Say, hypothetically, the world does miraculously stop warming at 2°C. We do everything needed: eliminating our reliance on fossil fuels, utilising sufficient renewable energy, changing dietary and infrastructure practices, and we stop the threat of catastrophic climate change.
But, that does not mean things go back to normal. Stopping warming at 2°C, means we STAY at 2°C, possibly for centuries. The carbon dioxide, and especially methane, in the atmosphere take a really, really long time to dissipate, meaning generations will be in a 2°C warmer world. Bill Gates likes to use the analogy of a bathtub filling up. While we may stop the tub from overflowing too much, ceasing our practices does not empty the tub, or clean up all the mess already made. Of course, 2°C doesn’t sound like much, but it is incredibly damaging. To help understand this, you can find a helpful graphic here.
So, what is there to be done in this scenario where we’re stuck with this much worse-off world? How can we get back to normal? One suggestion is called geoengineering, which is essentially manipulating the climate to counteract climate change. One branch of geoengineering, and the focus of this post, is Stratospheric Aerosol Injection (SAI).
SAI is a proposal to inject sulphur (or another gas, but sulphur seems to be the current favourite) into the stratosphere. These tiny aerosol particles will reflect more sunlight back into space, hopefully cooling the Earth and mitigating the effects of climate change. The idea is inspired by the cooling effects of volcanic eruptions, which have significant cooling impacts on surrounding areas for extended periods, although the aim is to use far less material than a volcano. The thinking goes that if all is worked out correctly, we could lower the temperature of the Earth by exactly the amount we want, for the period of time we want.
However, SAI remains a fringe idea due to its many potential downsides, as you might imagine from a proposal to cover the Earth in sulphur. Covering the atmosphere in sulphur will create a blanket that could kill off large amounts of crops, and possibly people through air pollution. We also aren’t entirely sure of all its effects, and there is a large possibility of negative side effects.
So, to me, SAI is Machiavellian. It is akin to a Marvel villain. Given that this method will create air pollution resulting in deaths, while possibly preventing many more deaths through cooling the planet, it makes me think of Thanos or Ozymandias from Watchmen. Killing a few to save the many. If we ultimately save more lives by doing this, is it the right thing to do?
Now don’t get me wrong, I am definitely not saying this technique is evil. These villains in the movies and comics are specifically designed to have reasonable goals and work in the moral grey. They are typically villains because the way they break those few eggs to make an omelette is done in evil ways to ensure the audience sides with the protagonist.
My point is simply this, sacrificing a few for the greater good is never something the ‘hero’ does. Beyond all the logical arguments and valid reasons, it just does not sit right with you at your core. It doesn’t feel right. You can think the villain makes sense, but that doesn’t mean you agree with them. To paraphrase Lord Farquaad: Some people may die, but is that a sacrifice I am willing to make?
I’m not sure which side I am on, and I’m not sure if this is the right thing to do. But maybe at this stage, humanity is already arguably the villain in this story. And maybe we can’t afford to be the heroes. Maybe life isn’t like the movies, and we must settle for being the villains in our own story, as we so often have done.
If you’re interested
What I didn’t mention here was one aspect of SAI – ethics of governance. Who decides we do this? You can find more here
This idea of whether to more death or become active in fewer deaths harks back to the famous trolley problem
__________________________________________________________________________________
References