Governing (dominating) the climate

Whilst carbon dioxide levels are the highest they have been in human history, trust in institutional regimes to solve this global issue is at the lowest. Recent climate change models have warned that an increase of 1.5°C may already result by 2030. Solving the problem simply through mitigation strategies —changing habits, adopting renewable energy, etc— seems infeasible; we probably need stronger interventions.

Scientists started to investigate other means, besides mitigation approaches, to stabilize the climate and stay within the 2°C. Two solutions gained much attention: the production of bioenergy combined with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) and sulphate aerosol geoengineering (SAG). Should we favor one of the two? It might help to answer this question first: would you be the slave of a nice slave-owner?

Firstly, we need a basic understanding of the technologies. BECCS combines carbon capture and storage technology with an electric plant fuelled with biomass, including crops and forests; biomass is both used to absorb carbon and replace the use of fossil fuels. In particular, this approach allows the reuse of the land where the biomass is grown and the removal of CO2 from the atmosphere as long as the biomass is harvested sustainably. The captured CO2 can be stored under the soil, for instance in the deep ocean.

BECCS diagram —Image PNA
SAG diagram —Image China Dialogue

SAG, on the other hand, works by introducing sulphate in the atmosphere. These injections will reflect a part of the radiation coming from the sun back to space and counterbalance the warming influence of greenhouse gasses (GHG). This approach mimics the effects of volcanic eruptions whose fine dust and sulphuric droplets help cooling the planet. Sulfate aerosol could be delivered by high-altitude balloons, artillery guns, high-level aircraft, tall towers, or space elevators. The cost of this technology is very limited compared to mitigation approaches and the results could be seen in a matter of decades. At first glance these technologies look promising, but a closer look shows their shortcomings.

Both technologies could cause enormous damage to humans and the environment in case they would not work. BECCS could lead to food and freshwater shortages since it will use portions of the land devoted to agriculture. SAG might disrupt precipitation patterns. Therefore, a great deal of discussion has accompanied the emergence of these technologies. Most of the concerns around these technologies focus upon implementation and technical issues: Many scientists judge these technologies morally impermissible due to the detrimental consequences that can derive from them. These judgments are important, but they might neglect an even more important aspect of the story.

Is technology neutral?

In this article, I want to assume that these technical and implementation issues had been solved and ask whether there is an inherent feature of the technology itself that should lead policymakers to prefer the adaption of either SAG or BEECS. Simply, if there were no issues with these technologies, is there some intrinsic aspect of the technology itself that should make us favor one over the other?

First of all, we need to understand how some aspects of technology could lead us to choose one over the other. Technology, differently from what you might believe is not neutral. In fact, certain technologies, in virtue of their design, uphold certain values. Technology can hold a specific value if, in its widespread usages, it tends to promote rather than violate that value. For instance, a gas-engine car can be used in many ways, but its central uses remain transportation. Consequently, when a gas-engine car is utilized certain consequences —for instance pollution— occur, which promotes or deters certain values —i.e. sustainability—. Every technology, thus, has certain embedded consequences manifested in their central uses. Apart from economic values, technology can systematically promote or deter cultural and moral values —democracy, justice, cultural practices, etc—. Does SAG or BECCS uphold or deter certain specific value due to their specific design/implementation mechanisms?

Some parts of the world are warmed the most by human action —Image NASA

The capacity to yield power

Under the assumption that both SAG and BECCS work fine, the latter is praised for its capacity to capture carbon and store it under the terrain with the possibility of reusing the captured carbon. On the other hand, SAG does not allow to capture CO2 from the air but only reflect solar radiation. Once SAG is employed the process should be continuous and accompanied by mitigation strategies. Halting the process of injection will lead to sudden warming of the climate, known as the ‘termination shock’. We cannot see SAG as a one-off strategy but rather as a temporally extended process. SAG imposes its long-term adaption. In this sense, it can be said that SAG has an inherent tendency to be dominating.

When we use the word domination, we generally refer to its descriptive meaning: someone who dominates someone else. Domination can have a normative meaning. In this sense, domination is not simply associated with superior power but rather with the capacity to exercise one’s superior power without any external constraints. To put it simply, a slave-owner, no matter how nice he treats his slaves remains still a slave-owner. The slaves have to live with the fear that one day he might change his mind and has the capacity to threaten them. With this meaning, domination inevitably clashes with the concept of freedom: the ability to choose one’s path. Specifically, how and towards who is SAG more dominating than BEECS in virtue of its design?

