Bio-char skepticism and ethical questions re: technological solutions to the climate crisis

There is a strong statement against biochar at this site (below). Many
objections are raised in the article. It's the first time I had seen
such a statement, so I'm sharing it. Biochar seems to be a
technological solution - a form of geo-engineering - with possible
unintended consequences and costs. It has gained in popularity in the
last year and is being widely advanced in climate analyst and
scientific circles.

http://climateandcapitalism.com/

The biochar ideas raises the ethical questions associated with other
localized technological solutions: nuclear energy, sulfur particles
in the atmosphere, iron filings in the seas, carbon sequestration. Not
all these technologies are alike in all respects, but they do share
some commonalities. Before I launch into my critique, I should add
that I do not have the final answers. This is a provisional set of
statements. I raised these points for discussion only, because it
seems important to do so, and I welcome alternative points of view.
- Hide quoted text -

Roughly speaking, these localized technological solutions share these
problematic characteristics, which need to be considered prior to
their implementation:

1) They have social and environmental costs attached to them, which
from a deontological ethical perspective, negates their value. From
this perspective it is morally wrong to make x pay the cost for the
benefit of y, if x and y are equals. All human beings are equals in
this view.

In other words, the rights of individuals and minorities must be
upheld and solutions to social or environmental problems must take
into account those individual or local community rights. Solutions
must be "universalizable." From a deontological perspective, war would
not be justifiable, and nor would any development project which
imposed burdens on local populations for the sake of the economic
prosperity of the larger society.

However, from a utilitarian perspective, which allows for minority
populations or individuals to suffer for the good of the greater
happiness, such technologies - if they worked - would be considered
ethically acceptable. It is this ethic which is being used
(implicitly, not explicitly) right now.

The utilitarian perspective will seem practically necessary to many,
given how widespread human self-interest and faith in technology
appears to be, but it is still morally wrong (in my opinion) for the
reasons stated above, and given limited time and resources, climate
change mitigation requires the choice of one or the other perspective
and set of commitments associated with it.

As I hope to demonstrate in these few paragraphs, the deontological
perspective can be (roughly) associated with a no-growth economy and
investment in renewables and other intermediate technologies, and the
utilitarian perspective can be associated with advocacy for high-tech
solutions which have localized costs and which are often used in
connection with justifying the current model of unlimited economic
growth.

2) There are local consequences that no one can anticipate fully, but
advocates for these technologies are advancing them nonetheless as
mitigation techniques for climate change. Their use in the world is
being advanced as an experiment and local populations and ecoystems
are part of that experiment, which raises ethical objections.

The regulatory framework and environmental assessments - if they are
applied - can be described as utilitarian in their bias, using a risk
management methodology. The risks are borne by local populations,
often without their consent, and also by future generations, who
cannot give their consent.

3) Advancing these technological solutions is tantamount to accepting
the unsustainable status quo of unlimited economic growth. The "magic
buckshot" ethic advanced by many climate policy analysts - which is a
mix of existing and experimental technologies - ignores the fact that
funds spent on experimental technologies could be better spent on
renewables.

The latter (renewables) are associated with energy conservation and
widespread behavioral change and are therefore not considered viable
of their own, within the context of the economic growth paradigm.

4) There are high financial costs as well attached to them, and in a
world of limited funding for climate change mitigation, it is arguable
that such funding could be better spent on proven technologies
(renewables) where the social and environmental costs are relatively
minor. This is especially the case with nuclear energy, but the
argument may be applicable to biochar as well, depending on the costs
associated with implementing it on a widespread scale.

From this perspective, it is an either/or scenario, financially: if
funds and energies are spent on experimental solutions which
potentially would allow the economic growth regime to continue, they
take away from relatively low-cost intermediate technology solutions
which require greater energy efficiency and behavioral change (a low
growth or no growth economy).

The perspective in general use among analysts and politicians right now
is that we must try all possible options and see which one works, or
which combination of them work, and commit to that. But in the case of
nuclear energy and renewables, limited funding spent on one is
necessarily not spent on the other. This could also be the case with
biochar, depending on how much its implementation on a widespread
scale might cost.

It should also be added that the least expensive option available for
mitigating climate change on a large scale is the elimination of
factory farms and a severe reduction in meat consumption in
industrialized nations which rely on factory farms for food. According
to a 2007 U.N. report, 18% of global greenhouse gases from industrial
meat production.