October 15 2019
Book review:  Can Science Fix Climate Change?
              by Mike Hulme, (c) 2014; Polity Press

This was a rather thin volume come across at a local thrift shop
that I frequent, largely for its book section.  I'd not heard of
Mike Hulme [0] before; he is currently a professor of Geography at
University of Cambridge (UK). However, at the time of this book's
publication Hulme was professor of Climate and Culture at King's
College, London. Basically he is a Humanities guy which was refreshing
as he is analyzing things primarily from a humanistic, ethics,
cultural point of view instead of the usual rational/scientific,
the language of technologists.

Hulme's book it primarily focused on making an argument against
the use of Solar Radiation Management (SRM) [1] in an attempt to
tamp down global average temperatures which are increasing due to
anthropogenic warming.  Why the focus on SRM?  Because SRM appears
to be the least expensive way of influencing global average
temperature and so the most likely to be implemented. SRM basically
seeks to emulate the effect of stratospheric aerosols emitted during
volcanic eruptions. These aerosols are mostly sulfur compounds that
are known to mask solar radiation, thereby cooling the planet.
There have been several well documented volcanic eruptions that
have produced this effect, most famously the "Year Without a Summer"
[2] that followed the eruption of Mount Tambora in 1815.

If SRM is just an intentional extension of a natural, if episodic,
process then maybe it's not so bad, especially given the utter
failure of the world's nations to sign onto binding limits on CO2
and the prophesied catastrophe of crossing the red line of 2 degrees
C global average temperature. This is in fact the essential argument
made by proponents of research and development of SRM implementation,
a "just in case" plan B.

According to Hulme there is quite a lot wrong with this argument,
detailed thoroughly in his book. Hulme's arguments against SRM are
two pronged, one technical, the other political.

Prong one: from strictly a technical analysis, SRM poses a number
of problems.  First off, it assumes keeping global average temperature
at a certain level will be desirable, when in fact it may not be.
Global average temperature is a useful metric for gauging the
effects of greenhouse gas emissions but it doesn't actually correlate
well to what people actually care about which is local weather
patterns. It also varies quite a bit with where it's measured, ie.
how high off the ground, under a forest canopy or above, over land
or water.  Further, how exactly sulfates injected into the stratosphere
will disperse, react and finally precipitate out is highly speculative.
We really don't know; aerosols are particularly hard to model and
conducting field tests means essentially implementing SRM which
raises a number of ethical issues which we'll get to. Lastly,
sulfates cause acid rain which is quite damaging to both flora and
fauna, particularly amphibians which are already having a hard
time. Some lesser issues are whiter skies and reduced photo-voltaic
outputs.  Perhaps an under appreciated risk is that SRM would need
to be an on-going concern since aerosols precipitate out (the rate
of precipitation is also quite variable, ranging from weeks to a
year or so); any cessation of SRM could result in a spike in
temperatures which could trigger crop failures and all the usual
associated unpleasantness.

Prong two: Hulme's second argument is focused on the ethical and
political challenges of administering SRM. In many ways SRM and
other geoengineering schemes are being considered due to the
inability of the world's nations to agree to binding reductions of
greenhouse gases, namely CO2. Of course it's really much more than
that, it's humanity's failure to face up to the fact that we're
engaged in a way of life that is not sustainable if we plan on
being around much longer.

But why have we failed?  Hulme has written several books exploring
this very topic which I will hopefully get to one of these days.
Essentially Hulme argues it's the usual reasons, such as a preference
for the present that heavily discounts the future and its inhabitants,
with the exception of perhaps one's own offspring. For instance we
know burning fossil fuels causes problems but it also has bought
many of us significant enrichment, from roughly a doubling of our
lifespan to fresh fruits year-around. Who really want to give these
things up for a future we'll never know?

