Recently I read an article in Climate Progress by Ari Phillips reviewing a new book by Clive Hamilton entitled, Earthmasters: The Dawn of the Age of Climate Engineering. The book investigates large-scale manipulation of the climate by huge in scope technological methods in order to deal with the inevitable disastrous changes in the earths climate engendered primarily by fossil fuel technology and rampant population growth.
When Hamilton was asked what big surprises he came across while writing the book be responded, "One was the extent of the geoengineering lobby and the links between the scientists and the investors."
About 10 months ago I addressed this same topic on a Diary entitled Climate Change: Greedy and Stupid. In that Diary I cautioned against any assumption that the leaders of the fossil fuel industry are so stupid as to fail to recognize the reality of climate change or so greedy as to not care what happens in the long run. Greedy they may be, perhaps even blindly so, but stupid they are not. They can buy smart. I wrote:
It is a gross error believe that those who own and control the vast reserves of fossil fuels, estimated by some to be worth more that the combined GNP of most of the countries on earth, for no reason other than greed, disagree with the almost unanimous conclusions of scientists throughout the world. It would be just as wrong to assume that they believe the arguments of their lobbyists and hired consultants as it would be to think they believe in the truth of the advertisements they produce to sell their products.
I followed this up later in the Diary with the following:
Look the current situation. The value of existing fossil fuel reserves are astronomical. At current value it has been estimated by some as greater than the GNP's of most of the countries of the world combined. The financial goal of those who control those resources is to extract every drop of value from those reserves they can, by whatever means they can….
Assume instead, as we must, that they, those in control of the reserves and those dependent upon them, are not as stupid as those who believe them. Then they also must know that not only are they risking the end of their enterprise, as well of every other enterprise on earth, but that end may occur before they maximize the value that can be extracted from their reserves.
So what does one in that situation look and plan for? It is simple really. It is a mechanism that allows them to continue to maximize the value of their reserves while staving off the apocalypse. Conversion to solar or other renewables is anathema to them as is most efficiency initiatives (Not all of them. Those that are slow acting enough that relatively high fuel prices can be maintained, they grudgingly accept).
In addition, in order to maintain control of the process and the solution, is is essential that the situation reach a crisis at which any solution they propose cannot be rejected (from their standpoint there is too much at stake for them to do otherwise)
I am sure one can come up with a number of options they could consider. The one solution that I assume being considered, has been hinted at in the various international conferences on climate change. "Respectable" scientists and engineers who will (if not already) profit from it and so-called, "independent" non-committed organizations (who one could assume already are) declaim that they believe human ingenuity can be relied upon to come up with a "technological" solution to the crisis before it is too late. Often it is followed by vague references to mechanical "carbon sinks" or other means to "scrub" excess carbon from the atmosphere (Big science, big engineering and big profits for the fortunate few).
I imagine that before any truly significant international action is done on climate change, the proverbial s**t will have hit the fan and the world will be at the verge of panic. At that time, a publicly funded, "Manhattan Project" solution could be proposed to develop the technological solution. Everyone will most likely rally around this. The "environmentalists" will because, if one reads most Diaries, posts, blogs, reports and the like on the subject, a strong number seem to hint that any solution that saves the world and has a minimum impact on our standard of living would be acceptable. It is similar to the emotion and rationalization behind the support of many otherwise rational people for most wars.
The "business" community will support it because in addition to the overarching panic, the huge contracts for research and development will go to private companies.
The financial community will love it because enormous sums of money would have to be raised and they would get their cut in fees (It may be even a better deal than privatizing social security).
The fossil fuel industry will like it because it is, after all, their program. The only thing they will concern themselves with is making sure the burden of the cost is not laid solely on their shoulders. They will argue that it is humanity's need and they should not bear the burden alone. Our governments will of course agree.
The "Manhattan Project," as can be expected, will produce a capital intensive solution that ultimately will be privatized.
All of us will continue to pay to put carbon into the air in the form of the residuals of fossil fuel use. We also will pay for removing the carbon from the air. In other-words the ultimate goal of free enterprise will be within reach, the privatization of the air we breathe. But hey, we will still be alive.
To return to Hamilton's interview:
Question: You talk about the acceptance of the “solution” of geoengineering even by people who don’t seem to think climate change is a problem in the first place.
Hamilton: That’s one of the, on the face of it, mystifying aspects of the geoengineering debate. Why conservative think tanks like The American Enterprise Institute, The Cato Institute and even The Heartland Institute, which have for years worked hard to deny climate science and block all measures to reduce carbon emissions, have come out in favor of geoengineering.
What it shows us is that the debate over climate change and the role of the deniers is not about the science. They want to make it about the science because that gives it an air of legitimacy, but it’s really about fundamental cultural and political values. So if geoengineering is the solution then they’re happy to concede that there’s a problem because geoengineering is a big, technological, macho, system-justifying response to climate change. And that’s the kind of response that fits with their political orientation.
So if Hamilton's insights are correct and my guesses possible, what can and should we do? To even attempt an answer to that would take more than a Diary. I believe however that we are not only facing perhaps the greatest threat to life on this planet but also perhaps the greatest political and economic coup in the history of humanity.
If anyone reading this Diary decides to ponder its implications, I suggest you consider one other thing (among the many). According to the estimable Brad DeLong, toward the end of the 19th Century, most economists predicted that the energy use (calories expended) of the lowest level laborer in industrialized society would increase by a factor of almost 5 by the end of the next century. In fact it increased by a factor of almost 500. Can the hoped for transition to renewable energy sources maintain that level of growth into the future even without carbon producing fossil fuels? And if not what then? Is physical growth no longer a goal of society? What about less developed societies that expend much less energy? Do we reduce ours and share it with them?
And finally if the implications of geoengineering are as predicted in this Diary, will we have a say in it at all?