Global climate change control: is there a better strategy than reducing greenhouse gas emissions?

• Author: Carlin, Alan

This Article identifies four major global climate change problems, analyzes whether the most prominent of the greenhouse gas (GHG) control proposals is likely to be either effective or efficient in solving each of the problems, and then extensively analyzes both management and technological alternatives to the proposals. Efforts to reduce emissions of GHGs, such as carbon dioxide, in a decentralized way or even in a few countries (such as the United States or under the Kyoto Protocol) without equivalent actions by all the other countries of the world, particularly the most rapidly growing ones, cannot realistically achieve the temperature change limits most emission control advocates believe are necessary to avoid dangerous climatic changes, and would be unlikely to do so even with the cooperation of these other countries. This Article concludes that the most effective and efficient solution would be to use a concept long proven by nature to reduce the radiation reaching the earth by adding particles optimized for this purpose to the stratosphere to scatter a small portion of the incoming sunlight back into space, as well as to undertake a new effort to better understand and reduce ocean acidification. Current temperature change goals could be quickly achieved by stratospheric scattering at a very modest cost without the need for costly adaptation, human lifestyle changes, or the general public's active cooperation, all required by rigorous emission controls. Although stratospheric scattering would not reduce ocean acidification, for which several remedies are explored in this Article, it appears to be the most effective and efficient first step toward global climate change control. Stratospheric scattering is not currently being pursued or even developed, however; such development is particularly needed to verify the lack of significant adverse environmental effects of this remedy. Reducing GHG emissions to the extent proposed by advocates, even if achievable, would cost many trillions of dollars, and is best viewed as a last resort rather than the preferred strategy.

1. INTRODUCTION A. Needed Characteristics of Approaches Used To Control Climate Change B. What Are the Problems? C. What Are the Solutions? II. CLIMATE CHANGE: THE SCIENTIFIC BACKGROUND A. "Recent" Earth Climate History B. Explanations for Ice Ages C. Long Response Times for Climate System and Influence of Carbon Dioxide and Earth's Radiation Balance on Climate D. A Very Brief Overview of the Causes and Effects of Global Warming E. Why Accidental Global Warming May No Longer Be Good F. Instability, Lack of Full Understanding of Earth's Climate, and The Effects of Short-Term and Unexpected Events G. Volcanic Eruptions and Nuclear Conflicts as a Cause of Climate Cooling (Problem P4) H. What Might the Future Hold? III. WHY THE KYOTO PROTOCOL WILL NOT PREVENT CLIMATE CHANGE AND IS UNLIKELY TO ACHIEVE ITS GOALS A. What Is Meant by the Kyoto Protocol and Approach? B. UN/EU Goals for Controlling Global Warming C. GHG Stabilization Under the Kyoto Protocol IV. SOME ALTERNATIVE APPROACHES FOR CONTROLLING CLIMATE CHANGE A. Nonstabilized "Business-As-Usual" Carbonization and Adaptation (R1) B. Kyoto Management Plus Conventional Decarbonization Technology (R2) C. Nonconventional Decarbonization or Sequestration (R2a) D. Engineered Climate Selection or Changing Earth 's Radiation Balance Directly (R3) V. A COMPARISON OF SOME OF THE ALTERNATIVES FOR CONTROLLING CLIMATE CHANGE A. Nonstabilized "Business-As-Usual" Carbonization and Adaptation (R1) and Kyoto Using Conventional Decarbonization Technology (R2) B. Nonconventional Decarbonization or Sequestration (R2a) C. Engineered Climate Selection or Changing Earth's Radiation Balance (R3) D. General Conclusions Concerning Alternatives for Controlling Climate Change E. Other Management Approaches Besides Those Already Analyzed F. Conclusions with Respect to Specific Climate Change Problems G. Implications for the Choice of Remedies VI. LIKELY MAJOR OBJECTIONS TO ENGINEERED CLIMATE SELECTION AND OTHER GEOENGINEERING REMEDIES A. Philosophical Objections B. Legal Obstacles C. Governmental Issues D. Strategic Difficulties E. Unintended Consequences CONCLUSION I. INTRODUCTION

