Advertisement

Development

, Volume 62, Issue 1–4, pp 29–36 | Cite as

Fixing the Climate? How Geoengineering Threatens to Undermine the SDGs and Climate Justice

  • Linda SchneiderEmail author
Thematic Section

Abstract

Geoengineering—large-scale technological interventions in the Earth’s natural processes and ecosystems promoted to counteract some of the symptoms of climate change—threaten to undermine the achievement of SDGs and climate justice. Both Carbon Dioxide Removal and Solar Radiation Management schemes are bound to exacerbate concomitant socio-ecological and socio-economic global crises, deepen societal dependence on technocratic elites and large-scale technological systems and create new spaces for profit and power for new and old economic elites.

Keywords

Carbon Dioxide Removal Solar Radiation Management Climate change Agenda 2030 Ecosystems 

Notes

References

  1. Boettcher, Miranda, and Stefan Schäfer. 2017. Reflecting upon 10 years of geoengineering research: Introduction to the Crutzen + 10 special issue. Earth’s Future 5(3): 226–277.Google Scholar
  2. Burns, Wil, and Simon Nicholson. 2017. Bioenergy and carbon capture and storage (BECCS): The prospects and challenges of an emerging climate policy response. Journal of Environmental Studies 7(4): 527–534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Center for International Environmental Law. 2019. Fuel to the fire: How geoengineering threatens to entrench fossil fuels and accelerate the climate crisis, Washington/Berlin. Online at: https://www.ciel.org/news/fuel-to-the-fire-how-geoengineering-threatens-to-entrench-fossil-fuels-and-accelerate-the-climate-crisis/. Accessed 26 Sep 2019.
  4. Corry, Olaf. 2017. The international politics of geoengineering: The feasibility of Plan B for tackling climate change. Security Dialogue 48(4): 297–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Creutzig, Felix. 2014. Economic and ecological views on climate change mitigation with bioenergy and negative emissions. Global Change Biology Bioenergy 8(1): 4–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dooley, Kate, and Sivan Kartha. 2018. Land-based negative emissions: Risks for climate mitigation and impacts on sustainable development. International Environmental Agreements 18(1): 79–98.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10784-017-9382-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. EASAC (European Academies Science Advisory Council). 2018. Negative emissions technologies: What role in meeting Paris Agreement targets? EASAC policy report 35. Online at: https://easac.eu/fileadmin/PDF_s/reports_statements/Negative_Carbon/EASAC_Report_on_Negative_Emission_Technologies.pdf. Accessed 26 Sep 2019.
  8. ETC Group, Biofuelwatch, Heinrich Boell Foundation. 2017. The Big Bad Fix. The case against climate geoengineering. Online at: https://www.boell.de/en/2017/12/01/big-bad-fix-case-against-geoengineering. Accessed 26 Sep 2019.
  9. Field, Christopher B., and Katharine J. Mach. 2017. Rightsizing carbon dioxide removal. Science 356(6339): 706–707.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fleming, James Rodger. 2010. Fixing the sky: The checkered history of weather and climate control. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Fridahl, Matthias, and Mariliis Lehtveer. 2018. Bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS): Global potential, investment preferences, and deployment barriers. Energy Research & Social Science 42: 155–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. GeoengineeringMonitor. 2018. Bio-energy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS). Technology factsheet, http://www.geoengineeringmonitor.org/2018/05/bio-energy-with-carbon-capture-and-storage-beccs/. Accessed 26 Sep 2019.
  13. Griscam, Bronson W., et al. 2017. Natural climate solutions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 114(44): 11645–11650.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hamilton, Clive. 2013. Earthmasters: The dawn of the age of climate engineering. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Heck, Vera, Dieter Gerten, Wolfgang Lucht, and Alexander Popp. 2018. Biomass-based negative emissions difficult to reconcile with planetary boundaries. Nature Climate Change 8: 151–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. International Maritime Organization. 2019. Marine geoengineering. Online at: http://www.imo.org/en/OurWork/Environment/LCLP/EmergingIssues/geoengineering/Pages/default.aspx. Accessed 26 Sep 2019.
  17. Irvine, Peter, Kerry Emanuel, Jie He, Larry W. Horowith, Gabriel Vecchi, and David Keith. 2019. Halving warming with idealized solar geoengineering moderates key climate hazards. Nature Climate Change 9: 295–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Jasanoff, Sheila, and Sang-Hyun Kim. 2009. Containing the atom: Sociotechnical imaginaries and nuclear power in the United States and South Korea. Minerva 47(2): 119–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Johnson, Eric. 2009. Goodbye to carbon neutral: Getting biomass footsprints rights. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 29(3): 165–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Jones, Andy, Jim M. Haywood, Kari Alterskjær, Olivier Boucher, Jason N.S. Cole, et al. 2013. The impact of abrupt suspension of solar radiation management (termination effect) in experiment G2 of the Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project (GeoMIP). Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres 118(17): 9743–9752.Google Scholar
  21. Kartha, Sivan and Kate Dooley. 2016. The risks of relying on tomorrow’s ‘negative emissions’ to guide today’s mitigation action, Stockholm Environment Institute, SEI Working Paper No. 2016-08.Google Scholar
  22. Moreno, Camila, Daniel Speich Chassé and Lili Fuhr. 2016. Carbon metrics. Global abstractions and ecological epistemicide, Berlin: Heinrich Böll Foundation. Online at: https://www.boell.de/en/2015/11/09/carbon-metrics. Accessed 26 Sep 2019.
  23. Popp, Alexander, Jan Philipp Dietrich, Hermann Lotze-Campen, David Klein, Nico Bauer, Michael Krause, Tim Beringer, Dieter Gerten, and Ottmar Edenhofer. 2011. The economic potential of bioenergy for climate change mitigation with special attention given to implications for the land system. Environmental Research Letters 6(3): 34–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Robinson, J., E.E. Popova, A. Yool, M. Srokosz, R.S. Lampitt, and J.R. Blundell. 2014. How deep is deep enough? Ocean iron fertilization and carbon sequestration in the Southern Ocean. Geophysical Research Letters 41: 2489–2495.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Robock, Alan. 2008. 20 reasons why geoengineering may be a bad idea. Bulletin of the Atomic Sciences 64(2): 14–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Robock, Alan, Martin Bunzl, Ben Kravitz, and Georgiy L. Stenchikov. 2010. A test for geoengineering? Science 327(5965): 530–531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Rockström, Johan, Will Steffen, and Jonathan A. Foley. 2009. A safe operating space for humanity. Nature 461: 472–475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Shell. 2016. A better life with a healthy planet. Pathways to net-zero emissions. Online at: https://www.shell.com/energy-and-innovation/the-energy-future/scenarios/a-better-life-with-a-healthy-planet.html. Accessed 26 Sep 2019.
  29. Smith, Pete, et al. 2016. Biophysical and economic limits to negative CO2 emissions. Nature Climate Change 6: 42–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Trios, Christopher H., Giuseppe Amatulli, Jessica Gurevitch, Alan Robock, Lili Xia, and Brian Zambri. 2018. Potentially dangerous consequences for biodiversity of solar geoengineering implementation and termination. Nature Ecology & Evolution 2: 475–482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. UN. 2015. Sustainable Development Goals. 17 Goals to transform our world. Online at: http://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/sustainable-development-goals/.
  32. Williamson, P. 2016. Scrutinize CO2 removal methods, Comment. Nature 530: 153–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society for International Development 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Heinrich Boell FoundationBerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations