The Incompetent And Unscrupulous Political Theatre Of Geoengineering: Part-3

In June 2021, a rather small but highly qualified group of scientists called SCoPEx [Stratospheric Controlled Perturbation Experiment] planned on sending a balloon high up in the atmosphere. The unmanned balloon that was to take flight from ‘Esrange Space center’ Sweden was a part of the First Experiment to study the effects of SAI on climate.

But even before the balloon could rise, it was shot down by the Indigenous People of Saami Council. The project was shut down based on what’s known as the World’s second most controversial experiment after nuclear power called “Geoengineering!”

INDIGENOUS PEOPLES Calling for Harvard to Shut Down The SCoPEx Solar GEOENGINEERING Project [Source- Arctic Council Secretariat / Linnea Nordström]

The Historical Timeline of Climate Engineering

But why the heck is International Political groups divided on a scientific experiment? What are the literal frameworks and policies for and against it? Is it really worth it to be our ‘Plan-B’ in peril?

To answer, let us take a quick recap on Geo-engineering. The term refers to large-scale schemes for intervention in the earth’s oceans, soils, and atmosphere intending to reduce the effects of climate change, usually temporarily. Further, Geo-engineering is divided into two broad categories- Carbon Dioxide Removal/ Carbon Capture and Storage and Solar Radiation Management. You can read more about SAI and CCT in the previous article.

But even before the groundwork for SAI or CCT was laid, Civil groups all over the world had been opposing the idea of “Playing God.”
The roots of this debate are long buried in the belief of historical timeline.

1996
It all started when Scientists for Global Responsibility touched upon the issue of “Climate Engineering” at the Geneva conference.

1999
Greenpeace publishes a report on “Ocean Disposal/Sequestration of Carbon Dioxide from Fossil Fuel Production and Use” which mentioned Ocean Fertilization as a plausible solution.

2002-2006
Different aspects of Climate Engineering were pondered upon through “What Next?” to argue about the future scenario of 2050.

The Concept of Net-Zero is a Dangerous trap. [Source- whatnext.org]

2007
February: The ETC group released a report “Gambling with Gaia.”

May: Planktos company announced to deploy tonnes of iron fillings to test Ocean Fertilization theory. But Sea Shepherds condemn the plan and sends a ship to intercept the Planktos ship.

June: ETC and Greenpeace brought the topic of Ocean Fertilization to the table of the London Convention, with supporting letters from the World Wildlife Fund and the International Union for Conservation of Nature. Activists hold protests against this Geoengineering method stating- ‘Toxic Dumping is no solution to climate change.’

November: Ocean Nourishment Corporation announces plans to dump urea in the Sulu sea, however, Philippine Civil Societies including SEARICE, WWF-Philippine, Fisher’s group mobilize to stop it while IUCN and WWF intervene through London Convention.

2008
February: At the UN Convention on Biodiversity (CBD)’s 13^th Meeting, Ocean Fertilization is put on the Agenda for the first time.

October: CBD Conference of Parties Bonn demands ‘Ocean Fertilization Moratorium’ after stating that no activities be carried unless adequate scientific evidence justifies this activity.

The German Research vessel Polarstern. [Source- ALFRED WEGENER INSTITUTE]

2009
January: Indo-German company LOHAFEX plans to dump 6 tonnes of iron filings into the ocean. The project is opposed by a broad coalition of including South African, German, Indian, WWF, Greenpeace, ETC in support of TWF saying that it violates the ‘Moratorium called for by CBD.‘ Resulting, in the German Environmental Ministry canceling the project. Yet, the project continued.

March: World Social Forum in Belem, Brazil, 80 civil engineering societies release a statement that “The better world we seek is not Geo-Engineered” as LOHAFEX continues dumping iron.

April: The Indigenous Peoples’ Global Summit on Climate Change brought 400 people from 80 countries together. The resulting signed “Anchorage Statement” to abandon Geoengineering as a ‘false solution’ and instead focus on cutting carbon emissions.

December: Civil society holds side events at the conference of parties of the United Framework Convention on Climate Change.

2010

March: SRM Governance Initiative is launched by Environmental Defence Fund.

April: The World Peoples’ Conference on Climate Change and Rights of Mother Earth in Bolivia denounces Geoengineering solutions publicly.
Hands Off Mother Earth [HOME] Campaign against open-air Geoengineering experimentation launches.

The HOME Campaign lauched. [Source- The dharma trails]

2011

June: 160 Civil Societies sign letter to International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to revaluate SRM as Plan-B.

September: UK project Stratospheric Particle Injection for Climate Engineering (SPICE) aims to conduct SRM, but the opposition of Civil Societies through ‘Stop The Trojan Horse’ campaign forces them to abandon the project.

2012

October: ETC Group uncovers a massive Ocean Fertilization project underway and raises the alarm enforcing the CBD Moratorium.

2015

December: During the COP21 Talks in Paris, Organizations like ETC group, Biofuelwatch declare ‘Net Zero Technologies’ as ponzi scams proposed by so-called Science-Wizards and backed by Crude industrialists.

