Tag Archives: geoengineering

Geoengineering – the case is not made Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




The publication of a hefty two-volume report on geoengineering by the US National Research Council represents a marked shift in the global debate over how to respond to global warming.

To date, the debate has been about mitigation, with the need for some adaption because of the failure to reduce emissions adequately. The new report, backed by the prestige of the National Academy of Sciences of which the NRC is the working arm, now argues that we should develop a “portfolio of activities” including mitigation, adaptation and climate engineering.

In other words, rather than presenting climate engineering, and especially solar radiation management (rebranded albedo modification), as an extreme response to be avoided if at all possible, the report normalises climate engineering as one approach among others.

To be sure, the committee writing the report points to the serious risks likely in albedo modification, but it recommends the US set in train what would be a major research program into various forms of geoengineering – including field experiments in a technique to cool the planet by spraying sulphate aerosols into the upper atmosphere.

And it endorses the deployment of various carbon dioxide removal methods as relatively benign ways to counter human emissions, arguing that the decision on mitigation versus carbon dioxide removal is largely a question of cost. This approach is riddled with political dangers.

The hole at the heart of the argument

By mainstreaming geoengineering as a response to global warming the committee has left behind the argument put by Dutch Nobel laureate Paul Crutzen, in his famous 2006 article that opened the floodgates for geoengineering research, that desperate times will require desperate measures.

With no talk of ‘climate emergencies’ in the report, we look in vain for any clear rationale for the possible deployment of albedo modification.

The ‘buying time’ argument – according to which we can temporarily increase the Earth’s albedo (surface reflectivity) while the world decides to put CO2 controls in place – has fallen out of favour because any warming suppressed by a solar shield will just come back to bite us once the shield is removed.

So there is a contradiction buried in the report: it recommends the initiation of a federal research program into albedo modification but does not give a plausible analysis of the circumstances in which the solar shield might be deployed.

The recommendation that “Albedo modification at scales sufficient to alter climate should not be deployed at this time“ (my emphasis) is hardly reassuring.

Scientists call for … more science

In the absence of a rationale, the report reverts to the standard scientists’ trope: we need more information. Deploying a fleet of planes to coat the Earth with a layer of sulfate particles “should only be contemplated” when we have enough data to know what effect it would have, and for this we need a lot of research.

But who should do it? Who should oversee it? Who should own the results? Who would deploy the technologies? How can we ensure research is not misused? These questions, which ought to come before a decision is made to proceed with research, are either not considered or are shunted off to some vague ‘governance’ space.

Research does not take place in a social vacuum. When scientists propose to investigate technologies that would allow someone to take control of the Earth’s climate, and the research is proposed only because powerful interests have prevented a much better solution, then the research is intensely and inevitably political.

So we should not let the genie out of the bottle unless we are pretty sure we can put it back. And that means no research before governance. The committee stresses its desire for public engagement but then undoes it by seeming to endorse a proposal for an “allowed zone” in which scientists alone would decide which experiments could take place.

In this zone, experiments “should not be subject to any formal … vetting and approval”, so the report’s fine words about civil society engagement begin to ring hollow.

Science meets the real world

An essential mistake of the report is the unwillingness to recognise (even though it has been pointed out repeatedly) that field experiments that do not change the physical environment can radically change the social and political environment.

To maintain the physical-social separation the report must play down or dismiss the problem of ‘moral hazard’, that is, the likelihood that a substantial research program, let alone any deployment, would almost certainly reduce the political incentives to rein in carbon emissions.

The committee’s answer is, as always: we need more information to make good decisions. Of course, this does not answer the concern at all but merely asserts that more information will always trump the flaws of politicians – as if the information deficit model has proven itself so effective in the past.

The committee has a touching faith in the power of reason and holds it up as a kind of crucifix, declaring that “it considers it to be irrational and irresponsible to implement sustained albedo modification without also pursuing emissions mitigation, carbon removal, or both.”

And yet this report has been written precisely because we live in an irrational and irresponsible world. And one has to ask how rational and responsible it is to include solar radiation management in a ‘portfolio of responses’ to global warming, as this report does.

Wildly, utterly, howlingly barking mad!

The mandatory declaration that albedo modification “does not constitute a licence for unbounded CO2 emissions” becomes a kind of incantation to ward off the irrationalities of the actual world.

One strategy for creating a rational world where climate engineering would never be misused is canvassed in the report. Social anxieties over deployment of climate engineering could be mitigated by “further research”. Negative perceptions of programs to modify the Earth’s albedo should be “extensively studied” so that they can be countered.

Sadly, the social world does not behave like the Earth system. It cannot be reduced to theorems and principles to be uncovered by further research.

If we knew how to fix society through scientific study we would not be in such a mess that we are now considering an idea that Ray Pierrehumbert, climate science professor and a rogue member of the committee, describes as “wildly, utterly, howlingly barking mad”.

