•  
  •  
 

Publication Date

2009

Abstract

Dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate is no longer merely impending-it is now inevitable. Surging fossil fuel use, combined with the failure of mitigation policies and the risk of positive feedback loops in the climate system, is generating interest in international,planetary- scale environmental engineering,known as geoengineering. Over the next few decades, nation-states are likely to engage in such activities as fertilizing marine biota with iron, injecting sulfur into the stratosphere,or deploying mirrors in outer space to counteract the effects of climate change. Such activities,however, risk environmental side effects and political instability, and could precipitate a backlash against geoengineering, which is currently the only potentially viable short-term option for dealing with climate change. This Note argues that international environmental law must develop norms that can simultaneously maximize the benefits and minimize the costs of geoengineering. The international community, however, will likely discourage geoengineering-even to the point of banning activities short of deployment, such as research and testing. While these roadblocks would probably not prevent geoengineering completely--especially in a world wrought with climate change-induced famine, depression,and war-they would prevent informed decision making about which options would be most effective and generate the fewest side effects. The United States, therefore, should take the lead and initiate a research program to explore the feasibility of geoengineering as an insurance policy against catastrophic climate change. A U.S. -led research program characterized by collaboration, consultation, transparency, and information-sharing would not only develop these crucial norms that favor geoengineering, but the program could also reduce the risks associated with deployment while simultaneously making it cost-beneficial.

Download

Share

COinS