New Dr. Strangeloves and the Prospect of Geo-Engineered Climate "Adaptation"

For four days in late June, I covered the Tallberg Forum, which could be described as a Swedish version of the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, except more laid-back, inclusive, and creative.

Bo Ekman, the mildly eccentric chairman and founder of the Tallberg Foundation, was formerly on the executive board of Volvo. Since 1981, the Foundation has hosted business-government-NGO gatherings of one kind or another in the picturesque village of Tallberg, Sweden, with the compassionate aim of encouraging participants to question business as usual in an age of converging economic, political, social, and environmental crises.

The U.N. Global Compact is among numerous initiatives inspired by the Forum.

This year's Tallberg Forum asked: "How on earth can we live together, within the planetary boundaries?"

Some scientists and energy policymakers at Tallberg posed a different question, an implicit one that made my hairs stand on end.

It could be phrased like this. "How might science 'geo-engineer' or 'climate engineer' solutions to cool the planet if the global community remains unwilling to radically reduce carbon emissions to a level that might preserve the planet we know?"

So, here are two brief anecdotes to illustrate how the global political and economic impasse around carbon emissions in the lead-up to the United Nations Climate Conference in Copenhagen, Denmark, is building significant momentum behind the dangerous science of "geo-engineering" or "climate engineering" -- a series of attempts, some relatively benign, others more brazen and potentially catastrophic, to intervene in the climate system, regionally and globally, to cool down the planet. One such example is the idea of dropping bombs into volcanoes, which would, in theory, send ash clouds into the upper atmosphere, dimming the sun.

At a dinner table at my hotel one evening was a member of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, who told me we could limit the impacts of climate change by sending "clouds of mirrors into space" to reflect the sun away from Earth. He stated we could plug the ozone hole by releasing large balloons filled with ozone into the sky, the way a plasterer might patch a hole in a wall.

Although his considered view is closer to the scientific and political mainstream than ever before, I said the idea was crazy and wouldn't work; a discussion ensued, in which the Swedish scientist, who looked slightly hurt, made a case for geo-engineering as a last resort, despite undeniable risks.

Dinner complete, I thought I'd heard the last of geo-engineering at Tallberg.

Not to be. The next day, during the Forum's final plenary session, Ged Davis, current co-president of the Global Energy Assessment Council, former managing director of the World Economic Forum, and former head of scenario planning at Royal Dutch Shell, spoke.

Much like the member of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, Davis opined we might have to turn to geo-engineering to prevent scenarios in which our planet becomes increasingly inhospitable to humans.

He said, "We may have to do the impossible and the unforgivable to address the unavoidable." (Watch.)

"Impossible." "Unforgivable." "Unavoidable."

I let those words percolate. And then I pondered.

The problem wasn't that Ged Davis, facilitator of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change emissions scenarios, might be an arrogant scenario planner, a crazed energy policy wonk, or both. Were that the case, he'd be easy to marginalize. The real problem is that Davis's views are gaining credence and are now essentially normalized. Informed by some of the world's most influential institutions, including the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences and the Royal Society, they're entering the core of the climate adaptation and mitigation debate.

Even more problematically, geo-engineering approaches and theory enshrine a false sense of control over the uncontrollable, while simultaneously institutionalizing desperate measures. They play into the agendas of business-as-usual proponents, holding out a mechanistic hope that science and engineering schemes to cool the planet would extend the shelf life of entrenched economic, political, and corporate structures.

Anyway, after Davis had uttered his reckless speculations, he addressed the question of love: "Who do you love?" he asked. "Yourself? Your partner and yourself? Your family? Community? Do you have a passion for the planet? When you find out who you love, then you can decide what you want to do. That's the starting point."

To my surprise, there was mild applause after Davis flipped from being a technocrat to being, what, an inspiring New Age guru?

It reminded me of Stanley Kubrick's film, Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb, which revolves around a Soviet "Doomsday Device" that would destroy all life on Earth upon U.S. attack. Played by Peter Sellers, Dr. Strangelove, a German scientist hired by the U.S. military after World War II, has the unnerving ability to rationalize megalomania.

