Final thoughts....

Over the course of several weeks, I have tried to unpack the term ‘Geoengineering’ and understand its potential as well as its flaws. A variety of Geoengineering options have been presented and ideas/issues surrounding this field have been highlighted. So after all this research, what is to be learned?

Firstly, it is not enough! More research is needed. Figure 1 shows the number of research papers published on Geoengineering per year. According to the Economist, this is just more than 50 papers for 2010. While this may sound like a large amount, this blog has addressed at least 8 different geoengineering options, and there are still more to consider. Therefore, when these 50 papers are stretched over the wide variety of Geoengineering proposals, this indicates that there is very little depth in this field. And this was definitely found when conducting research....there were a lot of great ideas, the basic science was put forward but there was little information on testing and the full impacts of each proposal. Lawrence (2006) found that although you could find a large number or proposals, it takes a great effort to determine the unintended consequences of each option. Many academics agree that research into Geoengineering is still in its infancy (Victor et al, 2009).

However, when comparing the available Geoengineering options and evaluating their potential to offset C02 emissions, it was found that some options could be viable. By simply adopting better forest management, investing into afforestation, disposing of waste differently to produce biochar, and fitting large industrial plants with the technology to capture and store carbon, this could make a significant contribution to reducing emissions. These are activities that could be easily incorporated into society, and could be extremely useful in buying us more time to invest in more long-term solutions.

Figure 1:

Personally, I have found that through learning more about the variety of Geoengineering options available, I have broken down those pre-conceptions I had about the field. I originally viewed Geoengineering as a radical, destructive, field of ideas that could make things worse. And although there are risks, some options should be prioritised and heavily considered.

However, what the research does show is that despite the growing interest in Geoengineering, all the academics interested in this field explicitly state that there is no replacement for cutting emissions. Geoengineering will never be the answer to all the world’s problems. It doesn’t solve the problem of Ocean Acidification and many of the options, with the exception of sun shades and stratospheric aerosols, are unable to fully offset C02 emissions unless strong mitigation occurs. Therefore, if the international community doesn’t put all its efforts into curbing emissions then we will be faced with too worrying futures: One future may involve extreme temperatures, higher sea levels and a greater frequency of climatic events such as hurricanes, storms. While the other future may see the use of stratospheric aerosols, that were used as a last resort to prevent the climate system from destabilising. This future will have a very different climate, may have a lot more pollution, a depleted ozone, and could look very different to today...but the biggest worry is that we may never really be able to predict what this future could look like....

........taking this perspective, I feel the answer to the poll question that I asked right at the beginning of the this investigation, is clear: NO we should not abandon measures of mitigation, however, as a last resort we should make small investments into a handful of geoengineering options in order to give us more time to adapt and invest in long-term solutions....but this is just my opinion...I have tried to give you all the facts...what do you think?