12 Oct 2011: Interview

Thinking the Unthinkable:
Engineering Earth’s Climate

A U.S. panel has called for a concerted effort to study proposals to manipulate the climate to slow global warming — a heretical notion among some environmentalists. In an interview with Yale Environment 360, Jane C. S. Long, the group’s chairwoman, explains why we need to know more about the possibilities and perils of geoengineering.

Jane C. S. Long, associate director-at-large of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California, is convinced that the only sensible way to combat climate change is to work toward “a zero-emission energy system as fast as possible.” But as chairwoman of the Bipartisan Policy Center’s 18-member task force on geoengineering, the hydrologist and energy expert realized two fundamental things: that the world has still not come to its senses on global warming, and that science would be remiss if it didn’t consider the possibility that CO2 emissions will continue to soar for decades.

This scenario lies at the heart of a report issued last week by the task force, composed of noted experts in climate science, social science, and foreign policy. It called for a comprehensive study of geoengineering options — including removing CO2 from the atmosphere and reflecting solar energy back into space — in case the Earth’s climate crosses certain tipping points, such as a mass release of methane from the Arctic that would drastically warm the planet.

Jane Long
Jane Long
The report drew sharp criticism from some climate activists, who accused the task force of trying to put a positive marketing spin on doomsday technologies by labeling them efforts at “climate remediation.” But Long and her colleagues say it is best to be well informed about geoengineering options should they one day be needed. “Everyone I know who works on this is scared to death of this stuff,” Long said in an interview with Yale Environment 360 senior editor Fen Montaigne. “People aren’t doing this because they think, ‘Oh whoopee! We can change the Earth!’ They’re doing it because they just don’t see any progress [on CO2 emissions] and it just seems to be getting worse and they want options on the table.”

Yale Environment 360: What factors led the task force to the conclusion that it was time for the U.S. government to take a serious look at whether geoengineering, or climate remediation, was possible or advisable?

Jane Long: Number one, of course, is the fact that we’re still producing greenhouse gases, and they are getting to be at a dangerous level and they’re going higher and nobody really knows what’s going to happen. The risks seem to be very large and there’s a strong sense that even if we were by some magic wand able to stop emitting tomorrow, we still have a problem with a lot of unknowns. So in the long run the chance that we would hit something that was very, very difficult for both humans and ecosystems to be able to handle successfully was significant. And we felt it was prudent to start doing research. There are other factors, such as other countries beginning to look at this. Certainly the UK has and it behooves the United States to be a member of this group that’s looking at it, rather than on the sidelines and just having to accept what other people do. There was definitely not a sense that we should get ready to deploy these things right now. We have to consider it, but we’re not planning to do it. So the idea is just really to become informed.

e360: Were you driven by a sense that these geoengineering schemes have not been subject to rigorous, coordinated studies?

Long: Absolutely. What we thought was that we knew very, very little
It’s my guess that pretty much everything that’s been prominently discussed to date will be thrown away.”
about whether these technologies could be effective, whether they were advisable, and whether they were even doable, and we were only at the very beginning of understanding that and that it would take a coordinated program by government research to get there. You weren’t going to get there on the margins. You are going to have to do a coordinated, focused program.

e360: One thing you make very clear is that by far the preference of the people on the panel is to lower, or mitigate, greenhouse gas emissions. But given what’s happening now — we had records emissions in 2010, China and India are booming, the U.S. is not making a lot of progress — are you optimistic that the world is going to get its act together in the next 10 or 20 years to really start lowering CO2 emissions?

Long: I think we will start, but we won’t necessarily do it in time. I’m afraid it’s going to become absolutely obvious that we have to do it. And we will start doing it for a variety of reasons. But will it change in time? I have to admit to a certain amount of pessimism. I don’t think we will avoid some of the really difficult impacts of this.

e360: That leads to a much quoted part of your report, which was that geoengineering schemes may have to be tried if the climate system reaches a tipping point, an emergency situation. What kind of tipping points did some of the scientists have in mind that might speed up the necessity to consider climate remediation?

