They say Macdonald but Nuclear war is under-researched and secondary
Cloudseeding tech, even though it has scientific momentum, is viewed negatively internationally---without an international framework, it will
Download 48.91 Kb.
|
2AC r5
| Cloudseeding tech, even though it has scientific momentum, is viewed negatively internationally---without an international framework, it will spark future conflicts.
Cassandra Torres 20. a fifth-year Environment & Sustainability major at UBC, a former editor of Trial Six. “The Atmosphere: The New Frontier of (Climate) Geopolitics” Trail 6: Undergraduate Journal Of Geography, Volume 15, 2020-2021, P56-60. UBC Department of Geography. https://trailsix.geog.ubc.ca/files/2021/04/TRAIL-SIX-Vol-15-Assembled-2.pdf#page=55 Current Climate Geopolitics
Nonetheless, commitments made in the Paris Agreement are not ambitious and realistic enough to keep us below a 2 degrees increase in global temperature, which scientists state is essential to avoid irreversible damage (IPCC, 2019). The latest international negotiations have failed and extreme weather events have further increased in intensity and frequency (Oberthur, 2016). More people are being displaced by ‘natural disasters’, and governments have identified that unmitigated climate change could have severe consequences for international security (Baskin, 2019). Geoengineering and its Geopolitics As the window to stay below 2 degrees Celsius of pre-industrial level closes, technologies such as solar geoengineering are receiving increasing scientific and political support (Corry, 2017). Solar geoengineering involves injecting sulphur particles into the atmosphere to mimic a volcanic eruption. This would produce an albedo effect and increase the amount of incoming light being reflected thus decreasing global temperatures (Dalby, 2015; Keith 2000; Corry, 2017). The origins of climate geoengineering date back to the Cold War, where atmospheric science research was a priority for both the US and the USSR (Keith, 2000). The race to develop the technology began. At that time, the study of the atmosphere was referred to as weather control by the USA and climate and weather modification by the USSR. The USSR’s interest laid in warming Russia to access the Arctic Sea, whereas the US was concerned about precipitation enhancement (Keith 2000). Advancement in atmospheric technology did occur, and during the Vietnam War, the US carried out a cloud seeding campaign over Vietnam. The Popeye Operation entailed the manipulation of atmospheric technologies for military purposes to disrupt North Vietnamese military supplies. By flying more than 2600 sorties, the US intended to extend the monsoon season over certain regions of the Ho Chi Minh trail to cause landslides and disrupt roads. Weather modification was soon identified as a tool of warfare. Following numerous dialogues, an international treaty was signed by both the US and the USSR at the Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Techniques in 1977, banning the use of weather modification techniques for purposes of damage or destruction (Keith, 2000). It was not until the early 2000s that the exploration of geoengineering technologies was reintroduced (Baskin, 2019). Since the Pentagon’s recommendation on developing geoengineering technologies, symposiums, workshops, and undergraduate degrees on geoengineering have emerged (Baskin, 2019). One thing was made clear during the Cold War; control of the atmosphere was sought to obtain geopolitical dominance. Geoengineering today and moving forward is desirable to some governments because they increase geopolitical dominance over other nations while allowing them to continue to be economic world powers. Significant uncertainties around solar geoengineering remain, and strong opposition to the technology has been expressed internationally. Models have predicted that the implementation of solar radiation injection (SRI) could have negative consequences; evidence suggested that alterations to weather patterns could cause drought in South America, Asia, and Africa, threatening billions with starvation (Gunderson et al., 2019). The effects of geoengineering would be irreversible and, once implemented, would lock humanity into a constant reliance on sulphur injections. If SRI were to stop, its predicted temperatures would increase twice as rapidly (Scranton, 2015). If–or when–solar radiation management is implemented, it would only address the rise of global temperatures. Other current environmental problems such as ocean acidification, sea-level rise and biodiversity loss would still require global cooperation (Baskin, 2019). In addition, there are concerns over the technology’s potential to become a weapon of war (Baskins, 2019; Szerszynski, 2013; Dalby, 2015). Currently, no universally agreed upon framework exists to regulate the development and testing of geoengineering (Edney and Symons, 2014; Baskin, 2019). The need for international control on weather modification technologies has been identified since the 1960s (Keith, 2000). Still, 70 years later, an international regulatory body and policies on geoengineering have failed to materialize. Consequently, an unauthorized iron fertilization experiment was carried out by the private sector on the West Coast of Canada in 2012 (Dalby, 2015). These emerging