SCIENCE sometimes produces world-threatening technologies. Thirty-five years ago, genetic engineering was in its infancy, but dangers such as the creation of new viruses were clearly visible. So the field鈥檚 top scientists headed to Asilomar in California to discuss how to regulate their work. They recognised the need to pause and think before plunging into action. The meeting has gone down in history as setting the stage for a golden era of biological research.
Last week, Asilomar hosted another meeting with epoch-marking potential. Leading researchers in geoengineering gathered to debate how best to organise a mission to save the planet from dangerous climate change (see 鈥淗acking the planet: who decides?鈥�).
The notion that we should fight global warming by firing particles into the stratosphere or placing mirrors in orbit was once seen as a distraction from the need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. But the pace of political action has been so slow, and the build-up of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere so relentless, that many scientists and environmentalists now concede it makes sense to at least begin planning for a world geoengineering project.
Advertisement
That, however, is a daunting task. Geoengineering is by definition a global project and one that will affect every one of us. It is also a huge gamble, with the 鈥溾�� looming large.
快猫短视频s鈥� instincts will be to plunge into developing the technology. That would be a mistake. If experiments begin without consultation and debate, protesters will argue that the technology is being foisted upon us.
To be a workable plan B, geoengineering will first have to gain public acceptance. That will be a tough sell. Faced with new technologies, people invariably ask: is it safe? Who will govern it? Who will benefit? With a technology powerful enough to alter the climate, those questions are likely to be asked more loudly than ever. It is easy to envisage debates about the necessity of such a scheme, worries about its consequences or rumours that it is a front for scientists or businesses to cash in on the global warming 鈥渉oax鈥�.
鈥淔aced with new technologies, the public invariably asks: is it safe? Who will govern it? Who benefits?鈥�
These possibilities must be taken seriously. As the resistance to genetically modified crops in Europe has shown, public objections have the power to halt a technology in its tracks, however irrational those concerns may appear. If that were to happen with geoengineering, our escape route would turn into a roadblock.
How can the public be wooed? Consultation is obviously part of the answer. If people feel they have had their say and have been listened to, they are more likely to accept and trust geoengineering. There are signs that scientific organisations are aware of this. The UK鈥檚 Royal Society is developing a set of guidelines for research into 鈥渟olar radiation management鈥� 鈥� the suite of technologies that can be used to reflect sunlight back into space. The society has broadened the reach of the exercise by partnering with the Academy of Sciences for the Developing World, based in Trieste, Italy. It is also asking all interested parties to attend a meeting this year.
It鈥檚 a good start, but a much broader process of consultation will be needed if people worldwide, particularly environmental groups and those representing citizens in the developing world, are to have their say. This consultation needs to be high-profile so that geoengineering, a concept that few people have currently heard of, becomes part of mainstream debate. And it must start soon.
Some environmental groups are already on board. When geoengineering began to attract attention, environmentalists hated the idea. But most of the green groups at Asilomar were not there to protest, but to participate. That is a positive development.
Legitimacy is also an issue. Geoengineering needs to be regulated by a global body with the United Nations behind it 鈥� something like the World Health Organization or, recent troubles notwithstanding, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Asilomar 1975 was important. Asilomar 2010 was even more so. Geoengineering could help us dodge catastrophe, yet must only be implemented by democratic, global consent. That鈥檚 why a long period of consultation is required. If citizens don鈥檛 have their say, they may turn against a technology that could otherwise prove to be our saviour.