Analysing SPICE

No…not that kind of SPICE…

SPICE refers to the Stratospheric Particle Injection for Climate Engineering project. This was a motion created by a collaboration of minds from the University of Cambridge, Oxford, Bristol and Edinburgh, set up to investigate the benefits, risks, costs and practicality of injecting sulfur aerosols into the atmosphere as a geoengineering method to control the effects of global warming.

This project is of specific interest because it is unique in not only investigating the effectiveness of sulphur in the environment but also researching into public opinion surrounding this form of Solar Radiation Management. If public opinion were not to be on side, this form of geoengineering is unlikely to ever become part of world’s environmental policy. SPICE carried out three workshops, in Cardiff, Norwich and Nottingham with a wide demographic of personnel in an attempt to understand genuine public perception of geoengineering. Several controls were made, such as attempting not to overload participants with too much information as to prevent deterring the development of their natural thoughts. At the workshops, researchers offered background information on climate change and the current challenges being faced before describing the specific method of SRM so that the participants could develop a reasonable understanding from which they could develop their own conclusions on the matter.  Researches then explained that sulfur aerosols would be injected into the stratosphere via a 20km pipeline, as this may be the most cost-effective and environmentally-effective way of releasing the aerosol. Participants were then told that a 1km ‘test-bed including scaled-down versions of the tether, balloon and pumping system will be designed and constructed’ to give geoengineering researchers greater knowledge of the functionality of a tethered balloon within various weather systems as well as to allow for an improved understanding of the scattering of pumped particles.

The response:

“The only thing is when you put in the money it would take to set up those schemes to get that short-term gain, that could be money going into actually solving the problem, I think that’s where the issue is. That’s why it feels like it’s cheating as I said” (Laurel, Norwich).

The public workshop groups discovered a consistent and coherent  response from each group, a view that SRM is not actually solving the original problem, and is instead just treating the symptoms of the issue and that financial resources should be spent tackling emission issues head on. Furthermore, although the participants welcomed the test-bed for sulfur injection, there still remained many concerns over the practicality of aerosol injection. Primary issues were based upon where the injection would take place, with participants stating that they would not want this process occurring near their local areas, and the need for transparency amongst the research process, testing and the executing the policy.

This data poses yet another stumbling block for aerosol injection as it is clear through this research that currently, public opinion is not in favour of this method. This is majorly significant as with such doubts about this method across the nation, governments are less likely to support this environmental policy in fear of political backlashes, and thus poses severe doubts over the realistic chances of this method ever becoming practically developed.