Relative risks and fuller strategies: should we research geoengineering?

Cover image: panelists at our public seminar earlier this year. Title: Climate Interventions: a distraction or a necessity?

At the Centre for Climate Repair, our mission is to research potential climate actions so that society might be equipped to make informed decisions for the way forward. "Net zero remains the non-negotiable foundation," said our director in a recent article, "but the scale and pace of change now demand a fuller strategy."

"At CCR, that strategy is the “Three Rs”: Reduce emissions, Remove atmospheric carbon and Refreeze the Arctic. Each is essential; none is sufficient on its own."

Shaun Fitzgerald is director of the Centre for Climate Repair at the University of Cambridge and Hugh Hunt is deputy director. They were approached by various news outlets in response to a new paper assessing some the Centre’s research themes; here’s some of what they had to say.

Shaun Fitzgerald: The paper correctly highlights the need for emissions reduction. And whilst we have been saying this for a long time, it is right to keep saying it.

The authors say “some scientists and engineers claim that a mid-century decarbonization target will not be reached …” This is true, but it isn’t just ‘some scientists and engineers’ who are concerned about the ramifications of this – it is in line with the findings of the IPCC. The IPCC says, “global warming is expected to surpass 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels, even if pledges are supplemented with very challenging increases in the scale and ambition of mitigation after 2030 (high confidence)”.

The key question is how we should respond to these concerns. The authors say “geoengineering in sensitive polar regions would cause severe environmental damage and comes with the possibility of grave unforeseen consequences”. Unfortunately, we are faced with severe environmental damage without geoengineering. So, rather than saying we should not look further into geoengineering, we should instead be seeking a debate about the relative risks of either trying to learn more about our options of geoengineering or preserving a paucity of knowledge and watching the environmental damage unfold before our eyes whilst we decarbonise the world.

Both are possible pathways. But who should decide whether research into geoengineering is undertaken? There are many on the front line of the effects of climate change and who are least able to adapt, such as those from low lying islands in the Pacific where sea level rise from melting glaciers threatens to wipe out their countries, who deserve to be listened to. And many of them are eager to see if there are indeed ways of keeping the ice on Greenland and Antarctica whilst we get greenhouse gas levels down. This paper only covers one viewpoint whereas we need to ensure different perspectives and interests are also represented in a discussion.

Hugh Hunt: Everyone is agreed that fossil-fuel burning is heating the planet with catastrophic consequences. And we agree that halting global warming requires rapid and deep decarbonisation. However, the paper argues that “net zero” by 2050 will be sufficient to meet the terms of the 2015 Paris Agreement. Unfortunately, we have baked in exceedance of 2C (and we have already crossed 1.5C); even remarkable global efforts to reduce emissions will not prevent our crossing 3C by the end of the century. 

The paper argues that geoengineering concepts for polar regions are not feasible and that further research into these techniques would be an ineffective use of limited time and resources. There is no evidence for this, and there is no evidence that this research is a distraction from the priority to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The only cited paper on “mitigation deterrence” dates back to 2016 and is not based on any data, but rather on a supposition that geoengineering is a distraction. 

Of greatest concern is that the authors do not propose a strategy for avoiding warming beyond 2C and its catastrophic impacts – sea-level rise, droughts, floods, biodiversity loss. Research on geoengineering could inform a fuller strategy to avoid these catastrophic consequences. Research on geoengineering is essential and urgent, particularly in Arctic regions where the impacts are most apparent.