The subjects of domination

Firstly, SAG is dominating towards future generations. It is normal that humans dominate future generations since they are not present yet. SAG, however, increases the magnitude of current domination over future generations because its deployment will inevitably impact the entire globe. Furthermore, SAG changes the nature of this domination. SAG makes it possible for the current generation to escape external checks on their power over future generations. Whilst the deployment of BECCS is constrained by the fact that its implementation will forcedly harm the interests of the present generations, for instance by driving the price of food up or diminishing reserves of freshwater, the deployment of SAG will just benefit the current generation by lowering global temperatures. SAG, thus, lacks any intra-generational checks. Finally, SAG results inherently dominating toward future generations since it forces them in a specific direction. As we have said, in contrast to BECCS, SAG does not eliminate GHG from the atmosphere, it simply halts the process. This, thereby, imposes future generations to comply with the technology. But SAG is not only more dominating than BECCS towards future generations.

SAG, indeed, is even more dominating towards the natural environment and non-human species than BECCS. The implementation of SAG does not meet external constraints since, up to now, there is no evidence that there is an upper limit of sulphate that can be injected in the atmosphere. On the other hand, nature presents clear limits on where the biomass can be cultivated; besides, carbon can be stored safely only in particular conditions. Similar to the case of intergenerational domination, SAG does not seem to have external checks and thus it enlarges the scope of domination over the natural environment —we have to remember that domination is not simply associated with complete control but the capacity to yield greater power—. This, in turn, could raise the bar of artificial solutions humans can adopt to shape the environment. Furthermore, as we have seen, SAG cannot be a single-shot strategy but has to perennially maintained. This means that SAG would expand the timeframe of domination over nature.

It is clear that we are warming the planet. Can we do something to avoid it? The answer is yes, of course, we can —Image Unknown Author

Ye shall not dominate

As we have seen certain technologies hold specific political, cultural, and/or moral values that make it clear that once chosen certain consequences will be more likely to happen. Certain technologies, specifically, might change the way we see the world and/or change our cultural practices. For instance, when using the gas-fueled car we experience the world in a different way than when we walk or use the bike; we see the world proceeding fast. Seemingly, technologies can change our relationship with the environment. When trying to solve climate change, choosing among the current designs of SAG and BECCS may signify choosing a particular relationship we want to have with the natural world. Still, this does not mean that the current design of SAG must be a definite one. In considering future designs, however, we must be aware that specific designs embody different values, and that satisfying all of them at the same time is not feasible. When designing we inevitably make trade-offs between the values we find most important. In order to make an accurate choice, we must make sure that the value of non-domination enters into the dialogue; because no one wants to be a slave, of not even a nice slave owner.