In Ged Davis and his ilk, Dr. Strangelove lives. Except rather than targeting the former Soviet Union, the new Dr. Strangeloves are targeting increased solar radiation and poorly understood atmospheric, oceanic, terrestrial, and geophysical processes that could reinforce one another, thus accelerating climate change even further.

A few days before Davis's plenary remarks, Chief Oren Lyons, an Onondaga faith keeper and a distinguished service professor at University at Buffalo, the State University of New York, shared some relevant thoughts with the Forum's New Leader Program. Lyons's people are members of the Six Nations of the Iroquois Confederacy -- also known as the Haudenosaunee. Descendants of a matrilineal democracy, the Iroquois Confederacy introduced the democratic concept to the United States' founding fathers.

In reference to climate change, Lyons said, "Our traditional [Native American] teachings tell us that once the Earth takes over, we won't win."

Nourished by hubris, enthralled by a cold rationality, geo-engineering advocates live comfortably in flats in London, Stockholm, or Palo Alto. They work at Royal Dutch Shell or the Royal Swedish Academy of Science or the Royal Society, or some equally reputable academic, corporate, or scientific institution. They think they're qualified to talk about love and hope, when their real experience centers on attempting to influence business outcomes via scenario planning or, even more implausibly, planetary and civilization outcomes via the climate system's non-existent thermostat.

It's a battle they won't win.

That's because our civilization, whose institutions are founded on competition and power to a greater extent than cooperation, could only be safeguarded by a radical humanitarianism -- a complete devotion of the Earth's increasingly scarce material resources to the service of humans' most basic, and humble, needs.

And that would require the institutionalization of kindness and compassion, a psychological, social, and organizational adaptation of a completely different order.

___

Note:

At Tallberg, I interviewed Grace Akumu, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change author (IPCC, fourth assessment report) and environmental activist of Climate Network Africa in Kenya; President Emanuel Mori of the Federated Republic of Micronesia; Gro Harlem Brundtland, former Prime Minister of Norway, and contributor to Our Common Future (the 1987 report that proposed the term "sustainable development"); Bill McKibben, author of The End of Nature and founder of 350.org campaign to bring carbon emissions down to 350 parts per million (ppm) from the current 392 ppm; Mario Tokoro, head of Sony Computer Science Laboratories; and last, but not least, Chief Oren Lyons, a professor and Onondaga faith keeper, whose Native American people were part of the Iroquois Confederacy that practiced democracy, and introduced the notion of democracy, to the United States' founding fathers.

In the lead up to the December 2009 Copenhagen climate negotiations, look for a series of HuffPost articles based on these interviews.

Follow Sanjay Khanna on Twitter: www.twitter.com/Sanjay1

Comments

[Bijan Kafi]

Sanjay, great piece! It fondly reminds me of our talks at Tällberg on the issue.

I have had several of these eery kinds of dinner table conversations at Tällberg myself. I am convinced that the core issue is deeply cognitive and directly connected to the worldview we have come to call "scientific".

There is this weird situation today where, intellectually speaking, something can make perfect sense - and still be entirely inappropriate to the problems we face in our lives. It's like an advanced state of "paralysis by analysis" with the curious difference that those calling themselves "practitioners" (business men, entrepreneurs, engineers etc.) are no less "idealists" than those developing grandiose theories. I vividly remember a top-ranking Harvard professor in economics stating publicly in the plenary that, "intellectually speaking, we don't know of any alternatives" (to modern capitalism) while discussing the need to fundamentally change the economy to accommodate the planet's and ours real needs.

The problem is that they're right. Everything makes perfect sense from the intellectual point of view. Still, its entirely useless when we look at our real lives. How have we become so disconnected from reality?

My Tällberg experience convinced me that the real problem about climate change does not have anything to do with the ozone layer or CO2 emissions. It's entirely mental and thus to connect it to native American teachings, spiritual in essence.

[Sanjay Khanna - Huffpost Blogger]

Hi, there, Bijan:

Sorry, didn't catch this comment earlier.

Interesting to hear you had some similar conversations.