 

 

Clive Hamilton is Professor of Public Ethics, Centre For Applied Philosophy & Public Ethics (CAPPE) at Charles Sturt University.

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

http://theconversation.com/geoengineering-might-work-in-a-rational-world-sadly-we-dont-live-in-one-37550

The Conversation

 




390261

Geoengineering – the ‘declaration’ that never was may cause real harm Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




The Climate Engineering Conference 2014 (CEC-14) was recently held to discuss technologies for deliberately counteracting climate change.

These include Solar Radiation Management (SRM), for example, adding sulphates to the stratosphere like a volcano, to reflect sunlight; and Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) techniques – such as planting new forests to draw down CO2 from the atmosphere.

These technologies would allow us to exercise a degree of direct control over the climate. Unsurprisingly, the potential exercise of this God-like power is highly controversial.

Advocates say we need to be deploying these technologies urgently to save Earth from catastrophe. For opponents, they are a ‘get out of jail free’ card that would allow a business as usual approach to the profligate burning of fossil fuels, and carry huge risks of their own.

This background of controversy was no surprise to conference participants, who are well-aware that wider opinion of geoengineering is split along logical and ideological fault lines.

Delegates’ big surprise – a ready-made declaration

However knowledge of the necessary methods cannot be erased, so Pandora’s box is already open. Tough choices have to be made about what will be permitted – from basic scientific research to full deployment.

Studying this new-found power is now an important academic endeavour, and both public and academic interest is growing rapidly. CEC-14 was the first public scientific conference in the growing field of climate engineering, and similar events will likely follow.

As an academic discipline, geoengineering is here to stay. As a potential policy option, it is being carefully and publically scrutinised by experts. But sadly, that’s not the story the media reported.

What attracted journalists’ attention – and astonished delegates – was having a controversial document thrust into their hands after one of the first plenary sessions.

Demanding yet more restrictions on experimentation

This text, which became known as the ‘Berlin Declaration’, was not a draft from the conference organisers. Instead, it was a ready-made edict, promoted by attendees from the Oxford Martin School – an offshoot of Oxford University, which concerns itself with the study of socially challenging technologies and trends.

This so-called ‘declaration’ demanded yet another review process on experiments. This would further restrict a field that is already so tightly regulated that almost no faculty researchers have managed to do any outdoor experimentation at all.

In the opinion of many delegates, its effect would be to impose a de facto ‘test ban’ on most geoengineering experiments.

The assembled academics were understandably rattled by these events. A fully-formed ‘declaration’ had appeared. It seemingly awaited only a nod-through before becoming a concrete piece of governance, forever associated with the conference.

Moreover the ‘declaration’ came against a background of much pre-existing restriction on experimentation. Obviously, scientists can’t release a new superbug in a stadium, just to see what happens.

What’s less obvious is that there is a complex system of approvals for many types of experiment. This ensures that both obvious and concealed risks are carefully considered, whenever potentially-dangerous research is proposed.

We need responsible research – not a ban

In practice, this means that even completely harmless experiments in a scary-sounding field such as geoengineering are often nightmarishly difficult to get clearance for.

As Cambridge University’s SPICE project (Stratospheric Particle Injection for Climate Engineering) showed, even squirting a bathtub of ordinary water out of a hosepipe can be pretty controversial if you say the ‘g-word’ anywhere near it.

Other examples of similar controversies exist, with Ocean Iron Fertilisation (OIF) trials being a notable example. In fact, perhaps the most controversial ‘experiment’ – which involved fertilising the ocean with iron – came from outside the mainstream scientific process.

Regardless of whether one is hopeful about geoengineering or not, it’s reasonable to suggest that careful research might be a good idea. Without testing, we lack important practical knowledge, and without that knowledge, we have less ability to appraise the technology, or use it safely.

A test ban would be a very big deal indeed, especially if the banning text ruled out tiny, harmless experiments, as well as big, risky ones. Deliberately closing the door on scientific research would be essentially unprecedented, and this caused significant concern among delegates.

It’s possible that some believed that a new tier of regulation would have the opposite effect, instead facilitating responsible experimentation with a clear and dependable public process. However, this was certainly not a view which was shared widely enough to result in general support for the draft.

Sloppy journalism distorting the truth

A small uproar ensured. When scientists are in uproar, it is often barely detectable to the outside world, as they are polite people. This fretting turned into a ‘Town Hall Meeting’ – an opportunity to criticise the proposals in a thorough, public way.

This would leave the proposers in no doubt about the strength of feeling. The real story should have been this effective demonstration of good governance. But that was also not the story the media reported. As a result of some sloppy journalism, the news hit the internet in a form that was utterly mangled.

The draft declaration was wrongly attributed to the Royal Society – a body which has produced what is probably the World’s seminal report on Geoengineering. What the Royal Society thinks matters. The most influential scientific organisation in the World on the issue of geoengineering was now calling for a de facto test ban. Except it wasn’t.

