Can geo-engineering reverse climate change?

Environmental Quality Management / DOI 10.1002/tqem / Winter 2009 / 21

© 2009 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com).DOI: 10.1002/tqem.20243

Climate change rep-

resents one of the

most serious chal-

lenges facing today’s

world. The concen-

tration of carbon di-

oxide (CO2) in the

planet’s atmosphere

has increased from

around 280 parts per million (ppm) in the mid-

nineteenth century to some 370 ppm currently.

Moreover, CO2 that enters the atmosphere can

linger there, sometimes for centuries.1

To date, most efforts to slow climate change

have focused on limiting emissions of CO2 and

other greenhouse gases through legislation and

international agreements. But many observers

worry that these policy approaches will be “too

little, too late.” Some argue that we should con-

sider a bolder approach: geo-engineering.

Background: Climate-Change Policymaking and Its Limitations

Cap-and-Trade Legislation in the United StatesIn the United States, Congress is working

on “cap-and-trade” legislation aimed at limiting

emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases. A

cap-and-trade bill cleared the U.S. House of Rep-

resentatives in June 2009. In the Senate, where a

separate bill is now under consideration,2 passage

is less certain.

The House bill was passed amid controversy,

with allegations of bullying and “payoffs” on all

sides. Commenta-

tors from both left

and right argued

that it was riddled

with loopholes and

bloated with “give-

aways” to industry.

It has even been

opposed by some

high-profile environmental groups, including

Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth.3 Says David

Brooks, a columnist for the New York Times:

On cap and trade, the House chairmen

took a relatively clean though politically

difficult idea—auctioning off pollution

permits—and they transformed it into a

morass of corporate giveaways . . . . Permits

would now be given to well-connected

companies. Utilities and agribusiness would

be rolling in government-generated profits.

Thousands of goodies were thrown into

the 1,201-page bill to win votes.4

The length and complexity of this legislation

raise some intriguing questions: Did even a single

House member read the entire bill? If they did,

could they possibly have understood all (or even

most) of its provisions? How scientifically based

was the legislation?

Importantly, few observers seem to believe

the House bill will actually have a significant

Charles H. Eccleston

Can Geo-engineering Reverse Climate Change?

A potential backup plan for

combating global warming

closure mandated by NEPA. But how might the

legislative process have proceeded if the House

of Representatives had been required to prepare

a programmatic EIS (P-EIS) evaluating the cap-

and-trade bill?

Perhaps a P-EIS would have identified another

course of action that would be far more cost-

effective. Or maybe the bill would not have been

loaded down with special-interest giveaways that

promise to earn billions for “favored” industries,

while sharply penalizing others and reducing

their competitiveness on the world market.

Regardless of the substantive outcome, one

thing is certain: NEPA’s requirement for objec-

tive, scientific analysis, and “plain English” word-

ing would at least have resulted in legislation that

could be understood not only by members of

Congress, but also by the American public.

And the public certainly could benefit from

a more straightforward discussion about climate

change and its impacts. The concern among

scientists and policy experts has thus far failed

to register with most voters. In a January 2009

poll conducted by the Pew Research Center

for the People and the Press, “global warming

ranked dead last in a list of 20 priorities for the

nation.”8

Climate Change on the International StageClearly, climate-change legislation under con-

sideration in the United States would have little ef-

fect on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. But what

about negotiations at the international level?

Unfortunately, the prospects do not seem

promising. Over 80 percent of the energy used

worldwide comes from fossil fuels (petroleum,

natural gas, and coal). CO2 emissions are increas-

ing at a rate of about 1 percent per year. Halting

any further climate change “would require a

worldwide 60–80 percent cut in emissions, and it

would still take decades for the atmospheric con-

centration of carbon dioxide to stabilize.”9

impact on climate change if it becomes law. The

Washington Post has noted:

Even if it works exactly as planned—deliv-

ering a 17 percent reduction in U.S. green-

house gas emissions by 2020 compared

with 2005 levels—it might not slow down

the rate of climate change by very much.

That is because emissions are a global

problem: Greenhouse gases contribute to

the Earth’s warming whether they are

emitted in China or in Chevy Chase.5

Moreover, past ex-

perience with climate-

change legislation sug-

gests the House scheme

might not work at all.

Notes Brooks, “A few

years ago the Euro-

pean Union passed a

cap-and-trade system,

but because it was so

shot through with special interest caveats, emis-

sions actually rose.”6

For environmental professionals, especially

those who are familiar with the U.S. National En-

vironmental Policy Act (NEPA),7 there is consider-

able irony involved here. Under NEPA, Congress

requires federal agencies to file highly detailed

environmental impact statements (EISs) before

taking any action that would significantly affect

the environment. The EIS must evaluate the mer-

its of the proposal scientifically and objectively.

