{"id":12421,"date":"2017-12-11t17:31:51","date_gmt":"2017-12-11t17:31:51","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/dpetrov.2create.studio\/planet\/wordpress\/expert-qa-can-we-fix-our-climate-with-large-scale-intervention\/"},"modified":"2017-12-11t17:31:51","modified_gmt":"2017-12-11t17:31:51","slug":"climate-policy-geoengineering","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"\/\/www.getitdoneaz.com\/story\/climate-policy-geoengineering\/","title":{"rendered":"expert q&a: can we fix our climate with large-scale intervention?"},"content":{"rendered":"
wil burns, an expert in environmental policy, holds a ph.d. in international law from the university of wales-cardiff. burns’ research primarily focuses on climate geoengineering governance \u2014 or, the deliberate and large-scale intervention of our climate system with the goal of counteracting climate change, and the policies needed to achieve that goal.<\/p>\n
while burns helped host a workshop for ngos on carbon dioxide removal\/negative emissions at the george washington university, planet forward sat down with him to discuss the paris climate agreement and other climate change policies. read on to see an edited version of our conversation:<\/p>\n
planet forward: how did you become involved in climate policy research?<\/strong><\/p>\n wil burns: <\/strong>i started off working on the impacts of climate change on small island states, specifically how small island states might either adapt to climate change or how they might use legal mechanisms to try to “press” the biggest emitters of greenhouse gases to reduce their emissions. then, about 12 years ago, i became interested in climate geoengineering. i had just happened to read an article, [while] on a plane, from usa today and i thought it was an interesting topic for teaching because it\u2019s a topic that\u2019s an interface of law and science and ethics and technology and politics.<\/p>\n while teaching about this i got excited about doing more research and ultimately, at john hopkins, simon nicholson from american university and i decided that there should be a think tank that would try to ensure that if we do decide to look at climate geoengineering as a society, that we include all<\/em> of the stakeholders … that was one of the fears we had, so the purpose of these kind of forums are to ensure that other stakeholders like ngos and the general public \u2014 who would be affected by these technologies \u2014 are a part of the conversation.<\/p>\n pf: while human ingenuity seems almost endless, do you think it\u2019s harmful to rely solely<\/em> on technology to confront the challenges that global warming poses? <\/strong><\/p>\n burns: <\/strong>well, i certainly think it\u2019s harmful to rely on technologies that seek to mask<\/em> the warming that\u2019s associated with emissions. for example, [there is] one kind of geoengineering, which is carbon-dioxide removal<\/a>. there\u2019s another kind called solar radiation management.<\/a> the effort there [with the solar radiation management] is to just reduce the amount of incoming sunlight. so if there\u2019s less solar radiation to be trapped by the greenhouse gases, it reduces the warming. but that\u2019s a short term sort of palliative [technique]. and the long term, if emissions continue to rise, it will at some point overwhelm those options. plus, those options are extremely risky for a number of other reasons. so, i think that type of technological hubris is wrong. i think the kind of technologies we\u2019re looking at have potentially a supplementary role, but in many ways it\u2019s because they have risks [so] they\u2019re not necessarily permanent either. the best thing we need to do is reduce our emissions. but in a lot of cases when you think about reducing emissions through things like renewable energy or energy efficiency methods, there\u2019s certainly a role for technology in that context also. solar, geothermal, wind power are based on technology also, so there is a role for technology.<\/p>\n pf: how hopeful are you then that geoengineering technology can reduce the worst case scenarios that climate change could produce?<\/strong><\/p>\n burns: <\/strong>i think the jury is definitely out. i think that, ultimately, carbon dioxide removal strategies, things like bioenergy<\/a> and carbon capture<\/a> (beccs) or direct air capture will have a modest role to play. but even a modest role is good. the difference between, for example, a temperature increase of 3.0 and 2.5 degrees or 2.5 to 2.0 can be substantial in terms of the impacts on ecosystems or human institutions. even if the role is relatively modest, which i think it will [be], it could be important. carbon capture involves trapping the carbon dioxide at its emission source, transporting it to a storage location \u2014 usually deep underground \u2014 and isolating it. this means we could potentially grab excess co2 right from the power plant, creating greener energy. <\/p>\n