Читать книгу The Plot to Cool the Planet - Sam Bleicher - Страница 13

Chapter 8

Langley

As soon as the results of the 2020 presidential election were final, CIA Director Harold Williamson asked his staff for a background report on climate change issues and the political significance of Dr. Hartquist’s murder on national security and foreign policy. He anticipated the new President would want a report on the subject, and he wanted to demonstrate that he was on top of current developments. That is the CIA’s job, after all.

No one following climate change and energy issues needed an intelligence report to know who Dr. Ilsa Hartquist was. She had a talent for presenting complex scientific concepts and her own controversial policy perspectives in articulate, succinct language. Her telegenic appearance and straightforward speaking style had made her a darling of the media in a field dominated by boring old white men. The public liked and believed her.

The cable media commentary on Dr. Hartquist’s murder made her a climate change martyr, but for what cause exactly? Methane emissions reduction, immediate initiation of a stratospheric veil, other forms of climate intervention, or some or all simultaneously? Or was she simply a role model, a fearless female crusader for the cause she believed in, regardless of the merits?

In the social media, new conspiracy theories about the murder appeared daily. They ranged from claims Dr. Hartquist was an agent of Satan who deserved to die, to her being secretly in collusion with the defense and construction industries. Other bloggers confidently identified various generic culprits, from the oil industry to oil-dependent Middle Eastern governments to Greenpeace or “environmental radicals.” Many rumors were in turn alleged by others to be intentional disinformation campaigns by foreign governments or special interest groups.

A few CIA staff analysts argued that the Russians might have orchestrated the assassination, but they had not found any credible evidence linking them to the events.

Dr. Hartquist’s dramatic and inevitably simplified analysis of climate issues generated distain among some mainstream climate scientists, who were put off by what they saw as her “grandstanding” and “hysterical” tone. They particularly objected to her insistent certainty about the likelihood of near-term disaster, a breach of the scientific community’s ethos of perpetual uncertainty and skepticism.

As part of the process of preparing the briefing paper for the new President, Director Williamson asked the relevant Cabinet Departments and Agencies for their views. Despite the official US hostility to the concept of global warming over the last President’s four years, the government’s career bureaucrats, scientists, diplomats, and intelligence analysts had continued to study the matter thoroughly. They recognized climate change as a real threat to civilization.

The various Cabinet Departments offered conflicting views on Dr. Hartquist’s scientific analysis and policy conclusions. Taken together, they sounded like the proverbial blind men describing an elephant.

The Department of Natural Resources (a recent combination of the Interior Department, EPA, and National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration) viewed Dr. Hartquist’s analysis sympathetically. It did not support implementation of an SRM program, but it agreed with her assessment of the risks, and it had no other alternative to recommend.

The Department of Energy was skeptical on both theoretical and practical grounds, arguing that disruption of the existing fossil fuel energy systems would cause major adverse economic consequences in the US and many major economies around the world.

The State Department Memorandum, while acknowledging the inadequacy of current action worldwide, emphasized the international political risks of SRM. “No matter what governments may say, initiation of an SRM project will provide an easy excuse to delay the decarbonization process in both oil-dependent consumer nations and oil-exporting nations. Control of carbon dioxide emissions is more likely to be put off until too late.”

The Defense Department Memorandum emphasized the potential for political and military conflict over any SRM program. “The climate effects around the world would vary radically, resulting in sharply different economic and social impacts. If an SRM program caused some State significant harm or threatened its national ambitions, it might initiate a military response.”

The significant international powers—Russia, China, the EU, Japan, and the US—joined Sweden in a call for prompt investigation of Dr. Hartquist’s death and more studies of her analysis. But that action masked their inability to agree on decisive action.

Opinions were similarly diverse in the nongovernmental world for a wide range of reasons. Some climate scientists believed that once they tried to translate Dr. Hartquist’s SRM recommendation into a concrete program, the unacceptably high risks involved would become obvious, to the embarrassment of all proponents. They pointed to the gaping inadequacies in the available data, the heroic assumptions behind all the climate models, and the even more heroic physical and chemical guesswork inherent in the SRM schemes. They stressed the potential for doing greater damage to the global ecosystem and invoked the Precautionary Principle and the credo of the medical profession—“First, do no harm.”

Other scientists advocated SRM, pointing out that when a patient is dying, physicians routinely and appropriately apply untested remedies—the greater the risks from doing nothing, the stronger the arguments for trying anything.

Some industries dependent on fossil fuel saw SRM as a less threatening alternative than the regulations the new US President would likely impose on their facilities. They faced the prospect of losing their immense “sunk investment costs” in transportation, oil refining, and electric generating facilities that would be shuttered long before their intended lifespan. A “talking points” paper from the natural gas producers welcomed SRM to provide “breathing room” for continued use of methane while national economies transitioned toward sustainability.

Some industry leaders were willing to support a “climate tax” on their products or fossil-fuel inputs as part of a compromise package, but the widespread anti-government, anti-tax ethos among corporate CEOs undermined their efforts to build a consensus for taxes of any kind. The defense and construction industries saw possibilities for massive infrastructure repair and replacement. Their support for SRM especially enraged many environmentalist and anti-corporate activists.

The environmental community also split wide open. Many citizen-based organizations condemned on principle the idea of intentionally modifying the entire planet. They argued that the only solution is to leave oil and natural gas in the ground, move immediately to exclusive reliance on renewable energy, and take radical steps to preserve the earth’s pristine beauty and complex naturally-evolved ecosystems.

More “professional” environmental organizations voiced practical concerns that experimenting with SRM might well have dangerous unintended consequences. The attempt might overshoot or undershoot the desired level of sunlight reflected back into space. If successful, a veil might create a false sense of security, delaying problematic decisions on energy transformation. An SRM program would also entail hidden trade-offs that would most likely favor humans over all other species, and rich business interests over poorer societies and individuals.

Many environmentalists agreed with Dr. Hartquist’s judgment that without immediate action, the entire planet could quickly become irreversibly unfit for human habitation, so an SRM veil was urgently needed. Overall, however, the disarray in the environmental community, like the divisions in the government and among industrial leaders, limited its ability to demand action.

Meanwhile, the SRM idea, which previously only had the attention of a small group of enthusiastic scientists, suddenly became a highly visible topic for new scientific investigation and discussion in a variety of national and international forums.

Director Williamson and his staff did their best to reconcile the conflicting internal positions within the US government and neutrally analyze the outside world’s views without antagonizing anyone or undermining the incoming President’s campaign positions. It was a hopeless task, but the President nevertheless found the CIA Memorandum enlightening.