9
The Security Implications of Geoengineering: Blame, Imposed Agreement and Critical Infrastructure Paul Nightingale & Rose Cairns

The Security Implications of Geoengineering: Blame, Imposed Agreement and Critical Infrastructure Paul Nightingale & Rose Cairns

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: The Security Implications of Geoengineering: Blame, Imposed Agreement and Critical Infrastructure Paul Nightingale & Rose Cairns

The Security Implications of Geoengineering: Blame, Imposed Agreement and Critical Infrastructure

Paul Nightingale & Rose Cairns

Page 2: The Security Implications of Geoengineering: Blame, Imposed Agreement and Critical Infrastructure Paul Nightingale & Rose Cairns

Security & Geoengineering

• Who would conduct geoengineering?• Are the economics incredible?• Is it governable?• Who gets the blame?

• Take away: indirect security costs likely to be high, & high enough to make it untenable

• Caveats & Uncertainties (SRM)

Page 3: The Security Implications of Geoengineering: Blame, Imposed Agreement and Critical Infrastructure Paul Nightingale & Rose Cairns

Geoengineering

• High fixed cost, capital intensive technologies characterised by uncertainties & (survivor) biases about costs

• As you move from imaginaries to working systems the secondary supporting systems & governance structures become apparent

Page 4: The Security Implications of Geoengineering: Blame, Imposed Agreement and Critical Infrastructure Paul Nightingale & Rose Cairns

Military & Peaceful

• Direct military applications– Cirrus (’47-52) – Stormfurry (‘62-83) – Popeye & Motorpool (‘67-72).– ENMOD

• Value: impact v baseline, alternative means.• “we are not really interested in technologies that can

be defended against with an umbrella”

– NRC (2003), DHS (2008), China etc

Page 5: The Security Implications of Geoengineering: Blame, Imposed Agreement and Critical Infrastructure Paul Nightingale & Rose Cairns

Who would be in charge?

• Caveats & Uncertainties• Common assumption it would be scientists

1. Current capabilities2. Securitisation of climate change3. Perceived termination risks4. Loop-holes in international law5. Post-War US security policy

Page 6: The Security Implications of Geoengineering: Blame, Imposed Agreement and Critical Infrastructure Paul Nightingale & Rose Cairns

Who would protect it?

• Caveats & Uncertainties• Critical National Infrastructure (CIP Act, 2001,

Homeland Security Act, 2002)– terrorism, pandemics, cyber attacks, extreme

weather, accidents or technical failures.– Threat, Vulnerability, Outcome framework

• Direct indirect security costs reasonable

Page 7: The Security Implications of Geoengineering: Blame, Imposed Agreement and Critical Infrastructure Paul Nightingale & Rose Cairns

Indirect Indirect Costs

• Countermeasures? Nations/people disagreeing (endpoints, etc) could vent (anger, ,methane). – Who would have a veto? – Would it be imposed over expressed preference?

• Solutions?– Global legal framework for climate policy– Enforcement & surveillance (verification)

• Indirect costs of enforcement & surveillance likely to be much higher than direct costs, particularly if agreement has to be imposed

Page 8: The Security Implications of Geoengineering: Blame, Imposed Agreement and Critical Infrastructure Paul Nightingale & Rose Cairns

Geography of Blame

• Costs depend on level of resistance• Overlook impact of GE on blame– Weather natural – unlucky– Weather engineered – blameworthy

• Geography of blame under uncertainty – technical superior actor– Any extreme weather event blamed on GE, then blamed on

USA (?) even if USA wasn’t involved.– Costs of security?– Global politics of climate emerging? Impact?

Page 9: The Security Implications of Geoengineering: Blame, Imposed Agreement and Critical Infrastructure Paul Nightingale & Rose Cairns

Dystopian futures

• Caveats & Uncertainties– Maybe: agree on global policy, climate overrides

security, agreement on UN control, policy changes– Secretive, bureaucratic decision-making under

conditions of uncertainty, paranoia & blame

• In combination costs not just economic• Ungovernable at any reasonable cost