Related posts
array(2) { [0]=> int(899) [1]=> int(105) }
array(4) { [0]=> object(WP_Post)#1677 (24) { ["ID"]=> int(1674) ["post_author"]=> string(4) "2049" ["post_date"]=> string(19) "2012-07-09 00:02:47" ["post_date_gmt"]=> string(19) "2012-07-08 22:02:47" ["post_content"]=> string(1866) "¿Somos los humanos muy diferentes del resto de animales? Este vídeo reflexiona acerca de la condición humana y de cómo nos vemos a nosotros mismos en relación a los gorilas, las ballenas, los leopardos o las moscas. Realizado por Temujin Doran, está basado en la obra del filósofo político y profesor de Pensamiento Europeo en la London School of Economics John Gray, especialmente en su libro 'Perros de paja' (Straw Dogs: Thoughts on Humans and Other Animals), publicado en 2002 y que supone un claro ataque al humanismo y al antropocentrismo, puntos de vista que, según el autor, tienen su origen en la ideología religiosa. Gray ve la voluntad como una ilusión, describe a la Humanidad como una especie voraz y devastadora que aniquila otras formas de vida y destruye su entorno natural, y propone revisar los conceptos de progreso, condición humana y naturaleza humana.Are we human beings very different from other animals? This video reflects on the human condition and how we see ourselves in relation to gorillas, whales, leopards or flies. Made by Temujin Doran, it is based on the work of political philosopher and professor of European Thought at the London School of Economics John Gray, specially on his book 'Straw Dogs: Thoughts on Humans and Other Animals', published in 2002, which is a clear attack to humanism and anthropocentrism, views, according to the author, which are rooted in religious ideology. Gray sees will as an illusion, describes humanity as a ravenous and devastating kind that kills other life and destroys their natural environment, and proposes to revise the concepts of progress, human condition and human nature." ["post_title"]=> string(84) "Humanos y otros animalesHumans and other animals" ["post_excerpt"]=> string(0) "" ["post_status"]=> string(7) "publish" ["comment_status"]=> string(4) "open" ["ping_status"]=> string(4) "open" ["post_password"]=> string(0) "" ["post_name"]=> string(24) "humans-and-other-animals" ["to_ping"]=> string(0) "" ["pinged"]=> string(0) "" ["post_modified"]=> string(19) "2020-02-15 02:39:04" ["post_modified_gmt"]=> string(19) "2020-02-15 01:39:04" ["post_content_filtered"]=> string(0) "" ["post_parent"]=> int(0) ["guid"]=> string(29) "http://whatonline.org/?p=1674" ["menu_order"]=> int(0) ["post_type"]=> string(4) "post" ["post_mime_type"]=> string(0) "" ["comment_count"]=> string(1) "0" ["filter"]=> string(3) "raw" } [1]=> object(WP_Post)#1712 (24) { ["ID"]=> int(2877) ["post_author"]=> string(4) "2049" ["post_date"]=> string(19) "2012-07-02 00:02:47" ["post_date_gmt"]=> string(19) "2012-07-01 22:02:47" ["post_content"]=> string(1925) "Muchos científicos, entre ellos el físico y cosmólogo británico Stephen Hawking y el ya fallecido astrónomo y astrofísico estadounidense Carl Sagan, llevan largo tiempo advirtiendo de que será muy difícil evitar un desastre en la Tierra en los próximos siglos o incluso años, de modo que es muy posible que el futuro de la raza humana deba transcurrir en algún lugar del espacio. Hawking piensa que la Humanidad 'no debería poner todos los huevos en la misma cesta o en el mismo planeta' y apoya sin vacilación la investigación seria de la vida fuera del nuestro, mientras que Sagan sostenía que los humanos terminarán sin duda por conquistar otros lugares para vivir que ahora no podemos ni siquiera imaginar, aunque también que esos humanos serán muy diferentes a nosotros. En este vídeo lo explica con sus propias palabras.Many scientists, including British physicist and cosmologist Stephen Hawking and the late American astronomer and astrophysicist Carl Sagan, have long been warning that it will be very difficult to avoid a disaster on Earth in the coming centuries or even years, so it is quite possible that the future of the human race must pass somewhere in the space. Hawking thinks humanity 'should not put all your eggs in one basket, or on the same planet' and without hesitation supports serious research of life outside of our own, while Sagan argued that humans will eventually —doubtless— conquer elsewhere to live that we can not even imagine now, but also that those humans are very different from us. In this video he explains it in his own words." ["post_title"]=> string(99) "¿Viviremos siempre en la Tierra?Will we live forever on Earth?" ["post_excerpt"]=> string(0) "" ["post_status"]=> string(7) "publish" ["comment_status"]=> string(4) "open" ["ping_status"]=> string(4) "open" ["post_password"]=> string(0) "" ["post_name"]=> string(29) "will-we-live-forever-on-earth" ["to_ping"]=> string(0) "" ["pinged"]=> string(0) "" ["post_modified"]=> string(19) "2020-03-09 16:43:58" ["post_modified_gmt"]=> string(19) "2020-03-09 