“The cumulative scientific evidence is unequivocal: climate change is a threat to human well-being and planetary health.”
-IPCC Report: Summary for Policymakers, 2022
When AirPods came out in late 2016, everyone seemed to be wearing them. Saying “hello” to people while walking around campus became an awkward person’s nightmare — were they ignoring you, or surreptitiously listening to music? Before too long, there were hundreds of lost & found posts on Facebook that essentially ran “Broke College Student Seeks Missing AirPod.” I would see lonely little AirPods on sidewalks, in hallways, and delicately placed in Dixie cups behind any counter or information desk. Just as quickly as they had become indispensable, this new technology was causing problems for its owners — as well as those who tried not to unwittingly crush someone’s earbud with their sneaker or bike tire. Thankfully, some of the world’s most creative people must also have felt the pain of losing half their $150 purchase. They invented something to solve our separation anxiety: AirPod Connectors!
For those who are asking, yes, this rubber strap does defeat the purpose of wireless Bluetooth earbuds. If people are really so concerned about losing them, shouldn’t they just use regular headphones? (If you unironically wear AirPods with the connectors, please comment below and tell me why. I still do not understand.) Inventors created a solution for this First World Problem by simulating what we used to have, which were products that were simpler and less problematic. Instead of asking people to return to something old, marketers pumped new technology into the market, encouraging us to adapt to these modern circumstances by adding to our inventory.
This may seem manipulative, wasteful, and a bit silly, but the same logic is behind geoengineering. The IPCC report states that humanity must adapt to climate change and halt all greenhouse gas emissions simultaneously. Yet even if emissions were to totally stop today, it would take decades for atmospheric CO2 to peak before falling back to pre-Industrial Revolution levels. Many scientists think that the best way to avert a climate disaster is to manipulate Earth’s environments in order to simulate habitable temperatures & conditions. They, like the AirPod connectors inventors, believe using new tech will help us more quickly adapt to our new circumstances.
Some effects of warming above 1.5°C will be irreversible, even if we adopt a clean, carbon-free way of life. If no mitigation or meaningful adaptation is attempted, the problems facing our oceans & the rest of the world will get exponentially worse and become irreversible in the mid- and far-term (by 2060 and 2100, respectively). The IPCC recommends conserving 30-50% of our oceans to make sure that they are healthy enough to adapt on their own with little to no human intervention. But what will happen to the other 50-70%? Is it possible to geoengineer our way out of ocean acidification and sea level rise, among other problems? Let’s see what the IPCC has to say:
First of all: what is geoengineering and why is it controversial?
There are two main ways that scientists could geoengineer the planet:
Solar Radiation Management (SRM), which is reflecting more solar radiation before it gets to Earth’s surface. This process is an attempt to increase the earth’s albedo (like pretending there is more sea ice or deserts to reflect the sun’s rays). It is thought that SRM is a relatively low-cost option, so the scale of SRM deployment will likely depend on considerations of risk (how MUCH sunlight we are willing to go without).
Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR), which is absorbing emissions by helping with carbon uptake. This process simulates carbon sequestration, which is the process by which carbon is taken from the atmosphere and placed into various ‘sinks’ in nature (plants, rocks, deep ocean, underground, etc.). CDR is done either by more plants fixing CO2 into oxygen or more intake of CO2 into the deep ocean. This is thought to be a slightly more costly approach.
As the American Meteorological Society notes, geoengineering poses as many risks as it does benefits. CDR techniques “would confer global benefits but could also create adverse local impacts,” meaning that a generic decrease in CO2 could harm some environments while helping others. In a similar vein, SRM would likely reduce Earth’s average temperature but could also seriously interfere with global circulation patterns (intensified precipitation and storms, e.g.) And as with our current climate problems, there is a chance — perhaps a certainty — that the consequences of geoengineering would not be equally distributed amongst nations and peoples.
Is it possible to geoengineer the oceans?
Of course! There are numerous ways to intervene/interfere with the ocean’s natural cycles and mechanisms. The most popular technique is called ocean fertilization. This is achieved by adding iron and other nutrients to the surface ocean. Iron is an ideal substance because it alone wouldn’t change seawater’s pH. The excess of nutrients in fact mimics the uptick in nutrients that happens after a naturally-occuring algal bloom. The Southern Ocean is the best place to attempt this because the water is already quite nutrient-rich & it is experiencing the effects of climate change at an accelerated rate compared with the rest of the world. It is absorbing more heat than the other four oceans, and scientists are currently researching just how fast the Antarctic is absorbing CO2. Adding iron to the Southern Ocean would result in the most observable decrease in atmospheric CO2. The consensus in the scientific community is that “none of the iron fertilization field experiments conducted to date could have caused long-term alteration of ocean ecosystems.” On a positive note, it is relatively easy to stop or reverse the effects of ocean fertilization, leading many scientists to believe in the safety of the process.
