The PC(USA) has in recent years given attention to the Precautionary Principle in the context of its social witness presence and responsibility. The 223rd GA approved a report on the subject[1]. The Precautionary Principle originated in engineering circles, going back to 1729 (coincidentally, the year of the Adopting Act), when Bernard Forest de Bélidor broached the question of safety and reliability in engineering projects. It gradually became a more established procedure of weighing the potential costs and benefits of technological innovations and took off in a wider context in the 1970s. The European Union has made it a legal requirement.
The GA223 report places the Precautionary Principle in a fairly wide context, although the emphasis is on GMOs (Genetically Modified Organisms) — specifically, organisms that have their DNA modified through gene editing techniques. It also provides a role for PASTCF among its recommendations:
Affirm the work of the Presbyterian Association on Science, Technology, and the Christian Faith.
That puts PASTCF squarely in a position of having a responsibility in helping the denomination speak prophetically on societal issues and policy. Half a year ago, I mentioned my concern about one technique that is mentioned by the report in passing and that I personally hold far more threatening than GMO: (Solar) Geoengineering. I had hoped that with the advent of a new administration Solar Geoengineering might be shelved, but the reverse appears to be true. And it is a prime technology candidate for applying the Precautionary Principle.
Solar Geoengineering aims to lower the amount of solar radiation that reaches the earth’s surface and the lower atmosphere in order to reduce, and conceivably reverse, global warming. There are two ways of doing that: inserting reflective aerosols into the stratosphere or increasing the reflectivity of marine clouds[2]. At this time research has mainly consisted of computer simulations, but plans are in the offing for starting some experiments. This has had the backing of both the Trump and the Biden administrations, as well as funding support from benefactors like Bill Gates. There is an active research team at Harvard. And it does have some support among groups advocating measures to fight climate change.
There are serious questions about Solar Geoengineering which really should be addressed at a satisfactory level before starting work on developing the technology. In that respect it is a perfect example of a technology that desperately needs Precautionary Principle considerations: think before you do anything — because once started it may be impossible to stop it. The questions regarding Solar Geoengineering fall into five main categories: physical side effects, longevity, political implications, inequity considerations, and international governance.
The dispersion of aerosols in the stratosphere is nothing new: volcanoes have been doing it for several billions of years. However, the side effects have not always been beneficial, or even neutral, and we should really first know what the large-scale injection by humans of specific aerosols might expose particular populations to. In addition, if this is done at a scale where it would make a difference, there should be serious questions about how this is going to affect atmospheric and oceanic circulations.
The effect will not last forever — like the effects of major volcanic eruptions do not last forever. Solar Geoengineering is a temporary band aid; if it is to have a lasting impact on global warming, it needs to be continually refreshed. People who are involved in Solar Geoengineering are well aware of that and the argument put forward is: let’s develop the technology, to have it available as Plan B, in case we cannot manage to reduce humanity’s carbon footprint in time. The flipside is that when we stop the process, the measures required to contain climate change will need to be even stronger than the ones it has ameliorated.
The problem with the Plan-B argument is that it may be self-fulfilling — which brings us to the politics. If this technology is proven and available, it will undoubtedly be too strong a temptation for political leaders to ease up on climate agreements. It will be too easy to use the Solar Geoengineering band aid so the carbon reduction requirements can be slowed down. The pressure will not only come from the political part of society. There will also a strong financial incentive. Companies in the geoengineering field seeing the potential for huge earnings will pull out all the lobbying stops.
We also have to consider where the effects will be felt most strongly. We know that the effects of coal burning plants can be felt downwind over long distances. Solar Geoengineering’s effects will be felt over a much larger area. Much of the aerosols will likely make their way to lower latitudes — which is the part of the earth where poorer countries reside. As a result, it will be the poor who will end up providing the savings in global warming that was set into motion by the rich folks.
And that leads to the final point: no country can release aerosols in the stratosphere overhead and make it only shield that country’s patch on the surface. The particles know no boundaries. It means that, in all fairness, no country should deploy Solar Geoengineering as long there is still one other country that opposes it. One could separate the northern and the southern hemisphere, but that is a detail. What it really means is that one should not embark on a Solar Geoengineering endeavor until an international governance system is in place.
It is near impossible to prevent a developed technology from being used when it promises to provide cover for politicians faced with hard choices and a source of significant profits for the industry involved; it is hard to put the genie back into the bottle once it got out. We need to make sure all aspects have been thought through and resolved before actual work is started. Therefore, it is critical to apply the Precautionary Principle to the development of Solar Geoengineering technologies. And PASTCF has a role to play in this within the PC(USA).
An unrelated observation:
Recently, during an ordination service, the Rev. Anne HK Apple, in her charge to the ordinand, warned that “requiring proof inhibits progress”. It occurred to me that that is a true and powerful statement within the community of faith, but that the opposite is true for science. This may well be one of most fundamental distinctions in the ways the domains of faith and of science function.
[1] https://www.presbyterianmission.org/wp-content/uploads/Precautionary-Principle-Report-2018.docx
[2] For more information, see this issue brief by the Union of Concerned Scientists: https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/what-solar-geoengineering
https://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/2020-06/Solar%20Geo_WEB_New.pdf
