After you, no after you...

So how did Climate Engineering become shortlisted as a climate change solution?

We established in my first post that it had not been acknowledged within policy until the IPCC Summary for Policy Makers Report in 2013, so what were the solutions that preceded it?

The first and foremost approach was initiated as an attempt by the governments of the major industrialised countries to attempt to incorporate climate within policy making, setting targets and initiatives to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide emissions polluting our increasingly warmer atmosphere. This globalised mitigation strategy, an attempt to limit the enhanced effects of carbon dioxide by diminishing current consumption behaviours, has been developed by global summits to create a universal sustainable power against climate change and targets and goals have been proposed.

Maybe international targets of a worldwide reduction in carbon dioxide emissions per capita by 50% could be applied?

Seems rather unlikely.

Could the most highly developed countries really (and hypocritically) inform the newly industrialised countries (NICS) and underdeveloped countries of the world, that they can no longer develop as rapidly, and potentially as successfully, as they did so long ago?



Source: Rweb

Developing countries have refuted any full participation in climate mitigation methods, claiming that, compared to industrialised countries, developing countries have much more to lose from climate change due to agricultural dependence, and that a growing economy was the only way to mitigate any climate change effects (Schelling, 2002).

In fact it was agreed at the Kyoto Protocol in 1997 that a heavier burden of responsibility would be applied to the developed countries worldwide, as they had a greater impact on increasing anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions and that the global north and south should have 'differentiated responsibilities' (UNFCCC, 1992). In 2010 alone, the US emitted 17.6 metric tons of Carbon Dioxide per capita, compared to 0.1 metric tons per capita in Guinea (www.data.worldbank.org/indicator/).

The G8+5 Climate Change Dialogue in 2006 convened the world's 16 highest polluting countries, recognising that 20 countries are responsible for more than 80% of global carbon dioxide emissions (Prins & Rayner, 2007).

How effective then have carbon trading methods been at reducing our climate change problems?

The idea behind carbon trading is that any country who underuses their assigned limit of carbon dioxide emissions can sell its remaining quota to other countries and the buyer gains an increase in allowance of carbon dioxide emissions.

Simple.

Or is it?

In theory, it is potentially possible that by capping maximum carbon dioxide emissions this would, over time, gradually reduce our carbon consumption, and contribute to a decline in pollution emissions. However, in practice, the terms of trade are continually under renegotiation, and countries with an 'excess' of allowable quota, can ask for greater sums of money upon each occasion, due to increased demand for the allowance (Schelling, 2002).

Similarly, no nation has the power to monitor these trading process on a worldwide scale, nor be able to impose sanctions against those who do not comply. Despite this being a global problem, carbon trading would have greater success on a local scale (Hilsenrath, 2009). Prins & Rayner (2007; p975) stated that 'rather than the top-down universalism embodied in Kyoto, countries would choose policies that suit their particular circumstances'. Yet post-Kyoto, this approach has largely been ignored.

Maybe we should wait? But for how long? The Climate Clock ticks on...



Source: Homosapiensaveyourearth

The main outcome of recent international governance attempts has been the acknowledgement of the existence of climate change and its impacts. There has been no achievement at all so far in reducing carbon dioxide emissions, nor has there been any real implementation of potentially effective measures to achieve this aim, and this same problem has recurred every four years at each international climate congress. Economic growth and development has always been highly desirable and a political necessity, and no country is willing to sacrifice rapid economic development for a compromise in environmentally friendly but low capital boosting alternatives, or are likely at least to volunteer to be first to take this economic cold plunge... 

That's where the Geoengineers need to step in and take centre stage to 'Save the World'! Possible climatic devastation could be imminent, policy agreements are not yet in place to tackle rapid climate change effects and should any carbon emission reduction method be enforced it would take years to notice a significant decline to emission levels.

Geoengineering, on the other hand, can make prompt changes, it can be unilaterally forced - no international agreement necessary, and it could ultimately become our most effective shield against climate change... Right?

Time to get started??


 S xx