One says he will reform himself, and then nature and circumstances will be right... The other will reform nature and circumstances, and then man will be right. Talk no more vaguely, says he, of reforming the world — I will reform the globe itself.
- Henry David Thoreau, Paradise (to be) Regained
Climate Geoengineering Part 4 of 4
This is the fourth and final post in a series on climate geoengineering: "the deliberate large-scale intervention in the Earth’s natural systems to counteract climate change." My aim has been to answer the following questions:
- Prometheus or Icarus? - Why consider climate geoengineering at all?
- Fire and Ice - A synthetic sulphuric aerosol veil in the stratosphere?
- Obscured by Clouds - What other options are on the horizon?
- Kintsugi and the Moral Hazard - What would Jesus do?
This post is broken into five parts:
- A shotgun approach to climate change
- Kintsugi
- The moral hazard
- What would Jesus do?
- In conclusion
A shotgun approach to climate change
Climate geoengineering is "the deliberate large-scale intervention in the Earth’s natural systems to counteract climate change." As we've seen, there are a few ideas gaining traction in certain scientific and entrepreneurial circles related to climate geoengineering schemes; the farthest-reaching and likely the most controversial is the creation of a veil of sulfur aerosols in the stratosphere (from mile 6 to mile 31 above sea level; see image below).
The veil could be created by planes that deposit sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere, or weather balloons that spray it up through a hose from Earth's surface. Once up there, the sulfur dioxide will spread pretty easily throughout the stratosphere.
- Pro: the sulfur particles will reflect some of the sun's heat and light before it enters Earth's atmosphere, thereby "cooling" the atmosphere a bit;
- Con: the particles will also weaken the necessary ozone layer near the poles.
- Pro: plants will likely appreciate the scattering of some of the sun's light in directions that benefit them, and they'll like the higher CO2 remaining in the atmosphere;
- Con: the blue sky will be whitened, weather patterns (like the Indian monsoon) will change, and the oceans will continue to become more acidic and lifeless.
Geoengineering is not a silver bullet solution to climate change. In fact, short of an immediate, full transition from a fossil-fuel-based economy to a renewable energy-based economy, there are no silver bullets available to take out this accelerating climate change beast.
Our response to climate change, then, must be a shotgun approach. We've got to fire at it every pellet we've got available, and we've got to do it all at once - pellets like the transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy, minimizing production and consumption, and localizing our economies.
Shotgun shell:
Ultimately, what geoengineering can provide is breathing space (source): it could let us stabilize temperature while we work out the great energy transition from fossil fuels to renewables and develop carbon capture technologies that don't yet exist in theory or reality. Not even in theory is geoengineering a permanent option, by the way.
Kintsugi
The story goes that a 15th-century Japanese shogun, Ashikaga Yoshimasa, sent a broken tea bowl to China to have it fixed. When the bowl came back, it was held together with metal staples. Disgusted, he set out to find a better, more aesthetically pleasing way to repair broken pottery. His eventual solution? Adding gold dust to adhesive resin, so that cracks are emphasized and made attractive.
The philosophical perspective on kintsugi is that "it treats breakage and repair as part of the history of an object, rather than something to disguise." (Source.)
Instead of becoming destitute due to the ensuing climate change tragedy, the history of life on Earth could become "all the more whole, and all the more beautiful, for having been broken and mended." (Source.)
The spirit of kintsugi is conjured by activist and journalist Naomi Klein when she writes that the worrisome uncertainty of climate change can be "balanced and soothed by the prospect of building something much better than many of us have previously dared hope." She writes that "if there has ever been a moment to advance a plan to heal the planet that also heals our broken economies and our shattered communities, this is it." (Source.)
During my first introduction to climate geoengineering (by Naomi Klein, actually) I was repulsed. How could we consider messing with something so grand and so poorly understood as the global climate system? It's clearly an example of what Wendell Berry calls arrogant ignorance: "We identify arrogant ignorance by its willingness to work on too big a scale, and thus to put too much at risk." (Source.)
Oliver Morton, however, with compassion and thoughtfulness, led me to seriously consider climate geoengineering: "It is about...exercising compassion on a planetary scale - a project that will have to be as political as it is scientific or technological."
Geoengineering as a component in a full-spectrum, gold dust-infused adhesive for our fracturing Earth system is now palatable to me.
It should be further studied and discussed not as a silver bullet solution, but as a source of breathing space for us to refine and implement renewable energy technologies globally (and all the requisite transformations in our economies and governments). I think it's worth considering in this context.
What I want to be responsible for, however, is that I'm advocating consideration of inorganic solutions to a problem with presently viable organic solutions.
The moral hazard
What is disquieting [about geoengineering projects] is not their likelihood, but what they reveal about the persistence of belief in the technological fix. The notion that science will save us is the chimera that allows the present generation to consume all the resources it wants, as if no generations will follow. It is the sedative that allows civilization to march so steadfastly toward environmental catastrophe. It forestalls the real solution, which will be in the hard, nontechnical work of changing human behavior.
- Kenneth Brower, writing in The Atlantic
The moral hazard in considering geoengineering is that in falling for its allure as a panacea (and it isn't one), society will be less likely to appropriately respond to climate change in the long run. At this point in the game, we shouldn't delay the development and implementation of technologies and social structures necessary to create a cleaner, sustainable future.
