The Netherlands should never invest in geo-engineering

In their fear of uncontrollable climate change, journalists and scientists are increasingly turning their attention to technological solutions. The most charming but also risky form of these technological solutions is ‘solar geo-engineering’, also known as ‘solar radiation modification’ (SRM). Simply put, the idea of ​​solar geoengineering is that we disguise global warming with artificial cooling of the planet. This could be done, for example, through technological ‘veils’ of tiny particles of yet to be determined matter in the stratosphere. According to proponents, such a thing could prevent a lot of suffering if we do not meet the climate targets for CO2 reduction. But solar geoengineering is risky and ungovernable. The idea of ​​playing with the Earth’s thermostat is perilous.

Frank Bierman is professor of Global Sustainability Governance at Utrecht University

Aarti Gupta is professor of Global Environmental Governance at Wageningen University

Jeroen Oomen is a researcher at the Urban Futures Studio, Department of Sustainable Development of Utrecht University

Solar geoengineering is steadily gaining popularity and momentum. We see it popping up in books like Geoengineering: The Gamble by climate economist Gernot Wagner and the most recent book by Bill Gates, How to Avoid a Climate Disaster. In the United States, the National Academy of Sciences published a report that called for more research into geoengineering. Several leading daily newspapers followed suit this year with similar arguments. NRC devoted a whole special to it in 2020.

Unnecessary and dangerous

All this attention to the subject is not necessarily a bad thing, as long as one thing remains clear: solar geoengineering should not become part of climate policy. Nor should it be a solution that we are still hoping for, or even secretly counting on. Active climate manipulation is not necessary. And dangerous.

First, it is unclear how the climate system would respond to these kinds of interventions – and it will probably never be fully clear. It is impossible to predict where solar geoengineering would have which effects, so it is impossible to predict who would benefit and who would suffer. The recipe for political instability.

This uncertainty coincides with the second major problem of geoengineering: such a global project is ungovernable. If we can’t make firm agreements about climate policy, why should there be an effective mechanism for a planetary thermostat? Geoengineering will inevitably lead to major political and military tensions within our current international system. The potential for disagreement about the distribution, effects, and governance of geoengineering is huge.

Excuse

But the greatest danger of geo-engineering does not even lie in the techniques or the implementation itself. The biggest risk of geoengineering is that the prospect of a plan B, a last resort, will sabotage progressive climate policy. we already see that our current climate policy relies to a large extent on the very uncertain assumption that it will be possible in the future to extract CO2 from the atmosphere on a large scale. Solar geoengineering offers governments, cabinets, companies, and lobbyists an excuse to delay climate policy and avoid painful choices.

It is therefore important that the Dutch government and the European Union now take a stand against solar geoengineering, and against the idea that we could artificially lower the global temperature. The creeping normalization of proposals of this kind must be stopped.

On Monday, together with sixteen leading colleagues from around the world, we published a proposal for ‘International Non-Use Agreement‘ for geoengineering. This idea is now supported by more than sixty leading scientists endorsed. Such an agreement should contain at least five commitments. The government should not support the development of solar geoengineering financially, and should prohibit ‘outdoor’ solar geoengineering experiments within the borders of member countries. Countries must promise not to issue patents for solar geoengineering technologies, and also pledge not to use solar geoengineering technology developed by other countries. Finally, it is important that governments declare that they will always object to attempts to make solar geoengineering part of climate policy, as for example in model scenarios of the IPCC.

unleash debate

Of course, this is only a proposal, and the final form of such an agreement will be a political negotiation. That’s fine. In fact, such a political debate is exactly what we hope to unleash. The alternative is an unspoken but growing sentiment that we simply cannot avoid geo-engineering in the long run.

The Netherlands could play an important pioneering role in this political debate, both within Europe and worldwide. With a scientific committee, or with a clear political position on geoengineering. History is full of technological controversies and prohibitions. Let’s make geoengineering one of them.

---