Long: Certainly methane issues in the Arctic and positive feedbacks in the Arctic. Also positive feedbacks that would change rainfall patterns dramatically and threaten food supplies. There are some perfect storms out there where the food supply and water supply available to humans is dramatically changed and at the same time population growth accelerates. So I think what we felt was it wasn’t really possible to predict these things, but the possibility of them could not be denied.

e360: Among those was the potential impact of ocean acidification on fisheries and marine life?

Long: Sure. And of course some of the technologies that are being thought about simply don’t help that. I think that the situation now in the field of geoengineering — it’s my guess and only a guess — is that pretty much everything that’s been prominently discussed to date will be thrown away. And that what will happen as we begin to study this is we’ll begin to find new and better ideas and it will take decades to sort through what might really be something you want to try if we absolutely had to. It’s very likely that the things we’re considering right now will not be the ones that we end up considering in 10 years.

e360: There was an interesting comment in the report concerning tipping points, that science to date has in fact underestimated some of the physical impacts taking place, such as the rate of melting Arctic Ocean ice.

Long: Absolutely. I mean [Harvard atmospheric chemist] Jim Anderson was on our committee and he was the most articulate about this issue. We’re not even tracking what’s actually happening the way we ought to be
If you reach these tipping points, it’s conceivable that mitigation won’t even make any difference anymore.”
tracking it. We have the potential for the release of huge amounts of methane gas, but we have no methane observation system in the Arctic. And he points out that if a small percentage of the methane locked up in the Arctic were released every year, it would overwhelm, by a factor of ten, all emissions due to energy. If you reach one of these tipping points, it’s conceivable that mitigation won’t even make any difference anymore. And that is the nightmare scenario.

e360: And therefore you have to have in your quiver some geoengineering weapons, assuming you understand what they might do?

Long: Right. I mean the best way to solve a problem is not to have it. The best way to solve this problem is to mitigate as fast as we can manage. We should be talking about how we can get to a zero emission energy system as fast as possible. That’s what the climate science tells you the context should be. The discussion about saying, “Well we’re going to reduce by 10 percent or 20 percent”— it doesn’t really jibe with what the problem is. The problem is how fast can we go to zero and then probably below zero. Believe me, I know how hard it’s going to be. Even if we had the will tomorrow to do it, it would not be easy. So the next arrow in the quiver is we know some areas are going to flood, we know we are going to have more forest fires, we know we’re going to have more droughts. And how are you going to better manage these phenomena? And the last and the scariest is we’re going to intentionally manage the planet so that climate change doesn’t destroy us.

e360: Can you in a general way talk about the overall risks, costs, and limitations of trying to engineer the climate?

Long: It’s a huge spectrum of issues that vary very much by the technique and approach that you’re talking about. As [Harvard physicist] David Keith pointed out, these solar radiation management techniques are so amazing
The last and scariest option is that we’re going to intentionally manage the planet so that it doesn’t destroy us.”
because it’s conceivable that you can do them for literally billions of dollars a year — peanuts in the scale of things, and you could significantly change the temperature of the Earth that way. So you have the possibility of being able to do it. You have some information about some natural phenomena like the eruption of Mount Pinatubo, which spewed a lot of sulfur aerosols into the atmosphere and cooled the Earth by a couple of degrees for a couple of years. But there are three pieces here — whether it’s effective, whether it’s advisable, and whether you can actually do it.

We can think of a lot of ways to deliver particles to the stratosphere at concentrations that would be sufficient to reflect enough radiation to make a difference. We think it would be effective because we have some information from natural phenomena, but it might be very, very inadvisable. And the scariest thing about this particular type of technology is that it might be very effective and is potentially very doable, but someone might decide to do it out of desperation when other parts of the world were not really in favor of doing it because they have real concerns about unintended consequences. So it has implications for international relations that are very important, and that is why it is very important that we begin to work with other countries so that we jointly discover the pitfalls and possible benefits of these technologies so that they are not used willy-nilly by a desperate nation.

Second, other kinds of technologies, such as carbon removal technologies, have a very wonderful characteristic in that they remove the source of the problem, but they’re very slow and can be very expensive and when you deploy them at scale they could have some pretty serious environmental implications that would need to be evaluated very carefully. And it could cost hundreds and hundreds of dollars a ton to remove carbon from the atmosphere. And then when you have removed it, you still have to do something with it. If you store it underground or dispose of it in the deep ocean, this is where your impacts are going to come from.

e360: Do you think it would be exceedingly difficult to get some sort of unified global action to reduce incoming solar radiation or pull C02 out of the atmosphere?

