Lit Rev

1

TITLE OF YOUR ESSAY 4

4

Review of Literature on Geoengineering

Your Name

Institution

Course

Professor xxxx

Month Day, Year

Review of Literature on Geoengineering

Depending on who one reads, geoengineering is either a brilliant, daring, genius idea that will save the planet from catastrophe, or a terrible, foolish, dangerous idea that can’t possibly work and that may even make climate change worse. Those who favor geoengineering, even in its more radical solar iteration, consider themselves realists. Based on the modest gains made at the Glasgow Summit, for instance, they conclude that it is highly unlikely that the world will be able to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to preindustrial levels fast enough to prevent a rise in temperature that will result in ever more calamitous droughts, floods, fires, and hurricanes. Those who disdain geoengineering believe they are the ones who are realistic, and that pinning one’s hopes on a futuristic scheme such as solar geoengineering is a terrible idea. One’s position on geoengineering, therefore, depends on one’s vision of the likely impacts of climate change as well as which responses to climate change are morally acceptable.

Points of Agreement

The one point that all sources agree on is that climate change is real, and the need for strong action is urgent. Keith (2007) and McCormick (2013) both point out that the US government has known about this issue going back to at least the 1960s, and assumed that some form of "raising the albedo, or reflectivity, of the Earth” (McCormick 2013) was the most logical and simple solution. In other words, the idea of solar engineering is not new. Similarly, Kalina and Schneider (2020) acknowledge the need to act, though they seem to stop short of endorsing the use of solar geoengineering, instead focusing most of their documentary on less radical solutions, such as planting vast numbers of trees. Pamplany et al (2020) present a review of literature on the ethics of geoengineering and do not consciously pick a side, but they note that many of the sources they found on the topic acknowledge that there is a climate emergency.

Points of Disagreement

The greatest area of dispute is on the issue of solar geoengineering, which consists of attempting to reduce the Earth’s temperature by deflecting sunlight. Pamplany et al (2020) highlight this controversy in their review of literature, noting that while some researchers believe that solar geoengineering may be a lesser, but necessary evil, many others believe it to be unfair to future generations, unjust to those in developing nations, and generally unworkable. Keith (2007) acknowledges the ethical minefield that solar geoengineering presents, but nevertheless argues that it may still be necessary for the sake of saving humanity. Kalina and Schneider (2020) appear to put carbon geoengineering techniques in the most favorable light and believe that solar geoengineering is too radical at this point to be implemented anytime soon.

Outliers

The one source that most would consider an outlier would be Keith (2007), in the sense that his TED Talk was initially met with great skepticism. Because Keith comes closest to an outright endorsement and defense of solar geoengineering, his point of view diverges most sharply with the others, who take a more qualified, cautious approach. Additionally, Quinn (2020) is an outlier because the source is not about geoengineering, but about ethics in general. Its purpose is simply to provide support for the discussion of ethical schools of thought in relation to geoengineering.

Dubious Assertions

Those who Pamplany et al (2020) cite as arguing that solar geoengineering is beyond the pale and therefore should not even be discussed make the most dubious argument of all. Conducting research on a topic does not bind society to implementation. By researching all othe different ways to deal with climate change, humanity is more likely to come to the best solution, or more likely, combination of solutions. An idea should never be dismissed out of hand just because it seems strange.

Change Over Time

According to Pamplany et al (2020), one idea that has changed over time is the argument that solar geoengineering is not worth considering. In addition, this article points out that the nature of research has evolved from thinking of geoengineering as an idea, to more specific implementation of ideas, such as marine cloud brightening. In McCormick’s timeline article (2013), one major change over time has been that some scientists from the distant past thought that it would be good for the climate if the temperature increased, believing that warmer temperatures would support longer growing seasons and increase agricultural output.This idea is obviously no longer in favor.

To conclude, the debate over geoengineering, especially solar geoengineering, is likely to rage on for the foreseeable future. Nevertheless, as time goes on, and as it appears that mitigation efforts are not having the desired effect, it seems likely that all forms of geoengineering will be “on the table” for serious consideration.

References

Kalina, B. & Schneider, J. (Directors). (2020, December 28). Can we cool the planet? [Film]. PBS. https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/video/can-we-cool-the-planet/

Keith, D. (2007). A critical look at geoengineering against climate change [Video]. TED Conferences. https://www.ted.com/talks/david_keith_a_critical_look_at_geoengineering_against_climate_change?language=en

McCormick, T. (2013, January 3). Geoengineering: A short history. Foreign Affairs. https://foreignpolicy.com/2013/09/03/geoengineering-a-short-history/

Pamplany, A., Gordijn, B., & Brereton, P. (2020). The ethics of geoengineering: A literature review. Science & Engineering Ethics, 26(6), 3069–3119. https://doi-org.devry.idm.oclc.org/10.1007/s11948-020-00258-6

Quinn, M. (2020). Ethics for the Information Age (8th ed.). Pearson.