2017

March: COP10 Mandate adopted Decision X/33 stating that Ocean Fertilization techniques would not be supported on a large scale. However, experiments could be conducted on small scale after thorough justification and threat assessment on bio-diversity.

2019

February: Ice-911 project by Leslie Field, which aimed to cover vast Arctic areas with micro-silicone beads to reflect sunlight, was marked as a dangerous step by many indigenous voices.

March: An Opportunity to build on CBD Moratorium was presented by Switzerland with 11 other nations. It called for an assessment of the status of various geoengineering technologies and potential governance frameworks. An international expert group was expected to advise the Executive director and report the outcomes which would form a concrete basis for decisive actions.
But, after two weeks of intense gridlock and opposition by Oil-Rich countries, the swiss opted for withdrawal and the UNEA failed to land on an optimum decision rendering the meeting useless.

November: Geo-engineering was proposed not mandatory but one of the pathways against global temperature rise. The IPCC report implicitly stated ‘no need’ for climate engineering to cool down the planet.

The US and Saudi Arabia Block UN Efforts at Climate Geoengineering Governance. [Source- desmog.com]

2020

December: SCoPEx announced its open-air SAI experiment much to Swedish and indigenous people’s dismay.

2021

January: The HOME campaign writes an open letter to SCoPEx advisory board to re-evaluate climatic risks induced.

June: the delayed project is suspended amid the pressure on SCoPEx’s advisory board.

The Leftists and Rightists of Geoengineering

Even amidst climate change, geoengineering is not the answer. [Source- People’s World]

The aforementioned timeline is not just an ordinary 25-year discussion in brief, but it’s rather an early warning system of the disaster that is awaiting us. For decades, hundreds of Civil Engineering and Indigenous People’s societies have stressed the dire need to wake the monster rather than beating around the bush. Even though it’s known that CDR technologies have been developed and SAI models studied in detail, they proclaim these schemes as false.

“History is the Sum total of things that could have been avoided.”
– Konrad Adenauer

It’s like saying that upgrading fast modern cars with state-of-the-art sensors would guarantee that the car would never crash. That’s the most naïve thing; the Rightists need to know that to prevent wreckage you need to slam the breaks and drive on a limit.
That is why Paris Agreement was formed but High-Emission Oil-Rich countries are more perplexed about their economy. Even the 2019 IPCC report fails to challenge the global inequality related to who has been more of a culprit in this climate crisis and who should reduce emissions the most. Hence, to avoid these fundamental questions, it considers high risks pathways, which aren’t solutions and may even exacerbate climate imbalances.

SCoPEx Climate Engineering project: Innovative solution or Ethical dilemma. [Source- new security beat]

“We are now in a position where we have to make Imperfect choices with Incomplete knowledge about the world….And one of the biggest choices is what we do right now to avoid that magnitude of destruction!”

Further, StopSolarGeo.org states five main reasons to Permanently Restrict the Urgency for SRM-

Droughts, floods, changing monsoon patterns, and threats to billions of human lives. Some reports claim that messing with climate may worsen our chances of survival and even wiping out some portion of the population of the map.

The threat of Termination Shock. The scientific papers and journals suggest that once we start doing this, there’s no turning back. We won’t be able to stop it without risking a shock that would devastate the whole ecosystem.

Exacerbating Inequalities and Climate injustice. SRM is predominantly researched by white male countries whose impact would be felt first and hardest by Global south countries. The South is left without a voice and is ignored but is the group that has the most to gain or lose.

The so-called “Moral Hazard.” Leftists believe that deploying SRM would provide Fossil fuel industries and polluters false excuses. The Fossil, Silicon, and Mining industry would deceit the common public by falsifying claims and misinformation about Geoengineering. They would argue against the sudden transition to cut carbon emissions to a net-zero level. Leading them to invest in CDR and CCS methods as a means of a substitute to fight against Climate Change rather than facing the hard truth. “That’s utter nonsense, [we] need to cut the emissions completely and today!” says David Keith, one of the active voices and Professor of Geoengineering at Harvard University.

Impossible Governance and Weaponization. It is not new news that the US used cloud seeding as a weapon against Vietnam in war. Although it was very small scale, a scenario portrayed in the movie- ‘Geo-Storm’ may become a reality. And then there is the issue of governance. To date, no COP mandate has signatures of all the countries on decisions regarding SRM.

The UNFCCC and UNEA were a great place to start but the seemingly vicious games of Oil countries are hindering the sight of these bodies in decision making. But even if all were to agree, who would control the global temperature knob? Which countries would have a say and which would end up voiceless? Who would be willing to do this unilaterally and who shall be deemed responsible for the loss of another country due to climatic changes?

The whole scientific mumbo-jumbo would make sense when we have a full-proof experimentation report. But, research would not eliminate the known risks nor it would address the unknown risks, this would only be clear after full-scale deployment.
Even if the technology to deploy is developed, without going large scale we would never be able to see the whole picture.

Yet, the crux point here is that no one can guarantee that a country would not back out on its agreement and start counter-geoengineering just like the US left the Paris agreement.
The idea of controlling something like climate gives a sense of false perception that humans can fix the messes he created. It’s like fighting fire with fire! Thence, our biggest concern is “Is the Better world we seek is a Geo-Engineered one?”