning
Geoengineering. In particular find out the importance of this topic in current
international environmental discussions like the upcoming COP21 conference in
Paris. To conclude, most scholars are not convinced of the idea of
Geoengineering. There is lack of knowledge and uncertainties, which should be
filled with more theoretical research, before we try it on our environment.
Keine Kommentare:
Kommentar veröffentlichen