Long: To do that in a way that was consistent with international consensus seems to me to be nearly impossible. I think it’s very unlikely that we would in an intentional way move to global methods because the governance issues will become extremely difficult to overcome. And it’ll also very
With the possibility of people becoming very desperate, it’s better to know more.”
difficult to know that it’s really the right thing to do. A lot depends on how desperate people begin to feel. And that I just don’t know. But I do know one thing — it’s better not to be ignorant. With the possibility of people becoming very desperate, it’s better to know more. I do think what is very likely to happen is regional intervention, where a country could decide it just can’t take any more of these floods, these droughts, these fires. These countries might try to do something to perturb the local climate if they can figure out a way.

e360: You’re recommending a focused and systematic program of research on climate remediation. What does that mean in the United States? Which agencies or laboratories might be involved?

Long: That really caused us a lot of struggle because there is no one place to go, no place in government where environmental sciences, social sciences, and the humanities all meet. So we were pragmatic in the sense of, “Here’s the government you’ve got, what’s the best way to use it to its best advantage?” The most important thing we recommended is an advisory commission that would deal with the problem of both governance and risk-based decisions of whether or not you should go ahead with research, dealing with issues like public engagement, transparency, interaction with the similar bodies doing this work in other nations. Somebody has to have an overview. There is a tremendous tension between the need to get some information about these technologies so we can quickly determine if there are any ideas that have merit, and the need to have public engagement and transparent risk management of research so that we can make good decisions about using them.

If you just battle ahead without taking some time to do public engagement, you’re going to end up doing what the Brits are doing right now, which is funding some geoengineering research [to spray aerosols into the atmosphere], sending the scientists out in the field to deal with the public, and then having to postpone the whole project because they just mismanaged it. So we feel that’s a very good example about how not to run it, that it should be done in a much more deliberative way. It shouldn’t just be science. It should be social science and law and humanities and members of the public that are debating about how we move forward, and then in the future if there is anything that we think would be a good idea to do, you are in a position to use the products of your research. A secret project in the back room is just the absolute wrong idea.

One of the first things the advisory commission could do would be to say, “Here is a bunch of all-indoor research and the government can proceed and you can get going.” At the same time, this commission would begin its own learning process on how to govern stuff that was outside of that zone.

e360: Why do you think it is so important that the U.S. take a leading global role in this research effort?

Long: Well I guess as a citizen of the U.S. I would rather have us be
I think the U.S. should take the leadership in building norms of behavior around this research.”
engaged than having to accept other countries’ interpretations of what is the right thing to do. I’m pretty unhappy with what the Brits have done right now in terms of how they’re managing this experiment. I think we should take the leadership in building norms of behavior around geoengineering research.

e360: And you would envision in this research phase reaching out to other nations in Europe, to China and India, etc., to involve some of their government agencies or scientists?

Long: Yes. And reach out to them through science, not through diplomacy. Leading with cooperation in the sciences is the best way to develop the norms of behavior that we’re looking for.

e360: Did you at times feel like you were a scientist who was in a scene from some futuristic Mad Max movie where you’re having to even think about this kind of stuff?

Long: No. But there’s also this complete sense of frustration that we have to be thinking about this, that somehow as a species we aren’t able to recognize this horrible foible and deal with it in a rational way. But people’s needs — their financial needs, their short-term needs — seem to prevent them from factoring in their long-term interests. And that’s downright depressing. But I don’t feel that sense of science fiction because everyone I know who works on this is scared to death of this stuff. People aren’t doing this because they think, “Oh whoopee! We can change the Earth!” They’re doing it because they just don’t see any progress [on CO2 emissions] and it just seems to be getting worse and worse and they want options on the table.

One thing we didn’t talk about is a concern I have that the only people who are engaging in this issue are people belonging to groups who think there is a geoengineering conspiracy, that the government is already doing climate modification and that’s why we get all these jet contrails everywhere. I just think it’s very important to expand the discussion beyond this group, which is not extremely legitimate as representatives of concerned society. I’m very concerned that we take this beyond the conspiracy folks.