This newly-invented story also needed a soundbite, and the ‘Berlin Declaration’ was born – despite the fact that the text hadn’t been declared, didn’t originate from a Berlin group, and didn’t contain the word ‘Berlin’.

The name of this sombre-sounding edict was reported and re-reported, as the story took on a life of its own. All this happened without anybody declaring anything, and with the Royal Society having had nothing to do with it at all.

Exciting-but-false stories are hard to replace with dull-but true ones. The true story of the landmark conference and its sensible scrutiny process was relegated to article corrections.

Even the shining beacon of ‘Science‘ magazine had to eat its words. But the original stories, not the corrections, are what will have had the most impact.

Meanwhile, they missed the real story

The Town Hall meeting duly arrived. Senior scientists voiced concerns about many things: how anyone would know what was or wasn’t a ‘geoengineering experiment’; why we needed to have a new tier of regulation on something that is almost regulated out of existence anyway; and why delegates from the Oxford Martin School had turned up at an international conference and promoted a pre-drafted text outside of the formal conference process.

As a result of this public, transparent and logical scrutiny, the proposal died – and nobody declared anything. This story of self-regulation is not as interesting as a formidable-sounding declaration. So that was not the story the media reported.

Without being declared, a ‘declaration’ is therefore no such thing. The grandly-misnamed ‘Berlin Declaration’ left the conference in the way it came – as just a piece of paper.

Despite this, the scientists left the conference just as tied down by the onerous approvals process as they always were. And still, global warming continues – for which we have no effective strategy in place. That is the story. But it is not what the media reported.

So is this all over? Possibly not – because bad reporting can grow legs and walk around. Even without a declaration, people may read and remember the stories, and not the corrections. They may decide that further regulation is A Good Thing. They may then join pressure groups because of it, ask politicians for it, and vote because of it – all in spite of the facts.

As a result, we may lack crucial information on geoengineering. It may end up being deployed in ignorance by future leaders – and may cause chaos as a result.

Let’s hope that’s not the story.

 

 

Andrew Lockley is an independent consultant and researcher interested in geoengineering. His current research focuses on the areas of ballistics for SRM particle delivery, methane geoengineering, and the use of computer games to research public opinions.

 

 




383294

Geoengineering – the ‘declaration’ that never was may cause real harm Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




The Climate Engineering Conference 2014 (CEC-14) was recently held to discuss technologies for deliberately counteracting climate change.

These include Solar Radiation Management (SRM), for example, adding sulphates to the stratosphere like a volcano, to reflect sunlight; and Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) techniques – such as planting new forests to draw down CO2 from the atmosphere.

These technologies would allow us to exercise a degree of direct control over the climate. Unsurprisingly, the potential exercise of this God-like power is highly controversial.

Advocates say we need to be deploying these technologies urgently to save Earth from catastrophe. For opponents, they are a ‘get out of jail free’ card that would allow a business as usual approach to the profligate burning of fossil fuels, and carry huge risks of their own.

This background of controversy was no surprise to conference participants, who are well-aware that wider opinion of geoengineering is split along logical and ideological fault lines.

Delegates’ big surprise – a ready-made declaration

However knowledge of the necessary methods cannot be erased, so Pandora’s box is already open. Tough choices have to be made about what will be permitted – from basic scientific research to full deployment.

Studying this new-found power is now an important academic endeavour, and both public and academic interest is growing rapidly. CEC-14 was the first public scientific conference in the growing field of climate engineering, and similar events will likely follow.

As an academic discipline, geoengineering is here to stay. As a potential policy option, it is being carefully and publically scrutinised by experts. But sadly, that’s not the story the media reported.

What attracted journalists’ attention – and astonished delegates – was having a controversial document thrust into their hands after one of the first plenary sessions.

Demanding yet more restrictions on experimentation

This text, which became known as the ‘Berlin Declaration’, was not a draft from the conference organisers. Instead, it was a ready-made edict, promoted by attendees from the Oxford Martin School – an offshoot of Oxford University, which concerns itself with the study of socially challenging technologies and trends.

This so-called ‘declaration’ demanded yet another review process on experiments. This would further restrict a field that is already so tightly regulated that almost no faculty researchers have managed to do any outdoor experimentation at all.

In the opinion of many delegates, its effect would be to impose a de facto ‘test ban’ on most geoengineering experiments.

The assembled academics were understandably rattled by these events. A fully-formed ‘declaration’ had appeared. It seemingly awaited only a nod-through before becoming a concrete piece of governance, forever associated with the conference.

Moreover the ‘declaration’ came against a background of much pre-existing restriction on experimentation. Obviously, scientists can’t release a new superbug in a stadium, just to see what happens.

What’s less obvious is that there is a complex system of approvals for many types of experiment. This ensures that both obvious and concealed risks are carefully considered, whenever potentially-dangerous research is proposed.

We need responsible research – not a ban

In practice, this means that even completely harmless experiments in a scary-sounding field such as geoengineering are often nightmarishly difficult to get clearance for.

