A major new report by the UKs Royal Society suggests geoengineering – the large scale manipulation of the environment to counteract global warming – is not an easy or readily acceptable alternative solution to the problem of climate change. Geoengineering has in the past been suggested as a viable option to mitigating climate change. Technologies that have been considered include carbon capture and storage and placing giant mirrors or shields in space to reduce the amount of solar energy reaching the Earth. The report has evaluated the potential, feasibility and possible side effects of all of the proposed technologies, as well as investigating the human dimensions: governance, ethics and international law. The report was launched in London last night and is available here. The Royal Society’s press release is available here.

Feel free to use these quotes in your stories. If you would like to speak to an expert, please don’t hesitate to contact us on (08) 7120 8666 or by email.
———-
Professor Ian Lowe is Emeritus Professor of science, technology and society at Griffith University, Qld and President of the Australian Conservation Foundation.

“The idea of geo-engineering was greeted with profound scepticism and deep unease in a special session at the Third World Climate Conference, which I am attending in Geneva this week. As climate change is itself the unintended and unforeseen consequences of changing the global environment, the scientists warned that any geo-engineering interventions on a scale to slow down climate change would inevitably have other consequences, some of which cannot be predicted. There is no substitute for concerted action to reduce greenhouse pollution and slow climate change. Geo-engineering responses are like the old lady who swallowed a spider to catch the fly, creating a whole set of new problems.”
———-

Professor John Buckeridge is Professor of Natural Resources Engineering at RMIT.

“There is much uncertainty about whether we can effect positive change, and particularly whether this is possible in any window of opportunity that we may now possess. Past activities of humans have changed our world, and much of this is to our discredit. Many things that have been done for good reasons, have turned out to be disadvantageous, e.g. introduction of exotic species for “recreation”. Geoengineering has the potential to reap even greater havoc. What must be immediately implemented are systems to reduce the rampant consumption of natural resources, and the resultant pollution that our ever-growing population is responsible for. The drop in biodiversity that we are now experiencing is a legacy of our development. Rather than geoengineering, we should be engineering human behaviour more effectively.”

To see a longer comment from Professor Buckeridge click here.

———-

Kevin Walsh is Associate Professor of meteorology in the School of Earth Sciences at the University of Melbourne.

“In this report, The Royal Society draws a clear distinction between engineering solutions that directly take CO2 out of the atmosphere without affecting other natural systems and those that combat climate change indirectly by other means, for example by injecting dust into the upper atmosphere to block the sun’s rays. It clearly states that many of the indirect methods could have serious unintended consequences and should only be used as a last resort. But methods to remove CO2 directly from the air are largely unproven and possibly expensive. So the report also correctly concludes that there is no substitute for a concerted campaign to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, while acknowledging that some geoengineering options may be helpful in the future.”

———-