Alternatives must be assessed and compared. The

process must be public. Moreover, the agency

decision maker must review the EIS and consider

the implications of the proposal before making a

decision to pursue a course of action.

Congress exempts itself and its actions from

the type of scientific scrutiny and public dis-

Charles H. Eccleston22 / Winter 2009 / Environmental Quality Management / DOI 10.1002/tqem

Clearly, climate-change legislation under consideration in the United States would have little effect on greenhouse gas emissions. But what about negotiations at the international level?

quirements, and ramping them up to the level

required to power a nation the size of the United

States could take decades. Moreover, wind and

solar can generate power only intermittently.

And solar in particular tends to be an expensive

power source.

Nuclear power is the only widely available

technology that is proven, reliable, affordable,

relatively safe, and clean from an environmental

emissions standpoint. If the nation truly wants

to limit greenhouse gas emissions, then it needs

to seriously consider nuclear power. However,

nuclear power still remains politically unpopular

with some segments of the population.13

Accelerating Climate ImpactsWhile limiting GHG emissions is proving to

be a difficult challenge,

the impacts of climate

change are likely to be

even more intense than

previously recognized.

One key observer who

has expressed alarm

on this issue is James

Lovelock, a geo-scien-

tist and co-creator of

the “Gaia hypothesis,” which postulates that the

planet is a quasi-living organism. Lovelock has

warned that critical climate-change thresholds

may soon be exceeded, triggering potentially un-

stoppable geo-system responses. He states:

The positive feedback on heating from

the melting of floating Arctic and Ant-

arctic ice alone is causing an acceleration

of system-driven heating whose total will

soon or already [is] greater than that from

all of the pollution CO2 that we have so

far added. This suggests that implement-

ing Kyoto or some super Kyoto is most

unlikely to succeed.14

Moreover, developing nations like China,

Brazil, and India are exempt from emission-re-

duction requirements under the Kyoto Protocol,

the main international agreement aimed at curb-

ing global warming.10 China is now the world’s

largest emitter of greenhouse gases. It currently

builds new coal-fired power plants at the mind-

numbing rate of two per week. Other “exempt”

countries are also growing rapidly.11 The efforts of

the U.S. and other developed economies can have

only a marginal effect on global warming if the

developing world does not curb its emissions.

Then there is the “leakage” problem. Leakage

refers to jobs that will migrate to China and other

countries that have cheaper energy costs because

they are not constrained by the need to limit

GHG emissions. Because many industries will

simply move their operations, there may be no

net decrease in GHG emissions, even with strin-

gent limits on emissions in developed countries.

At a climate-change summit held in Septem-

ber 2009, China announced that it planned to

reduce greenhouse gas emissions by a “notable”

amount. Chinese officials have offered few details

on how this will be accomplished, however. In

reporting about the summit, the New York Times

stated that “negotiations for a new international

agreement to curb emissions of greenhouse gases

have stalled.”12

Given this background, it appears increas-

ingly unlikely that any international agreements

now in effect or likely to be adopted could stop

significant climate change from occurring.

Other Options for Reducing GHG EmissionsWhat about other options for reducing GHG

emissions? How about renewable energy? And

why not make greater use of nuclear power?

Certainly, renewable energy sources such

as wind and solar are an important part of the

energy mix. But these alternatives currently

provide only a small fraction of our energy re-

Environmental Quality Management / DOI 10.1002/tqem / Winter 2009 / 23Can Geo-engineering Reverse Climate Change?

While limiting GHG emissions is proving to be a difficult challenge, the impacts of climate change are

likely to be even more intense than previously recognized.

Many geo-engineering options have been pro-

posed, and more can be expected in the years to

come. Some of the most promising technologies

are described briefly in the sections that follow.

Sun ScreensThe “greenhouse effect” that drives global

warming involves trapping solar energy within

Earth’s atmosphere. So one way of slowing cli-

mate change would be to reflect some of the sun’s

light back into space.

Volcanic eruptions offer tantalizing clues as to

how this might be accomplished. When Mount

Pinatubo erupted in the Philippines in 1991, it

spewed enough sulfur dioxide and other pollut-

ants into the upper atmosphere to depress global

temperatures by about half a degree Celsius over

a period of several years.

That event was minor compared to the cata-

clysmic eruption of Mount Tambora in Indonesia

in 1815. The Tambora eruption resulted in what

has been called “the year without a summer.”

In the United States, New England experienced

snowstorms in June, and farmers in the region

lost much of their crop yield to abnormally frigid

weather.

If we could duplicate the effects of volcanic

eruptions, the result might be significant global

cooling. Increasing Earth’s reflectivity by only

about 2 percent might be sufficient to counter

the warming effects of a doubling of CO2 emis-

sions.17 But how can we accomplish such a feat?

One geo-engineering option involves inject-

ing sulfate aerosols (such as sulfur dioxide) into

the stratosphere to shield Earth from sunlight

and cool the planet. Proposed methods for deliv-

ering aerosols into the upper atmosphere include

mechanisms ranging from artillery shells to bal-

loons.18

Another option, known as “cloud reflectiv-

ity enhancement,” would make the ocean skies

more reflective by adding extra water vapor to

Lovelock suggests that more radical measures,

like geo-engineering, need to be considered to

curb global warming.

The Geo-engineering Option“Geo-engineering” is a term used to describe

an assortment of technologies that could be used

to modify Earth’s climate. Although viewed by

many as an extreme option, some form of geo-

engineering may ultimately be required if we

are unable to lower GHG emissions effectively

through other means.

In its Climate Change 2001 report, the Intergov-

ernmental Panel on Climate Change acknowledged

the concept of geo-en-

gineering, noting that it

“includes the possibil-

ity of engineering the

earth’s climate system

by large-scale manipu-

lation of the global en-

ergy balance.”15

A senior economist

at the U.S. Environ-

mental Protection Agency, Alan Carlin, has been

quoted as saying that “geoengineering is ‘our best

hope of coping with a changing world,’ because

it can work, it can be implemented relatively

quickly and (perhaps most importantly) it is

affordable.”16 Most forms of geo-engineering are

likely to be much less expensive than placing bur-

densome regulatory caps on carbon emissions.

Moreover, geo-engineering may allow us to

avoid one of the chief drawbacks inherent in

international efforts to slow climate change—the

ability of a few high-emitting nations (or even

one large nation) to foil the entire effort. With

geo-engineering, in fact, the situation could be

turned around: a single nation could potentially

curb the effects of global warming single-hand-

edly by implementing measures that cool the

world’s climate.


Although viewed by many as an extreme option, some form of geo-engineering may ultimately be required if we are unable to lower GHG emissions effectively through other means.

Policymaking ImplicationsGiven the political difficulties inherent in try-

ing to curb GHG emissions at the national and

international levels, and the continuing barriers

to increased use of cleaner renewable and nuclear

energy, it makes sense to think more seriously

about the geo-engineering option.

Many participants in the climate debate are

reluctant to consider geo-engineering. Some fear

that it could result in

unpredictable (and po-

tentially calamitous)

consequences. But this

concern simply high-

lights the need to bet-

ter understand and

control geo-engineer-

ing technologies.

It should be noted

here that most proponents of geo-engineering do

not see it as a silver bullet. Rather, they view it as

a stopgap measure.

Unknowns and DownsidesAll the geo-engineering options discussed

above have potential downsides. Some could

raise a host of potentially serious problems.

For example, “sun screen” schemes that de-

pend on sulfur dioxide might produce acid rain

that could devastate large swaths of plant and

fish habitat. Lofting water vapor into the air

would have fewer environmental side effects, but

increasing the size of cloud formations might

affect rainfall patterns in unpredictable ways,

perhaps increasing monsoons in one area and

causing droughts in another.24

The “space sunshade” alternative might be

quite costly to implement, and some scientists

also see it as contrary to the idea of working with

Earth’s geosystems. All the “sun screen” options

would likely create intense debates over who

should control sunlight.

clouds. One version of this approach would in-

volve using a fleet of around 1,500 “rotor ships”

to generate sea spray that would be carried into

the clouds by the wind.19

A third option would involve constructing a

“space sunshade” made up of millions of small,

reflective discs that would act like mirrors, redi-

recting sunlight away from Earth.20

Capturing Carbon Dioxide With Trees and Plankton

None of the geo-engineering concepts dis-

cussed so far address the underlying cause of

global warming: greenhouse gases emitted into

the atmosphere. Can we use geo-engineering

technology to actually reduce the level of carbon

dioxide in the atmosphere?

Plants, particularly trees, naturally remove

carbon dioxide from the air. So planting more

trees—or enhancing their carbon-removal ca-

pacity—offers an “organic” geo-engineering

option.