As Cambridge University’s SPICE project (Stratospheric Particle Injection for Climate Engineering) showed, even squirting a bathtub of ordinary water out of a hosepipe can be pretty controversial if you say the ‘g-word’ anywhere near it.

Other examples of similar controversies exist, with Ocean Iron Fertilisation (OIF) trials being a notable example. In fact, perhaps the most controversial ‘experiment’ – which involved fertilising the ocean with iron – came from outside the mainstream scientific process.

Regardless of whether one is hopeful about geoengineering or not, it’s reasonable to suggest that careful research might be a good idea. Without testing, we lack important practical knowledge, and without that knowledge, we have less ability to appraise the technology, or use it safely.

A test ban would be a very big deal indeed, especially if the banning text ruled out tiny, harmless experiments, as well as big, risky ones. Deliberately closing the door on scientific research would be essentially unprecedented, and this caused significant concern among delegates.

It’s possible that some believed that a new tier of regulation would have the opposite effect, instead facilitating responsible experimentation with a clear and dependable public process. However, this was certainly not a view which was shared widely enough to result in general support for the draft.

Sloppy journalism distorting the truth

A small uproar ensured. When scientists are in uproar, it is often barely detectable to the outside world, as they are polite people. This fretting turned into a ‘Town Hall Meeting’ – an opportunity to criticise the proposals in a thorough, public way.

This would leave the proposers in no doubt about the strength of feeling. The real story should have been this effective demonstration of good governance. But that was also not the story the media reported. As a result of some sloppy journalism, the news hit the internet in a form that was utterly mangled.

The draft declaration was wrongly attributed to the Royal Society – a body which has produced what is probably the World’s seminal report on Geoengineering. What the Royal Society thinks matters. The most influential scientific organisation in the World on the issue of geoengineering was now calling for a de facto test ban. Except it wasn’t.

This newly-invented story also needed a soundbite, and the ‘Berlin Declaration’ was born – despite the fact that the text hadn’t been declared, didn’t originate from a Berlin group, and didn’t contain the word ‘Berlin’.

The name of this sombre-sounding edict was reported and re-reported, as the story took on a life of its own. All this happened without anybody declaring anything, and with the Royal Society having had nothing to do with it at all.

Exciting-but-false stories are hard to replace with dull-but true ones. The true story of the landmark conference and its sensible scrutiny process was relegated to article corrections.

Even the shining beacon of ‘Science‘ magazine had to eat its words. But the original stories, not the corrections, are what will have had the most impact.

Meanwhile, they missed the real story

The Town Hall meeting duly arrived. Senior scientists voiced concerns about many things: how anyone would know what was or wasn’t a ‘geoengineering experiment’; why we needed to have a new tier of regulation on something that is almost regulated out of existence anyway; and why delegates from the Oxford Martin School had turned up at an international conference and promoted a pre-drafted text outside of the formal conference process.

As a result of this public, transparent and logical scrutiny, the proposal died – and nobody declared anything. This story of self-regulation is not as interesting as a formidable-sounding declaration. So that was not the story the media reported.

Without being declared, a ‘declaration’ is therefore no such thing. The grandly-misnamed ‘Berlin Declaration’ left the conference in the way it came – as just a piece of paper.

Despite this, the scientists left the conference just as tied down by the onerous approvals process as they always were. And still, global warming continues – for which we have no effective strategy in place. That is the story. But it is not what the media reported.

So is this all over? Possibly not – because bad reporting can grow legs and walk around. Even without a declaration, people may read and remember the stories, and not the corrections. They may decide that further regulation is A Good Thing. They may then join pressure groups because of it, ask politicians for it, and vote because of it – all in spite of the facts.

As a result, we may lack crucial information on geoengineering. It may end up being deployed in ignorance by future leaders – and may cause chaos as a result.

Let’s hope that’s not the story.

 

 

Andrew Lockley is an independent consultant and researcher interested in geoengineering. His current research focuses on the areas of ballistics for SRM particle delivery, methane geoengineering, and the use of computer games to research public opinions.

 

 




383294

Geoengineering – the ‘declaration’ that never was may cause real harm Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




The Climate Engineering Conference 2014 (CEC-14) was recently held to discuss technologies for deliberately counteracting climate change.

These include Solar Radiation Management (SRM), for example, adding sulphates to the stratosphere like a volcano, to reflect sunlight; and Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) techniques – such as planting new forests to draw down CO2 from the atmosphere.

These technologies would allow us to exercise a degree of direct control over the climate. Unsurprisingly, the potential exercise of this God-like power is highly controversial.

Advocates say we need to be deploying these technologies urgently to save Earth from catastrophe. For opponents, they are a ‘get out of jail free’ card that would allow a business as usual approach to the profligate burning of fossil fuels, and carry huge risks of their own.

This background of controversy was no surprise to conference participants, who are well-aware that wider opinion of geoengineering is split along logical and ideological fault lines.

