Geoengineering from black helicopters

Geoengineering, as pushed by Freakonomics, means world government.

Will Levitt and Dubner’s Superfreakonomics be the first book ever totally discredited before its publication? They were rash enough to post the contrarian chapter on climate change for a time on Amazon as a preview, and it won’t recover from the comprehensive shredding by Krugman, Romm (here and here), Lambert, and Connelley. Bad arguments are one thing, crude misrepresentation (of the genuine experts Weitzman and Caldeira) and very simple errors of fact (solar panels aren’t black) are quite another. Dubner’s a journalist; Levitt a Chicago professor, so he now has the more serious problem in refurbishing his Bates-medalist reputation.

One of Levitt and Dubner’s unfounded enthusiasms is for geoengineering solutions to CO2 forcing, specifically massive injection of sulphate aerosols ino the atmosphere to shield the earth from solar radiation by artificial smog. Not being an expert, I will, unlike them, follow the consensus of experts that

(a) this and all such schemes on the relevant scale are seriously dangerous, since we don’t understand the possible side-effects, including changes in regional weather patterns, and anyway leave untouched ocean acidification and other non-greenhouse effects of increased CO2,

(b) the geoengineering options must be studied in depth as an emergency Plan B in case humanity doesn’t cut emissions enough, or the climate turns out to be more sensitive than we thought to those already made.

See the British Royal Society; Hegerl and Solomon (excerpted by Romm here), Robock, etc. These strictures apply to solar radiation management techniques. Carbon recapture and similar methods count as emissions reduction, and so are  comparatively safe but slower.

It’s possible, however, that these climate experts don’t know much about global governance, and I know a little, having spent my working life in intergovernmental cooperation, so here goes on that side of the problem.

1. Because large-scale geoengineering is dangerous, it will only become a live option when emission control efforts have clearly failed and things have reached a crisis: hundreds of thousands dying every year in droughts, hurricanes, coastal floods and so on. The polar bears will already have gone. Whoever does it will need cast-iron political cover against the unforeseen consequences – including the risk of killing millions more.

2. For the same reasons, the measures cannot be national or regional in scale. They will be inherently global in their effects, even if carried out by or in a single country. The political cover accordingly has to be global.

3. There’s only a little room for experiment – primarily to test engineering feasibility and cost (say of Venetian blinds in space.) There’s so much noise in the climate system that the effects of small-scale pilot projects won’t be properly measurable. It will have to be live or nothing.

4. The knowledge required to manage an emergency global geoengineering scheme is very considerable, and very rapid and expensive action will be essential when things go wrong, as they probably will. Accordingly the scheme cannot be run democratically with any hope of success, only technocratically. Thought experiment: you have a project running on ocean fertilisation with iron in the Pacific. Evidence has come up that this is pumping up the El Niño cycle, with droughts and fires in Australia and the collapse of Peruvian fisheries. Do you suspend or not?

You can see where I’m heading here. Geoengineering fits exactly the Jean Monnet paradigm, which he developed for running transatlantic shipping in WWI. Negotiating agreements on every detail, in the traditional model of intergovernmental cooperation, wasn’t working: a potentially war-losing crisis. Monnet and a British colleague James Salter persuaded the French, British, Italian and American governments in 1917 into delegating executive authority over convoys to a small committee (in effect, themselves). This is the model Monnet used to set up the European Coal and Steel Community in 1950-51, and the source both of the EU’s successes and of its structural democratic deficit.

In theory the USA could run the geoengineering show alone as an imperial power: and it would provide the bulk of the expertise. But in that case it would assume all the political risks, including excess deaths on a possibly genocidal scale. The initial situation will ex hypothesi be terrible, with mass deaths anyway, and the geoengineers will likely be blamed for these even if they are not in fact responsible. The other problem is the unworkability of the US Constitution for emergencies. A plan like the Manhattan Project is conceivable on a a Presidential, executive basis, but not one that leaves the US Senate with a veto on stuff they and their constituents won’t understand. Would either  the US polity or the rest of the world accept the US President as global climate dictator?

