Jessica West interviews Burgess Langshaw Power
By Jessica West
Published in The Ploughshares Monitor Winter 2024
Burgess Langshaw Power is a PhD candidate in Global Governance at the Balsillie School of International Affairs. Before he began his PhD studies, Burgess was a Policy Analyst with Natural Resources Canada.
Jessica West: Burgess, your research at the Balsillie School explores the governance of “atypical technologies” such as geoengineering. But what exactly is geoengineering?
Burgess Langshaw Power: Geoengineering explores the idea that we can artificially modify the global climate. Often this involves solar geoengineering – changing the reflectivity of certain parts of the planet to send a little bit more light (and therefore heat) back into space, thus cooling the planet by a small amount. The most discussed solar geoengineering technology is stratospheric aerosol injection.
JW: Why the current interest in geoengineering?
BLP: Geoengineering began to get attention in 2006 when Nobel prize-winning atmospheric chemist Paul Crutzen popularized the idea. But it was controversial.
In the last few years, the idea has taken off, probably because of the increasing effects of climate change. Now we consider geoengineering a potential part of climate solutions.
JW: Have we reached the point that geoengineering is necessary?
BLP: Answering this question needs some context.
The Paris Agreement committed countries to hold “the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels” and pursue efforts “to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels.” Two degrees is the point at which we expect large climate feedback changes will happen. Once these changes happen, we will see much more extreme weather events.
Data suggests that we may have already passed the level of 1.5 degrees of warming. Cleaning up our skies by reducing pollutants may cause more warming, maybe even over two degrees, because some forms of air pollution reflect sunlight and therefore cause cooling.
Thus, it may be impossible to prevent two degrees of warming unless we take radical action. While I think that geoengineering should be considered only in a worst-case scenario, we might already be in that situation. In short, geoengineering is a bad idea, but we might not have any alternatives. However, we need more information.
JW: Who is interested in developing geoengineering technology? Why?
BLP: Academicians are interested in researching the risks of geoengineering. We want to make an informed decision based on better knowledge.
To my knowledge, no academics are developing the technologies required for the deployment of solar geoengineering. However, private companies, such as Israel-based startup Stardust, are doing such work. I’m also concerned about what is being developed secretly.
JW: What geoengineering technologies or effects are being pursued?
BLP: Direct air capture and carbon dioxide removal are well established but work slowly and are extremely expensive.
A small project is trying to spray sea water over the Great Barrier Reef to create low-lying sea clouds that could cool the water in the area. Some small projects are trying to increase the reflectivity of the Arctic seas. In these cases, the effects would be only regional.
In 2012, the Haida Salmon Restoration Corporation dumped iron filings into the ocean to increase salmon populations and condense carbon dioxide (CO2) from the ocean. This increased the number of plankton, which likely consumed a lot of CO2 from the ocean and moved it into the biological food chain. It is not clear that the project worked or is safe at scale.
In 2020, the International Maritime Organization implemented rules to cut the sulfur content of ships’ fuel to improve global air quality. However, we now know that ships burning heavy sulfur fuel have been creating clouds behind them. These clouds have cooled the ocean by a measurable amount.
JW: Project Ploughshares recently hosted a workshop on climate, peace, and security in the Arctic. Is geoengineering relevant to the future of Canada’s Arctic? Are there other potential applications/benefits unique to Canada?
BLP: Here are a few relevant points:
- The Arctic is warming as much as four times as quickly as the rest of the world. These changes impact all Arctic lifeforms, including Indigenous peoples, and threaten some of the most fragile ecosystems on Earth.
- The melting of the Greenland ice sheet alone could cause a global sea level rise of between 13 and 33 centimetres by 2100.
- As Arctic sea ice melts, countries will compete for Arctic resources, including oil, minerals, and fish. They will adopt Arctic trade routes. Conflict, possibly violent, will likely result.
Canada is key to the deployment of marine geoengineering technologies because we control some of the Arctic’s largest bodies of water. The stratosphere is at a much lower altitude over the Arctic and Antarctic and can be reached by aircraft large enough for large-scale deployment of stratospheric aerosol injection. So, while Canada’s North is one of the locations most threatened by climate change, it is also one of the most promising for deployment of most forms of geoengineering.