Delegates’ big surprise – a ready-made declaration

However knowledge of the necessary methods cannot be erased, so Pandora’s box is already open. Tough choices have to be made about what will be permitted – from basic scientific research to full deployment.

Studying this new-found power is now an important academic endeavour, and both public and academic interest is growing rapidly. CEC-14 was the first public scientific conference in the growing field of climate engineering, and similar events will likely follow.

As an academic discipline, geoengineering is here to stay. As a potential policy option, it is being carefully and publically scrutinised by experts. But sadly, that’s not the story the media reported.

What attracted journalists’ attention – and astonished delegates – was having a controversial document thrust into their hands after one of the first plenary sessions.

Demanding yet more restrictions on experimentation

This text, which became known as the ‘Berlin Declaration’, was not a draft from the conference organisers. Instead, it was a ready-made edict, promoted by attendees from the Oxford Martin School – an offshoot of Oxford University, which concerns itself with the study of socially challenging technologies and trends.

This so-called ‘declaration’ demanded yet another review process on experiments. This would further restrict a field that is already so tightly regulated that almost no faculty researchers have managed to do any outdoor experimentation at all.

In the opinion of many delegates, its effect would be to impose a de facto ‘test ban’ on most geoengineering experiments.

The assembled academics were understandably rattled by these events. A fully-formed ‘declaration’ had appeared. It seemingly awaited only a nod-through before becoming a concrete piece of governance, forever associated with the conference.

Moreover the ‘declaration’ came against a background of much pre-existing restriction on experimentation. Obviously, scientists can’t release a new superbug in a stadium, just to see what happens.

What’s less obvious is that there is a complex system of approvals for many types of experiment. This ensures that both obvious and concealed risks are carefully considered, whenever potentially-dangerous research is proposed.

We need responsible research – not a ban

In practice, this means that even completely harmless experiments in a scary-sounding field such as geoengineering are often nightmarishly difficult to get clearance for.

As Cambridge University’s SPICE project (Stratospheric Particle Injection for Climate Engineering) showed, even squirting a bathtub of ordinary water out of a hosepipe can be pretty controversial if you say the ‘g-word’ anywhere near it.

Other examples of similar controversies exist, with Ocean Iron Fertilisation (OIF) trials being a notable example. In fact, perhaps the most controversial ‘experiment’ – which involved fertilising the ocean with iron – came from outside the mainstream scientific process.

Regardless of whether one is hopeful about geoengineering or not, it’s reasonable to suggest that careful research might be a good idea. Without testing, we lack important practical knowledge, and without that knowledge, we have less ability to appraise the technology, or use it safely.

A test ban would be a very big deal indeed, especially if the banning text ruled out tiny, harmless experiments, as well as big, risky ones. Deliberately closing the door on scientific research would be essentially unprecedented, and this caused significant concern among delegates.

It’s possible that some believed that a new tier of regulation would have the opposite effect, instead facilitating responsible experimentation with a clear and dependable public process. However, this was certainly not a view which was shared widely enough to result in general support for the draft.

Sloppy journalism distorting the truth

A small uproar ensured. When scientists are in uproar, it is often barely detectable to the outside world, as they are polite people. This fretting turned into a ‘Town Hall Meeting’ – an opportunity to criticise the proposals in a thorough, public way.

This would leave the proposers in no doubt about the strength of feeling. The real story should have been this effective demonstration of good governance. But that was also not the story the media reported. As a result of some sloppy journalism, the news hit the internet in a form that was utterly mangled.

The draft declaration was wrongly attributed to the Royal Society – a body which has produced what is probably the World’s seminal report on Geoengineering. What the Royal Society thinks matters. The most influential scientific organisation in the World on the issue of geoengineering was now calling for a de facto test ban. Except it wasn’t.

This newly-invented story also needed a soundbite, and the ‘Berlin Declaration’ was born – despite the fact that the text hadn’t been declared, didn’t originate from a Berlin group, and didn’t contain the word ‘Berlin’.

The name of this sombre-sounding edict was reported and re-reported, as the story took on a life of its own. All this happened without anybody declaring anything, and with the Royal Society having had nothing to do with it at all.

Exciting-but-false stories are hard to replace with dull-but true ones. The true story of the landmark conference and its sensible scrutiny process was relegated to article corrections.

Even the shining beacon of ‘Science‘ magazine had to eat its words. But the original stories, not the corrections, are what will have had the most impact.

Meanwhile, they missed the real story

The Town Hall meeting duly arrived. Senior scientists voiced concerns about many things: how anyone would know what was or wasn’t a ‘geoengineering experiment’; why we needed to have a new tier of regulation on something that is almost regulated out of existence anyway; and why delegates from the Oxford Martin School had turned up at an international conference and promoted a pre-drafted text outside of the formal conference process.

