Geoengineering: Can it help our planet keep its cool?

Box 3 | Governing geoengineering

Although the Planktos scheme did not go ahead, it is not certain that the ocean fertilisation scheme could have been prevented if there had been the money and determination to proceed. It could have been undertaken in international waters, which do not really belong to anyone. At the time, regulations to control the dumping of material in international waters (the London Convention and London Protocol) were unclear when it came to ocean fertilisation. After the Planktos scheme, these regulations were extended to limit ocean fertilisation to ‘legitimate scientific research’. But even that could get out of hand. Likewise, no-one owns space. Again there are some regulatory agreements, but a nation (or a corporation) determined to put a shield into orbit to reduce sunlight for its own benefit, probably could not be stopped by the rules as they are now.

Such ‘governance issues’ are among the many challenges facing geoengineering. Some schemes which have a more localised effect may be controlled at a national level. Surface albedo, for example, could be controlled under a country’s environment and planning regulations. Other schemes, such as putting aerosols into the high atmosphere, would generate effects that quickly cross international borders. Impacts would vary, some countries being more adversely affected than others. Rainfall might increase in one region and decrease in another. Crops in one country might be affected by sunshades put up by another. It seems vital to have in place some globally-accepted regulations to control geoengineering schemes, particularly those with widespread effects. 

Right now the focus needs to be on:

  • Promoting research to better understand the impacts of geoengineering technologies

  • Prevention schemes like that of Planktos going ahead, until we have set in place governance mechanisms that are rigorous, yet flexible enough to cope with developments in the field of geoengineering.

Governance structures are needed to guide the:

  • Conduct of potentially dangerous outcomes from research conducted even at relatively small space scales.

  • The development of commercial enterprises designed to build economic value from such technologies that may have widespread ramifications for all parts of society and across national borders.

  • Reflect the rights of all government jurisdictions and protect vulnerable ecosystems.

A preliminary meeting to discuss the development of such guidelines was held in California in early 2010 (the Alisomar Conference), but significantly more work is needed before such governance structures are in place. In the meanwhile extreme caution is needed.

Boxes
Box 1. Geoengineering and climate change
Box 2. The two types of geoengineering

Related sites
Hacking the planet: The only climate solution left? (New Scientist, 21 July 2009, pages 8-10) [create full text version]
Geoengineering the climate: Science, governance and uncertainty (The Royal Society, UK)
Marine snow storms: Assessing the environmental risks of ocean fertilisation (Carbon and Climate Law Review, December 2009, pages 426-436; note: subscription required)

External sites are not endorsed by the Australian Academy of Science.
Posted February 2010.