ARUN RATH, HOST:
It's ALL THINGS CONSIDERED, from NPR West. I'm Arun Rath.
In the summer of 2012, a small group, a part of the Haida people, a native community in Canada, had a problem. The salmon they rely on were disappearing. So the Haida took matters into their own hands. They partnered with an American businessman, drew up plans, and then took a boat full of iron dust into the waters off their home island.
They spread the iron dust across the water, creating a giant algae bloom. They hoped the algae would soak up carbon dioxide and bring back the fish. The reaction to the experiment was immediate and negative.
(SOUNDBITE OF NEWS MONTAGE)
UNIDENTIFIED BROADCASTER #1: It is being called the world's biggest geoengineering experiment...
UNIDENTIFIED BROADCASTER #2: A geoengineer goes rogue. This week, news broke of a massive project to try to absorb carbon in the atmosphere...
UNIDENTIFIED BROADCASTER #3: ...into the Pacific Ocean off the Canadian coast. It was described as the world's first rogue geoengineering project, an example of how the earth's fragile systems can be tampered with...
RATH: While it scared a lot of people and angered a lot of scientists, this event could be a sign of what's to come because some very mainstream scientists are saying that the climate change situation is so bad that saving life as we know it might require something radical - like shooting chemicals into the stratosphere to reflect sunlight; in essence, hacking the climate. And that's our cover story today - So It's Come To This.
(SOUNDBITE OF MUSIC)
RATH: In scientific circles, what the Haida did is called ocean fertilization. Jason McNamee is a spokesman for the group that carried out the experiment. He says the goal for the Haida people was simply to protect their livelihood.
JASON MCNAMEE: They get most of their protein straight out of the ocean. What they have noticed, over the last hundred or so years, is that the fisheries have become less predictable and less abundant.
RATH: And while it's still unclear how successful the operation was, scientifically speaking, the legal and social backlash was immediately apparent. The Canadian government condemned the dump and has launched an investigation, seizing documents and data from the headquarters of the native company. Matthew Watson is a climate scientist at the University of Bristol, and the author of the blog "The Reluctant Geoengineer."
MATTHEW WATSON: (Laughter) So this is the really knotty problem, right? So if that project had been solely about salmon, nobody would have batted an eyelid. But because it was really about geoengineering, people got very, very worried.
RATH: People get scared because a lot of these plans sound like mad-scientist schemes. Ocean fertilization is just one of a wide array of climate-engineering techniques that are out there. Technique No. 1: Suck the carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere and put it somewhere else. Again, Matthew Watson.
WATSON: One might do that by planting lots of trees; or setting up machines that draw down CO2 and store it somewhere, or generating ocean fertilization where you add iron to the ocean, and that generates phytoplankton, which locks up carbon dioxide. The whole point is that you're trying to take carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere and put it somewhere else.
RATH: Technique No. 2: Try to reflect sunlight away from the earth, to keep the earth cooler.
WATSON: And you can do that by painting roofs white or through making natural clouds - meteorological clouds a little brighter, or through volcanic aerosols.
RATH: In fact, there is evidence of volcanic eruptions that have dramatically lowered the temperature on earth. Scientists want to replicate that. The catch is that scientists haven't really tested either technique. Matt Watson.
WATSON: But for the most part, we've got more questions than answers. It's a very, very emotive subject and a divisive subject. So I can think of academics that would agree on almost everything else, in terms of science, that are diametrically opposed on geoengineering. Some people see it as a necessary evil to protect the environment; and some people see it as a retention of the status quo, just trying to techno-fix our way out of what is already a technological problem.
RATH: If the schism in the science community weren't enough, Watson points out that there are serious questions about the basic feasibility of actually using any of these techniques. And what's already a divisive problem in the sciences is quickly becoming a governance nightmare.
WATSON: So the open question would be, if you fertilize the oceans really aggressively, and you did something appalling to somebody's fish stocks - I don't know - off the coast of a developing world island, who would pay for damage, according to that? The way I described the techniques the first time around was by technologies.
A better way to categorize the technologies might be whether or not they have a local or a global scale. Things like painting roofs white or planting trees, they might be seen to be done on a local scale; whereas actually things like volcanic aerosols and ocean fertilization, they act on your atmosphere, my atmosphere, the people in Bangladesh's atmosphere. And they're much less controllable because they have a global effect.
RATH: Matthew Watson is a climate scientist at the University of Bristol.