As a result of this public, transparent and logical scrutiny, the proposal died – and nobody declared anything. This story of self-regulation is not as interesting as a formidable-sounding declaration. So that was not the story the media reported.

Without being declared, a ‘declaration’ is therefore no such thing. The grandly-misnamed ‘Berlin Declaration’ left the conference in the way it came – as just a piece of paper.

Despite this, the scientists left the conference just as tied down by the onerous approvals process as they always were. And still, global warming continues – for which we have no effective strategy in place. That is the story. But it is not what the media reported.

So is this all over? Possibly not – because bad reporting can grow legs and walk around. Even without a declaration, people may read and remember the stories, and not the corrections. They may decide that further regulation is A Good Thing. They may then join pressure groups because of it, ask politicians for it, and vote because of it – all in spite of the facts.

As a result, we may lack crucial information on geoengineering. It may end up being deployed in ignorance by future leaders – and may cause chaos as a result.

Let’s hope that’s not the story.

 

 

Andrew Lockley is an independent consultant and researcher interested in geoengineering. His current research focuses on the areas of ballistics for SRM particle delivery, methane geoengineering, and the use of computer games to research public opinions.

 

 




383294

Geoengineering – the ‘declaration’ that never was may cause real harm Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




The Climate Engineering Conference 2014 (CEC-14) was recently held to discuss technologies for deliberately counteracting climate change.

These include Solar Radiation Management (SRM), for example, adding sulphates to the stratosphere like a volcano, to reflect sunlight; and Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) techniques – such as planting new forests to draw down CO2 from the atmosphere.

These technologies would allow us to exercise a degree of direct control over the climate. Unsurprisingly, the potential exercise of this God-like power is highly controversial.

Advocates say we need to be deploying these technologies urgently to save Earth from catastrophe. For opponents, they are a ‘get out of jail free’ card that would allow a business as usual approach to the profligate burning of fossil fuels, and carry huge risks of their own.

This background of controversy was no surprise to conference participants, who are well-aware that wider opinion of geoengineering is split along logical and ideological fault lines.

Delegates’ big surprise – a ready-made declaration

However knowledge of the necessary methods cannot be erased, so Pandora’s box is already open. Tough choices have to be made about what will be permitted – from basic scientific research to full deployment.

Studying this new-found power is now an important academic endeavour, and both public and academic interest is growing rapidly. CEC-14 was the first public scientific conference in the growing field of climate engineering, and similar events will likely follow.

As an academic discipline, geoengineering is here to stay. As a potential policy option, it is being carefully and publically scrutinised by experts. But sadly, that’s not the story the media reported.

What attracted journalists’ attention – and astonished delegates – was having a controversial document thrust into their hands after one of the first plenary sessions.

Demanding yet more restrictions on experimentation

This text, which became known as the ‘Berlin Declaration’, was not a draft from the conference organisers. Instead, it was a ready-made edict, promoted by attendees from the Oxford Martin School – an offshoot of Oxford University, which concerns itself with the study of socially challenging technologies and trends.

This so-called ‘declaration’ demanded yet another review process on experiments. This would further restrict a field that is already so tightly regulated that almost no faculty researchers have managed to do any outdoor experimentation at all.

In the opinion of many delegates, its effect would be to impose a de facto ‘test ban’ on most geoengineering experiments.

The assembled academics were understandably rattled by these events. A fully-formed ‘declaration’ had appeared. It seemingly awaited only a nod-through before becoming a concrete piece of governance, forever associated with the conference.

Moreover the ‘declaration’ came against a background of much pre-existing restriction on experimentation. Obviously, scientists can’t release a new superbug in a stadium, just to see what happens.

What’s less obvious is that there is a complex system of approvals for many types of experiment. This ensures that both obvious and concealed risks are carefully considered, whenever potentially-dangerous research is proposed.

We need responsible research – not a ban

In practice, this means that even completely harmless experiments in a scary-sounding field such as geoengineering are often nightmarishly difficult to get clearance for.

As Cambridge University’s SPICE project (Stratospheric Particle Injection for Climate Engineering) showed, even squirting a bathtub of ordinary water out of a hosepipe can be pretty controversial if you say the ‘g-word’ anywhere near it.

Other examples of similar controversies exist, with Ocean Iron Fertilisation (OIF) trials being a notable example. In fact, perhaps the most controversial ‘experiment’ – which involved fertilising the ocean with iron – came from outside the mainstream scientific process.

Regardless of whether one is hopeful about geoengineering or not, it’s reasonable to suggest that careful research might be a good idea. Without testing, we lack important practical knowledge, and without that knowledge, we have less ability to appraise the technology, or use it safely.

A test ban would be a very big deal indeed, especially if the banning text ruled out tiny, harmless experiments, as well as big, risky ones. Deliberately closing the door on scientific research would be essentially unprecedented, and this caused significant concern among delegates.

It’s possible that some believed that a new tier of regulation would have the opposite effect, instead facilitating responsible experimentation with a clear and dependable public process. However, this was certainly not a view which was shared widely enough to result in general support for the draft.

