Five years ago, when construction began in Iceland on the world’s largest system for capturing and storing carbon dioxide directly from the air, the project was seen as a ‘springboard’ for larger, global-scale projects with ‘megaton removal capacities.’ However, the project’s failure reveals the misguided nature of climate engineering: The advancement of technological solutions involving large-scale interventions in the Earth’s geochemical and biogeochemical cycles distracts from the systemic causes of the climate catastrophe and exacerbates the problem. Annette Schlemm takes stock.
*
Why aren’t we outraged that the 1.5-degree limit was exceeded for the first time last year, and that this trend is likely to continue? The widespread opinion is that communication about the climate should not cause people to panic and become fatalistic. Even if bad things happen, there must always be a ‘good message.’ Climate engineering, also known as geoengineering, fulfills this function.
The technology “refers to a wide range of methods and technologies aimed at deliberately changing the climate system to mitigate the effects of climate change” (IPCC). But where can we start “to deliberately change the climate system”? The problem is global warming caused by greenhouse gas emissions. The dangerous consequences of this development are exacerbated when other planetary boundaries are exceeded, for example through the destruction of biosystems. But let’s focus here on greenhouse gases, especially the most long-lived and therefore most important in the long term, carbon dioxide.
Glaciers in plastic film
One idea to limit global warming is to reduce the amount of solar radiation that reaches the Earth’s surface. This could be done by placing mirrors in space or by reducing sulfur emissions in the stratosphere, which weakens sunlight. This phenomenon can be observed during some volcanic eruptions. Technically, could this be achieved with aircraft or balloons? Yes, but it would require immense effort and must be maintained reliably for many decades. Additionally, this method would have unforeseeable consequences for atmospheric and water currents, disrupting the weather as much as global warming itself.
Because atmospheric movements are chaotic, it is fundamentally impossible to predict and plan the injection of aerosols into the stratosphere. Other projects also fail due to technological irresponsibility. There is nothing wrong with brightening the local environment, provided that ecologically harmless white paint is used. However, wrapping glaciers in plastic sheeting is irresponsible. The measures mentioned below follow a pattern: The responsible methods do not achieve the desired level of success, and the massive side effects are irresponsible.
On the other hand, as we mentioned earlier, it may be possible to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Nature already accomplishes this through natural sinks, such as the biosphere and the oceans. Without these sinks, the temperature on Earth would be 1.5 to 2 degrees higher. Natural sinks currently absorb 50-60% of carbon dioxide. If we were to develop a similar technological solution, we could, in theory, ‘take back’ our emissions. The removed carbon dioxide is counted as ‘negative emissions.’ Since the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement, the goal has shifted from ‘zero emissions’ to ‘net zero emissions.’ In order to make progress and solve a technology-related social problem with supposedly ‘better’ technology, various methods have been invented to filter carbon dioxide directly from the air and dispose of it.
Shaving off the Matterhorn every five years
This ‘direct removal from the air’ has frequently appeared on magazine covers for years: enormous walls with fans that suck in air are supposed to filter out the carbon dioxide. Unfortunately, this technology requires enormous amounts of energy. Due to the low concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, 250,000 of these plants would be needed to capture just one percent of global emissions. The captured carbon dioxide is intended for sale at a profit, such as for use in sparkling water production. However, most often, it is injected into the ground to extract more oil. Other techniques are also based on natural models. In nature, carbon dioxide can turn into carbonate, i.e., it can fossilize; however, this process takes a very long time. This process can be sped up by grinding certain rocks into small particles and scattering them on land or in the ocean. However, approximately three gigatons of rock would have to be moved and ground for every gigaton of carbon dioxide, which requires energy and enormous effort. In order to remove 90% of the carbon dioxide produced by human emissions, the Matterhorn would need to be scraped clean every five years.
Large-scale technical ‘solutions’ entail so many problems that they are unable to adequately address the actual issue. Another option is to work directly with nature. For example, we can support the absorption of carbon dioxide by forests, maintain a suitable soil structure, and promote organism growth in the oceans. However, spreading iron to promote plankton growth does not seem to be effective or desirable, as it has dangerous side effects, such as algae blooms. If emissions are not immediately and radically reduced – which is unlikely – a large amount of carbon dioxide will need to be artificially captured by the end of this century, as nature already does in sinks. What hubris to believe this can be achieved without further damaging the biosphere or expending resources urgently needed elsewhere (labor, land, etc.).
Other considerations, such as making optimal use of coastal areas to maximize the absorption of carbon dioxide by their plants, reveal a problem unrelated to technology and related to social policy. In the interest of planetary survival, there are discussions about placing the administration of these areas under the control of global institutions. This would dispossess the indigenous people living in these areas once again, despite their longstanding commitment to protecting their natural environment.
Who is allowed to control the Earth’s climate?
Even if one is not alarmed by the potential irresponsible consequences of these technologies, it is important to consider the socio-political problems they raise. This raises the question: Who is allowed to control the Earth’s climate? Should it be companies or certain nations? Are they precisely those who are primarily responsible for greenhouse gas emissions? What would their interest be in doing so? For example, they want to sell emission credits within the emissions trading system. These credits are intended to put a ‘price’ on carbon dioxide emissions and thus make them more expensive. Some even say outright that they expect to be paid for their services by ‘society,’ as is the case in normal waste management.
Until around 2000, the proponents of these climate engineering techniques were honest enough to admit that they hoped these options would free them from their obligation to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Although all articles on climate engineering nowadays repeat the mantra that emissions must be reduced, the hope for this way out is obvious, as Edward Teller and his ilk openly admit. It is a tactic to delay reduction. Often, it is oil and mining companies or other large capitalist investors who invest in and promote climate engineering techniques.
Unfortunately, the climate movement has not resisted. While there have been successful local protests against attempts to spray aerosols into the stratosphere, this is not enough. Scientists are faced with the big question of whether they should participate in this type of research. Most justify their involvement by arguing that only through this research can the potential dangers of these measures be identified. However, the experience of recent decades shows that research increasingly highlights dangers rather than allays fears. Nevertheless, more and more startups are being founded by people who want to get involved and are trying to circumvent adverse problems. The ‘fly in the ointment’ then becomes apparent elsewhere. For example, there is the belief that the required energy would be produced elsewhere, such as in Morocco.
False hopes
Calls for moratoriums (on research and/or implementation) must address where to draw the line. Computer simulations are harmless, aren’t they? Attempts at implementation quickly take on global dimensions, as do their goals. Additionally, there is always the fear that ‘the others’ will implement them after all. This once again highlights the fact that these technologies are extremely dangerous under current social conditions because they are irresponsible without strong, global, cooperative regulation.
There is a problem lurking beneath the surface that could be as dangerous as, if not more dangerous than, global warming. However, this problem is still completely underestimated by climate movements. We must critically examine what is supposed to give us hope. By doing so, we are undermining false hope.
Incidentally, the biggest flagship of hope for climate engineering has just failed. Climeworks, located in Iceland, operates plants that are designed to filter carbon dioxide directly from the atmosphere and dispose of it. The goal was to dispose of 4,000 tons of carbon dioxide per year, but they achieved less than 1,000 tons. The planned costs per plant have increased tenfold. Even worse, this method requires an enormous amount of energy. In fact, Climeworks’ plants generate more emissions than they can capture through their energy consumption. The emission credits that the company has already sold cannot be redeemed – as is the case with all climate engineering promises.