   As of late 2006, many environmentalists, some developed nations, and the State of California appear to have concluded that there is one climate change problem, global warming, and that there is only one solution to it: reducing emissions of greenhouse gas (GHGs), such as carbon dioxide, usually in accordance with the Kyoto Protocol (1) or similar decarbonization approaches. This Article asks whether there are other related problems and other solutions to climate change that would be more effective and efficient, and, if so, what they might be. The problem is potentially so important to the future of humans on Earth, and the proposed solution is so expensive, that it is vital to carefully examine whether reducing GHGs really is the best strategy before any solution is implemented. Yet to date there has been surprisingly little analysis of this issue.

   The standard response to most pollution problems has been to impose regulations limiting the production and/or discharge of the pollutants involved, in this case GHGs. This regulatory approach has been the basis for most of the discussions of global warming as well, and underlies the major current efforts represented by the Kyoto Protocol and other proposals for controlling GHG emissions. Economists have suggested that a more economically efficient approach would be to provide economic incentives to reduce discharges, and this approach has generally been accepted by proponents of GHG control, perhaps in recognition of the very high costs involved in GHG reduction. This pollutant mitigation approach to global warming assumes that if somehow human-induced pollution (in this case GHGs) could be reduced or eliminated, then all of Earth's climate change problems would be solved. This Article examines whether this underlying assumption is incorrect and whether the current Kyoto appraoch is likely to reduce GHG emissions to "nondangerous" levels.

   Humans have embarked on an inadvertent and potentially very risky experiment involving rapidly increasing GHG levels in the atmosphere. The question examined here is not whether the experiment is taking place or the degree of control that might be required, but rather whether there are efficient and effective remedies for global climate change problems and what they might be. Because of the extreme complexity of the problem and the number of disciplines that need to be involved in defining a practical solution, the analysis must necessarily be equally complicated and broadly based. Unfortunately, the few previous analyses have ignored the reality that any remedies adopted, if they are to be successful, must not only be technically sound but also economically and politically feasible. Although the emphasis in this Article will be on economics, a serious attempt has been made to consider all the other factors that need to be taken into account to find a workable solution to what may be the most difficult environmental problem that modern humans have faced.

   One of the major difficulties in solving climate change problems results from the fact that no one has really leveled with the public as to how difficult it would be to achieve the goals that the advocates of emissions control believe are necessary. This may entice the public to embrace particular solutions to the problem, but in the longer run may result in major problems for implementing these solutions as it becomes clearer what is really involved. It seems better to outline the full difficulties involved and then attempt to find the best available solutions. That is the goal of this Article.

   Others have called for an objective analysis of available technological options to solve climate change problems. Braden Allenby expressed this as follows in a recent report from the National Academy of Engineering:

   The current approach to global climate change carries within it not just policies, but also a vision, a teleology of the world that is, in important ways, both unexpressed and exclusionary. Perhaps for this reason, the role of technology has been relatively ignored throughout the negotiating process and, when it has come up, has been quickly marginalized. In fact, there are many possible technologies that might reduce carbon loading in the atmosphere, but many of the most important ones are out of favor. For example, nuclear energy has been excluded by general agreement, and geoengineering (e.g., aluminum balloons in the stratosphere to reduce incoming energy to the atmosphere) has been shunted aside, regarded as the dream of a few eccentrics. Biotechnology to improve agricultural efficiency and biological carbon sequestration are clearly not acceptable to many participants in the Kyoto process, and to many environmentalists generally. The rejection of these and other technologies tends to reinforce the impression that the Kyoto process is an exercise in social engineering by Europe targeted at the United States. Regardless of the truth, this impression is obviously conducive to conflict and deadlock (as indeed has happened).... A useful process that would contribute significantly to the rational, ethical management of the future would be to categorize technological possibilities and determine, as objectively as we can, their risks and benefits and the optimal scale for each. We could then develop a portfolio of options for future negotiations. Technology, especially in emotionally and ideologically charged environmental debates, almost never provides complete answers. But an array of technological options enables choice and thus increases the chances that we will be able to balance the disparate values, ethics, and design objectives and constraints implicit in the climate change discourse...