Climate Intervention Schemes
Could Be Undone by Geopolitics

Climate Intervention Schemes
Could Be Undone by Geopolitics
As global warming intensifies, demands for human manipulation of the climate system are likely to grow. But carrying out geoengineering plans could prove daunting, writes climate change professor Mike Hulme, as conflicts erupt over the unintended regional consequences and over who is entitled to deploy climate-altering technologies.
e360: I have to ask you, did you find any evidence that anyone out there — a government or individual — was already engaging in any kind of secret geoengineering research?

Long: There wasn’t anything that we know about that’s going on like that. The conspiracy theorists have a right to their opinion, but I don’t know of any evidence that would support what they think is going on.

e360: What is the reaction to the criticism that you’re using the term “climate remediation” instead of geoengioneering as spin or a marketing move to make some terrible technology seem palatable?

Long: That was kind of a surprise. I don’t think there was any motivation to make it palatable or spin it. The issue is that we thought the term geongineering doesn’t seem to refer to climate — it’s used in oilfields, in hydrology — so we wanted to have a term that would really talk about climate rather than focus on a word like geoengineering that is used for so many other things that it’s not precise. Members also felt that the term “engineering” was misleading because we would never be able to design a new climate with a perfectly predictable outcome. It’s in the report that not everyone on the panel agreed [on the term], and I really don’t think it should be the thing that gets everybody worked up about the report. A lot of people thought that “geoengineering” was an unfortunate choice of words, and that maybe we should try to do something about the name at this point in time.

POSTED ON 12 Oct 2011 IN Climate Oceans Policy & Politics Policy & Politics Pollution & Health Science & Technology North America 


Aside from the obvious risk of unintended consequences, any attempts to avert climate catastrophe will do nothing to slow the rise of background levels of tropospheric ozone, which, in addition to causing epidemics of cancer, emphysema, heart disease and other fatal conditions, is killing trees at a rapidly accelerating rate.

It's completely morally bankrupt to even postulate geoengineering when the root problems that are causing ecosystem collapse - pollution and overpopulation - are ignored.

Shame on anyone who participates in these charades that will lead to mass starvation: http://witsendnj.blogspot.com/2011/10/everybody-sooner-or-later-sits-down-to.html

"The illusion of freedom will continue as long as it's profitable to continue the illusion. At the point where the illusion becomes too expensive to maintain, they will just take down the scenery, pull back the curtains, and you will see the brick wall at the back of the theater." -Frank Zappa

Posted by Gail Zawacki on 13 Oct 2011

I'm glad Yale360 did this interview. As a reporter who has written about geoengineering, I am increasingly persuaded that there will come a day when these techniques become part of the political conversation. It's only prudent for scientists, policy experts and the public to learn as much as they can so that we can make an informed decision about what to do in a climate emergency.

Posted by Marc Gunther on 13 Oct 2011

The scientific community is more comfortable talking about technofixes like geo-engineering, than about facing limits to growth.

Too many people, consuming too much per capita. That's the problem!

Posted by Philip Cafaro on 13 Oct 2011

It is insanity to even think of the "geoengineering"...let's do the political & economic engineering instead; that's feasible and realistic.

Posted by DamirB on 14 Oct 2011

I hope someone will read this comment and get it to Dr. Long as geoengineering is missing the boat of what has to be done. If we have overloads of energy and CO2 tied together to cause CC then the first point of attack ought to be figuring out how to cut the overloads. And this can be done with major added benefits by pyrolysis of our organic waste messes. Those messes are what will be overwhelming are children's futures if we do not get control of them in the very near future. Pyrolysis of them especially of biowastes would stop the natural biodegrading that causes unneeded reemitting of trapped CO2 and heat energy. Other major benefits would include generating renewable energy via the fuel fraction expelled in pyrolysis and via the using of hot charcoal formed to generated steam in cooling. BUT the much bigger benefits arise from the destroying of germs, drugs and most toxics (A few of them need to be trapped out from the expelled fuel mix.) so that they will not be escaping to cost mega bucks in possible costly health, even life threatening or worse, events. The present mishandling of organic wastes costs billions of $, and yet we keep have health exposure events with Listeria, E.Coli, Salmonella etc, and we have problems of release of ozone depletors from chlorine disinfecting at sewage treatment.

