A risk-laden ‘solution’
Have you ever thought of infusing clouds with sulphur dioxide to block the sun, or, vacuuming carbon dioxide out of thin air, or, adding iron to the ocean to draw greenhouse gases down to the sea floor. No matter what we have thought, all of these things are being tried now to save dear Earth. As recently as a few years ago, technologies designed to change Earth’s atmosphere — what is broadly known as geoengineering — were considered too impractical, too expensive and too outlandish to be taken seriously. But days are changing.
The effects of climate change are becoming worse. And nations are not meeting their collective goal of slashing greenhouse gas emissions. The stakes are very real: Last year was the hottest in modern history. Oceans around the world are shockingly warm. Floods, fires and droughts are growing more intense. So, investors and entrepreneurs are trying — sometimes unilaterally — to fix that. Many scientists and environmentalists worry about the safety and efficacy of geoengineering. And some of the best-funded projects are bankrolled by the very oil and gas companies most responsible for the greenhouse gas emissions. Still, plans to intentionally tinker with the planet’s atmosphere are racing ahead.
In Odessa, Texas, Occidental Petroleum is building the world’s largest direct air-capture plant. The company plans to turn it on next year. The mechanics are relatively straightforward: giant fans blow air across water that has been treated to absorb carbon dioxide. Occidental then uses chemicals to isolate that CO2, mixes the gas with water and pumps it underground. Extreme subterranean pressure keeps the gas locked away forever. Most of the carbon dioxide it captures will be sequestered in bedrock, removed from the atmosphere for good. But at least some will be used to extract yet more oil from the ground, creating more of the greenhouse gases that are dangerously heating the planet. Another company in Iceland is also coming up with the same technology.
Other attempts to tweak the climate are still in their infancy. A California start-up claimed to have released sulphur dioxide into the atmosphere in Mexico without permission, hoping to block solar radiation. Afterward, Mexico imposed a ban on the process. Researchers in Massachusetts are investigating whether they could generate blooms of phytoplankton that would absorb carbon dioxide and settle on the seafloor. Critics of the air-capture plants like those in Texas and Iceland remain sceptical. The projects are enormously expensive and very energy-intensive and snag only a sliver of annual greenhouse gas emissions. Maybe they distract policymakers from the more urgent work of reducing fossil fuel emissions.
Despite these concerns, the market for these ventures is set to boom — from less than 10 billion dollar today to as much as 135 billion dollar by 2040, according to a geoengineering consulting group. Occidental is planning to build 100 plants in the coming years, funded in part by 1.2 billion dollars for the technology from the Biden administration in the US. The company wants to build similar plants in Kenya, Canada, Europe and Asia.
It’s not unusual for a new technology to gain momentum before the major questions about its efficacy, safety and regulation are resolved. The question however remains, who deserves the right to alter the planet, and what burdens of proof should they first meet? Right now, there are no international standards governing these new technologies, even though they could affect the whole planet. We don't have a great track record of sustained global cooperation; we should keep that in mind. Geoengineering has an extra edge over other technologies to do something for the Earth's atmosphere. According to the experts, that is going to have detrimental effects in terms of saving the Earth from drastic change in weather.
Views expressed are personal
