Learning something about the dangers of 'Plan B'

Geoengineering, it has been said is about the intentional manipulation of the planetary systems at a global scale with the aim of combatting climate change.

Taking to the planet
with a spanner.

It is often introduced as a “plan B”: an alternative solution in case “plan A”, reducing emissions, fails.

This framing is typically deployed as part of an argument that research and development is necessary in case robust conventional mitigation is not forthcoming, or proves insufficient to prevent dangerous climate impacts. Though sometimes used to refer to geoengineering as a whole, the plan B framing is associated particularly strongly with stratospheric sulfate injection (SSI) techniques.

Teaching Fellow and Online Learning Specialist with Leeds University, Dr Joe Saunders, says: “We argue that the plan B framing oversimplifies a complex issue in a misleading and deceptive way.

“For instance, it highlights extreme positions, presents SSI as an alternative independent from mainstream policies, ignores the multiplicity of options available, and neglects threats of morally indecent SSI in a context of ongoing political inertia.

“We are particularly concerned about the way ‘Plan B’ risks conveying an implicit hyper-optimism about SSI, and so obscures the need for ethical standards. One upshot of our analysis is that rather than a comparative assessment of mitigation and geoengineering, we should encourage a more integrative approach,” he said.

Read about the University of Leeds online seminar - “Stephen Gardiner - Why Geoengineering is Not ‘Plan B’,” and registration for the event is through Dr Saunders.