• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
Stanford Environmental Law Journal January, 1998
GEOENGINEERING: A CLIMATE CHANGE MANHATTAN PROJECT
Jay Michaelson [
FN
a1]Copyright © 1998 Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University; JayMichaelsonI.Introduction ................................................................................... 74II. Preventing Climate Change through Regulation......................... 81A. Introduction: Will and Uncertainty ........................................ 81B. Climate Change Is an Absent Problem ................................... 84C. Climate Change Is Difficult to Address ................................. 871. Cost ................................................................ 872. Equity ............................................................. 933. Complexity ..................................................... 954. Disagreement .................................................. 955. Institutional Inefficiency ................................. 97D. Climate Change Is a Tragedy of the Commons ...................... 99E. Summary: Climate Change and Its Regulation ..................... 1011. Effective Regulation Requires More Will than We PresentlyHave .......................................................................... 1012. Changing Deep Structures Is Very Difficult ............. 1023. Adapting to Climate Change Is Myopic and Risky ... 103III. The Political Economy of Geoengineering .................................. 105A. Introduction: A Climate Change Manhattan Project .............. 105B. Geoengineering May Be a Remedial Solution ...................... 109
 
C. Geoengineering Is Easier to Implement than Regulation ...... 1101. Cost: Geoengineering Is Cheaper than Regulation .............. 1102. Equity: Geoengineering Is More Fair than Regulation ........ 1143. Complexity: Geoengineering Is Administratively Simpler thanRegulation ............................................................................ 1164. Disagreement: Geoengineering Is Less Contentious thanRegulation ............................................................................ 1175. Institutional Inefficiency: Geoengineering MinimizesInstitutional Roles ................................................................ 118D. Geoengineering Avoids the Tragedy of the Commons ......... 121E. Summary ................................................................................ 121IV. In Defense of Geoengineering................................................... 122A. 'It Just Won't Work'/'It Will Do More Harm than Good' ...... 122B. 'It Costs Too Much' .............................................................. 1251. The High Cost of Geoengineering Makes It Impractical .... 1252. The High Cost of Geoengineering Makes It Inefficient at Best,Counterproductive at Worst ............................................... 126C. 'It Is Unnatural' .................................................................... 127D. 'It Subverts Other Efforts' ................................................... 129V. Who's Afraid of Giant Laser Space Frisbees?......................... 130A. 'Deep' Environmentalists ....................................... 132B. Holists .................................................................... 134C. Political Environmentalists .................................... 136D. Summary ................................................................ 138VI. Conclusions............................................................................... 139
 
*74
I. IntroductionWhy are we fiddling while the Earth burns? Though the vast majority of the world'sscientific and political communities now agree that some warming of the Earth's climateis occurring as anthropogenic changes take place in the atmosphere, [
FN
1] there is
*75
 equally widespread agreement that our recently renewed efforts to mitigate itsconsequences are woefully inadequate. [
FN
2]Notwithstanding the many proposals, [
FN
3]and limited progress toward a binding climate change treaty at the recent ThirdConference of the Parties to the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP3)in Kyoto, Japan (hereinafter "Kyoto Conference"), [
FN
4] creating effective climatechange policy remains "the most difficult negotiation anyone
*76
has tried to do." [
FN
5]Why?This Article argues that the lack of success in climate change policy stems from theexclusive focus of policymakers on various forms of preventive regulation. Becauseclimate change regulation requires an extraordinary amount of will and coordination, andbecause uncertainty, cost, equity, and other factors threaten the effective implementationof a Kyoto-style program, a regulation-only approach is dangerously myopic. Not eventhe most austere post-Kyoto regulatory regime can avert a probable temperature rise of 2to 3 degrees Fahrenheit during the next century, and most observers estimate that morepolitically feasible plans will yield a rise of between 3 and 8 degrees. [
FN
6] Yet otherthan simply doing nothing and adapting to climate change when it happens--a potentiallycatastrophic strategy--what alternatives do we have? [
FN
7]In the wake of Kyoto, the time has now come to expand our policy horizons to includegeoengineering, the direct manipulation of the Earth's climatic feedback system, [
FN
8] asa serious alternative to ineffective and contentious regulation. Once derided as sciencefiction, [
FN
9] geoengineering has lately begun to merit serious debate in academic,[
FN
10] scientific, [
FN
11] and econometric literature, [
FN
12]
*77
and has gained thetentative support of such diverse figures as Edward Teller, [
FN
13] Wallace Broecker,[
FN
14] William Nordhaus, [
FN
15] and Stephen Schneider. [
FN
16]First, the science of geoengineering--though not the primary focus of this Article--is nolonger the arrogant climatologist's Tower of Babel. [
FN
17] In particular, two proposalshave yielded encouraging scientific data: the oft- maligned "Geritol cure" [
FN
18]--sowingiron filings in the ocean to stimulate the growth of carbon-consuming phytoplankton;[
FN
19] and the "sunscreen" proposal, which
*78
calls for the controlled emission of dustparticles to reflect solar radiation and incrementally cool the Earth, [
FN
20] simulating thecounter-greenhouse "Pinatubo Effect" measured in the wake of Mount Pinatubo'seruption in 1991. [
FN
21]
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...