Is Geoengineering Ethical?

Given the amount of scientific consensus on the reality of global climate change, it seems increasingly likely that temperatures will continue to rise worldwide for the foreseeable future- unless measures are taken to mitigate the effect of greenhouse gases trapped in our atmosphere. Most experts agree that cutting carbon emissions drastically, halting deforestation, and increasing energy efficiency are the most attractive options for minimizing the predicted catastrophic effects of global warming. However, considering the reluctance of world leaders to reach a binding climate agreement and the pace at which global population is increasing, many scientists are reaching the conclusion that efforts to reduce the global carbon footprint might not be enough. Many, including Nobel laureate Paul Crutzen, claim that developing a contingency plan would be prudent in the event that attempts to curb greenhouse gas emissions fall short. A number of these experts on climatology are advocating research into an emerging field of science called geoengineering.

Geoengineering as it relates to climate science is often defined as "large-scale engineering of our environment in order to combat or counteract the effects of changes in atmospheric chemistry". There are numerous approaches to the concept of geoengineering with varying costs and complexities, many of which are outlined in the graphic below:


Nearly all of these technologies (with the exception of reforestation) are untested, and it is unclear how successful they would be in mitigating the effects of global climate change. More disconcerting, though, is the possibility that implementing these technologies could have drastic and unintended consequences. Historically, efforts to reverse environmental damage by disrupting natural processes have been largely unsuccessful. For example, efforts in Hawaii to control the population of a harmful invasive species of snails by introducing a foreign predator snail have devastated the population of native snails.

With humanity's track record on correcting environmental damage soiled by numerous examples such as this, many scientists are wondering whether research into geoengineering is worthwhile or even ethically responsible. Advancement of these technologies could potentially take research grants away from other climate change research, including projects focused on reduction strategies. It could also contribute to a false sense of security among the general public, leading to reduced concern about the need to reduce carbon emissions. Also, there is legitimate concern that these technologies may be put into use before there is international consent.

While no current geoengineering technology is feasible or attractive, this does not mean that no further research in the discipline should be conducted. Given the likelihood that we as a society will not be able to move quickly enough to avert global warming, I think we as a society have a moral imperative to fund promising geoengineering research. The key here is that this research be conducted responsibly. Specific guidelines defining a moral approach to the development of the science should be decided upon by the major industrialized nations. Ethical and societal concerns should figure in decisions about what is appropriate to research, at what level of funding, and with what urgency. These guidelines should clearly state the conditions that must be met in order for any geoengineering project to actually be implemented, and should be very stringent. The most important question that will have to be answered is- Will any geoengineered solution actually turn out to be an improvement over global warming?