It has been noted that reforestation “already

removes as much as 40 percent of U.S. CO2 emis-

sions from the atmosphere, primarily through the

regrowth of eastern forests.”21 Freeman Dyson,

a physicist, “has proposed creating forests of

‘carbon-eating trees,’ engineered to suck carbon

more ravenously from the air, and to keep it tied

up in thick roots that would decay into topsoil,

trapping the carbon.”22

Alternatively, we might be able to capture car-

bon dioxide in the oceans. Scientists know that

natural plankton blooms devour large amounts of

carbon dioxide. Some suggest that geo-engineer-

ing could be used to spawn additional blooms in

a manner that moderates carbon dioxide concen-

trations. Most such schemes involve seeding the

oceans with powdered iron to boost plankton

growth.23 When the CO2-eating plankton eventu-

ally die, they would drift to the sea floor, taking

much of the carbon with them.


Many participants in the climate debate are reluctant to consider geo-engineering. Some fear that it could

result in unpredictable (and potentially calamitous) consequences.

as mandatory stringent emission reduc-

tions, while preventing more damage.28

The Rogue ThreatCompared to the cost of capping carbon emis-

sions, geo-engineering technologies are “bargain

basement sales,” with price tags ranging from $1

billion to $100 billion per year. This compares

to a cost of capping carbon emissions, which by

some estimates might range a thousand times

higher (on the order of $1 trillion annually).29

As described in the author’s upcoming book,

Global Environmental Policy, this technological ad-

vantage also opens up endless and disturbing

possibilities, such as the “Greenfinger dilemma”

in which a rich “lone ranger” is as consumed with

saving the planet as James Bond’s nemesis Goldfin-

ger was with gold. The world currently hosts nearly

40 people worth $10 billion or more. Global geo-

engineering projects are within the financial where-

withal of a multibillionaire, who could theoretically

finance a program to reverse climate change single-

handedly. A recent article in The Atlantic offered

this example of a possible scenario:

Most of Bangladesh’s population lives in

low-elevation coastal zones that would

wash away if sea levels rose. For a fraction

of its GDP, Bangladesh could refreeze the

ice caps using sulfur aerosols . . . . If re-

freezing them would save the lives of mil-

lions of Bangladeshis, who could blame

their government for acting?30

Policymakers should decide now how they

wish to govern geo-engineering technologies,

before a single actor decides to play this wildcard

on his own.

Preparing for a Climate-Change EmergencyMany scientists argue that we should begin

experimenting with geo-engineering technology,

Ocean seeding is plagued with its own set of

potentially negative consequences. For example,

the extra plankton that are generated by ocean

seeding will eventually die off. As they decom-

pose, they could release methane, which itself is

a powerful greenhouse gas (with heat-trapping ef-

fects that are estimated to be more than 20 times

that of carbon dioxide).25

Even growing larger forests to capture carbon

could “conflict with the need to grow crops.”26

Moreover, geo-engineering techniques may

not turn out to be as effective as claimed. For

example, in the case of ocean seeding to en-

hance plankton bloom, a recent study suggests

“that geo-engineers

have overestimated

the amount of carbon

removed per tonne of

iron by between 15

and 50 times.27

Finally, it is im-

portant to note that

geo-engineering might

provide governments

with an excuse to avoid the hard choices needed

to address climate change. Instead of cutting

emissions, policymakers might be tempted to rely

on geo-engineering as a “quick fix.”

The Affordability Factor Despite the potential drawbacks, geo-engi-

neering proposals are likely to attract more inter-

est from policymakers, in part because they are so

inexpensive compared to other options:

While the cost of reducing greenhouse

gases enough to stave off serious harm has

been estimated at 2 percent to 5 percent of

gross domestic product, . . . Johns Hopkins

University Professor Scott Barrett has ar-

gued that geoengineering solutions would

cost 0.5 percent to 0.05 percent as much


Despite the potential drawbacks, geo-engineering proposals are likely to attract more interest from policymakers, in part because they are so inexpensive compared to other options.

9. Victor, D. G., Morgan, M. G., Apt, J., Steinbruner, J., & Ricke, K. (2009, March/April). The geoengineering option. Foreign Affairs, 88(2). Available online at http://www.for-eignaffairs.com/print/64829.

10. Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Conven-tion on Climate Change. (1997). New York: United Nations.

11. Inman, M. (2008, March 18). China CO2 emissions growing faster than anticipated. National Geographic News. Available online at http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/03/080318-china-warming.html.

12. MacFarquhar, N. (2009, September 22). Proposals lag behind promises on climate. New York Times. Available online at http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/23/science/earth/23climate.html.

13. For further discussion, see Eccleston, C. H. (2009, Sum-mer). Risk in review: Nuclear energy in the context of climate change. Environmental Quality Management, 18(4), 45–52.

