Geo-Engineer Most Of The Earth’s Surface? May Not Be A Great Idea!

As climate change shifts from a “far-off problem” to “eminent threat” in public perception, governments and billionaire philanthropists scramble to mitigate the impacts of global warming. Geoengineering, the radical transformation of the environment and ecosystem, has been an object of considerable interest. There are two main approaches to man-made climate intervention: Aerosol geoengineering, the spraying of particulates into the atmosphere to partially block the sun, has dominated discussions, while aquatic geoengineering remains comparatively unknown.

Several proposals involving the dangerous engineering of huge swathes of the ocean are receiving funding and not much scrutiny. Obscurity should not defend bad policy or junk science. The ocean is the world’s largest carbon sink and public good, and re-engineering two-thirds of the planet’s surface is not only dangerous and risky but entirely unnecessary and counterproductive at this level of our knowledge or lack thereof.

In May 2020, an open-air trial of Marine Cloud Brightening (MCB) began in Australia where nano-sized salt crystals were sprayed into the air through an experimental turbine to form large quantities of unusually small water droplets which would brighten low-laying above-water clouds, thus reflecting sunlight back into space. The results were inconclusive.

The Stratospheric Controlled Perturbation Experiment (ScoPEx) funded by Microsoft’s founder Bill Gates, expended great effort and resources towards solving humanity’s environmental ills this way. ScoPEx attempted to employ similar strategies in the Swedish Arctic. Ultimately ScoPEx was canceled by the Swedish Space Corporation due to objections from environmentalists and indigenous people living proximate to where the experiments were being conducted. Who would have thought plunging cities into darkness by dimming the sun would be unpopular?

Aquatic geoengineering is not limited to MCB, but also includes water spray techniques such as those theorized under the UCLA strategy of carbon sequestration and storage. This process of “Single Step Carbon Sequestration and Storage” (SCS2) involves cycling massive amounts of seawater out of the ocean, separating solid carbon dioxide from the water (which is re-deposited into the ocean), and then returning the less carbon-heavy water into the ocean. The SCS2^{process of spraying water is designed to squeeze seawater of its trapped CO2, allowing it to subsequently absorb more carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.}

Another proposed use of aquatic geoengineering is to use unusually small water particles to eliminate air pollution by dispersing water into the atmosphere, trapping particulates in water, which could then be filtered after precipitation and runoff. Proponents argue that water spraying aquatic geoengineering techniques could be a solution for managing the heavily polluted air of megacities. They contend that if water spraying systems are installed at the top of the buildings in the cities with water obtained from nearby sources, implementation costs would be low.

Extracting billions of metric tons of carbon dioxide from seawater containing nearly 150 times more carbon dioxide than air would be laudable. Nevertheless, there are many reasons to be skeptical of aquatic geoengineering. Securing a stable supply of water and repeatedly cleaning it (sometimes after it has rained its possibly harmful particulates down) is easier said than done, while the process dangerously increases humidification of the lower atmosphere. This would also cost trillions of dollars to build the approximately 1800 SCS2^{plants to eliminate 10 billion metric tons of CO₂ each year.}

This is to say nothing of unintended environmental consequences; one study shows that MCB could lead to impermissible rainfall reduction in the AmazonAMZN
region of South America and will grievously impact farming yields and solar panel outputs.

Environmental impracticality is matched by the monumental legal and enforcement nightmares the widespread adoption of geoengineering would create. Current international agreements on climate change cannot even overcome a free-rider problem with basic solvable economic incentives because of a lack of political will. Any climate change agreement that would actively hurt the environment or agricultural output of countries in the developing world in the pursuit of adopting geoengineering will be counterproductive.

The central tragedy in aquatic geoengineering is its superfluousness and cost. We already know how to combat climate change. Investing in alternative renewable energies, nuclear power including fusion, sensible environmental regulations and protections, and investments in public transit all work.

These all require sacrifice and political will. Geoengineering is a pie in the sky. It is a pipe dream, a perennial and seductive concept because it allows humanity to solve the problems of decarbonization, and energy transformation, without fundamentally altering the technology, behaviors, or structures which caused the problems in the first place.

Geoengineering introduces a moral hazard that doesn’t require sacrifice, only a new, exorbitantly expensive quick fix. It is a dangerous fantasy. Planet Earth is not ready for it and may not survive it.