Biospheric engineering, but only if…
According to a report in The Independent, a poll of Scientists performed by the paper found almost unanimous support for active engineering of the Earth’s biosphere in a drastic attempt to strip CO2 from the atmosphere. Even though we are living in an everyday life-is-the-experiment form of biospheric engineering (which is how we got into this mess to begin with) it should be easy to recognise that such suggestions are the climate change response equivalent of a plumber sucking air sharply through clenched teeth as he shakes he head in despair of the extent of the work required. I’m afraid Madam, that this is going to be far more inconvenient, painful and expensive than we first thought…. [suck/shake]
To pursue any of the bioengineering efforts that have been suggested, which range from blocking sunlight using spaceborn reflectors to manipulating the ocean’s chemistry and currents in an attempt to increase its CO2 absorption capability, should be rightly recognised as a REALLY BIG ISSUE. Assume for a moment that those scientists are correct in their support for such steps, and that they have also correctly ascertained that the current efforts to curb the flow rates of GHG emissions are wildly insufficient, then we are at the beginning of where it all gets really scary. The moment that must recognised as one of those gravely addressed times when you realise things aren’t quite going as well as you thought, and on the table there are no good options left, only a set of bad ones from which to select the least worse.
It is worth pausing for a moment to just reflect on the enormity of what is being suggested, the risk inherent in the exercise, and potential scope of the end result if we botched it up. In an everyday and everyman’s sense, it is impractical to understand however what all that does really mean on a planetary scale - so instead I will express it everyday terms. Imagine that your domestic central heating system’s thermostat has gone haywire and the house’s temperature is wildly fluctuating. Its 38 degrees Celsius in the lounge room and its 5 degrees in the bedrooms. Biospheric engineering is the equivalent of saying “Look, we tried to fix the central heating system but we can’t make it work properly anymore. So what we’re going to instead is leave the heating system as it is; and remodel the house around to cater for the problem. Of course….a few walls will have to come out in the process….”.
You can imagine that you’d take a long, careful look at that before proceeding VERY carefully.
Similarly, we need to have a number of careful debates regarding biospheric engineering, and a vigorously applied risk management methodology to any path forward. Sure we need to analyse and rank the relative merits of each of the suggested approaches - including for each a matching “back out” plan. We must ensure that part of the risk analysis for each suggested bio-engineering technique is a thorough what-if effort that considers the likely range of undesirable outcomes that may ensue, and what we’d then do to deal with those that arise (and be ready to do it). But if we’re going to have an Intervention, then lets do it properly.
Because if we’re saying that we’re at the point of considering biospheric engineering then we are also saying that Monopoly money carbon trading schemes, non enforceable international protocols, voluntary corporate emissions disclosure schemes and a generally unregulated approach to emissions measurement and management didn’t work. Rather than abandoning all of those efforts however, we should continue with (some of) them albeit in a different way. Taking the path of biospheric engineering should also go hand in hand with direct social and industrial intervention to ensure that what we have collectively failed to achieve through voluntary and half hearted adherence to emissions reductions targets is instead enforced. That reality is the obnoxious truth sitting unacknowledged around the Climate Change Christmas Dinner table. Because if we are going to take the incredibly complex, expensive, desperate and risky path of technical intervention in the planets biosphere we also need to try a different, and more honest approach to reducing the emissions.
Some of the required steps would be enormous ones to take. Forcing an immediate change in vehicle design. Forcing a suspension of a near totality of commercial air traffic. A rigorous change in building design codes, and a strict timetable for retrofitting of existing building and housing stock. A soup to nuts reorganisation of our food supply lines. Redeploy military personnel to a multinational, U.N. type force the mission of which it is to protect from any further degradation those natural carbon sinks that we have left - for example preventing any further logging or burning of the Amazon. It would be untenable to intervene with the workings of one sink - say the ocean - to try and boost it’s capacity while actively degrading another through profit seeking enterprise. When we’ve done those then perhaps we can find the courage to have a sensible debate regarding overall human population targets, in context of the capacity of the biosphere to be able to support us. Its easy to understand why no politician has yet thought it a winning strategy to include such suggestions as elements of an election policy platform.
Lets remember though that we are living in truly interesting times. GM and Chrysler are continuing to negotiate the details of US Federal support, lest they disappear in a fog of their own tailpipe emissions. Is it really too difficult for the conditions to be very simple: “If you want this money, then stop building every other vehicle except for a zero emissions (0em) 2 passenger vehicle, a 0em 4 passenger vehicle, one for 6 passengers, a delivery van, a large van, a small bus and a large bus. You have one year. When you’re done with those, come back and we’ll tell you the next thing we want you to do. Oh…and you’ll co-operate with each other to achieve this. Go. Now…”.
Those unable to continue to jet around the globe will of course go absolutely mental. There’s no great answer to that other than to again ponder the enormity of the implications and risks involved in engineering the biosphere in an attempt to resurrect and boost in the short term the planet’s capacity to absorb the emissions that result from such activities. And that is why this now has the potential to get all very ugly, and why we must take a very deliberate, risk managed, and deliberated approach toward the next steps. Half arsed hasn’t worked, we need to apply some strategic sustainability governance from here on in. Welcome to the topics that will define 2009: Biospheric Engineering, Governance, Risk Management.
I cannot help but point out that the acronym that immediately jumps out from that is B.E. G.Ri.M. Happy New Year.
Tags: Bioengineering, Governance, Politics, Travel