Committee on Industry, Research and Energy

by Izzy van Bemmel (NL)

Introduction 

With another larger wave of wildfires and storms plaguing the continent each year, the urgency for a fast and effective climate solution is growing. While both companies and governments seem uneager to make large sacrifices to cut their emissions, geoengineering, the deliberate intervention in the Earth’s natural systems to mitigate climate change, has been attracting large-scale attention over the past years. However, criticism has been quick to sprout. Concerns are raised that geoengineering, purposeful meddling with the climate, might be presented as the silver bullet to climate change, which could smother initiatives to reduce emissions. 

Additionally, several reports have also come out on the potential risks of meddling with macro-climates¹. Scientists warn it is simply impossible to know the exact consequences of geoengineering until it would already be too late to revert measures. 

Despite these concerns, geoengineering holds considerable potential. Global warming is threatening our way of life worldwide, and in a time of crisis, radical measures like geoengineering might seem like humanity’s last lifeline. In 2018 the European Commission called for a plan to implement an unspecified level of carbon capture and storage (CCS)² technologies, demonstrating the window of opportunity for geoengineering to play a part in a journey to a net zero Europe.

Glossary

• Carbon sequestration is the complete process of carbon removal from the atmosphere, followed by its storage in a carbon sink, which can be any form of carbon storage. Carbon sequestration has traditionally been a natural process, but with the usage of geoengineering, it can now be done artificially.
• Greenhouse Gas Removal (GGR) or carbon geoengineering refers to any form of artificial carbon sequestration. This includes CCS technologies, but also the creation of artificial forests and other methods, illustrated in Figure 1. The most popular GGR proposals are direct air capture and post-combustion capture.
• Direct Air Capture (DAC) is practised through carbon capture installations that passively remove carbon from the atmosphere. 
• Post-Combustion Capture (PCC) is a process where the emissions of a large carbon source, such as a coal power plant, are directly fed into a carbon capture mechanism before being released.
• Solar Radiation Management (SRM) or solar geoengineering refers to geoengineering solutions which  reduce the effect of sunlight on global warming. SRM solutions, like the space mirror initiative, are often seen as more radical and dangerous. SRM also does not address the acidification of the ocean by climate change and therefore does not prevent the bleaching of coral reefs. These solutions include ideas such as the addition of reflective aerosol particles³ into the atmosphere, the creation of artificial clouds and the planting of reflective crops to reflect sunlight, illustrated in Figure 1.

Relevant Stakeholders

Despite the recent interest in geoengineering, there are currently very few geoengineering companies in operation. The only area with large-scale implementation of geoengineering is Iceland, where Climeworks utilises DAC to remove CO₂ from the atmosphere for companies such as Microsoft. 

Some companies with large carbon footprints have shown some interest in carbon compensation. But most companies, especially in emission-heavy sectors, fear the high costs while not seeing any direct benefit. Geoengineering solutions are expensive and companies lack the initiative to implement them. 

Most governments have been reluctant to create initiatives due, in part, to a lack of political willpower from citizens. The potential risk of some geoengineering initiatives also makes them unappealing. In the United States, a tax break was created for CCS, contributing to a US lead in the world of geoengineering.

The European Scientific Advisory Board on Climate Change (ESABCC), which operates under the European Environmental Agency (EEA), aims to address the concerns over geoengineering risks by investigating the potential harm of proposed geoengineering technologies as well as potential benefits. 

Outside of the EU, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) of the United Nations has also already published an interest in the matter of geoengineering. A strong collaboration between the UN and EU is crucial for the future of geoengineering, as any geoengineering proposal requires global cooperation for effective implementation. Whether geoengineering will take shape through GGR or SRM initiatives, it must be implemented on a global scale. 

