A few days ago, in my attempts to keep up with geo-engineering in the public sphere, I found an article detailing David Attenborough's stance on geo-engineering. If the legend that is Sir David has something to say on the matter you can be sure I was keen to find out more. I tracked down the original interview on the Andrew Marr show, you can take a look below (my feeble attempt to embed BBC videos has failed so it's a link I'm afraid):
It is interesting that he focuses not on the intricacies or reliability of the technologies, but on the political implications of geo-engineering. After yet more climate talks it is clear that we are incapable of coming to satisfactory agreements regarding C02 mitigation, so the future looks bleak for such discussions of geo-engineering! Humphreys (2011) discusses the political difficulties posed by a global climate intervention: Where? When? How? To what extent? Who decides? who pays? - a recipe for political tension and perhaps even conflict. The ethical considerations of climate are blurred and uncertain, open to manipulation and compromise - a global case of the tragedy of the commons. Geo-engineering is popularly stated to be the 'lesser of two evils', deemed by many a preferable option to a climate catastrophe. In light of the political complexities, Gardiner (2010) suggests that there is an alternative two evils scenario that should be considered, that of a climate catastrophe or a geopolitical catastrophe. In addition, implementation is likely to confuse CO2 mitigation discussions further, as geo-engineering maybe perceived as an alternative, rather than an additional measure.
I think we'd all benefit from CO2 mitigation rather than sending the world into further geopolitical turmoil....
 |
| Illustration by Stephanie McMillan @ Code green |
No comments:
Post a Comment