JW: What are some of the risks involved in geoengineering activities?
BLP: You can’t just cancel out the effects of climate change with geoengineering. Playing with global temperatures will have unexpected side effects.
The Haida Salmon Restoration project got so much public blowback and hasn’t been pursued because it caused ocean eutrophication; it removed so much oxygen from ocean waters that it created a dead zone.
The International Maritime Organization’s rules on freighter fuel remain because removing sulfur improved air quality and undoubtedly saved lives. However, as noted above, they also adversely affected global warming.
Solar geoengineering will change precipitation patterns. Computer models can help us to predict some of the side effects but, until we do atmospheric testing, we won’t know for sure what they are. And testing at large scale also has side effects.
Now add unknown risks and moral/ethical hazards.
JW: Are there rules about who, how, and when geoengineering capabilities can be used?
BLP: There really aren’t any rules. Some people claim that the United Nations (UN) Convention on Biodiversity has a resolution that applies but it has no authority.
We need a global agreement to prevent large-scale deployment until we know more. We need international cooperation on open and transparent research. What we don’t need is a non-use agreement like the one circulated by some academics, which is misguided because it seeks only to prevent public funding and public research and would drive research into the private sector or military organizations, where there would be no transparency.
JW: What peace and security implications are associated with geoengineering activities?
BLP: When we play with the global temperature, we change regional weather patterns. Some areas will cool more than others; some might warm even more; some will see more or less rain, etc. The use of geoengineering will produce winners and losers, positive and negative effects. Some negative effects, such as extreme weather, will be serious. I expect that those on the receiving end of more floods, or droughts, or extremes of any kind will feel that they’ve been attacked. The result could be a war of words, but violence is possible.
JW: So, the use of geoengineering capabilities by a single actor can have global effects. Are there attempts to regulate such use?
BLP: Ah yes, “unilateral deployment.” The bad news is that most geoengineering is relatively cheap, compared with climate mitigation and adaptation. Independently wealthy billionaires could probably launch programs. The good news is that any large-scale deployment would likely require restricted military equipment, and the signs of such activity would be obvious, easy to spot, and, we hope, to stop.
Many current efforts address governance and some have significant potential. For instance, the World Climate Research Programme has launched a Lighthouse Activity on climate intervention research. The European Union has launched a project to investigate strategies for responsible research called Co-CREATE. The Degrees Initiative was launched to ensure that the Global South has the resources and information needed to be heard in “the SRM [solar radiation modification] conversation.” The Alliance for Just Deliberation on Solar Geoengineering is trying to bring many of these efforts under one roof.
JW: You were awarded the Cadieux-Léger Fellowship at Global Affairs Canada (GAC) this year. Congratulations! What does this mean for you?
BLP: My goal has always been to provide information to governments so that they could better understand issues around geoengineering, and to support processes like public engagement, open and transparent research, and evidence-supported decision-making. Having a fellowship at GAC is huge for me.
JW: How will you fit into the work that GAC is doing on climate change?
BLP: My understanding is that I am coming in as a junior expert. I’ll contribute to the knowledge and understanding of geoengineering, as well as the importance of the Arctic to climate change, and some conflict and security issues related to climate change. I will step in to raise questions that have not been considered.
JW: What are your goals for this position?
BLP: There are four.
- Ensure that departments like GAC are aware that geoengineering is an emerging concern that needs urgent consideration.
- Make available my own research expertise and insight into some of the important problems that need to be tackled.
- Build networks within GAC and with other departments like Environment and Climate Change Canada, so that other people are thinking and acting on these issues.
- Figure out what I want to do with myself after I finish my doctorate.
JW: What governance priorities should Canada set for geoengineering?
BLP: With a limited window of opportunity, Canada should immediately establish an open and public education and engagement program on geoengineering. At the same time, it must fund open and transparent research.
Because Canada is a middle power and is generally well liked and respected internationally, it has the potential to be the mediator in a global discussion about geoengineering. Such a role will be challenging and fraught with controversy, conspiracy theories, and strong disagreement, but it is important. No one can say yet what should happen, because we don’t know enough. But Canada could get the whole world to come together for a vital conversation on what must be done.
Jessica West work on Climate, Peace, and Security is partly made possible by the generous support of one of our donors.
