Cool the planet with technology, without really knowing the possible side effects. Seen from Europe, where the precautionary principle tends to guide collective choices, the idea seems absurd. In the United States, on the other hand, it is making its way into the minds of decision-makers and intellectuals. Last October, the US government announced funding for a five-year program to assess the impact – and cost – of human interventions that may a rapid effect on the climate. “The time for geoengineering has arrived”, warns a recent article published in the very serious journal Foreign Affairs.
For its author Robert E. Litan, former director of economic studies at the think tank Brooking Institution, the time is no longer for half measures. The world is experiencing the deleterious effects of climate change much sooner than expected. It is therefore necessary to look seriously at the techniques known as “solar radiation management” (SRM). And in particular on that aiming to spread in the atmosphere large quantities of particles capable of returning to space part of the heat that the Earth receives.
This track remains very controversial, several scientists recently explained to L’Express. Certainly, past volcanic eruptions show us that we can certainly lower the temperature in this way. However, the method has at least two major drawbacks. First of all, it seems impossible to perfectly control the trajectory of the particles and therefore to confine them to targeted areas. Certain regions would surely benefit from a pleasant cooling. Others, conversely, could see the yield of their crops deteriorate. Furthermore, the existence of such a tool would undermine efforts to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. The SRM therefore has everything of a time bomb.
The United States, pioneers in solar geoengineering
Despite everything, its emergence in the public debate does not surprise Ina Möller, political scientist and lecturer at the University of Wageningen in the Netherlands. For this specialist in climate geopolitics, the United States has long championed research in solar geoengineering. “Decades ago, when climate change was first recognized as a societal problem, the White House released a report recommending the exploration of compensatory solutions to address rising temperatures. , including the spread of reflective particles on the oceans or the artificial formation of clouds.In the 1980s and 1990s, publications by the American Academy of Sciences argued that focusing on reducing CO2 emissions would endanger the economics and that geo-engineering or adaptation to climate change were more appropriate responses”.
So, in a way, solar geoengineering has always been part of the landscape across the Atlantic. Simply, the international context is more favorable to it today: our CO2 emissions are still on the rise; Carbon capture and burial techniques are slow to be put in place and some American elected officials fear that other countries – such as China – will embark on this type of program. But they have no intention of leaving them in control of the global thermostat.
“If the United States validates the principle of solar geoengineering, I suppose that they also want to be in the front line to decide on its implementation”, confirms Ina Möller. Should we see in this a new facet of American imperialism? In theory, neither the United States nor the European Union can legitimately advance or block solar geoengineering on the international agenda without the support of developing countries, which are today the most vulnerable to the rise temperatures.
But nothing prevents them from developing this technology in their corner and using it later. “Given the deep differences between the United States, Russia and China on a wide range of issues, not just climate, it is extremely unlikely that any form of international effort will be decided in time to avoid much greater damage from global warming. As a result, I think the best option for the United States is to pursue the idea in cooperation with other countries aiming for the same goal. This group could include many developing countries hard hit by extreme weather events, like Pakistan,” analyzes Robert E. Litan.
But for Ina Möller, it doesn’t matter how many countries are involved. Conflicts seem inevitable. “Even if a form of cooperation were to emerge, mastering this technology would represent such a challenge for States that it would be difficult to maintain a fair decision-making process. Unless clear rules are agreed (for example, one vote per country) the the most powerful nations would end up imposing their point of view. Other interests, public and private, could also play a key role in the deployment of solar geoengineering. We have seen it during the Covid crisis: the choices are never entirely based on scientific knowledge. The media, voters and lobbies influence decisions”.
A difficult backtrack
The political scientist points to another problem. With solar geoengineering, we might not see any adverse effects for several years, and by then, become addicted to this technology. “If this method proves effective on a large scale, some countries could use this excuse to reduce the pressure on reducing emissions and promote economic growth. We would then become increasingly dependent on injections of reflective particles to maintain the activity and a stable global temperature”, specifies the expert.
Even in the event of the appearance of significant side effects, we could not stop the machine because this would probably lead to a violent temperature shock! “This means that we would be very vulnerable to unforeseen events like wars or other disasters that could prevent the continuous injection of particles. And those who have the technology to maintain the system would hold immense political power,” warns Ina Möller. Quite the opposite of a peaceful world.
Robert E. Litan tempers: “Yes, geoengineering involves multiple risks: unintended local meteorological effects, additional acidification of the ocean… Still unknown undesirable effects could even manifest themselves. However, we can move forward on this path carefully. Future research may also allow us to discover particles with less impact on the environment. At present, the potential side effects seem to me to be smaller than the enormous and growing costs of changing climatic”.
Trying to anticipate the future, the economist evokes a scenario in which Europe does not block the SRM and even ends up rallying to the cause. For its part, China would not cooperate but its leaders would turn a blind eye, leaving it to other nations to cool the planet. “The only major dissenting power would likely be Russia, which is relying on climate change to thaw Siberia, expand arable land and further melt the Arctic, providing more opportunities for oil exploration,” Robert E. .Litan. Russia on one side, the Western world on the other. A configuration that is unfortunately well known: it would perhaps lower the temperature of the globe by a degree or two but would sooner or later end up causing new tensions. Experts in geopolitics are not about to be unemployed.