Content area
Full text
Few, if any, threats to humanity’s future compare to climate change. Depending on the extent of global warming by the end of the century, heat-related deaths in America alone could rise to over 9,000 per year with annual economic costs totaling around $100 billion due to lost labor hours, property damage, and more.1 The World Health Organization expects climate change to result in roughly 250,000 additional deaths per year between 2030 and 2050.2
Many believe that technology is not only the cause of our climate problem, but also our best hope for a solution. Over the long term, the world can decarbonize through increasingly accessible renewable energy sources, energy storage, carbon capture, and other technological advances. Yet more drastic measures may be needed to prevent a disaster in the short term. In particular, some propose geoengineering, which involves intentionally modifying the environment on a massive scale. 3 We might, for instance, inject sulfur into the stratosphere to reflect sunlight and thus cool the planet, or pursue ocean fertilization to increase carbon dioxide uptake. 4 Geoengineering’s most zealous defenders argue that it can be a cheap and effective means of mitigating climate change; others make the more modest claim that we should consider geoengineering as a last resort should a catastrophe become inevitable otherwise. 5
Yet there are those who argue that it is reckless to double down on technology to solve the problems technology created. Indeed, it’s hard to imagine something more hubristic than an attempt to regulate an entire planet. Even if geoengineering could work, then, making such an attempt might in itself be a sign of moral failure inasmuch as it is an act of supreme hubris.
This essay argues that the hubris objection to geoengineering and related criticisms are unsuccessful. Hubris may well motivate some demands for geoengineering; however, a refusal to seriously consider geoengineering is hubristic as well. There is risk, after all, in relying on climate solutions that depend on our ability to bring about dramatic and widespread changes in people’s economic and political behavior: as things stand, the world is not cutting emissions quickly enough and voters have shown little willingness to hold public officials accountable for their inaction. Since alternative approaches may not succeed, humility demands...