NBICS and Geo-Engineering by Gregor Wolbring December 15, 2008

In my November 30th column I covered Ableism and anti-environmentalism, and highlighted a legal instrument that could give guidance on how to deal with nature. In another, I looked at how nanotechnology is envisioned to help deal with the climate crisis. In this column I cover geo-engineering -- the direct and intentional modification of our planet's climate -- another climate techno intervention

It seems that every time the Royal Society in the United Kingdom asks for a study in a science and technology area, the area is poised to move onto the main stage of science and technology discourses and visibility. The Royal Society has launched a study on climate geo-engineering (Geoengineering Climate: Call for Submissions (PDF); Geoengineering Climate: Press Release; Geoengineering Climate: Working Group Membership) in October 2008 to help policymakers decide which schemes should be researched and deployed, if any.

The Call for Submissions states: “The study aims to provide a balanced assessment of a range of different climate geoengineering proposals, assessing their feasibility, efficacy, likely environmental impacts, and any possible unintended consequences. We are seeking the views of academics, policymakers, industrialists and other interested parties to inform our study. Organisations and individuals are invited to contribute to the study by responding to our call for submissions by Thursday 11 December. The Royal Society has set up a working group to assess the submissions received, and evaluate the different proposals for climate geoengineering. The group is expected to report on its findings in the summer of 2009.”

Interestingly, it does not explicitly mention Non-Governmental Organizations or Civil Society Organizations.

In its press release the Royal Society states that it will look at the environmental and social impacts and any other possible unintended consequences of these schemes. The press release mentions projects such as placing giant mirrors in space to reflect sunlight away from the Earth; releasing tiny particles into the upper atmosphere to help cool the climate by reducing the amount of the sun's energy that reaches the Earth's surface; and fertilizing the oceans with nutrients such as iron to promote blooms of phytoplankton which would soak up carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

One reaction to the call for submissions -- by David Shukman, Environment Correspondent, BBC News -- can be found here. Shukman highlights other developments that indicate geo-engineering ideas are moving into the mainstream, recounting that “the International Union for the Conservation of Nature, at its Congress in Barcelona, devoted a session to one particular scheme -- encouraging plankton to absorb more carbon dioxide.”

Other snippets from online sources include:

• Geo-engineering for animals that proposes relocating animals from areas where they might be threatened by climate change;
• The militarization of climate interventions;
• New research – “hacking the atmosphere” where microscopic particles are pumped into the atmosphere to block sunlight;
• and the observation by Carnegie Institution climatologist Ken Caldeira that “The prime danger of geoengineering is that there'd be a perception that: there's a technological fix to large environmental problems, so therefore we don't have to worry about greenhouse gas emissions because we can engineer them away.”

Other online articles representing the breadth of opinions can be found here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.

The Choice is Yours

This is another science and technology intervention that promises to solve problems generated by humankind, for which the consequences are less than clear. As usual, it will be up to readers to decide if they want to have a say in the governance of geo-engineering. Interestingly, 200 countries recently agreed to a de facto moratorium on ocean fertilization (see Montreal Gazette). This indicates that there is a lot at stake and that it is worthwhile to get involved.

Gregor Wolbring is an ability governance, science and technology governance, disability studies and health policy scholar. He is an Assistant Professor at the University of Calgary, Faculty of Medicine, Department of Community Health Sciences, Program in Disability Studies and Community Rehabilitation. He is a member of the Center for Nanotechnology and Society at Arizona State University; Part Time Professor at Faculty of Law, University of Ottawa, Canada; Adjunct Faculty, Critical Disability Studies, York University, Toronto, Canada; Member CAC/ISO - Canadian Advisory Committees for the International Organization for Standardization section TC229 Nanotechnologies; Member of the Review Board for the journal Review in Disability Studies; Member of the International Editorial Advisory Board for the journal Studies in Ethics, Law and Technology; Chair of the Bioethics Taskforce of Disabled People's International; and former Member of the Executive of the Canadian Commission for UNESCO (2003-2007 maximum terms served). He publishes the Bioethics, Culture and Disability website, authors a weblog on NBICS and its social implications and is a regular contributor to the What Sorts of People blog.