WHY waste time and money on all but useless geoengineering that will try to deflect sun light energy that is needed by plants to take up some of the CO2 overload? Does anyone see any sense in that idea? Maybe some of theses geoengineers lack the understanding of how CO2 get taken up by plants.

I have posted previously on e360 and elsewhere(NYTimes Green Blog in case someone wants some aore details) about making our biowastes into a resource to get control of CC and more. To prevent our descendants from being overwhelmed by our organic waste messes, especially the biowastes, we need to recognize that we can make them into a resource to recovery billions of $$$ now being wasted on mishandling the wastes to lose the energy in them while ending up spreading various health hazards.

With continued lack of action on these waste messes, Yale students may soon find those hazards overwhelming them and their lives, So I hope that they will raise questions about what is happening with our organic wastes messes and call for making them into a resource to get control of CC and more.

Dr. J. Singmaster, Environmental Chemist, Ret.
Fremont, CA

Posted by James Singmaster, Ph.D. on 16 Oct 2011

If excess CO2 is our problem, why are scientists even considering blocking sunlight from the earth? Plants need and take CO2 out of the atmosphere to perform photosynthesis. They need direct sunlight to perform photosythesis. Why would any scientist in their right mind consider blocking sunlight from the earth. These Dr. Strangeloves want to do this soooo baaad. There ulterior motive is to control the weather of the planet. They have caused and are causing the problems we are having now with their weather modification and H.A.A.R.P. activities.

Posted by Vivian Warkentin on 17 Oct 2011

Too many people, consuming too much per capita. That's the problem. It is insanity to even think of the "geo engineering"...let's do the political & economic engineering instead; that's feasible and realistic.

Posted by HTS3371D on 18 Oct 2011

We have to be prepared. Don't blame Jane C.S. Long for looking at possible mitigation as in, by studying it she's betraying the environment. As she hints, ocean acidification is a much knottier problem than temperature rise or melting of the glaciers, for which there are feasible geoengineering approaches.

Posted by Roger Faulkner on 19 Oct 2011

Comments have been closed on this feature.



Solar Geoengineering: Weighing
Costs of Blocking the Sun’s Rays

With prominent scientists now calling for experiments to test whether pumping sulfates into the atmosphere could safely counteract global warming, critics worry that the world community may be moving a step closer to deploying this controversial technology.

Creating Clouds in the Lab
To Better Understand Climate

Scientists are conducting a lab experiment to help solve a key riddle: the role of clouds in climate change. In an interview with Yale Environment 360, research leader Jasper Kirkby discusses the mysteries of clouds and why it’s important to know if clouds are contributing to global warming.

Rethinking Carbon Dioxide:
From a Pollutant to an Asset

Three startup companies led by prominent scientists are working on new technologies to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. The scientific community is skeptical, but these entrepreneurs believe the process of CO2 removal can eventually be profitable and help cool an overheating planet.

Climate Intervention Schemes
Could Be Undone by Geopolitics

As global warming intensifies, demands for human manipulation of the climate system are likely to grow. But carrying out geoengineering plans could prove daunting, as conflicts erupt over the unintended regional consequences of climate intervention and over who is entitled to deploy climate-altering technologies.

A Hard Look at the Perils and
Potential of Geoengineering

The Asilomar conference on geoengineering had been touted as a potentially historic event. What emerged, however, were some unexpected lessons about the possibilities and pitfalls of manipulating the Earth’s climate to offset global warming.


MORE IN Interviews

Republican Who Led EPA Urges
Confronting Trump on Climate

by christian schwägerl
William K. Reilly, a Republican and one-time head of the EPA, is dismayed that a climate change skeptic has been named to lead his former agency. But in a Yale e360 interview, he insists environmental progress can be made despite resistance from the Trump administration.

