AI Impacts Wiki

User Tools

Site Tools

You are here: Welcome to the AI Impacts Wiki! » responses_to_ai » technological_inevitability » Incentivized technologies not pursued » Resisted Technological Temptation: Geoengineering
responses_to_ai:technological_inevitability:incentivized_technologies_not_pursued:geoengineering

Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

Next revision 		Previous revision
responses_to_ai:technological_inevitability:incentivized_technologies_not_pursued:geoengineering [2023/03/31 02:36]
jeffreyheninger created 		responses_to_ai:technological_inevitability:incentivized_technologies_not_pursued:geoengineering [2023/10/12 21:44] (current)
68.252.234.79 ↷ Links adapted because of a move operation
Line 1: Line 1:
 ====== Resisted Technological Temptation: Geoengineering ====== ====== Resisted Technological Temptation: Geoengineering ======
  
-Stratospheric aerosol injection could stop or reverse global warming with direct costs of \$1-10 billion per year. The total global benefit from this would be roughly \$1-10 trillion per year by mid-century. Individual large countries seem to estimate the value of preventing climate change(( In this page, 'global warming' specifically refers to changes in the global average temperature, while 'climate change' refers to all of the human-caused changes to the climate. For example, ocean acidification would be climate change but not global warming. Most of the effects of climate change are mediated by the average temperature, so there is less than a factor of two difference between the costs of climate change and the costs of global warming. This does not significantly affect order of magnitude estimates.)) to be at least tens of billions of dollars per year.+//Published 30 March, 2023. Last updated 30 March, 2023.// 
 + 
 +Stratospheric aerosol injection could stop or reverse global warming with direct costs of \$1-10 billion per year, compared to global benefits of roughly \$1-10 trillion per year by mid-century and at least tens of billions of dollars per year for large countries.
  
 Large countries do not implement geoengineering because not enough research has been done to know that the risks are small. Geoengineering research is prevented by a majority of climate scientists' opposition, which makes it harder to get funding, and by certain environmental groups that advocate against specific experiments. Large countries do not implement geoengineering because not enough research has been done to know that the risks are small. Geoengineering research is prevented by a majority of climate scientists' opposition, which makes it harder to get funding, and by certain environmental groups that advocate against specific experiments.
Line 15: Line 17:
 The benefits of geoengineering are avoiding the damages and risks of global warming, including sea level rise, ice melting, some extreme weather events, changes to crop productivity, some biodiversity loss, and potentially crossing climate tipping points. Risks from geoengineering include small changes in the color of the sky, effects on plant growth and solar power, destruction of ozone for some aerosols, possible shifts in rainfall patterns, getting locked in to using a technology for the foreseeable future, and unknown unknowns. These risks are much smaller than the risks of allowing climate change to continue. A sufficiently aggressive transition away from fossil fuels would also prevent the risks of climate change, but would cost significantly more than geoengineering. The benefits of geoengineering are avoiding the damages and risks of global warming, including sea level rise, ice melting, some extreme weather events, changes to crop productivity, some biodiversity loss, and potentially crossing climate tipping points. Risks from geoengineering include small changes in the color of the sky, effects on plant growth and solar power, destruction of ozone for some aerosols, possible shifts in rainfall patterns, getting locked in to using a technology for the foreseeable future, and unknown unknowns. These risks are much smaller than the risks of allowing climate change to continue. A sufficiently aggressive transition away from fossil fuels would also prevent the risks of climate change, but would cost significantly more than geoengineering.
  
-This page is accompanied by [[https://docs.google.com/document/d/1tfDlsH4Xotd7_A_kt7i39FZg5VV4PFh74lwRfRbx5Nc/edit?usp=sharing|a longer report]], which includes more details and justification for everything described here.+This page is accompanied by [[http://aiimpacts.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/Why-Has-Geoengineering-Been-Rejected.pdf|a longer report]], which includes more details and justification for everything described here.
  
 ==== Considerations for Particular Actors ==== ==== Considerations for Particular Actors ====
Line 28: Line 30:
   * **Coastal Cities.** Coastal cities are at a high risk of flooding due to sea level rise. //Benefits:// The flood losses of some individual coastal cities would be greater than the cost of geoengineering if no other mitigation were done. //Alternatives:// For an individual city, building levees and dikes costs a similar amount or less than geoengineering. //Stakes:// The net benefits would likely be less than the net benefits of an alternative.   * **Coastal Cities.** Coastal cities are at a high risk of flooding due to sea level rise. //Benefits:// The flood losses of some individual coastal cities would be greater than the cost of geoengineering if no other mitigation were done. //Alternatives:// For an individual city, building levees and dikes costs a similar amount or less than geoengineering. //Stakes:// The net benefits would likely be less than the net benefits of an alternative.
  