However, scientists have concluded that there are limits to the benefits of ocean fertilization. The process does not sequester enough carbon in the deep ocean: at most 50% of the excess CO2 would be removed from the atmosphere — more realistic estimates downgrade that number to 10%. Also, the little phytoplankton may respire (breathe out) nitrous oxide (N2O), which is another greenhouse gas. The carbon that is used up from the surface ocean dissolves as it moves down the water column; this would cause decreases in pH & carbonate chemistry changes (aka acidification) to happen deeper in the ocean. And since there is a lot of vertical mixing within the water column, ocean acidification effects felt lower down would eventually make their way to the surface ocean. Essentially, fertilization does not stop OA. It merely delays it.
Even though this method of CDR is well studied, it is unlikely to be implemented for three reasons:
The Southern Ocean is inhospitable and unpredictable, so any large-scale fertilization efforts will most likely not go as planned.
Scientists do not know the long-term effects of supplementing the ocean with iron — could it increase the likelihood of harmful algal blooms?
The Madrid Protocol, drafted to conserve the Southern Ocean & Antarctic environments, would need to be amended in order for geoengineering practices to take place.
Others ways of geoengineering our oceans involve changing the ocean’s albedo, or an area’s ability to reflect sunlight and heat. This is done by the process of “ocean albedo change” (scientists are very creative). The ocean albedo change pathway aims to increase reflectivity by increasing the amount of sea foam & bubbles on the ocean’s surface. The potential side effects of this method are changes to the air-land-sea temperature contrast and a decrease in fishery yield & overall productivity. It will, however, reduce the heat stress placed on corals in addition to reducing global surface temperatures. This method sounds promising but is greatly understudied.
What does the IPCC report say about geoengineering?
The 2022 report says that some geoengineering theories that are intended to reduce the risks of climate change can actually increase the likelihood of maladaptation and negative side effects. The report discusses SRM in depth and ultimately concludes that it “cannot be the main policy response to climate change” and at best will be a supplement to other efforts. It also emphasizes that reducing the heat that reaches the earth’s surface does nothing to counteract ocean acidification. Most of the IPCC scientists are not fans of geoengineering (or “climate interference” as some call it) because they rightly believe it does not address the root of the problem: human emissions. Trying to solve climate change with iron fertilization and aerosols is like giving Earth a bandage when it really needs surgery. Basically, geoengineering efforts merely mask the effects of climate change, just like AirPod connectors give only the illusion of control over your technology. If you remove the rubber strap (or stop injecting iron into the ocean), your original problem returns.
The “large and uncertain knowledge gaps” regarding geoengineering make the IPCC nervous, especially attempts to reduce the amount of solar radiation reaching the earth. SRM is conclusively useless for stopping the effects of climate change in the ocean. And while certain CDR measures can lessen warming and acidification, others will just redistribute the problem to potentially more vulnerable parts of the sea.
So if geoengineering is a bad option, what does the IPCC suggest we do?
Despite the IPCC’s reservations, multiple studies in the past 10 years have concluded that “without geoengineering, it is becoming highly unlikely that ‘dangerous’ climate change can still be avoided.” Current attempts to adapt to and mitigate climate change are ineffective; this is because they are designed as responses to current impacts and near-term risks yet will not be implemented until a later date, when the problem will become exacerbated. The IPCC notes that conserving marine ecosystems (when combined with specific adaptation attempts to “avoid the unavoidable” impacts of climate change) will lessen the harm felt by vulnerable ocean & coastal ecosystems. In other words, the better we manage our environment – and the more specific our management is – the more likely it will be to survive any severe changes.
Despite this urgent and comprehensive advice, most of the adaptation measures studied by the IPCC were related to flooding. The report unfortunately seemed to have few useful suggestions about conserving our oceans and instead focused on the economic impacts of rising sea levels and continued use of fossil fuels.
While both of these issues are important, focusing on them obscures the complex reality the rest of the world (oceans included) is facing. According to surveys and social studies, the public prefers CDR strategies over SRM, which is good for we ocean-lovers. But governments are generally hesitant to fund any geoengineering research. Why? The IPCC found that researchers do not elaborate on the different methods of SRM and CDR when presenting their ideas. Uncertainty in public opinion is never a good thing, for it fosters creativity in underused minds. The Risks chapter of the report addresses this issue head-on: “in some Anglophone countries, a small portion of the public believes in chemtrail conspiracy theories, which are easily found in social media” as I discovered. When Googling “geoengineering memes” to include some light illustrations for this complicated issue, everything that showed up was conspiracy-related and insisted that geoengineering is already happening on a global scale — a claim that we know is false.