1

TITLE OF YOUR ESSAY 4

4

Review of Literature on Geoengineering

Your Name

Institution

Course

Professor xxxx

Month Day, Year

Review of Literature on Geoengineering

Depending on who one reads, geoengineering is either a brilliant, daring, genius idea that will save the planet from catastrophe, or a terrible, foolish, dangerous idea that can’t possibly work and that may even make climate change worse. Those who favor geoengineering, even in its more radical solar iteration, consider themselves realists. Based on the modest gains made at the Glasgow Summit, for instance, they conclude that it is highly unlikely that the world will be able to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to preindustrial levels fast enough to prevent a rise in temperature that will result in ever more calamitous droughts, floods, fires, and hurricanes. Those who disdain geoengineering believe they are the ones who are realistic, and that pinning one’s hopes on a futuristic scheme such as solar geoengineering is a terrible idea. One’s position on geoengineering, therefore, depends on one’s vision of the likely impacts of climate change as well as which responses to climate change are morally acceptable.

Points of Agreement

The one point that all sources agree on is that climate change is real, and the need for strong action is urgent. Keith (2007) and McCormick (2013) both point out that the US government has known about this issue going back to at least the 1960s, and assumed that some form of "raising the albedo, or reflectivity, of the Earth” (McCormick 2013) was the most logical and simple solution. In other words, the idea of solar engineering is not new. Similarly, Kalina and Schneider (2020) acknowledge the need to act, though they seem to stop short of endorsing the use of solar geoengineering, instead focusing most of their documentary on less radical solutions, such as planting vast numbers of trees. Pamplany et al (2020) present a review of literature on the ethics of geoengineering and do not consciously pick a side, but they note that many of the sources they found on the topic acknowledge that there is a climate emergency.

Points of Disagreement

The greatest area of dispute is on the issue of solar geoengineering, which consists of attempting to reduce the Earth’s temperature by deflecting sunlight. Pamplany et al (2020) highlight this controversy in their review of literature, noting that while some researchers believe that solar geoengineering may be a lesser, but necessary evil, many others believe it to be unfair to future generations, unjust to those in developing nations, and generally unworkable. Keith (2007) acknowledges the ethical minefield that solar geoengineering presents, but nevertheless argues that it may still be necessary for the sake of saving humanity. Kalina and Schneider (2020) appear to put carbon geoengineering techniques in the most favorable light and believe that solar geoengineering is too radical at this point to be implemented anytime soon.

Outliers

The one source that most would consider an outlier would be Keith (2007), in the sense that his TED Talk was initially met with great skepticism. Because Keith comes closest to an outright endorsement and defense of solar geoengineering, his point of view diverges most sharply with the others, who take a more qualified, cautious approach. Additionally, Quinn (2020) is an outlier because the source is not about geoengineering, but about ethics in general. Its purpose is simply to provide support for the discussion of ethical schools of thought in relation to geoengineering.

Dubious Assertions

Those who Pamplany et al (2020) cite as arguing that solar geoengineering is beyond the pale and therefore should not even be discussed make the most dubious argument of all. Conducting research on a topic does not bind society to implementation. By researching all othe different ways to deal with climate change, humanity is more likely to come to the best solution, or more likely, combination of solutions. An idea should never be dismissed out of hand just because it seems strange.

Change Over Time

According to Pamplany et al (2020), one idea that has changed over time is the argument that solar geoengineering is not worth considering. In addition, this article points out that the nature of research has evolved from thinking of geoengineering as an idea, to more specific implementation of ideas, such as marine cloud brightening. In McCormick’s timeline article (2013), one major change over time has been that some scientists from the distant past thought that it would be good for the climate if the temperature increased, believing that warmer temperatures would support longer growing seasons and increase agricultural output.This idea is obviously no longer in favor.

To conclude, the debate over geoengineering, especially solar geoengineering, is likely to rage on for the foreseeable future. Nevertheless, as time goes on, and as it appears that mitigation efforts are not having the desired effect, it seems likely that all forms of geoengineering will be “on the table” for serious consideration.

References

Kalina, B. & Schneider, J. (Directors). (2020, December 28). Can we cool the planet? [Film]. PBS. https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/video/can-we-cool-the-planet/

Keith, D. (2007). A critical look at geoengineering against climate change [Video]. TED Conferences. https://www.ted.com/talks/david_keith_a_critical_look_at_geoengineering_against_climate_change?language=en

McCormick, T. (2013, January 3). Geoengineering: A short history. Foreign Affairs. https://foreignpolicy.com/2013/09/03/geoengineering-a-short-history/

Pamplany, A., Gordijn, B., & Brereton, P. (2020). The ethics of geoengineering: A literature review. Science & Engineering Ethics, 26(6), 3069–3119. https://doi-org.devry.idm.oclc.org/10.1007/s11948-020-00258-6

Quinn, M. (2020). Ethics for the Information Age (8th ed.). Pearson.