How Costa Rica Is Moving
Toward a Green Economy

by diane toomey
With nearly all its electricity generated from renewables, Costa Rica has now set its sights on decarbonizing the transportation sector. In an interview with Yale Environment 360, green-energy activist Monica Araya explains how her country can wean itself entirely off fossil fuels.

The Legacy of the Man Who
Changed Our View of Nature

by diane toomey
The 19th-century German scientist Alexander von Humboldt popularized the concept that the natural world is interconnected. In a Yale e360 interview, biographer Andrea Wulf explains how Humboldt’s vision helped create modern environmentalism.

From Obama’s Top Scientist,
Words of Caution on Climate

by elizabeth kolbert
As President Obama’s chief science adviser, John Holdren has been instrumental in developing climate policy. In an interview with Yale e360, Holdren talks about the urgency of the climate challenge and why he hopes the next administration will not abandon efforts to address it.

An Unusually Warm Arctic Year:
Sign of Future Climate Turmoil?

by fen montaigne
This year will almost certainly go down as the warmest on record in the Arctic, with autumn temperatures soaring 36 degrees F above normal. In a Yale e360 interview, climatologist Jennifer Francis explains why a swiftly warming Arctic may have profound effects on global weather.

Are Trees Sentient Beings?
Certainly, Says German Forester

by richard schiffman
In his bestselling book, The Hidden Life of Trees, Peter Wohlleben argues that to save the world’s forests we must first recognize that trees are “wonderful beings” with innate adaptability, intelligence, and the capacity to communicate with — and heal — other trees.

At Standing Rock, A Battle
Over Fossil Fuels and Land

by katherine bagley
The Native American-led protest against the Dakota Access pipeline has gained global attention. In an e360 interview, indigenous expert Kyle Powys Whyte talks about the history of fossil fuel production on tribal lands and the role native groups are playing in fighting climate change.

The Moth Snowstorm: Finding
True Value in Nature’s Riches

by roger cohn
Journalist Michael McCarthy has chronicled the loss of wildlife in his native Britain and globally. In an interview with Yale Environment 360, he talks about why he believes a new defense of the natural world is needed – one based on the joy and spiritual connection it provides for humans.

What’s Killing Native Birds in
The Mountain Forests of Kauai?

by diane toomey
Biologist Eben Paxton is sounding the alarm about the catastrophic collapse of native bird populations on the Hawaiian island of Kauai. His group's research has uncovered the culprit: disease-carrying mosquitoes that have invaded the birds' mountain habitat.

Exploring How and Why
Trees ‘Talk’ to Each Other

by diane toomey
Ecologist Suzanne Simard has shown how trees use a network of soil fungi to communicate their needs and aid neighboring plants. Now she’s warning that threats like clear-cutting and climate change could disrupt these critical networks.

e360 digest
Yale Environment 360 is
a publication of the
Yale School of Forestry
& Environmental Studies


Donate to Yale Environment 360
Yale Environment 360 Newsletter



About e360
Submission Guidelines

E360 en Español

Universia partnership
Yale Environment 360 articles are now available in Spanish and Portuguese on Universia, the online educational network.
Visit the site.


e360 Digest
Video Reports


Business & Innovation
Policy & Politics
Pollution & Health
Science & Technology


Antarctica and the Arctic
Central & South America
Middle East
North America

e360 VIDEO

A look at how acidifying oceans could threaten the Dungeness crab, one of the most valuable fisheries on the U.S. West Coast.
Watch the video.


The latest
from Yale
Environment 360
is now available for mobile devices at e360.yale.edu/mobile.


An aerial view of why Europe’s per capita carbon emissions are less than 50 percent of those in the U.S.
View the photos.

e360 VIDEO

An indigenous tribe’s deadly fight to save its ancestral land in the Amazon rainforest from logging.
Learn more.

e360 VIDEO

Food waste
An e360 video series looks at the staggering amount of food wasted in the U.S. – a problem with major human and environmental costs.
Watch the video.

e360 VIDEO

Choco rainforest Cacao
Residents of the Chocó Rainforest in Ecuador are choosing to plant cacao over logging in an effort to slow deforestation.
Watch the video.

e360 VIDEO

Tribal people and ranchers join together to stop a project that would haul coal across their Montana land.
Watch the video.