Ironically these same modes of failure carry right on over to
sabotage any attempt to regulate global average temperature via
SRM.  Who gets to decide what the "thermostat in the sky" is set
to?  If history is any gauge it's highly probably that rich northern
countries will be calling the shots, tweaking SRM to optimize their
climates at the expense of others.  But what happens if disagreements
arise among the developed nations and one or another decides to
unilaterally embark on their own SRM?  How would the world deal
with migrants from countries on the losing end of SRM?  Could the
world really keep to an agreed upon SRM plan if local climates get
increasingly erratic as some climate models of SRM have predicted?
What happens when one or more countries become failed states for
whatever reason?  As mentioned, once embarked upon for more than
a short period SRM would need to be continued since it's simply
masking the full effects of greenhouse gas buildup; a cessation
could easily trigger significant temperature spikes, enough to
cause widespread crop failures, leading to famine and wars.

Hulme I think lays out solid, easily understandable arguments
against pursuing SRM as a means of addressing climate change, enough
so that they have been taken up by groups such as the Institute
for Advanced Sustainability Studies [3] which has sponsored the
Climate Engineering Conference [4] with the next conference scheduled
for October 2020.  They have several videos uploaded to their
YouTube channel [5] many which I found quite informative.

One thing I've found disturbing is just how many obviously intelligent
people have voiced support for SRM, again, just in case. Some
apparent SRM supporters: Paul Beckwith, Rafe Pomerance, James
Lovelock, John Holdren. Granted some may simply feel it should be
looked into and haven't actually looked at it in-depth.  In general
it seems to be the engineering types that are seemingly willing to
ignore the risks and ethical/political complications, displaying
a faith in human ingenuity and understanding bordering on arrogance.
As a recovering engineer I can attest to the elevated levels of
arrogance in the profession.

Part of the attraction of schemes like SRM and Carbon Capture and
Storage (CCS) is they are focused on a single gas, CO2, understandable
since CO2 is roughly 50% of the greenhouse gas load.  Hulme however
argues that neither is likely to succeed as they work against our
human nature of preferring the immediate to any future benefit,
and that much of the failure to-date to address climate change is
how the problem has been framed, that it's all about CO2 and staying
under 2 degrees C.

As an alternative Hulme suggests "climate pragmatism", an attempt
to address climate change more obliquely, essentially focusing on
things that benefit the present and also address climate change as
sort of a side effect.  As mentioned, CO2 is roughly 50% of the
greenhouse gas load.  The other half are things like methane,
mercury, black soot, and various other pollutants which negatively
impact health and/or the environment. Addressing these have an
immediate benefit to people today AND address climate change.
Since each requires it's own approach the cumulative effort is
multi-pronged and thus has a much better chance of overall success.
Hulme also favors a progressive carbon tax for similar reasons; it
allows the current system, however flawed it may be, to help push
economic activity towards lower carbon emissions.

In the past I've been skeptical of carbon tax and related carbon
credit schemes as they seemed little more than an extension of the
voodoo economics employed by the world's polluters to continue with
business as usual.  There has actually been some support for many
of Hulme's pragmatic approaches; whether they could be adopted and
stuck to during an economic contraction is debatable.  That said,
I do agree with Hulme that the singular focus on CO2 and the 2
degree C red line has become almost a fetish that sounds more and
more like a war drum with calls for declaring a climate emergency
and a disconcerting authoritarian vibe in the air. It is after all
common for democratic principals to be suspended during times of
emergency or war.  And clearly there is some big money behind many
of these geoengineering schemes; the fossil fuel industry is heavily
invested in CCS for example.  Who really thinks those guys are
trustworthy?

Hulme feels humans should strive to identify what we really care
about; is it really staying under 2 degrees C or is it reasonably
stable local climates where we can continue to grow food?  Do we
really want to hand over decision making that could significantly
effect local climates to some climate command center invariably
ruled by the already powerful, or focus our efforts on local
mitigation and adaptation?  One thing is certain, when we change
the climate we change ourselves; lets strive to change wisely.

 - -

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Hulme
    https://mikehulme.org/
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_radiation_management
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_Without_a_Summer
[3] https://www.iass-potsdam.de/en
[4] http://www.ce-conference.org/
[5] https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCg4cyMKncP4HiQPwnjNMotQ/