More than 100 attendees gathered at the University of Chicago for an exclusive screening of a new documentary on solar geoengineering, “Plan C for Civilization,” on April 21.
The documentary, directed by Ben Kalina, follows several solar geoengineering research projects, both non-profit and commercial, over more than a decade. It prominently features the work of CSEi Founding Faculty Director David Keith. The film also includes perspectives from Elisabeth Moyer, Associate Professor of Geophysical Sciences, and University President Paul Alivisatos.
Hosted by the Climate Systems Engineering initiative (CSEi) at International House, the screening was followed by a Q&A session with Kalina, Keith and Moyer. Geneva Kirk Drayson, a fourth year in the College who conducts research with CSEi, moderated the conversation.
The discussion covered a wide range of geoengineering topics, from science to policy and public perception. Panelists began with a discussion on the distinction between the roles of researchers, advocates and governments in the field of climate science.
“While scientists have some individual knowledge, the ‘what we should do’ questions involve values and political decisions where our judgement shouldn’t count more than any other citizen’s,” Keith said.
“It’s not our place to make decisions,” Moyer added. “We always have to balance, ‘How do I provide my understanding of earth systems to people while recognizing it’s not my role to be the decider here,’ and that’s a difficult balance.”
Another big topic of discussion was the public perception of geoengineering and concerns over its impacts.
“Anytime you deal with science that is complex, some situation where people feel like they don’t fully understand what’s going on, there’s a lot of suspicion,” Moyer said. “What we’re seeing lately is a lot of people who are saying ‘I don’t trust you, I don’t trust complicated ideas — sometimes with good reason, sometimes not — and so they opt out.”
Moyer mentioned public suspicion of other scientific interventions, like vaccines. “At this moment of minimum trust in institutions, it makes it really tough,” she said.
The panelists also discussed the difference between non-profit and for-profit climate interventions.
Keith expressed his support for commercial innovations in decarbonization and carbon removal, but he drew a distinction between those technologies and sunlight reflection methods (SRM). “The precise challenge is trust,” he said of SRM. “The one thing that companies don’t manufacture very well is trust, and that’s why I don’t think companies should be involved.”
Moyer compared carbon removal to waste management. “We pay private companies to take our garbage away, we can pay private companies to take CO2 out of the air,” Moyer said. “Solar geoengineering is a totally different thing. It’s changing the earth’s climate… it’s absolutely a global governance decision.”
In an audience Q&A, the panelists answered concerns about whether SRM research could demotivate decarbonization efforts, the duration of SRM interventions and how to quantify SRM impacts.
Kalina explained that the first question helped motivate the documentary. “What you’re referring to is really the moral hazard question: if there’s a quick fix, will people lose momentum towards the hard work,” he said. “As a filmmaker, I spent a lot of time thinking about making a film that was a contribution to this conversation.”
After his work on the documentary, Kalina said he didn’t believe SRM would impede the growth of renewables. Moyer and Keith agreed. “It doesn’t matter if it’s geoengineering or something else: people will find a reason to explain to themselves that everything’s going to get better and they don’t need to do anything,” Moyer said.
Keith referenced historical concerns that adding airbags to cars would encourage risky driving. “I don’t think the presence of SRM really changes the politics as much as people think,” he said.