I conclude that the only possible locus for the Monnet-style delegation is to an agency under the fig-leaf auspices of the United Nations. It could have an anodyne title: “The executive subcommittee of IPCC Working Group III on technological mitigation”. The crucial word is executive. It would decide stuff, and give orders to the relevant agencies of member countries like NASA. The budget would have to be unlimited. Only very brave and knowledgeable people would volunteer; and they would need the equivalent of a witness protection programme for their personal safety.

Opponents of  rapid and coordinated emissions cuts might think about this. These are clearly near the limit of what can be achieved by conventional intergovernmental cooperation, and maybe beyond it. But if emission control fails, the alternative is something completely different: in this one field, it means (on current knowledge) world government of an extreme and unaccountable type. Try to obstruct the Executive Subcommittee &c? Black helicopters will land on your lawn, disgorging stormtroopers in iridescent camo bearing the spaceship-and sun insignia of the Empire IPCC. You valiantly resist, but they draw their phasers….

Asimov's sun-and-spaceship, courtesy this site
Asimov's sun-and-spaceship, courtesy
IPCC fantasy logo by me
IPCC fantasy logo by me

My own fear is not that this will happen but that it won’t. The Romans were historically unusual in their willingness to do what was necessary to survive: create war dictators, abandon the republic for an autocracy. The general pattern, documented by Jared Diamond, is to prefer collective suicide to paradigm change.

Update 20 September Kevin Drum also tackles the politics, from a different angle.

Author: James Wimberley

James Wimberley (b. 1946, an Englishman raised in the Channel Islands. three adult children) is a former career international bureaucrat with the Council of Europe in Strasbourg. His main achievements there were the Lisbon Convention on recognition of qualifications and the Kosovo law on school education. He retired in 2006 to a little white house in Andalucia, His first wife Patricia Morris died in 2009 after a long illness. He remarried in 2011. to the former Brazilian TV actress Lu Mendonça. The cat overlords are now three. I suppose I've been invited to join real scholars on the list because my skills, acquired in a decade of technical assistance work in eastern Europe, include being able to ask faux-naïf questions like the exotic Persians and Chinese of eighteenth-century philosophical fiction. So I'm quite comfortable in the role of country-cousin blogger with a European perspective. The other specialised skill I learnt was making toasts with a moral in the course of drunken Caucasian banquets. I'm open to expenses-paid offers to retell Noah the great Armenian and Columbus, the orange, and university reform in Georgia. James Wimberley's occasional publications on the web

12 thoughts on “Geoengineering from black helicopters”

  1. Ah, no. The chief reason geo-engineering is superior to radical reductions in CO2 emissions, is that it doesn't require massive, world-wide cooperation. This is exactly what makes it feasible. Throw away that advantage, and if you're right about global warming, we roast.

  2. Brett: are you seriously suggesting that it's morally OK or politically feasible for a single big country to engage in huge, untested schemes that will change everybody else's climate in unknown ways? Mind you, that would be a good description of current US, Chinese and Brazilian policies…

    "If you’re right about global warming.." There's no if, and my opinion doesn't matter.

  3. Well, if massive geo-engineering projects will only be feasible after emission control efforts have obviously failed and the US continues to be viewed as the principal obstacle to emission control efforts, then it seems unlikely the world will turn to the US as technocratic dictator unless the US has already achieved something close to global imperial dominance — which would mean we already would own the catastrophe and probably be facing a massive global insurrection. By that time the niceties of the US Constitution would already be passe and the Collapse scenario well on its way to fulfillment.

  4. Actually, some of the consequences are already known.

    1. Stratospheric sulfate is a very serious ozone depleter.

    2. Sulfate creates acid rain. That creates local problems and slightly worsens global ocean acidification.

    Also, if due to some political disturbance or unforeseen problem the atmosphere couldn't get its ozone fix, the resulting warming would be about an order of magnitude faster than the current trend, with correspondingly more catastrophic results.