Sloppy journalism distorting the truth

A small uproar ensured. When scientists are in uproar, it is often barely detectable to the outside world, as they are polite people. This fretting turned into a ‘Town Hall Meeting’ – an opportunity to criticise the proposals in a thorough, public way.

This would leave the proposers in no doubt about the strength of feeling. The real story should have been this effective demonstration of good governance. But that was also not the story the media reported. As a result of some sloppy journalism, the news hit the internet in a form that was utterly mangled.

The draft declaration was wrongly attributed to the Royal Society – a body which has produced what is probably the World’s seminal report on Geoengineering. What the Royal Society thinks matters. The most influential scientific organisation in the World on the issue of geoengineering was now calling for a de facto test ban. Except it wasn’t.

This newly-invented story also needed a soundbite, and the ‘Berlin Declaration’ was born – despite the fact that the text hadn’t been declared, didn’t originate from a Berlin group, and didn’t contain the word ‘Berlin’.

The name of this sombre-sounding edict was reported and re-reported, as the story took on a life of its own. All this happened without anybody declaring anything, and with the Royal Society having had nothing to do with it at all.

Exciting-but-false stories are hard to replace with dull-but true ones. The true story of the landmark conference and its sensible scrutiny process was relegated to article corrections.

Even the shining beacon of ‘Science‘ magazine had to eat its words. But the original stories, not the corrections, are what will have had the most impact.

Meanwhile, they missed the real story

The Town Hall meeting duly arrived. Senior scientists voiced concerns about many things: how anyone would know what was or wasn’t a ‘geoengineering experiment’; why we needed to have a new tier of regulation on something that is almost regulated out of existence anyway; and why delegates from the Oxford Martin School had turned up at an international conference and promoted a pre-drafted text outside of the formal conference process.

As a result of this public, transparent and logical scrutiny, the proposal died – and nobody declared anything. This story of self-regulation is not as interesting as a formidable-sounding declaration. So that was not the story the media reported.

Without being declared, a ‘declaration’ is therefore no such thing. The grandly-misnamed ‘Berlin Declaration’ left the conference in the way it came – as just a piece of paper.

Despite this, the scientists left the conference just as tied down by the onerous approvals process as they always were. And still, global warming continues – for which we have no effective strategy in place. That is the story. But it is not what the media reported.

So is this all over? Possibly not – because bad reporting can grow legs and walk around. Even without a declaration, people may read and remember the stories, and not the corrections. They may decide that further regulation is A Good Thing. They may then join pressure groups because of it, ask politicians for it, and vote because of it – all in spite of the facts.

As a result, we may lack crucial information on geoengineering. It may end up being deployed in ignorance by future leaders – and may cause chaos as a result.

Let’s hope that’s not the story.

 

 

Andrew Lockley is an independent consultant and researcher interested in geoengineering. His current research focuses on the areas of ballistics for SRM particle delivery, methane geoengineering, and the use of computer games to research public opinions.

 

 




383294

Geoengineering – the ‘declaration’ that never was may cause real harm Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




The Climate Engineering Conference 2014 (CEC-14) was recently held to discuss technologies for deliberately counteracting climate change.

These include Solar Radiation Management (SRM), for example, adding sulphates to the stratosphere like a volcano, to reflect sunlight; and Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) techniques – such as planting new forests to draw down CO2 from the atmosphere.

These technologies would allow us to exercise a degree of direct control over the climate. Unsurprisingly, the potential exercise of this God-like power is highly controversial.

Advocates say we need to be deploying these technologies urgently to save Earth from catastrophe. For opponents, they are a ‘get out of jail free’ card that would allow a business as usual approach to the profligate burning of fossil fuels, and carry huge risks of their own.

This background of controversy was no surprise to conference participants, who are well-aware that wider opinion of geoengineering is split along logical and ideological fault lines.

Delegates’ big surprise – a ready-made declaration

However knowledge of the necessary methods cannot be erased, so Pandora’s box is already open. Tough choices have to be made about what will be permitted – from basic scientific research to full deployment.

Studying this new-found power is now an important academic endeavour, and both public and academic interest is growing rapidly. CEC-14 was the first public scientific conference in the growing field of climate engineering, and similar events will likely follow.

As an academic discipline, geoengineering is here to stay. As a potential policy option, it is being carefully and publically scrutinised by experts. But sadly, that’s not the story the media reported.

What attracted journalists’ attention – and astonished delegates – was having a controversial document thrust into their hands after one of the first plenary sessions.

Demanding yet more restrictions on experimentation

This text, which became known as the ‘Berlin Declaration’, was not a draft from the conference organisers. Instead, it was a ready-made edict, promoted by attendees from the Oxford Martin School – an offshoot of Oxford University, which concerns itself with the study of socially challenging technologies and trends.

