Post-geoengineering: war or peace?

The year is 2080. The 2°C global warming threshold has passed. Atmospheric CO2

concentration is at its highest: 500 ppm. The frequency of extreme tropical storms in the Atlantic have increased. Desertification has compromised agricultural production in parts of South America, Africa and Asia leading to famine. The majority of the Arctic sea ice has melted resulting in sea level rise. The UN has called for an emergency summit for global leaders to agree to the terms of geoengineering: an option that was discarded as ‘too dangerous’ a few decades ago.

Figure 1: Typhoon Haiyan - one of the worst tropical storms to hit South East Asia

---

Chinese official: We propose that sulphur aerosols are sprayed into the atmosphere to reduce further warming and desertification in China. Being the largest rice exporter, global warming has severely impacted our rice exports, caused crop failures and is releasing methane.

Kenyan official: Nothing will be sprayed over our airspace, thank you very much. East Africa is already experiencing a drought. We can’t afford anymore problems with our climate.

Brazilian official: Sorry, but that will affect the El Nino Oscillation. We need stability right now, not more uncertainty. Besides, how will we split the cost?

Indian official: We second Brazil. Scientists have warned that sulphur aerosols can weaken the Indian Monsoon. Surely our opinion counts too. We are, after all, the world’s largest population.

American official: How about we stay away from Solar Radiation Management Schemes. Let’s say, afforestation? Each country can –

British official: Not enough time.

Figure 2: UN Climate Negotiations

French official: Hey Britain and America, why don’t you engineer your peatlands to optimise carbon sequestration? Your peatlands are overwhelmingly contributing to atmospheric methane influxes right now. Isn’t it better to utilise their massive carbon sink potential?

Indonesian official: …

French official: That includes your tropical peatlands, too, Indonesia.

British official: We need something quick. We don’t have enough time for peatland carbon sequestration – that can take centuries.

Indonesian official: How about fertilising the oceans? That way, if anything goes wrong, it won’t happen on land. We need to be quick, though – tropical storms are battering South East Asia. Question is, where do we begin and who will initially fund it?

---

No, this wasn’t a script from an apocalyptic Steven Spielberg film. Rather, it was an attempt to understand what a post-geoengineering world would look like. What will it mean for global peace? How will it, if at all, transform international relations? How will it affect our everyday lives?

Some argue geoengineering can be equated with warfare due to its transnational impact, effects on civilians and operation on long timescales. Furthermore, the role that geoengineering can play in creating conflict should not be underestimated. For example, if a geoengineering scheme in China is perceived as an existential threat by one of its many nuclear-armed neighbours, the result could be catastrophic (Lockley, 2016).

Maybe this is an example of geoengineering being taken to an extreme. No doubt, geoengineering will transform international relations and very possibly undermine global peace. The plausibility of geoengineering gets stronger every day as we get further and further away from making any significant progress (Victor et al, 2013). It is imperative, therefore, to incorporate certain principles to inform geoengineering policy. Principles such as human rights, for example the right to food, establish a baseline that mustn’t be crossed in the pursuit of geoengineering (Burns, 2016).

However, history tells us that human rights and peace are often not upheld during times of calamity. I feel it is better for humanity, therefore, to realistically consider geoengineering to mitigate climate change and plan now, rather than rule it out completely and regret it in the future.