geoengineering technologies such as SRI must come under international public control rather than national or private (for-profit or nonprofit) control. The Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Techniques should be extended using the precautionary principle to all uses susceptible of harming countries and the environment. A blanket ban on ‘at scale- experiments and development within an international commission evaluating and controlling research projects in this domain. Without an international agreement, the emergence of such technologies is likely to cause future conflicts, given their extensive global impacts (Baskins, 2019; Keith, 2000; Szerszynski, 2013; Dalby, 2015). Evidence of political tensions has begun to re-emerge. The United States National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has begun measuring aerosol levels in the atmosphere to create baseline data in order to detect when other countries start using geoengineering in secrecy (Flavelle, 2020). Unlike the previous ‘atmosphere’ race, this one will include more players seeking to develop the ‘human-saving’ technology (Edney and Symons, 2014). Engagement with solar geoengineering has been seen in the United Kingdom, Russia, Germany, France, the United States, and most recently in India and China (Baskin, 2019). Differences in attitudes towards solar geoengineering have been expressed between the developing and developed world (Baskin, 2019). The unwritten international consensus implies that geoengineering is a Plan B, and only if all things fail will solar geoengineering be considered (Corry, 2017; Edney and Symons, 2014; Gunderson et al., 2019). Despite this implicit understanding, funding for this dangerous technology continues to occur and has been increasing. As recent as October of 2020, the US Congress allocated $4 billion US dollars to NOAA for solar geoengineering research (Flavelle, 2020). Private corporations, non-profit organizations and individuals have also taken an interest in this technology. SilverLining, a non-profit organization, has recently donated $3 million to higher education institutions and research centers to advance SRI (Flavelle, 2020). Bill Gates has been a strong supporter of solar radiation management (SRM) as a technological solution and has donated more than $4.6 billion US dollars for solar geoengineering research, reviews and assessments (Vidal, 2012). He is one of the major philanthropic donors of the Stratospheric Controlled Perturbation Experiment (SCoPEx), a project that aims to improve our understanding of solar geoengineering through a number of environmental experiments (Harvard, n.d.; Keutsch, n.d.). Geoengineering arms races and militarization happens only after great power implementation.Michael D. Beevers 19. Associate Professor of Environmental Studies at Dickinson College. “Geoengineering: A new and emerging security threat?” Understanding New Security Threats, Google Books. 2019. Text box 2.1: Geoengineering Geoengineering is the deliberate large-scale intervention in the Earth's climate system, in order to moderate global warming. CDR refers to the removal carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and the storing of it underground, in the oceans or on land. One CDR technique would use an industrial to "scrub" the atmosphere, and in doing so, mechanically extract carbon dioxide. Another would "fertilize" oceans with iron sulfate to stimulate vast algal blooms that could sequester carbon from the atmosphere. Similar schemes would spread huge amounts Of lime in the oceans to increase the acidification prcxess, enhance weathering of rock, or use artificial trees to capture carbon dioxide. CDR techniques remain untested and speculative, especially in terms Of deployment on a global scale. However, with the exception Of fertilization, CDR would act on the climate in a slow and expensive manner, and the risks would be and controllable (Royal Society 2009; Humphreys 2011). SRM, by contrast, refers to the manipulation Of the Earth's inbound solar radiation. SRM technologies would reflect sunlight away from the Earth to offset the warming caused by climate change. An often-discussed technique would inject salt particles into the atmosphere to whiten clouds to increase reflectivity (Vaughan and Lenton 2011). Another scheme would inject sulfur particles into the stratosphere, thereby mimicking volcanic eruptions, to deflect sunlight back into space (Crutzen 2006). Yet another would be the deployment of thousands of mirrors or other reflective surfaces into outer space to create a massive "sunshade" that would cool the planet. Little is known about the consequences and effectiveness of SRM, but estimates that if deployed results could be achieved relatively rapidly, at reasonably low cost, using available technologies, and requiring minimal resources or territory (Kravitz et al. 2013). The downside is that SRM could drastically alter regional precipitation patterns and deplete the ozone layer (Bodansky 2011). For these reasons, SRM is the geoengineering technology believed to be the threat to security and require international governance (Lloyd and Oppenheimer 2014). Unless otherwise noted, geoengineering herein focuses on SRM. Geoengineering: An emerging threat to security? Entrepreneurs and scientists continue to speculate about