The moral hazard of geoengineering is that the short-term benefit of extending sustainable temperatures may lead society to delay grappling with the harder tasks ahead. We can't delay.
Some people see geoengineering as worth avoiding altogether simply due to the moral hazard, let alone its concomitant ecological hazards. It's thought that the cost is too high of delaying the inevitable under the temporary umbrella of geoengineering.
- What's chilling about the moral hazard is the likelihood of it.
- What's behind the moral hazard is our distrust of the institutional mind - the mind of corporations seeking to profit, the government seeking to control.
- What's jarring about the moral hazard is that those willing to consider it do so from a place of privilege, either geographically or temporally or economically or all three, such that suspending an energy transition won't hurt them or their kids as much as it will hurt poor brown people on the other side of the planet.
What would Jesus do?
'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.
- Jesus, Matthew 22:37-40
I'm generally in Thoreau's first camp of eco reformers: I think that the exterior will be taken care of when we look within at our latent desires and objectives, reform ourselves, and shift our actions to be considerate of present and future humans and non-humans.
Then I read Morton's The Planet Remade, and his logic is sound, his empathy is appropriate, and his optimism is high. He argues that we can reform nature by developing better technologies, and then our ecological issues will be resolved.
Even throughout this blog series I've written support for the study, discussion, and implementation of climate geoengineering.
And here I am, aiming to finish the series with what I think is the most important question I've yet asked about the subject: what would Jesus do? Note: I'm asking this question as an atheist, not as a Christian.
I'll answer that question by focusing on Jesus's two commandments to us:
- Would support of geoengineering be charitable to our neighbors?
- Would support of geoengineering honor that the kingdom of God is within/among us?
Is it charitable?
Geoengineering, done ethically, could be a component of the cultivation of a livable planet for all life. In this regard, I think that it is charitable, that it is loving thy neighbor.
However, the 'ethical' qualifier is not easily resolved. A global market left to its own devices, no matter how beneficent in theory, continues to prove to have more concern for profit than a concern for life.
However, the 'ethical' qualifier is not easily resolved. A global market left to its own devices, no matter how beneficent in theory, continues to prove to have more concern for profit than a concern for life.
Call a thing immoral or ugly, soul-destroying or a degradation of man, a peril to the peace of the world or to the well-being of future generations; as long as you have not shown it to be 'uneconomic' you have not really questioned its right to exist, grow, and prosper.
- E.F. Schumacher, Small is Beautiful: Economics as if People Mattered
The two ethical dilemmas of geoengineering are the profit motive (that prioritizes material wealth over human/non-human health and well being) and the cataract of privilege. Geoengineering, "far from a quick emergency fix, could make the impacts of climate change even worse for a great many people." (Source.)
A charitable shepherd wouldn't graze his flock on poisoned pasture.
A charitable shepherd wouldn't graze his flock on poisoned pasture.
Does it put God above all else?
Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moths and vermin destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moths and vermin do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.
- Jesus, Matthew 6:19-21
A mostly unconcerned and unrelenting pursuit of economic growth continues to drive the warming of the planet. Our economy is a fossil fuel-powered, consumption-driven machine. Different, better, and newer stuff while the health and well being of life suffers. Our desires for distractions and comfort and ease have an environmental and social cost.
As Valentine Michael Smith says in Stranger in a Strange Land, "the truth is simple but the way of man is hard." Jesus was a radical, and I think he would promote a radical response to current and impending ecological collapse. This would include, I think, altering our economies and means of production to satisfy human and non-human needs. Our current appetites cause too much suffering, and I think that Jesus would invite us to subdue our hunger for consumption.
Material success is our golden calf. It is our treasure, and it is where our hearts are. I think that Jesus would admonish us to reprioritize our values and place the health and well being of life first, as an expression of putting God above all else.
In summary, I think that Jesus would ask us to act consistently with his two commandments. I think that he would have us seek solutions that lead to the best outcomes for all, actions and outcomes that demonstrate respect for all life (including non-human life).
I know that Jesus would tell us our real challenge is not a technological one but a spiritual one. And that is what makes geoengineering a dangerous option - we, a spiritually immature species, wielding planet-wide powers that will likely compound entrenched ecological problems.
I think that Jesus would tell us to kick our addiction to fossil fuels, over-consumption, and our selfish gratification of base desires for comfort, and that he would tell us to fulfill our responsibilities as able stewards of this pale blue dot in God's Creation.
In Conclusion
Writing this blog series on geoengineering has been a very positive experience for me. I felt like I was in college again, writing a research paper.
Since I began writing this fourth and final segment over a month ago, I read a 900+ page novel that takes place in India and Afghanistan in the mid-80's, I teared up at the election results, I've felt new hope in humanity and our future, and I listened to my wife tell me that my voice matters.
I deeply appreciate the time and consideration that you've given to any part of this series. I am also grateful for the privilege of health, family, friends, access to information, leisure, and material necessities that make my life possible and spectacular.
Let's make this world a better place for all life.
Let's make this world a better place for all life.
Please comment if you have a response to this or any of my posts. I'd love to hear from you.
Mick,
ReplyDeleteAwesome post. Keep the ideas and conversation going. Great blend of science and values.
Nate
Thanks, Nate. And thanks again for brainstorming with me on this one.
Delete