At the 11th Hour: Can We Geoengineer the Carbon Genie Back into the Bottle?

Environment Policy Brief | By: Todd J. Broadman | September 04, 2024

Featured Photo: www.carbonbrief.org

__________________________________

Just as technology in the form of transforming carbon into energy has been linked to environment catastrophes, the scientific community is actively fabricating technical applications to counter CO2 accumulation. Among the geoengineering methods attracting attention is Solar Radiation Modification (SRM). SRM deploys sulfate aerosols to the stratosphere to cool the planet. Yet another approach is called Direct Air Capture (DAC) and as the term indicates, DAC technology extracts CO2 from the air. Air is pumped through CO2-absorbing resin, captured, and then stored underground. Although the oceans already capture about a quarter of the earth’s CO2, there is a proposed technology to boost seawater absorption by pouring-in huge amounts of sodium hydroxide and freshwater.

The Biden administration has yet to put together a cogent policy on geoengineering. There have been “White House studies” such as last year’s SRM study that concluded the “risks and benefits of SRM need to be considered vs. the risks and benefits of no SRM.” Like carbon emissions itself though, there is recognition that any policy must be cooperative and global to have any real impact. The U.S. emits approximately 5 billion tons of CO2 each year and the Biden administration has announced an intent to “draw down and store” 20% of that total.

Some, like the Brookings Institution, are of the opinion that the U.S. “cannot afford to wait to act” and that the U.S. ought to take the lead in creating geoengineering standards. To that end, commercial ventures have taken up the (for profit) mission. The larger ones aim to make money through a combination of tax breaks, grant funding, and luring revenue from those who seek carbon credits. Prominent players in this market include Global Research Technologies, wholly-owned by Occidental Petroleum, who are selling carbon credits in units of metric tons of CO2. In order to scale the technology, they have mapped out locations for 130 Direct Air Capture plants across the U.S.

In addition to Occidental Petroleum’s investment, fellow oil titans Chevron and Shell have divisions actively pursuing CO2 capture solutions. Even though on its face, there seems to be an irony in their efforts to remedy the very source of their profits, the technology comes with an added bonus: the captured CO2 is deployed to pressurize existing wells for added oil extraction. Former DOE staffer, Jennifer Wilcox, claims that DAC technology is providing oil corporations “an opportunity to pivot … these are the companies that have the resources and the assets to actually do it.”

Referring to the promise of DAC technology, Occidental Petroleum CEO, Vicki Hollub, says “This gives our industry a license to continue to operate for the 60, 70, 80 years.” And to sell carbon credits alongside, as part of this new geoengineering business model. Such is the profit potential that Occidental purchased DAC technology firm Carbon Engineering for $1.1 billion. Annual revenue for such credits is forecasted to grow to $135 billion by 2040 according to the Boston Consulting Group. Bill Gates alone purchases some $10 million worth of credits each year.

The risks of geoengineering are many. Solar Radiation Modification, which involves the release of sulfate particles (termed Solar Aerosol Injection) into our stratosphere from thousands of planes. The aerosols are designed to provide a shield and protect the Earth by reflecting the sun’s rays. Scientists are eager to begin experiments. The mathematical models anticipate that to have the proposed effect, the plane platoons would have to fly continuously for many decades. There is currently “little information” on the environmental risks of such a massive endeavor according to the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and that a major investment in research is required. Meanwhile, aside from a requirement to make the Commerce Department aware, there are no geoengineering testing regulations in the U.S.

ANALYSIS

The proposed need for geoengineering is based upon a couple of practical assumptions: firstly, that there will not be a significant cut in carbon emissions over the next decade, and secondly, even if there is a significant cut, the residual impacts of existing CO2 on climate systems will still be felt for decades to come. The thinking is that this residual amount in the air can be drawn down through massive scaling of the technologies. Because the cure, so to speak, may be more harmful than the disease, worldwide coordinated research and regulation is required before moving forward.

“Geoengineered technologies are next to useless,” according to University of Hawaii oceanographer David Ho, and that sweeping conclusion is based on the current annual rate of carbon released: 40 billion metric tons. Scale matters. The hope though, is that these technologies will make a dent, will reduce the number and intensity of environmental catastrophes. The technology may be a positive force for environment justice in so far as developing countries who were minor contributors to the problem, can reap large benefits, and have it paid for by the wealthier nations. Ho adds an ethical element: “it’s almost our responsibility to give them a tool to remove it.”

One recent U.K. report had the ominous conclusion that geoengineering will be “ungovernable … and will have extremely costly social and economic consequences of such a magnitude to make [it] untenable.” Its authors compared the risks of a massive deployment of geoengineered technologies to the spread of nuclear weapons. “We don’t know exactly what the risks are, because no one has been crazy enough to do this before,” says Ben Day of Friends of the Earth, “It’s kind of like the thinking that got us here in the first place: Thinking that we can control Earth’s systems without unintended consequences.”

Still others, like University of Notre Dame’s Emily Grubert, asserts that “paying the oil companies to stop doing oil” is counterproductive and are lobbying to nationalize the carbon-removal industry. They see that using citizen tax dollars to subsidize for-profit polluters is not the policy direction we should be heading.

Tax and foundation dollars are heading into university research arms. The University of Chicago now has a Climate Systems Engineering initiative tasked with studying geoengineering technologies. The Simons Foundation has issued grant funds to look at ways to cool the atmosphere such as unmanned sail-powered ships, which would continuously blast tiny salt crystals into the atmosphere to brighten clouds and reflect sunlight into space. The Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, a private marine research non-profit organization, is awaiting EPA approval to pour a 6,600-gallon mixture of sodium hydroxide solution and freshwater into the sea in order to increase the pH and thus pull added carbon from the air. At scale, it is estimated that every large ship on earth would need to be deployed to have any impact (and large ships run on diesel fuel).

Aside from the dangers of using these geoengineered remedies for accumulated CO2, we still have to deal with carbon-dependent societies, and there is a fear that rather than make the kind of sacrifices necessary to cut emissions, developed countries will turn to them as a handy way of continuing commerce as usual with billowing smokestacks.

Engagement Resources:

• https://www.geoengineeringmonitor.org/  serves as a resource for people around the world who are opposing climate geoengineering and fighting to address the root causes of climate change instead.
• https://www.climate.columbia.edu/ the nation’s first climate school – started to educate future climate leaders, support groundbreaking research, and foster essential climate solutions from the community to the planetary scale.
• https://www.scientificamerican.com/  covers the most important and exciting research, ideas and knowledge in science, health, technology, the environment and society.