geoengineering, but such technologies have not been fully designed, let alone tested or deployed. Governments have not dismissed the idea, yet none is actively encouraging or seriously researching geoengineering. As such, the security implications and international governance futures are impossible to comprehend (Corry 2017, 299). Regardless, the idea that geoengineering will pose a serious threat to the security of states and people has started to appear as a topic of discussion (Ricke et al. 2008; Victor et al. 2009; Horton 2011; Cairns 2014; Nightingale and Cairns 2014; Horton and Reynolds 2016; Corry 2017). The emergence of geoengineering raises the specter that it could serve the interests of state power or be deployed as a weapon of war. Military planners have long considered how weather could be controlled and modified to gain an advantage on the battlefield (Fleming 2012). In the late 1940s, the US funded "Project Cirrus" to increase rainfall through "cloud seeding," and during the Cold War there were substantial efforts to "weaponize" the environment in preparation for a possible World War III (Hamblin 2013). In the Vietnam War, "Operation Popeye" was introduced to increase monsoon rains and disrupt enemy supply lines (Hersh 1972). These revelations led to the Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques (ENMOD) that prohibited the "military or any other hostile use of environmental modification techniques having widespread, long lasting or severe effects as the means of destruction, damage or injury" (ENMOD 1978, Article I). The treaty was not tested due to perceptions that modifying the weather was laden with too many uncertainties coupled with a lack of renewed funding in the 1980s and 1990s (Ricke et al. 2008). Nevertheless, modifying the weather and climate for military purposes has not disappeared altogether (National Research Council 2003). House et al. (1996, 6) identified weather as a "force multiplier", and suggested that weather modification "offers the war fighter a wide range of possible options to defeat and coerce an adversary." Given the development and spread of nuclear weapons, one can well imagine a world in which controlling the weather and climate becomes a viable political and military strategy. powerful states (or a group of them) with the ability to develop and deploy geoengineering could see fit to alter environmental conditions to weaken an adversary. Faced with a security threat, states could also develop geoengineering technologies to serve as a defensive weapon or deterrent. Or, a "rogue" state could pursue geoengineering in order to threaten powerful states or gain international attention. Regardless, trying to leverage geoengineering for military purposes could backfire. First, "weaponizing" climate could produce collateral damage due to its vast unpredictability. Any state that deploys geoengineering offensively could be the target of unintended impacts, including changing precipitation or temperature patterns that could undermine its power. Second, compared to economic tools or military tactics, modifying the climate could be of comparatively little strategic value. For example, today's precision weapons, use of surveillance, or targeted sanctions might effectively modify a state's behavior without the collateral damage of geoengineering (Nightingale and Cairns 2014). Third, there is the likelihood that any military use would result in counterbalancing by other state actors. In such a scenario, a country might deploy geoengineering countermeasures to balance, or offset, the military advantages Of geoengineering, or wage war to neutralize any geoengineering threat. There is no evidence to date that powerful states are unilaterally developing geoengineering as a weapon. However, military and intelligence agencies are likely to be important funders of geoengineering technologies, which can create mistrust about intentions. Conspiracy theorists already claim that temperature spikes around the world are the result of the US deliberately interfering in the climate to produce instability (Cleek 2010). If geoengineering research should lead to major advances in knowledge and techniques relevant for weather control, it is hard to imagine that knowledge not being put to use. Geoengineering, if it develops, will be a dual use technology. In other words, if deployed for the peaceful purpose of addressing CC, geoengineering could quickly and cheaply be converted for hostile purposes with few modifications, creating an "arms race" among powerful states that could lead to proliferation of these technologies. The likelihood that geoengineering be used as an instrument of state power is plausible. But a more likely scenario is that states unilaterally develop and deploy geoengineering to address the implications of CC itself. Imagine that an unprecedented drought has gripped the US for years leading it to declare a "climate emergency" and prompting US authorities to inject sulfur particles to cool the planet. Or, perhaps, faced with rising seas that threaten virtually all of its population, Bangladesh decides to do the same thing. The problem is that one state's response to a climate emergency will have uncertain consequences for all and could be regarded as a security threat to other states. Download 48.91 Kb. Share with your friends:
|