This so-called ‘declaration’ demanded yet another review process on experiments. This would further restrict a field that is already so tightly regulated that almost no faculty researchers have managed to do any outdoor experimentation at all.

In the opinion of many delegates, its effect would be to impose a de facto ‘test ban’ on most geoengineering experiments.

The assembled academics were understandably rattled by these events. A fully-formed ‘declaration’ had appeared. It seemingly awaited only a nod-through before becoming a concrete piece of governance, forever associated with the conference.

Moreover the ‘declaration’ came against a background of much pre-existing restriction on experimentation. Obviously, scientists can’t release a new superbug in a stadium, just to see what happens.

What’s less obvious is that there is a complex system of approvals for many types of experiment. This ensures that both obvious and concealed risks are carefully considered, whenever potentially-dangerous research is proposed.

We need responsible research – not a ban

In practice, this means that even completely harmless experiments in a scary-sounding field such as geoengineering are often nightmarishly difficult to get clearance for.

As Cambridge University’s SPICE project (Stratospheric Particle Injection for Climate Engineering) showed, even squirting a bathtub of ordinary water out of a hosepipe can be pretty controversial if you say the ‘g-word’ anywhere near it.

Other examples of similar controversies exist, with Ocean Iron Fertilisation (OIF) trials being a notable example. In fact, perhaps the most controversial ‘experiment’ – which involved fertilising the ocean with iron – came from outside the mainstream scientific process.

Regardless of whether one is hopeful about geoengineering or not, it’s reasonable to suggest that careful research might be a good idea. Without testing, we lack important practical knowledge, and without that knowledge, we have less ability to appraise the technology, or use it safely.

A test ban would be a very big deal indeed, especially if the banning text ruled out tiny, harmless experiments, as well as big, risky ones. Deliberately closing the door on scientific research would be essentially unprecedented, and this caused significant concern among delegates.

It’s possible that some believed that a new tier of regulation would have the opposite effect, instead facilitating responsible experimentation with a clear and dependable public process. However, this was certainly not a view which was shared widely enough to result in general support for the draft.

Sloppy journalism distorting the truth

A small uproar ensured. When scientists are in uproar, it is often barely detectable to the outside world, as they are polite people. This fretting turned into a ‘Town Hall Meeting’ – an opportunity to criticise the proposals in a thorough, public way.

This would leave the proposers in no doubt about the strength of feeling. The real story should have been this effective demonstration of good governance. But that was also not the story the media reported. As a result of some sloppy journalism, the news hit the internet in a form that was utterly mangled.

The draft declaration was wrongly attributed to the Royal Society – a body which has produced what is probably the World’s seminal report on Geoengineering. What the Royal Society thinks matters. The most influential scientific organisation in the World on the issue of geoengineering was now calling for a de facto test ban. Except it wasn’t.

This newly-invented story also needed a soundbite, and the ‘Berlin Declaration’ was born – despite the fact that the text hadn’t been declared, didn’t originate from a Berlin group, and didn’t contain the word ‘Berlin’.

The name of this sombre-sounding edict was reported and re-reported, as the story took on a life of its own. All this happened without anybody declaring anything, and with the Royal Society having had nothing to do with it at all.

Exciting-but-false stories are hard to replace with dull-but true ones. The true story of the landmark conference and its sensible scrutiny process was relegated to article corrections.

Even the shining beacon of ‘Science‘ magazine had to eat its words. But the original stories, not the corrections, are what will have had the most impact.

Meanwhile, they missed the real story

The Town Hall meeting duly arrived. Senior scientists voiced concerns about many things: how anyone would know what was or wasn’t a ‘geoengineering experiment’; why we needed to have a new tier of regulation on something that is almost regulated out of existence anyway; and why delegates from the Oxford Martin School had turned up at an international conference and promoted a pre-drafted text outside of the formal conference process.

As a result of this public, transparent and logical scrutiny, the proposal died – and nobody declared anything. This story of self-regulation is not as interesting as a formidable-sounding declaration. So that was not the story the media reported.

Without being declared, a ‘declaration’ is therefore no such thing. The grandly-misnamed ‘Berlin Declaration’ left the conference in the way it came – as just a piece of paper.

Despite this, the scientists left the conference just as tied down by the onerous approvals process as they always were. And still, global warming continues – for which we have no effective strategy in place. That is the story. But it is not what the media reported.

So is this all over? Possibly not – because bad reporting can grow legs and walk around. Even without a declaration, people may read and remember the stories, and not the corrections. They may decide that further regulation is A Good Thing. They may then join pressure groups because of it, ask politicians for it, and vote because of it – all in spite of the facts.

As a result, we may lack crucial information on geoengineering. It may end up being deployed in ignorance by future leaders – and may cause chaos as a result.

Let’s hope that’s not the story.

 

 

Andrew Lockley is an independent consultant and researcher interested in geoengineering. His current research focuses on the areas of ballistics for SRM particle delivery, methane geoengineering, and the use of computer games to research public opinions.

 

 




383294