In his paper Gregor Betz makes an argument for “arming the future” with geoengineering technology by investing resources into research and development of these technologies now. This argument is centered around a maximin principle showing that we can avoid potential catastrophe by doing this R&D. First I will explain his argument and responses to a few of the better objections. Then I will propose a stance that prioritizes mitigation and uses our current pace of innovation to show how we can and should wait to develop geoengineering technology.
Betz uses game theory to prove that doing R&D now into geoengineering is the best possible choice. In terms of need for the technology there are only two possible scenarios, either we need it or we don’t. There are also only two scenarios in terms of having done R&D, either we have or we haven’t. This is a great way of simplifying the problem so we can apply formal logic to it. Betz states that if we don’t need the technology, outcomes are the same; but if we do need the technology, outcomes are significantly different. In the scenario that we do need the technology it would be far better to have done R&D.
At this point Betz has shown that the worst case scenario without having done R&D is worse than the worst case with having done R&D. The next goal is to show that we should act in such a way that guarantees we will not need geoengineering and not have done the R&D. In other words he must show that the maximin principle can be applied to this situation. The maximin principle is that the right decision is one that maximizes the worst outcome (oxfordreference.com). Betz cites three conditions from the works of Gardiner and Rawls that are sufficient to justify applying the maximin principle in this case. Two of the conditions are that “The worst cases are significantly more damaging than the best cases are profitable” and “rejected alternatives involve grave risks” (Betz 482). Climate disaster is certainly a grave risk and more damaging than the best case (not doing R&D and not needing it) is profitable. The profit in the best scenario is a mere saving of time and money while the damages of climate disaster seem limitless. The other condition is that the risks can’t be accurately estimated, forcing decision makers to operate under significant uncertainty. Betz concedes that this statement would be controversial and chooses not to defend it in the paper (Betz 482). After some research this appears to be the weakest point of the argument. While there is a lot of uncertainty among climate scientists, there is consensus that the risk of total disaster is low at least in the near (next 100 years) future. One article talking about important climate related deadlines says that “Blowing through it won’t immediately plunge society into a “Mad Max”-style dystopia” (livescience.com) which is the worst case scenario used to fill the other two conditions. Betz states that while the three conditions are sufficient to justify using maximin they are not necessary to apply it. He goes on to say that the maximin principle is used to deliberate on mitigation policy and because of that it should be used in geoengineering discussions as well (Betz 483).
My response and suggestion to Betz’s argument uses this weak point and the opinion that successful mitigation is far superior to successful geoengineering to prove that we should not be investing in said R&D yet. I will also use the theory of technological singularity to argue that we probably don’t need to invest in R&D today to experience the benefits of that technology if we need it.
We can all agree, even Betz, that mitigation of climate issues is better than having to use some form of geoengineering to reverse harmful effects. What Betz fails to concede is the adverse effects that geoengineering can have on mitigation efforts. He mentions this argument and chalks it up as a mere disagreement between the two sides because the effects “can hardly be quantified” (Betz 480). One way to quantify these effects is the fact that any resources going toward geoengineering R&D could instead go toward mitigation because budgets and finances are zero-sum. Another way to estimate the effects is to look at comparable phenomena, one of the most egregious being obesity in America. Drugs and surgeries have been created that allow people to cope with the side effects of being morbidly obesity instead of fixing the health problem. To paraphrase commercials for such drugs: “don’t feel guilty about eating unhealthy food, take our drug and you won’t get heartburn (or acid reflux)”. Heartburn is a symptom of being obese similar to climate change being a symptom of a lack of climate mitigation, and obesity has become rampant in America. Some people get heartburn while perfectly healthy but I am only using the people who use the drugs to continue living an unhealthy lifestyle for this comparison. Without these symptoms the incentive to fix our problems is decreased whether we can clearly quantify it or not.
Betz could respond to this by saying that the climate equivalent to heartburn is different because it could affect everyone in the world and it is impossible to hold any one person responsible while heartburn affects one person and is clearly their responsibility. He might ask if you started getting heartburn because someone else was morbidly obese how would you feel about the drugs? While I would be inclined to take the drugs regardless of who’s responsibility the heartburn was, the best course of action would be to help the obese person improve their health. The side effects of geoengineering are also much more unknown and severe than anti heartburn medication.
The second prong of my argument is that we should wait to invest in geoengineering R&D because there is a good chance we will have the technology to geoengineer without having ever focused on it directly. The support for this is in the amount of technologies that have been “accidentally” invented, and the current rapid pace at which technology is advancing. By “accidentally” invented I mean when technology developed for one purpose is found to be extremely useful for a very different purpose. For example, the microwave oven was invented while doing R&D for radar technology. It is plausible that technology for geoengineering will be developed for a different purpose, allowing us to harness it for climate saving if needed. This claim can be supported by a widespread belief that technological singularity is approaching. “Technological singularity” is described as the point at which we have artificial intelligence that surpasses human mental capabilities. At this point R&D for everything, including geoengineering, could occur at a much faster pace. This would increase the likelihood that the technology would be accidentally developed and also allow us to wait longer until it was necessary to begin R&D. Estimates for when we will reach singularity are as early as 2045 (futurism.com). It may take much longer but I am merely using this to show how technology assists in the discovery of other technology. This is one reason we should wait to expend resources in geoengineering R&D.
As long as we have the ability to geoengineer when we need to we can avoid the drastic negative effects that Betz uses to support his argument. To argue that we need to begin R&D now Betz would need to claim that effects will be bad enough to warrant the use of geoengineering soon enough that if we don’t start R&D now it would be too late. That claim is difficult to prove which is why he needs a very high level of uncertainty in the timeline of climate change and the criteria for what is “too late”. This uncertainty could justify the use of the maximin principle on this problem but it is not there. I’m sure some people believe that geoengineering is currently warranted but the overwhelming opinion seems to be that we should still be attempting to mitigate our climate change. From some general research on climate change geoengineering it is my charitable opinion that 2050 is when negative climate effects could start warranting geoengineering. I would suggest devoting available resources toward mitigation currently but re-evaluating every few years with an open mind to geoengineering.
Keeping an open mind to geoengineering is important but devoting resources to that technology now is unnecessary and could negatively impact mitigation efforts. That being said it may only be another twenty years before it makes sense to pursue that technology. Although that is not very much time relative to the earth, that is a very large amount of time relative to technology. We may be able to successfully mitigate climate change without ever resorting to geoengineering which is the best case scenario. If we begin geoengineering research now, as Betz proposes, we could be sacrificing that possibility.
Word count: 1512
Sources:
Letzter, Rafi. “Are We Really Running Out of Time to Stop Climate Change?” LiveScience, Purch, 26 Sept. 2019, www.livescience.com/12-years-to-stop-climate-change.html.
Betz, Gregor. “The case for climate engineering research: an analysis of the ‘arm the future’ argument” Climate Change, 18 Aug. 2011.
“Maximin Principle.” Oxford Reference, www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803100141723.
Galeon, Dom. “Separating Science Fact from Science Hype: How Far off Is the Singularity?” Futurism, Futurism, 30 Jan. 2018, futurism.com/separating-science-fact-science-hype-how-far-off-singularity.