[tt] [x-risk] Obama admin discussing geoengineering

[Hughes, James J.]

http://2020science.org/2009/04/08/geoengineering-goes-mainstream/

Geoengineering goes mainstream

By Andrew Maynard on Science Policy

Twelve months ago, geoengineering seemed little more than the fancy of
science fiction writers and fringe scientists.  Now, an increasing
number of people are viewing it as a viable - if extreme - option for
curbing global warming.  This shift was hammered home today by Dr. John
Holdren, President Obama's science advisor, in his first interview since
being confirmed to the office.  Given the enormous challenges presented
by global warming, Holdren stated that geoengineering "...has got to be
looked at. ... We don't have the luxury of taking any approach off the
table."

Holdren is right.  The coupling between people and the planet is now at
the point where radical action is needed to avoid a shift in climate
that could have a catastrophic impact on society. And while conventional
technologies might suffice in the short term to bring carbon dioxide
levels down and otherwise manage global warming, they will eventually
run out of steam.

Emerging technologies are going to take some time to mature to the point
at which they can play a major role in combating global warming.  Joseph
Romm for one is highly skeptical of the role that "breakthrough
technologies" will play over the next fifty years.  But at some point
they will be essential.  And as long as the innovation pipeline remains
full, they will begin to provide new solutions to the challenges being
faced.

This maturation of emerging technologies is already being seen with
geoengineering.  The past few years have seen a number of technologies
mature to the point where "tinkering" with the environment on a grand
scale is looking increasingly feasible.  But it is the audacity of
scientists and engineers who have suddenly realized "we can do this"
that is really driving the rapidly growing field.  On the back of
relatively small advances in science and technology, experts are
suddenly beginning to think "this isn't science fiction - it might
actually work!"

This could be good news for future generations, but there are tremendous
challenges ahead.  Clearly, there is the challenge of developing and
deploying engineering projects on a massive scale.  But just as serious
are the ethical issues that need to be grappled with.

Back in January, I asked the question "Does geoengineering need a dose
of geoethics?"  I cautiously suggested it might be a good idea, before
things move along too far.  But discussions around geoengineering are
now moving so fast that I would say deep and inclusive discussions of
what is right and what is appropriate are essential, and needed
urgently.  The problem here is not so much that geoengineering is a bad
idea, but that there is an awful lot that could go horribly wrong.

Think about it for a moment:

    * The history of environmental interventions is not good (in fact it
is almost uniformly bad) - what guarantees do we have that
geoengineering will fare any better?
    * There's a good chance that major geoengineering projects will be
the equivalent of one-shot hypothesis driven science.  In other words,
while scientific progress usually relies on a process of getting things
wrong and learning from the mistakes (more fancily known as "hypothesis
testing"), tinkering with the planet won't afford us too many second
shots.
    * The earth's environment is non-linear and out of equilibrium -
tinkering is more than likely to lead to unexpected consequences.
    * Geoengineering solutions will cross national boundaries, requiring
many groups to be involved in decision-making - unless individual
countries decide that the dangers of not acting are so severe that
accepted ethical practices don't count.
    * This leads on to the questions of "who pays," "who benefits," and
"who pays the price?"  Failure to resolve these early on will create a
huge global problems.
    * Finally, the social and ethical consequences of causing harm
through intervention are very different from those associated with harm
that results from  inaction.  Thus geoengineering interventions that go
wrong may potentially end up having a far more profound impact on
society than changes in climate which the interventions were aimed at
mitigating.

If geoengineering is to be taken seriously - as I think it should -
these and other issues must be on the table at the very beginning of the
process.  Because without the appropriate "geoethics" framework, the
odds are less than favourable for us getting it right.

The worst that could possibly happen is that geoengineering is used as a
last ditch, deparate attempt to correct an already out of whack
environment.  Because in reality, "last ditch" usually equates to just
"last."  The way round this is to ensure that discissions are not only
informed by the best science and technology, but also underpinned by
broader social and ethical considertions, from the get-go.

Fortunately, there still seems to be a reasonable chance of this
happening.
_______________________________________________
existential mailing list
existential at transhumanism.org
http://www.transhumanism.org/mailman/listinfo/existential