-  * **Private Oil Companies.** The annual profit of the largest oil companies is \$10-25 billion. //Benefits:// Their market might be eliminated by other efforts to prevent climate change. Some oil companies have been willing to spend tens of millions of dollars per year on climate denial (not enough for geoengineering) and some have been willing to spend a few billion dollars per year on green investments (maybe enough for geoengineering). //Additional Barriers:// Oil companies might face backlash if they started doing geoengineering and lose access to some of their important markets. //Stakes:// The net benefits seem marginal, so it is not surprising that other factors dominate.+  * **Private Oil Companies.** The annual profit of the largest oil companies is \$10-25 billion. //Benefits:// Their market might be eliminated by other efforts to prevent climate change. To roughly estimate the scale of the value of avoiding these costs, we can look at what they are willing to pay to avoid them. Some oil companies have been willing to spend tens of millions of dollars per year on climate denial (not enough for geoengineering) and some have been willing to spend a few billion dollars per year on green investments (maybe enough for geoengineering). //Additional Barriers:// Oil companies might face backlash if they started doing geoengineering and lose access to some of their important markets. //Stakes:// The net benefits seem marginal, so it is not surprising that other factors dominate.
  
   * **Individuals.** The largest private fortunes are \$100-250 billion. There does not seem to be a clear incentive for an individual to pursue geoengineering. //Stakes:// The net benefit is likely negative.   * **Individuals.** The largest private fortunes are \$100-250 billion. There does not seem to be a clear incentive for an individual to pursue geoengineering. //Stakes:// The net benefit is likely negative.
Line 36: Line 38:
 The efforts against geoengineering have operated on three levels: in published papers, in outdoor experiments, and in implementation. Each level precedes and precludes the later levels. The efforts against geoengineering have operated on three levels: in published papers, in outdoor experiments, and in implementation. Each level precedes and precludes the later levels.
  
-Prior to 2006, there was a taboo against publishing scientific papers about geoengineering. Crutzen, an editor of the journal Climate Change, broke this taboo and people began to consider geoengineering to be a legitimate object of scientific inquiry.((Crutzen. //Albedo Enhancement by Stratospheric Sulfur Injections: A Contribution to Resolve a Policy Dilemma?// Climate Change **77**. (2006) p. 211-219. [[https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%252Fs10584-006-9101-y.pdf%20%20]].)) Prior to 2006, only 1-2 papers on geoengineering were being published per year, while by 2009, over 50 papers were being published per year.((Oldham et al. //Mapping the Landscape of Climate Engineering.// Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A. (2014) [[https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsta.2014.0065#d3e1677]].))+Prior to 2006, there was a taboo against publishing scientific papers about geoengineering. Crutzen, an editor of the journal //Climate Change//, broke this taboo and people began to consider geoengineering to be a legitimate object of scientific inquiry.((Crutzen. //Albedo Enhancement by Stratospheric Sulfur Injections: A Contribution to Resolve a Policy Dilemma?// Climate Change **77**. (2006) p. 211-219. [[https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%252Fs10584-006-9101-y.pdf%20%20]].)) Prior to 2006, only 1-2 papers on geoengineering were being published per year, while by 2009, over 50 papers were being published per year.((Oldham et al. //Mapping the Landscape of Climate Engineering.// Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A. (2014) [[https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsta.2014.0065#d3e1677]].))
  
 Currently, no outdoor experiments for stratospheric aerosol injection are being done. Since 2010, there have been two attempts at doing these outdoor experiments, but neither experiment happened. There seems to be two main causes: Currently, no outdoor experiments for stratospheric aerosol injection are being done. Since 2010, there have been two attempts at doing these outdoor experiments, but neither experiment happened. There seems to be two main causes:
Line 42: Line 44:
 The body of the paper aggregates the beliefs of scientists at the IPCC and negotiators at the Paris Climate Accords. The disaggregated information comes from Supplementary Table 2(c): The body of the paper aggregates the beliefs of scientists at the IPCC and negotiators at the Paris Climate Accords. The disaggregated information comes from Supplementary Table 2(c):
 [[https://static-content.springer.com/esm/art%3A10.1038%2Fs41558-019-0564-z/MediaObjects/41558_2019_564_MOESM1_ESM.pdf]].)) They write the IPCC reports which do not recommend geoengineering experiments. Government funding agencies, which seem to use recommendations from the IPCC reports and local climate scientists, rarely fund geoengineering research. [[https://static-content.springer.com/esm/art%3A10.1038%2Fs41558-019-0564-z/MediaObjects/41558_2019_564_MOESM1_ESM.pdf]].)) They write the IPCC reports which do not recommend geoengineering experiments. Government funding agencies, which seem to use recommendations from the IPCC reports and local climate scientists, rarely fund geoengineering research.
-  * When geoengineering experiments are proposed, certain environmental groups((Especially the ETC Group and the Friends of Earth.)) rally to oppose them. These environmental groups work with indigenous groups, when possible, to convince advisory committees and governments to not allow the research to proceed.+  * When geoengineering experiments are proposed, certain environmental groups((Especially the ETC Group and the Friends of the Earth.)) rally to oppose them. These environmental groups work with indigenous groups, when possible, to convince advisory committees and governments to not allow the research to proceed.
  
