Geoengineering, the large-scale manipulation of Earth’s climate, is often proposed as a solution to combat climate change. However, these technologies pose significant risks to biodiversity, human rights, and the global environment. Contrary to the belief that geoengineering remains unregulated, existing international laws and agreements provide a robust framework against its use.
The Threat of Geoengineering
Risks to Biodiversity and Environment
Geoengineering technologies can have far-reaching consequences on biodiversity, affecting ecosystems and species in largely unpredictable ways. Changes induced by techniques like solar radiation management can significantly alter precipitation patterns, potentially leading to droughts or flooding in various regions. These disruptions can have a cascading effect on local flora and fauna, posing a severe threat to ecosystems that have developed specific dependencies on prevailing climate conditions. For example, prolonged droughts can devastate plant species, which in turn affects the fauna dependent on those plants for food and habitat.
Moreover, interventions in marine environments, such as ocean fertilization, can disrupt marine life, causing harmful algal blooms and depleting oxygen levels in the water. Ocean fertilization might seem like a solution to absorb more CO₂, but the unintended side effects can be catastrophic. Algal blooms can poison marine life and make large areas of the ocean hypoxic, or oxygen-starved, creating dead zones where most marine life cannot survive. These environmental threats underscore the need for stringent oversight and the application of the precautionary principle to prevent exacerbating the very issues geoengineering intends to solve.
Impact on Human Rights
Geoengineering’s consequences aren’t merely environmental; they pose a serious threat to human rights and social justice. Disruptions to weather patterns induced by geoengineering could impact global agriculture, affecting food and water security on an unprecedented scale. For example, if solar radiation management interferes with monsoon patterns, it could devastate agricultural yield in Asia, directly impacting millions of livelihoods. The resulting food scarcity would predominantly affect communities that are already vulnerable, increasing inequality and suffering. These changes could exacerbate hunger, poverty, and social instability in many parts of the world.
Additionally, Indigenous Peoples’ rights to Free Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) are jeopardized when geoengineering projects occur in their territories without proper consultation. Often living on lands that are considered prime sites for geoengineering projects, Indigenous communities might face unilateral decisions that alter their environment without due process or consent. This infringement on human rights mandates strict governance to ensure that marginalized communities are protected and their voices are heard. The implementation of geoengineering without comprehensive ethical and legal safeguards could lead to violations of multiple human rights, including the right to a clean and healthy environment, the right to life, and the rights to food and water.
Existing International Governance
The United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD)
Since 2010, the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) has imposed a de facto moratorium on geoengineering, prohibiting these activities unless there is conclusive scientific justification and comprehensive evaluation of environmental and social impacts. The CBD’s decision stems from the understanding that geoengineering holds unknown and potentially severe risks. This ban has been reaffirmed in subsequent years, reflecting ongoing concerns about the potential for widespread ecological and social harm. The CBD’s focus remains on preserving biodiversity and maintaining balance within ecosystems rather than risking their stability through large-scale climatic interventions.
Under the CBD, only controlled, small-scale scientific research is permitted. This research must adhere to rigorous criteria, including thorough environmental impact assessments and steps to prevent transboundary harm. These stringent rules ensure that even limited geoengineering activities do not inadvertently cause significant damage to the environment or human communities. By demanding such high levels of precaution and oversight, the CBD aims to manage any geoengineering research within a framework that prioritizes ecological integrity and social responsibility. There is also a strong emphasis on stopping such projects if any detrimental effects become evident, showcasing a commitment to the precautionary principle.
The London Convention/London Protocol (LC/LP)
The London Convention/London Protocol (LC/LP) governs pollution and dumping at sea, and since 2008, it has extended its rules to include marine geoengineering. This move was crucial to address specific geoengineering practices that could severely impact marine ecosystems. Starting in 2008, the LC/LP has banned activities like ocean fertilization and other marine interventions such as biomass cultivation, ocean alkalinity enhancement, marine cloud brightening, and microbubbles. These protocols were established to prevent the considerable and potentially irreversible damage that such interventions could inflict on the ocean environment and its biodiversity.
Legitimate scientific research under the LC/LP is strictly controlled, ensuring that these activities are not driven by commercial purposes. Only scientific inquiries that adhere to stringent environmental safety and health standards are allowed, ensuring minimal risk to the marine environment. This aligns with a precautionary approach to governance, ensuring that the unpredictable adverse effects of marine geoengineering are avoided. By requiring comprehensive environmental assessments and limiting research to non-commercial objectives, the LC/LP collaborates with global governance frameworks to prevent the chances of ecological mishaps that could arise from marine geoengineering endeavors.
