An emergency "Plan B" using the latest technology
is needed to save the world from dangerous climate change,
according to a poll of leading scientists carried out by The
Independent. The collective international failure to curb
the growing emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere
has meant that an alternative to merely curbing emissions
may become necessary.
The plan would involve highly controversial proposals to
lower global temperatures artificially through daringly ambitious
schemes that either reduce sunlight levels by man-made means
or take CO2 out of the air. This "geoengineering"
approach – including schemes such as fertilising the
oceans with iron to stimulate algal blooms – would have
been dismissed as a distraction a few years ago but is now
being seen by the majority of scientists we surveyed as a
viable emergency backup plan that could save the planet from
the worst effects of climate change, at least until deep cuts
are made in CO2 emissions.
What has worried many of the experts, who include recognised
authorities from the world's leading universities and research
institutes, as well as a Nobel Laureate, is the failure to
curb global greenhouse gas emissions through international
agreements, namely the Kyoto Treaty, and recent studies indicating
that the Earth's natural carbon "sinks" are becoming
less efficient at absorbing man-made CO2 from the atmosphere.
Levels of CO2 have continued to increase during the past
decade since the treaty was agreed and they are now rising
faster than even the worst-case scenarios from the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change, a United Nations body. In the meantime
the natural absorption of CO2 by the world's forests and oceans
has decreased significantly. Most of the scientists we polled
agreed that the failure to curb emissions of CO2, which are
increasing at a rate of 1 per cent a year, has created the
need for an emergency "plan B" involving research,
development and possible implementation of a worldwide geoengineering
strategy.
Just over half – 54 per cent – of the 80 international
specialists in climate science who took part in our survey
agreed that the situation is now so dire that we need a backup
plan that involves the artificial manipulation of the global
climate to counter the effects of man-made emissions of greenhouse
gases. About 35 per cent of respondents disagreed with the
need for a "plan B", arguing that it would distract
from the main objective of cutting CO2 emissions, with the
remaining 11 per cent saying that they did not know whether
a geoengineering strategy is needed or not.
Almost everyone who thought that geoengineering should be
studied as a possible plan B said that it must not be seen
as an alternative to international agreements on cutting carbon
emissions but something that runs in parallel to binding treaties
in case climate change runs out of control and there an urgent
need to cool the planet quickly.