  5. "the unworkability of the US Constitution for emergencies"

    Actually, it works pretty well in emergencies. Recent examples: After 9/11, the US government moved quickly to secure the homeland well enough that there have been no subsequent terrorist events. And last autumn, after Lehman Bros. imploded, the US government stabilized the financial sector very quickly, avoiding a replay of the 1930s.

    The real problem isn't how well the system responds to emergencies, it's the system's tendency to let problems grow into outright emergencies before it responds. Recent examples: 9/11, Lehman Bros.' implosion. It also has a bad record on unintended consequences. Of course, lots of other governments (including the UK) have the same tendency and record–as well as corporations, churches, universities, etc.

  6. "and the US continues to be viewed as the principal obstacle to emission control efforts,"

    Who the hell cares about anybody stupid enough to think the US is the principle obstacle to emission control efforts? Rather than the understandable reluctance of 2nd and third world nations to commit economic suicide? It's been years since China surpassed the US as a source of greenhouse gases. All the US government did was have the nerve to actually point out what everybody already knew: That the Kyoto treaty was dead.

    "“If you’re right about global warming..” There’s no if, and my opinion doesn’t matter."

    There's always an if, and in this case, the big if consists not of whether CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but of whether the climate system really has such a high positive feedback in it that we're right on the verge of runaway warming. Because the relatively feeble greenhouse effect of CO2 certainly wouldn't warm the planet excessively on it's own. The fact that climate modelers didn't predict the current pause in warming before it happened should not rationally fill anybody with confidence in their models.

  7. Ok, I'm less than impressed. As is scarcely acknowledged, direct CO2 forcing of world temperature scarcely amounts to 1 degree C even with doubling of CO2. (Which would be undesirable anyway; I kind of like coral.) The frightening predictions are all dependent on the climate system having positive feedbacks built into it which bring it right to the verge of runaway warming. Essentially the climate is considered to be something akin to a landslide just waiting for the CO2 pebble to trigger it.

    Of course, such feedbacks work both ways, implying that the planet will cool dramatically in response to anything that would minutely reduce the world's temperatures, such as the present shortfall in sunspots. Or a hypothetical geoengineering project.

    But the bottom line is that the component of warming due to C02 that's scientifically uncontroversial is also small enough to be of little concern. The dangerous degree of warming is dependent on models with an uncomfortable number of free parameters, NOT fully driven by accepted physics. "Climate change denialists" aren't rejecting physics, they're rejecting the speculative models.

    And what *I'm* rejecting is the determination that we must respond to this with, and ONLY with, Kyoto on steroids. If we need world-wide cooperation to tackle global warming, better make your plans for all that new beachfront property in Antarctica. Because if that's needed to solve it, it ain't getting solved.

  8. Brett, the term for what you're describing (the extent to which an increase in CO2 causes an increase in temperature) is "climate sensitivity".

    If you're asserting that all feedback processes are "speculative" and that the only component of warming that's "scientifically uncontroversial" is the direct effect of CO2, I'd say that you've been simply misinformed on those points.

    Climate sensitivity is still not absolutely determined, but we know with a high level of confidence that it's betweeen 2 and 4.5 degrees, and probably close to 3 degrees (for a doubling of CO2). That's from empirical observations as well as basic physics (not just from models) and is widely accepted.

    See the Climate sensitivity is low article at Skeptical Science for an introduction to the topic.

  9. There's another problem with shielding us from solar radiation using opaque particulates.

    Plants need light to grow.

    India spent a lot of the 1980s and 1990s with lower plant productivity than it 'should have', because they hadn't gotten smoky wood-and-dung fires under control at all. When they cleaned up the atmosphere a bit, crop productivity went up. Note that this pulls in more CO2, seasonally, as well as doing the important work of feeding everything on land. Note also that even the most optimistic reading of Caldeira's CO2-and-productivity research needs light to be constant.

Comments are closed.