Yes, there may be cognitive barriers to shifting perception that are, in fact, insurmountable.

[Leif Utne]

Great piece, Sanjay! While I agree with Ged Davis that we need to start planning for adaptation to a changed climate, the geo-engineering movement is frightening. Changing human behavior *should* be so much easier (and the results far more predictable) than changing the planet's behavior.

[Sanjay Khanna - Huffpost Blogger]

Appreciate it, Leif! Re: your comment on the geo-engineering movement and changing human behavior, I do, of course, wish we showed signs of greater collective foresight. :)

[WitsendNJ]

Sanjan, excellent post, I am now a fan!

Geoengineering also ignores the ravages of pollution from industrial processes that are wreaking havoc on earth just as much as climate change.

I have become intrigued by the debate of which to emphasize, environment vs. climate change.

In some ways it seems it is all the same thing, humans piling up pollutants and befouling the earth, whether it's CO2 warming the earth, or particulate matter causing cancer. What is the most compelling argument to people who prefer to remain in denial?

On another matter, empirical evidence, I have written before that the trees on the Eastern Seaboard are showing symptoms of severe distress. Every single vegetative form of life is exhibiting signs of toxicity, and since I'm not a scientist, I can only speculate that they are being poisoned by atmospheric gasses. Ozone produced from gasoline and coal emissions is known to kill plants but since that has been around for decades and the decline is relatively dramatic and sudden, I suspect that the more recently government-mandated addition of ethanol to gasoline is the primary causative agent.

Ethanol emits acetaldehyde, which produces peroxyacetyl nitrates when mixed with UV radiation, and PANs are extremely deadly to plant life (and animal).

Anybody who wants to weigh in, feel free, at witsendnj.blogspot.com. Trees are the foundation of our ecosystem on land, as coral reefs are in the sea. Without them every other species faces mass extinction.

[Sanjay Khanna - Huffpost Blogger]

Thanks for the feedback! How to emphasize environment versus climate change is a conundrum because it's not wise to ignore either one. Unfortunately, what seems to be occurring is that climate change is exacerbating the impact of pollution through both simple and complex meteorological and ecological processes. I'll take a look at your blog, and seek out more information on the severe distress trees are exhibiting. And, again, I appreciate your thoughts.

[research]

I saw some tv programs about pumping salt water vapor from thousands of solar and wind powered ship, and launching micro mirrors and other grand but terrible projects.

Climate is chaotic, hence unpredictable.

We can predict that changing an important variable like co2 to levels higher than 3 million years ago, will likely cause the climate to change, to switch to another pattern.

Rooftop solar pv and Waste biochar can provide all the energy and fuels the world needs, cleanly cheaper and forever. BioChar is carbon negative. see my profile for details and links.

[Sanjay Khanna - Huffpost Blogger]

Thanks for the helpful insight re: what we can predict and about rooftop solar and biochar. I appreciate it.

[Kaviraj]

Sanjay,
not only are they not synoymous, the posters using it seem unaware that earth is already terraformed and is going to be changed by geo-engineering.

[Sanjay Khanna - Huffpost Blogger]

Indeed, Kaviraj, the Earth has been altered by gigantic engineering projects for some time, whether to build dams, divert rivers, conduct mining operations, enlarge cities, grow food on an industrial scale, etc. Geo-engineering, if conducted in some of the ways that have been suggested, could possibly make a bad situation on our planet even worse for future generations.

For other readers of this post, here's the American Heritage Dictionary definition of "terraform":

ter·ra·form (tr-fôrm)
tr.v. ter·ra·formed, ter·ra·form·ing, ter·ra·forms
To transform (a landscape) on another planet into one having the characteristics of landscapes on Earth.

[SonofLiberty1]

Or if you want to really get technical call it Reverse Terraforming.

[joebaggadonuts]

Thanks for sharing this.

[SonofLiberty1]

THE PROPER TERM IS ....

TERRAFORMING!

[Sanjay Khanna - Huffpost Blogger]

Here's the link to terraforming on Wikipedia, which indicates I've used the term "geo-engineering" correctly. Terraforming and geo-engineering are not synonymous.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terraforming