Considering the potential global effects of climate engineering, most governments have been slow to take on the issue. Ted Parson is an environmental law professor at UCLA. He works on the tough question of how international bodies should regulate climate engineering.
TED PARSON: There's a fairly active debate on whether international law exists, or covers this, right now. So I'm of the view that in fact, there really isn't any binding or constraining international law right now that limits nations' ability to do this. There are a number of environmental treaties that are relevant to doing this, but they are all rather narrow in the constraints and obligations they impose. So none of them would have the effect of prohibiting the United States or China - or any other country - from doing this.
The Convention on Biological Diversity has adopted a couple of decisions that expressed disapproval of geoengineering technologies, but they are very vague, flabby, nonbinding decisions. They really don't have much more than an expressive value of saying, well, we don't like this.
RATH: And domestically, how has the United States dealt with the issue of climate engineering?
PARSON: The United States has not dealt with the issue of climate engineering at all yet. And the United States is in a situation similar to many other countries right now where, I think, people are so afraid of these technologies, and of the potential for intense political controversy they hold, that nobody's even talking about them. And one unfortunate consequence of that is that early, small-scale research that could help us understand more about whether these things would work, what risks they would pose and how you would do them most effectively and in the lowest-risk way, isn't really getting done. And that's really quite a risky situation.
And that's really quite a risky situation because if we find ourselves in a situation where climate change gets really bad - and we're kind of desperately looking around for something to do to make it less bad - if we haven't done the research at that point, all we'll have is a set of kind of untested, un-risk-assessed, undeveloped options that are kind of crude, to throw up in a hurry.
RATH: By now, you're probably wondering, what about the potential for harm? If scientists get the calculations wrong, it could be catastrophic for life on Earth. Or what if the technology got in to the wrong hands? Couldn't someone shoot poison into the atmosphere, or fry their enemies with space mirrors?
PARSON: Well, it's very challenging. There's a few ideas out there that I think of as the Dr. Evil idea, which is that some evil scientist on his tropical island layer with a great, big antenna pointing to the sky can go ya-ha-ha - you know, those fools, now they'll have to pay attention to me; and pull a big lever and like, mess up the climate for the world. It can't work like that because even when you put stuff in the stratosphere, it falls down over six months to a year or two.
That means that Dr. Evil can't make his once-and-for-all intervention. Dr. Evil would have to have a great big airport and a supply chain, and a bunch of airplanes that are going up all the time. There's probably only like, maybe 10 or 12 nation states that could actually sustain a program of changing the global climate in a way that wouldn't be trivial.
Now, 10 or 12 is still a big enough number that you worry about, my goodness, how will we coordinate and prevent rogue action to get them to a degree? But it's a lot less scary than 200 states and 2,000 non-state actors.
RATH: Ted Parson, of UCLA.
One of the wild things about geoengineering is that no one really wants to do it or thinks it's a great idea, even the scientists who are proposing it. It's just a sign of how bad things are. Again, Matthew Watson.
WATSON: I guess that's why I push the research agenda so hard. I'm pretty appalled by the idea of full-scale deployment, but I'm also pretty worried about burying our heads in the sand and not thinking about what that would mean.
RATH: But where does this leave the Haida people of Canada, and other communities already feeling the negative effects of climate change? The actual results of the Canadian experiment are unclear. What we do know is that it created an algae bloom visible from space. But what did the bloom do for the fish the Haida rely on? Well, the answer to that question is also complicated and controversial. Jason McNamee can't say for sure what the result was.
MCNAMEE: We don't know yet. We haven't gotten through all of our data. But I can tell you this year Alaska, particularly Southeast Alaska, had their best salmon fishing year ever.
RATH: But Ted Parsons doesn't buy it.
PARSON: Fish stocks fluctuate a great deal from year to year. There is no basis for claiming that this intervention made any difference. The claims of the proponents that it usefully demonstrated how to do this, and that they could have generated carbon credits or brought back depleted salmon stocks, have no basis. And indeed, the intervention wasn't even controlled well enough for it to be a defensible scientific experiment of any kind.
RATH: I asked Jason McNamee about what the Haida feel they can do, in the wake of the uproar, about their ocean fertilization experiment.
So would you do it again?
MCNAMEE: Well, we certainly would like to, but there have been an awful lot of concerns that have been raised by various stakeholders. So would we like to do it again as another research project? Absolutely.
RATH: In the coming years, the Haida may not be so alone in their willingness to try new ways to engineer a cooler climate.
(SOUNDBITE OF MUSIC)