The Deepwater Horizon ‘tragedy’
in the Gulf of Mexico has left some environmental NGOs, like Oceana, hoping for
catharsis in the form of new energy policy.
It’s also left some Senate democrats, like Harry Reid, hopeful for
catharsis in the form of finally passing a cap-and-trade bill. But even if we permanently shut down the oil
wells in the Gulf and put a cap on carbon, do we know how to move forward in constructing
a sustainable energy future? Many would
argue that we do. You’ve heard this
argument—we have the technologies we need; we just need to deploy our wind
turbines, solar mirrors/ panels, algae tubes etc. to scale—and it will be
smooth sailing down to 350 parts-per-million.
An increasingly vocal
crowd isn’t so sure we can meet that target and is hoping geoengineering offers
a technological “cheat” to our climate dilemma. On Monday, the New York Times reviewed
four books on the topic. In one of these
books, Eli Kintisch asks if we can “hack the planet,” deploying a range of
potential engineering techniques to lower the level of greenhouse gases in the
atmosphere. An example would be to apply
sulfate aerosols to the earth to essentially make it shinier, more reflective,
and, therefore, cooler. Generally, the reviewed books concluded that a
linear approach to managing a complex system is dangerous at best. But let’s put aside for the moment the technological
uncertainties and political problems associated with this so-called cheat and
ask what political and social issues geoengineering might cheat us out of
addressing. (Before you get too bored…my
point is not that the possibility of geoengineering as a solution will stunt
political will to reduce greenhouse gases the ‘old-fashioned’ way.)
Some view geoengineering as
a potential last-ditch effort—a contingency plan if the politicians don’t get
their acts together and fix up the planet. In some sense it is aimed at avoiding the
messy political, social, and human issues involved in attempting to reduce greenhouse
gas emissions. One of these issues is
siting energy generation technologies.
Unlike spraying aerosols
in the air, energy production, generation, distribution, and consumption is
intertwined in citizens’ local, every day lived experience (for those who have
access). While it is commonly addressed
that energy generation technologies require land—and that put into context
renewables don’t even require that much land—this misses the point. Part of the siting problem for a large-scale
renewable energy system is not that these technologies require land, but that
they require places—places that are valued by particular publics (and
particular ecosystems, I might add). Even
oceans are made up of places, and coastal and marine spatial planners
increasingly emphasize that particular ocean places must be designated for
particular needs, like conservation and offshore energy.
The politics involved in debates
about siting energy technologies that occupy places are more than ‘just’
local. They involve significant and
robust questions that are global in scope about how we should use our natural
resources, who should have power to define how places are shaped, who has
responsibility for environmental problems including climate change, and how
important aesthetic enjoyment is. Few
global forums on climate change accessible to citizens exist, and those forums
are accessible to a relatively small few.
Place-based politics, such as those involved in building energy systems,
are the connection for many (most?) citizens across the globe to influence
these broader questions. Geoengineering
attempts to skirt these place-based politics by implementing solutions that
attempt to ‘fix’ the ‘problem’ without engaging local publics in building a
more just and sustainable future. So one
must critically ask—what was ‘the problem’ that we were trying to cheat our way
out of in the first place?
I think we’ve only just
begun to think through how we can build a sustainable and low carbon society. We should not shy away from the governance
challenges involved in addressing our climate and energy challenges—the things
we learn in the process may be as important as the outcome. Instead,
we should work to build more robust avenues for engaging publics in climate
change planning—both at the local level and through novel global forums such as
World
Wide Views on Climate Change.