One of the largest (if not THE largest) factors in adapting our oceans to climate change is what the IPCC calls “climate literacy.” If there continues to be a lack of access to reliable, true information, the ignorance of policy-makers and voters alike will constrain any measures put in place. There are some vulnerable places, such as small islands & coastal cities, that are already facing severe effects of climate change and have been forced to adapt to their new circumstances. However, these locations have some of the lowest overall greenhouse gas emissions on the planet and cannot bear the burden of combating climate change alone. Responses to climate change must be “comprehensive, effective, and innovative” to encourage sustainable development. Governments can prepare for climate change by implementing inclusive, large-scale plans; otherwise global warming will continue to worsen as these small efforts will be dwarfed by the overall unsustainable use of our Earth. The IPCC notes that our ecosystems will become less resilient as the planet warms. Weak ecosystems mean that they cannot adapt to temperature increases, acidification, and sea level rise.
As you can see in the above graphic, the sooner we take conclusive action the better. Between now and 2030 when the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals are supposed to be met to prevent an excess of 1.5°C, the best path forward (illustrated in green) is to globally take two actions to “increase economic stewardship.” An example of this may be combining ocean albedo change CDR with an all-out cessation of greenhouse gas emissions. On all the other paths, only one action is taken, and on the worst path that one action occurs the latest. It is important to note that the graphic does not emphasize quantity over quality. On the red path, which leads to a weakening of the environment’s natural response to global warming, 4-5 events take place but they worsen Earth’s resilience to climate change. An example of this could be intermittent efforts to geoengineer our Earth (starting & stopping fertilization efforts, e.g.). So, making change for the sole sake of making change will create worse problems later on.
As the report’s Summary for Policymakers concludes,
“Any further delay in concerted anticipatory global action on adaptation and mitigation will miss a brief and rapidly closing window of opportunity to secure a livable and sustainable future for all.”
Any geoengineering methods that are used must become a permanent yet minor part of our future. Our climate has evolved from earbuds to AirPods at a faster rate than expected. While we may try to (geo)engineer our way out of a brand new set of problems, such attempts will be precarious at best and ineffective at worst. We either need to become better stewards of our possessions, or entrust them into the care of those who are.
Sources not linked above:
Caldeira, Ken et.al. “The Science of Geoengineering” 2013. https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev-earth-042711-105548
IPCC, 2022: Summary for Policymakers [H.-O. Pörtner, D.C. Roberts, E.S. Poloczanska, K. Mintenbeck, M. Tignor, A. Alegría, M. Craig, S. Langsdorf, S. Löschke, V. Möller, A. Okem (eds.)]. In: Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [H.-O. Pörtner, D.C. Roberts, M. Tignor, E.S. Poloczanska, K. Mintenbeck, A. Alegría, M. Craig, S. Langsdorf, S. Löschke, V. Möller, A. Okem, B. Rama (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press. In Press.
O'Neill, B., M. van Aalst, Z. Zaiton Ibrahim, L. Berrang Ford, S. Bhadwal, H. Buhaug, D. Diaz, K. Frieler, M. Garschagen, A. Magnan, G. Midgley, A. Mirzabaev, A. Thomas, and R. Warren, 2022: Key Risks Across Sectors and Regions. In: Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability.Contribution of Working Group II to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [H.-O. Pörtner, D.C. Roberts, M. Tignor, E.S. Poloczanska, K. Mintenbeck, A. Alegría, M. Craig, S. Langsdorf, S. Löschke, V. Möller, A. Okem, B. Rama (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press. In Press.
Williamson, Phillip et.al. “Ocean acidification in a geoengineering context.” 2012. https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rsta.2012.0167
Williamson, Phillip et.al. “Ocean fertilization for geoengineering.” 2012. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S095758201200119X
One clarification. When people refer to the Madrid Protocol, they often mean the international agreement on registering trademarks. What this article means by Madrid Protocol is the environmental protection protocol to the Antarctica Treaty signed in Madrid.
And as long as we are on international treaties, I'll mention Operation Popeye. Of the many bad ideas to come out of the U.S. during the Vietnam War, one of those were efforts to weaponize weather, nicknamed Operation Popeye. That effort led to an international treaty banning weaponizing weather (and tsunamis and earthquakes, etc.) and -related to this article- research into such processes. Geo-Engineering research arguably falls within the scope of research that is banned. Once we develop ways to influence the weather, will we use it only for peaceful purposes? For a counter point from popular culture about whether weather control is okay if our intentions are good, watch the Star Trek movies about the Genesis Project. I would urge that Geo-Engineering is not just a bad policy and a bad idea, but looking into it is against international law.