Hotter Times #15: Unmasking the myth of mitigation
Revealing what lurks behind the mask of climate mitigation
Climate mitigation can mean two different things: mitigating the causes or mitigating the effects of climate change. Carbon emissions are the primary cause of climate change, largely driven by burning fossil fuels. By reducing the amount of fossil fuels we burn, we can mitigate the causes of climate change. One approach replaces fossil fuels with renewable energy. Another approach focuses on reducing egregious consumption, aka degrowth. These two paths require changes to our behavior, with degrowth representing the bigger change.
The other side of climate mitigation focuses on the effects. Carbon capture aims to remove CO2 from the atmosphere and store it permanently. Geoengineering attempts to block solar radiation, typically by spraying aerosols into the atmosphere. The effect is that sunlight is reflected back into space.
Effect mitigation is alluring. It promises that we can maintain a high consumption society and control our environment (aka maintain our dominance over the planet) via technological advancement. In other words, we don't have to change our behavior to "solve" climate change.
But there's a certain hubris thinking we can solve climate change. Sure we were able to develop a vaccine for COVID-19 in record time, but we are again facing the spectre of another pandemic as avian bird flu keeps mutating and making more jumps across species. Seals, in particular, have been hit hard by avian bird flu with thousands dying from Argentina to Maine. In the US, the second human case was recently recorded.
The point here is that while one problem is solved, a dozen more problems surface. And technology solutions have a funny way of often creating more problems that need solving. For geoengineering, we barely understand what the consequences of these technologies are. Think about how often you complain about the weather forecast being incorrect. Given that level of uncertainty, does it make sense to be toying with the whole atmosphere?
You might think that our system is robust enough to prevent irresponsibility or bad actors from causing problems. Consider how generative AI is being (ab)used to create and share deepfake porn videos, usually without the consent of women in the videos. Or the deepfake robocalls of President Biden to manipulate voters.
Who provides oversight for geoengineering projects? Currently there isn't much. In the US, the application process is far simpler than trying to win a grant from NOAA despite the risk being much greater. A one page form appears to be all that is required. And based on the answers of one company, the review process seems a bit light.
This intentionally unnamed company lists the target area of their “experiment” as “all of Earth” without a control area. This company is selling “cooling credits” at $14/gram of their clouds, aka sulphur dioxide and claiming that this will offset the warming effect of 1 ton of CO2. It’s amazing they know this given there isn’t even a control area being used.
We are already in a timeline where people believe they are entitled to modify the whole atmosphere for a few bucks. This company has already been kicked out of Mexico for launching balloons without approval. Their solution? Move on to Reno, Nevada where they were given notice by NOAA for not reporting their launches.
Even if the technology succeeds, it becomes ripe for exploitation. Who will prevent bad actors from exploiting the rest of humanity with the biggest protection racket ever? And what will happen if multiple companies deploy "solutions" in overlapping parts of the sky. I haven't seen anyone discuss this because there seems to be a general belief that there will be just one solution that is run and managed by a Benevolent Dictator For Life.
We haven't figured out any of the societal complications with AI despite full steam ahead. If anything we are racing even faster because the dollar signs are so big. And that's causing even more carbon emissions.
Much of history tells a story of how humans have controlled our environment and adapt to change. It's one of the features of being human versus another animal. Yet we are at the cusp of changes that will occur faster than our ability to adapt.
While some mitigation efforts are worthwhile, there needs to be more emphasis on adaptation. The amount of funding going towards climate mitigation versus climate adaptation is unbalanced. More money needs to go into adaptation activities. The UN estimates taht $160-340 billion dollars per year are needed by 2030 and even more after that. These sums represent 5-10x more money than is currently allocated.
One of the reasons I'm open sourcing the Climate Adaptation Data Platform is to lower the barrier to entry for climate adaptation projects. Understanding and forecasting local weather conditions is a key component to any climate adaptation initiative. That holds true whether people want to warn people of heat risk, storms, drought, or infectious diseases like malaria. We can’t wait for the funding gap to be closed. The easier it is for people to develop climate adaptation solutions, the easier it will be to direct funds to climate adaptation.
Hotter Times is published by Zato Novo. We are building the Climate Adaptation Data Platform, an open source sensor and data infrastructure to accelerate climate action and digital development projects. Quickly build applications for food security and public health that rely on hyperlocal weather forecasts. Get in touch with Brian at rowe@zatonovo.com to learn more.