Examining the Ethics of Geoengineering

As the threat of climate change and its disastrous implications for all earthly life worsens, the necessity of taking action against global warming becomes increasingly crucial. In line with this, institutions are directing more attention and effort towards mitigating the associated environmental repercussions. Among the multitude of proposals from scientists and researchers seeking to solve climate change, those stemming from the discipline of climate engineering have started to gain widespread attention.

Climate engineering, also known as geoengineering, centers around influencing the earth’s climate through direct and intentional intervention. The two main branches of geoengineering, carbon dioxide removal and solar radiation management, embody a wide variety of approaches including stratospheric aerosol injection, direct air capture, and ocean iron fertilization. However, these solutions remain under-researched and riddled with various flaws. Geoengineering technologies and research have historically faced staunch opposition, in part due to the insecurity and flaws of each proposal, including the high likelihood of unintended environmental repercussions in more radical solutions and the prohibitive cost-efficiency of most carbon dioxide removal technologies, but also because of the moral implications of such interventions.

Recently, the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, which advises the president on scientific and technological matters, coordinated a five-year research plan to investigate potential solar radiation management interventions. The research plan was included in Congress’s 2022 budget and signed by President Joe Biden in March, drawing increasing attention to an already-controversial science, which has thrown climate engineering under more scrutiny.

Michael Martin, a writer and editor based in New York City, reiterates in his Best Life article about the White House’s plan that a significant concern of environmentalists is that climate engineering could prove to be a “moral hazard” [1]. Solar radiation management techniques and geoengineering would allow society to reverse the impacts of climate change without the need to address the real root of the issue—sustainable development and greenhouse gas emissions. Geoengineering practices, especially if implemented at a large scale, would enable society to ignore the status quo and deprioritize reducing carbon emissions [2].

Within the grander scheme, however, further research in geoengineering is morally necessitated, not prohibited. The National Society of Professional Engineers, a professional association representing licensed engineers, promotes an ethical code for engineers in the United States. The very first Fundamental Canon in Section 1 of the NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers establishes that engineers should “hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public” while fulfilling “their professional duties” [3]. Geoengineering technologies, particularly solar radiation management strategies like stratospheric aerosol injection, are in a unique position of being able to provide humans with immediate, large-scale leverage in the climate crisis. In comparison, more traditional proposals, such as reducing carbon emissions, tend to be less potent and require significant investment and input to create a less-sizeable impact, rendering them less immediately effective.

In the context of climate change, the life and welfare of every individual across the globe, including those of future generations, is at risk. And because some populations are already facing these issues, to deny development in a promising field that will very likely enable enhanced insight into the earth’s dynamics and produce superior resources and innovations in the battle against climate change, purely to hold historically large emitters accountable, is to choose to allow people to continue to suffer. This choice, conscious or not, deviates blatantly from the fundamental ethical objective to which engineers must hold themselves accountable: protecting public health and welfare.

While it is true that the employment of geoengineering technologies may distract from the important root causes of environmental degradation, this particular issue is trivial when considering the long-term ramifications of climate change in its entirety. As the world’s climate reaches a tipping point, the environmental repercussions of climate change not only outscale those of most geoengineering techniques but also out-prioritize the potential “moral hazard” of geoengineering—it is more immoral to knowingly ignore a means of directly improving the quality of life of individuals globally.

Research and implementation are two entirely different things, and only one of them is necessarily required by ethical code. Without proper investment in research to enable an enhanced insight into geoengineering technologies, all existing research and small-scale implementations would be subject to uncertainty. Moreover, the result of further research could lead to a decision to not employ these new technologies. Even in this case, at the least researchers and environmentalists would be left with a clearer picture of the climate crisis. Most importantly, the implementation of geoengineering tactics and moving towards a more sustainable infrastructure are not mutually exclusive. Accordingly, the five-year research plan from the Office of Science and Technology Policy, and more broadly any research and investment in climate engineering, is supported by the codes of ethics of the engineering society.

References

1. Martin, M. (2022, October 21). White House Plan to Research Cooling Earth Causes Controversy. Best Life. Retrieved November 4, 2022, from bestlifeonline.com/news-white-house-plan-to-research-cooling-earth-by-reflecting-back-sunlight-causes-controversy/

2. Corbett, C., & Melton, M. (2022, October 28). The Case for Researching Solar Geoengineering. Lawfare. Retrieved November 4, 2022, from www.lawfareblog.com/case-researching-solar-geoengineering

3. National Society of Professional Engineers. (n.d.). Code of ethics. Code of Ethics. Retrieved November 4, 2022, from www.nspe.org/resources/ethics/code-ethics