15:43:58" ["post_content_filtered"]=> string(0) "" ["post_parent"]=> int(0) ["guid"]=> string(29) "http://whatonline.org/?p=2877" ["menu_order"]=> int(0) ["post_type"]=> string(4) "post" ["post_mime_type"]=> string(0) "" ["comment_count"]=> string(1) "0" ["filter"]=> string(3) "raw" } [2]=> object(WP_Post)#1676 (24) { ["ID"]=> int(1512) ["post_author"]=> string(4) "2049" ["post_date"]=> string(19) "2012-05-28 00:02:48" ["post_date_gmt"]=> string(19) "2012-05-27 22:02:48" ["post_content"]=> string(1447) "Neil deGrasse Tyson es un astrofísico y divulgador científico estadounidense. Actualmente es también director del Planetario Hayden en el Centro Rose para la Tierra y el Espacio e investigador asociado en el Departamento de Astrofísica del Museo Americano de Historia Natural. Desde el año 2006 es el presentador del programa de televisión de corte educativo-científico NOVA scienceNOW en el canal PBS, y su nombre suena con fuerza para conducir la secuela de la serie de televisión 'Cosmos: un viaje personal', co-creada y presentada originalmente por Carl Sagan. Un redactor de la revista Time le preguntó cuál era el hecho más asombroso que había encontrado en su estudio del Universo, y en este vídeo podemos ver su respuesta.Neil deGrasse Tyson is an American astrophysicist and science writer. Today is also the director of the Hayden Planetarium in the Rose Center for Earth and Space and a research associate in the Department of Astrophysics at the American Museum of Natural History. Since 2006 is the host of educational and scientific television program NOVA scienceNOW on PBS, and his name sounds hard to drive the sequel to the television series 'Cosmos: a personal journey', co-created and originally filed by Carl Sagan. An editor of Time magazine asked him what was the most amazing fact that he had found in his study of the universe, and in this video we see his response." ["post_title"]=> string(118) "Lo más asombroso de todo el UniversoThe most outstanding fact across the Universe" ["post_excerpt"]=> string(0) "" ["post_status"]=> string(7) "publish" ["comment_status"]=> string(4) "open" ["ping_status"]=> string(4) "open" ["post_password"]=> string(0) "" ["post_name"]=> string(41) "the-most-outstanding-fact-in-the-universe" ["to_ping"]=> string(0) "" ["pinged"]=> string(0) "" ["post_modified"]=> string(19) "2021-06-13 14:34:37" ["post_modified_gmt"]=> string(19) "2021-06-13 12:34:37" ["post_content_filtered"]=> string(0) "" ["post_parent"]=> int(0) ["guid"]=> string(29) "http://whatonline.org/?p=1512" ["menu_order"]=> int(0) ["post_type"]=> string(4) "post" ["post_mime_type"]=> string(0) "" ["comment_count"]=> string(1) "2" ["filter"]=> string(3) "raw" } [3]=> object(WP_Post)#1871 (24) { ["ID"]=> int(5450) ["post_author"]=> string(4) "2049" ["post_date"]=> string(19) "2013-12-09 00:01:29" ["post_date_gmt"]=> string(19) "2013-12-08 23:01:29" ["post_content"]=> string(1521) "Esta no es una historia sobre la desaparición de los humanos, sino sobre lo que podría suceder en la Tierra si eso pasa. No se ocupa de cómo nos extinguimos, simplemente ya no estamos y todo queda tal cual lo dejamos, sin catástrofes ni acontecimientos traumáticos de ningún tipo. Los televisores permanecen encendidos, funcionan los relojes, las tiendas están llenas de cosas… pero no hay humanos y las cosas empiezan a cambiar rápidamente. 'La vida sin nosotros' es un documental realizado por el equipo de History Channel en el año 2009, en el que se predice qué ocurriría en el futuro si ya no estuviésemos en el planeta, basado en hipótesis de científicos especializados en diferentes áreas como ingeniería, botánica, arqueología, geología o climatología.This is not the story about how humans we could disappear, but rather what would happen on Earth after our demise. It does not deal how we extinguish, simply we are not anymore and all leave it as it is, with no evidence of traumatic events or disasters of any kind. The televisions are on, the clocks work, the shops are full of things... but there are not humans and things start to change quickly. 'Life after people' is a documentary made by the History Channel team in 2009 in which is predicted what would happen in the future if we were no longer on the planet, based on hypotheses of scientists specializing in different fields like engineering, botany, archeology, geology or climatology." ["post_title"]=> string(73) "La vida sin nosotrosLife after people" ["post_excerpt"]=> string(0) "" ["post_status"]=> string(7) "publish" ["comment_status"]=> string(4) "open" ["ping_status"]=> string(4) "open" ["post_password"]=> string(0) "" ["post_name"]=> string(17) "life-after-people" ["to_ping"]=> string(0) "" ["pinged"]=> string(0) "" ["post_modified"]=> string(19) "2020-02-19 00:39:09" ["post_modified_gmt"]=> string(19) "2020-02-18 23:39:09" ["post_content_filtered"]=> string(0) "" ["post_parent"]=> int(0) ["guid"]=> string(29) "http://whatonline.org/?p=5450" ["menu_order"]=> int(0) ["post_type"]=> string(4) "post" ["post_mime_type"]=> string(0) "" ["comment_count"]=> string(1) "0" ["filter"]=> string(3) "raw" } }