 No country or international consortium has attempted to implement geoengineering. Two of the most common arguments against it, found in both scientific and policy papers,((Huttunen et al. //Emerging policy perspectives on geoengineering: An international comparison.// The Anthropocene Review 2(I). (2015) p. 14-32. [[https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/2053019614557958]].)) do not seem sufficient to completely explain this: No country or international consortium has attempted to implement geoengineering. Two of the most common arguments against it, found in both scientific and policy papers,((Huttunen et al. //Emerging policy perspectives on geoengineering: An international comparison.// The Anthropocene Review 2(I). (2015) p. 14-32. [[https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/2053019614557958]].)) do not seem sufficient to completely explain this:
Line 58: Line 60:
 There are several important differences between geoengineering and AI: There are several important differences between geoengineering and AI:
   * There is a clear understanding of what it would take to do geoengineering.((Smith & Wagner. //Stratospheric aerosol injection tactics and costs in the first 15 years of deployment.// Environmental Research Letters **13**. (2018) p. 124001. [[https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aae98d/pdf]].)) The path to human-level AI is much less clear.   * There is a clear understanding of what it would take to do geoengineering.((Smith & Wagner. //Stratospheric aerosol injection tactics and costs in the first 15 years of deployment.// Environmental Research Letters **13**. (2018) p. 124001. [[https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aae98d/pdf]].)) The path to human-level AI is much less clear.
-  * Getting climate wrong may pose devastating risks, but it is less likely to pose an existential risk than getting AI wrong. +  * Getting climate wrong may pose devastating risks, but it is less likely to pose an existential risk than getting AI wrong.((Toby Ord estimated the existential risk from climate this century to be 1/1000, and the existential risk from AI this century to be 1/10 in //The Precipice//.)) 
-  * Most climate scientists seem to be more opposed to geoengineering research than most AI researchers are to research that causes progress towards human-level AI.((Toby Ord estimated the existential risk from climate this century to be 1/1000, and the existential risk from AI this century to be 1/10 in //The Precipice//.))+  * Most climate scientists seem to be more opposed to geoengineering research than most AI researchers are to research that causes progress towards human-level AI.
  
 There are also some important similarities: There are also some important similarities:
Line 65: Line 67:
   * An individual actor could implement something with global consequences.   * An individual actor could implement something with global consequences.
   * Current governance is unclear or non-existent.   * Current governance is unclear or non-existent.
-  * The cost of building AGI seems likely to be large enough to make it infeasible for some actors, but not so large that it can only be pursued by the largest countries.+  * The cost of building AGI seems likely to be large enough to limit the number of actors, but not so large that it can only be pursued by the largest countries.
   * Technological progress and economic growth could make it easier for more actors to implement it, although aircraft prices are not falling as quickly as computer prices.   * Technological progress and economic growth could make it easier for more actors to implement it, although aircraft prices are not falling as quickly as computer prices.
  
Line 73: Line 75:
   * The scientific consensus impacts what funding is available.   * The scientific consensus impacts what funding is available.
   * Small groups of advocates can successfully block individual projects.   * Small groups of advocates can successfully block individual projects.
 +
 +//Primary Author: Jeffrey Heninger.//
  
 ===== Notes ===== ===== Notes =====
  
  
responses_to_ai/technological_inevitability/incentivized_technologies_not_pursued/geoengineering.1680230182.txt.gz · Last modified: 2023/03/31 02:36 by jeffreyheninger

Page Tools

Except where otherwise noted, content on this wiki is licensed under the following license: CC0 1.0 Universal
CC0 1.0 Universal Donate Powered by PHP Valid HTML5 Valid CSS Driven by DokuWiki