14. Lovelock, J. (2007). Climate change on a living earth. Avail-able online at http://www.jameslovelock.org/page24.html.

15. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (2001). Climate change 2001, Working Group III, Mitigation, Section 4.7, Biological uptake in oceans and freshwater reservoirs, and geo-engineering. Available online at http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/?src=/CLIMATE/IPCC_TAR/wg3/176.htm.

16. Geddes, P. (2008, January 30). Geoengineering: A global warming fix? Brief analysis no. 607. National Center for Policy Analysis. Available online at http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba607/.

17. Ibid.

18. Rasch, P. J., Tilmes, S., Turco, R. P., Robock, A., Oman, L., Chen, C.-C.(J), et al. (2008, November). An overview of geoengineering of climate using stratospheric sulphate aero-sols. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A, 366, 4007–4037. Available online at http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pdf/RaschPhilTrans.pdf.

19. Cloud reflectivity enhancement. Wikipedia. Available online at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud_reflectivity_enhancement#cite_note-latham2008-7.

20. Angel, R. (2006, November). Feasibility of cooling the Earth with a cloud of small spacecraft near the inner Lagrange point (L1). Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 103, 17184–17189. Available online at http://www.pnas.org/content/103/46/17184.full.pdf+html.

21. See note 16.

22. Wood, G. (2009, July/August). Re-engineering the Earth. The Atlantic. Available online at http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200907/climate-engineering.

23. Fertilizing the ocean with iron: Should we add iron to the sea to help reduce greenhouse gases in the air? (2007, Novem-ber 13). Oceanus. Available online at http://www.whoi.edu/oceanus/viewArticle.do?id=34167&sectionid=1000.

24. See note 22.

25. Ibid.

26. Geo-engineering: Every silver lining has a cloud. (2009, January 29). The Economist. Available online at http://www.

in spite of its potential problems. If other policy

options fail, geo-engineering could ultimately

prove to be our last best hope of counteracting

the worst effects of global warming.

If those effects develop as rapidly as some

researchers fear, we may also need to implement

geo-engineering technologies within a very short

time frame. So starting the process of testing now

could give us a head start—and would allow us to

gradually ramp up the scale of the development

process if necessary.31

ConclusionGeo-engineering cannot substitute for aggres-

sive reductions in global GHG emissions. Even

the most radical geo-engineering efforts could

probably never alleviate all the adverse conse-

quences of climate change.

On the other hand, geo-engineering might

lessen the burden of global warming and slow

the onset of its most significant (and potentially

irreversible) consequences.

Notes1. Geddes, P. (2007, January 31). Geoengineering & climate change. The Bozeman Daily Chronicle. Available online at http://www.free-eco.org/articleDisplay.php?id=543.

2. See Mufson, S., & Eilperin, J. (2009, October 25). Senate’s climate bill a bit more ambitious. Washington Post. Available online at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/24/AR2009102402134_.

3. Broder, J. M. (2009, June 26). House passes bill to ad-dress threat of climate change. New York Times. Avail-able online at http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/27/us/politics/27climate.html?_r=2&hp.

4. Brooks, D. (2009, June 30). Vince Lombardi politics. New York Times. Available online at http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/30/opinion/30brooks.html.

5. Fahrenthold, D. A., & Mufson, S. (2009, July 5). Q and A on the climate bill. Washington Post. Available on-line at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/05/AR2009070502287_pf.html.

6. See note 4.

7. 42 U.S.C. section 4321 et seq.

8. Lavelle, M. (2009, February 24). The climate change lobby explosion. The Center for Public Integrity. Available online at http://www.publicintegrity.org/investigations/cli-mate_change/articles/entry/1171/.


29. Wood, G. (2009, July/August). Moving heaven and Earth. The Atlantic, pp. 70–76.

30. See note 22.

31. Ibid.

economist.com/sciencetechnology/displaystory.cfm?story_id=E1_TPDTPDPV&source=login_payBarrier.

27. Ibid.

28. See note 16.


Charles H. Eccleston is a National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and environmental policy consultant, and an elected member of the board of directors of the National Association of Environmental Professionals (NAEP). He has served on two White House–sponsored taskforces. Eccleston is listed in Who’s Who in America and Who’s Who in the World as a leading international expert on environmental policy. He is the author of five books and over 50 professional publications. His latest book, NEPA and Environmental Planning, was published by CRC Press in 2008. His upcoming book, Global Environmental Policy: Concepts, Principles, and Practice, is slated for publication by CRC Press in 2010. He can be con-tacted at [email protected].

Documents

Can geo-engineering reverse climate change?