Legal and Human Rights Obligations
The Precautionary Principle
Enshrined in the UN’s Rio Declaration, the precautionary principle mandates that actions with potential severe or irreversible harm should be avoided when scientific uncertainty exists. Geoengineering, with its unpredictable outcomes and far-reaching impacts, exemplifies a scenario where this principle is critically relevant and must be applied. This principle is employed to ensure that humanity acts conservatively in the face of scientific ambiguity, especially when the stakes involve global climate systems, public health, and long-term sustainability. The potential for severe and irreversible harm necessitates that all geoengineering projects undergo rigorous scrutiny before any deployment.
Potential transboundary harm from geoengineering techniques is a significant concern. Efforts to manipulate the climate in one region could produce unexpected and detrimental effects in other parts of the world. Disruptive effects on global weather patterns could lead to massive societal impacts, such as altering monsoon cycles in Asia, which millions of farmers depend on for irrigation. The interconnected nature of Earth’s atmosphere and oceans means that local geoengineering actions can have global repercussions. These factors highlight the pressing necessity for a precautionary approach to any geoengineering activity, ensuring that we do not prejudge their safety or efficacy.
The Role of ITLOS and Human Rights Violations
The International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) has underscored that geoengineering activities that introduce pollutants into marine environments violate the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). This adds another layer of legal restriction to geoengineering practices, specifically those involving the ocean. Geoengineering interventions in marine environments can result in pollutant discharge, leading to significant ecological disturbance and potential violations of international maritime law. UN conventions serve to maintain the health of marine ecosystems, and any geoengineering that compromises them must be cautiously evaluated and likely prohibited under these legal frameworks.
Geoengineering also risks violating several human rights, including the right to a healthy environment, the right to life and health, and the rights of Indigenous Peoples. Climate interventions have the potential to cause disproportionate effects on marginalized communities, who might lack the resources to adapt to or mitigate the impacts of these projects. Vulnerable populations are often the hardest hit by climatic anomalies, and large-scale geoengineering could exacerbate these inequalities. This demands stringent global governance to protect these rights and ensure fair treatment for all. Establishing comprehensive regulatory measures to oversee geoengineering ensures that recipient populations, and not just the interests of developers, are safeguarded against the unpredictable effects of these controversial technologies.
The Proliferation of Experiments and Governance Challenges
Increasing Geoengineering Trials
Despite the existing international regulations designed to govern and limit geoengineering activities, there has been a notable increase in proposed geoengineering trials over the past few years, driven largely by voluntary carbon markets and the promise of carbon offsets. These markets and the demand for carbon sequestration solutions often create an urgent push for technological fixes, sometimes overlooking the long-term cross-border implications of such geoengineering efforts. This trend threatens to undermine existing regulations and enable potentially harmful experimentation by advancing these projects without the necessary safeguards and comprehensive impact assessments.
The 2024 UN Climate Conference (COP29) controversially endorsed a carbon market mechanism that could potentially allow trading of greenhouse gas removals. This mechanism has raised serious concerns among environmentalists and policymakers about the implications for geoengineering governance. By permitting the trading of carbon credits obtained from geoengineering initiatives, this endorsement might incentivize large-scale, unregulated experimentation. The concern is that financial interests could override ecological and social precautions, leading to the validation of geoengineering as a climate solution without a thorough understanding of its risks or long-term effectiveness.
The Call for a Non-Use Agreement
Geoengineering involves manipulating the Earth’s climate on a large scale and is often suggested as a way to address climate change. While this might seem like an appealing solution, it comes with considerable challenges and dangers. The implementation of geoengineering technologies could have severe adverse effects on biodiversity, human rights, and the global environment. For instance, altering weather patterns could disrupt ecosystems and harm wildlife, while shifts in climate may lead to resource disputes and negatively impact communities around the world.
Moreover, there’s a misconception that geoengineering is an unregulated field with no legal frameworks governing its use. In reality, existing international laws and treaties already provide a strong framework to prevent and limit the application of these technologies. These regulations are designed to protect the planet and its inhabitants from potential risks and ensure the responsible stewardship of the environment.
The fact that geoengineering poses such significant risks emphasizes the need for cautious and well-considered approaches. Instead of focusing solely on technological solutions that could lead to unforeseen consequences, it’s crucial to continue prioritizing sustainable practices and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. This balanced approach will help mitigate climate change without jeopardizing the delicate balance of our global ecosystem.