Key Conflicts

There is much we do not know about the consequences of geoengineering yet and, due to its irreversible nature, risks of unintended damage to ecosystems and the climate pose a major roadblock to implementing geoengineering to battle climate change. The world’s ecosystems are complex mechanics which can easily be disrupted, resulting in large damage. This is already being exemplified by global warming itself, where small fluctuations in world temperature can have devastating effects. While some initiatives such as carbon capture show no large risks, other measures like SRM with larger potential to combat global warming could very well result in damage to the climate of a greater magnitude than global warming itself. Precautionary research by bodies such as the ESABCC is vital in preventing us from making counter-productive mistakes with geoengineering, but this research takes time.

Global warming is, however, a problem of utmost urgency. A delay in action could allow the effects of an interrupted carbon cycle to further spiral out of control, which is illustrated in Figure 2. The effects of climate change have the potential to further accelerate global warming, while already being disastrous for ecosystems around the world. It is therefore imperative that action is taken now to fight global warming. Geoengineering provides many tools that could potentially be extremely effective. As seen after the eruption of Mount Pinatubo in 1991, when around 15 million tons of sulphur dioxide were released into the stratosphere, global temperatures decreased by about 1°C in the two years that followed. Similar phenomena could be created through geoengineering, which might be our lifeline to prevent large-scale climate catastrophes. 

Geoengineering also does not require the reduction of current-day consumerism habits. It is very hard to fundamentally change the world‘s economy and culture, which would be critical to reducing emissions. While this might mean we can address global warming without making as big a sacrifice in our consumption habits, it could prove dangerous to be overly dependent on geoengineering. Not only is it uncertain whether it would be effective, but it could also create a cycle where we continue expanding our pollution further and further, necessitating the taking of larger and larger risks in geoengineering to keep our climate in a stable condition.

Measures in Place

Horizon Europe is already very active with the further development of geoengineering. This is a research and innovation budget of the European Union with funds of almost €100 million. Previous iterations of the programme have already included funding large research programs on innovative SRM and GGR technologies. Geoengineering projects with Horizon funding have already sprouted, which are visible in this interactive geoengineering map.

The European Climate Law (ECL), part of the recent European Green Deal⁵, has underlined the importance of CCS to reach the goal of carbon neutrality by 2050 and even talks of further implementation to reach net negative carbon emissions. The law aims to achieve carbon neutrality through geoengineering in synergy with a reduction of fossil consumption by 95%. The law has also made the carbon targets of a 55% reduction of emissions by 2030 and carbon neutrality by 2050 legally binding for Member States. 

The EEA has additionally created the ‘Do No Significant Harm’ principles, illustrated in Figure 3. The principles were created as a guideline, by which all climate-relative decision-making must abide. These objectives are generic but provide a blueprint for future geoengineering policy.

The European Green Deal is however reliant on Member States to implement the policy in order to achieve the 2030 and 2050 carbon policies. The EEA is tasked with providing Member States with assistance in research and decision-making to achieve climate targets. This advisory role regarding climate is dictated by the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), for more direct participation of the EU on climate and geoengineering an amendment to the TFEU would unanimously need to be passed. 

Key Questions 

• What degree of climate meddling by a governmental organisation do you find morally responsible?
• What role do you picture for geoengineering in the future?
• Do you think the European Union should have a more direct role in environmental and geoengineering decision-making, rather than the advisory role it has now?
• How do you think the European Union could best guide the development of geoengineering with respect to legal limitations?

1.  Macro-climate is the term used to describe the overall climate of a region or large geographic area. ↩︎
2. Carbon capture and storage (CCS or CCUS) refers to the artificial removal of carbon from the atmosphere, which is then stored in large depots or building materials. ↩︎
3.  An aerosol is a suspension of fine solid particles or liquid droplets in air or another gas. ↩︎
4.  Desertification is the process by which vegetation in drylands, such as grasslands or shrublands, decreases and eventually disappears, creating a desert. ↩︎
5. The European Green Deal is a series of recent climate laws and decisions in the EU and was led by the Dutch politician Frans Timmermans. ↩︎