EVENTS

Date:	Thursday, June 25, 2009
Time:	10:00 AM -- 12:30 PM
Location:	Wohlstetter Conference Center, Twelfth Floor, AEI 1150 Seventeenth Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036

WASHINGTON, JUNE 25, 2009--As Congress moves forward with plans to cap greenhouse gas emissions, many experts are pressing for consideration of other policy options. Geoengineering strategies represent one such policy option. Also known as "climate engineering," geoengineering strategies aim to alter temperature without changing the levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere by slightly reducing the amount of sunlight reaching the Earth. Such approaches may be quite inexpensive relative to other options, and could prove to be an important part of a climate change response, especially if attempts to limit emissions lag or fail.  On June 25, the AEI Geoengineering Project sponsored an event to explore the complex governance issues surrounding geoengineering.

Lee Lane, a resident fellow at AEI, moderated the discussion. He observed that, although the concept of geoengineering has existed for quite some time, until recently, it has been only a marginal factor in the climate policy debate. He also noted, however, that the idea is quickly gaining traction. Lane cited a number of influential organizations and individuals that have advocated further research on the subject. Because of the low costs associated with geoengineering, one nation, or a small group of nations, could change the global climate. This prospect has sparked both hopes and fears. 

Scott Barrett of Johns Hopkins University, and author of the working paper, "Geoengineering's Role in Climate Change Policy," described climate engineering as one option in a diverse portfolio of potential responses to climate change. Globally, over the next several decades, gradual climate change will produce both winners and losers, and nations' responses to these changes will vary according to their interests. The potential conflicts of interest are likely to narrow over time, but nations may wish to consider an agreement to govern the development and use of geoengineering. He also drew attention to the lack of rules currently in place to govern these actions.

Barrett discussed some options for developing international rules. He noted that the world politics of climate engineering differ greatly from those of greenhouse gas control. The former escapes the free-rider problems that have dogged the latter, but nations continue to have differing preferences over how to deal with the climate.  Barrett proposed the Framework Convention on Climate Change as a forum for bargaining on these differences. Crucial components of an agreement might include rules governing deployment, as well as provisions making research and development transparent and providing notification of field experiments to other countries.

Nobel laureate Thomas C. Schelling, professor emeritus of the University of Maryland, responded by observing that we know very little about organizing the myriad actors and resources needed to cope with the problem of climate change. Adaptation will be an important part of a climate change portfolio, but Schelling cautioned that we do not yet know how to effectively transfer the necessary resources from richer nations to poorer ones. Until we develop a better framework for doing so, actions meant to shield less developed tropical countries from the climate change that has already been set in motion by past emissions will largely be fruitless. Attempts to enforce emissions commitments across borders are unlikely to work, he observed, and "therefore commitments should be to what nations will do, not what their effect on emissions will be." One important advantage of geoengineering is that it does not involve drastically changing the way billions of people live and care for themselves on a daily basis. "The experimentation process," he continued, "will provide insight into how geoengineering might actually be carried out," and therefore should be a serious factor in discussions of geoengineering governance.

Bryan D. Caplan of George Mason University argued that nations may act on climate in ways that diverge from their own economic best interests. Caplan cited protectionist trade policies as one of many instances in which national behavior often contradicts national interest. He also addressed the concerns that certain powerful countries will be net losers should geoengineering be undertaken: if states are net losers under a relatively cheap geoengineering scheme, he countered, they will likely be even greater losers under far more costly climate change measures.  More focus, he said, "should be placed on how much we could save with geoengineering." If we can determine that geoengineering options would be both effective and less costly than other alternatives, it might be prudent to devote a greater portion of our resources to these strategies.  

 

###