Militarization of the Anthropocene Through Solar Geoengineering Applications

A Service of

Leibniz-Informationszentrum econstor Wirtschaft Leibniz Information Centre Make Your Publications Visible. zbw for Economics

Nuhija, Bekim; Stojchevska, Stefani

Conference Paper Militarization of the anthropocene through solar geoengineering applications

AICEI Proceedings

Provided in Cooperation with: University American College Skopje

Suggested Citation: Nuhija, Bekim; Stojchevska, Stefani (2020) : Militarization of the anthropocene through solar geoengineering applications, AICEI Proceedings, ISSN 2671-3713, University American College Skopje, Skopje, Vol. 15, Iss. 1, pp. 173-183, http://dx.doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4393657

This Version is available at: http://hdl.handle.net/10419/234169

Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Terms of use:

Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. personal and scholarly purposes.

Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle You are not to copy documents for public or commercial Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, If the documents have been made available under an Open gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence.

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ www.econstor.eu Climate Change: Challenges and Building Resilience

MILITARIZATION OF THE ANTHROPOCENE THROUGH SOLAR GEO- ENGINEERING APPLICATIONS

Bekim Nuhija1, Stefani Stojchevska1 1Faculty of Law – South East European University Tetovo, R.N. Macedonia

ABSTRACT: While currently living in the geological epoch of the Anthropocene, mankind is consequently fighting against climate change and other hazardous environmental issues. Although solar geoengineering has been proposed as a promising solution, the universal fear regarding its military misuse is still prominent and widely existent. It is believed that this fear could lay the foundation for the concept of a militarized Anthropocene – the manifestation of preset temporal aspects of humanity’s destructive influence regarding climate change for military use. Contrastingly enough, there are a multitude of factors which manifest unrealistic expectations in relation to this concept. While emphasizing the importance of the military as the most suitable governmental institution for developing and utilizing solar geoengineering techniques, this paper aims to address such presumptions through anthropological, ethical, legislative, as well as argumentative approaches. Misleading public opinion, particularly, as a biased perception fails to recognize that military-aimed solar geoengineering methods does not represent a risk by itself, but rather the interference between the belligerent nations and should be concerned as national security. More- over, the emergence of the slippery slope argument manifested by global psychology and international awareness causes military-related disadvantages concerning the utilization of solar geoengineering as a method of weather warfare. The concept of a militarized Anthropocene, although seemingly controversial, would only enhance the benefits of military-conducted solar geoengineering methods that will be felt by humanity for centuries to come.

KEYWORDS: solar geoengineering, military, ethics, policy, anthropocene, weather warfare

AICEI2020 doi: 10.5281/zenodo.4393657

173 Fifteenth Annual International Conference on European Integration – AICEI 2020

INTRODUCTION response to climate change, although seemingly controversial, manifest either Solar geoengineering applications rep- a destructive or a constructive correlation resent promising scientific methods to with international or global psychology. prevent the disastrous consequences of Consequently, all arguments contained climate change. However, the universal within this paper are supported by rel- fear of military misuse is still present evant literature such as internation- among the public, which is a significant al conventions, department of defense issue that discourages the concept and documents, geoengineering researches, benefits of a militarized Anthropocene. prominent books on weather warfare, etc. The aim of this paper, through its chosen Regarding the context of climate change, research methodology and literature, is solar geoengineering might be humani- to examine and resolve such irrational, ty’s best option to protect planet Earth and unsupported and biased fears in order to it is in our particular interest to properly present realistic expectations about the analyze the abovementioned issue. Previ- proposition of a militarized Anthropo- ous studies from aspects of logistics, an- cene through solar geoengineering ap- thropology, ethics, as well as internation- plications being effective against climate al legislation have analyzed the utilization change and other harmful environmental of solar geoengineering applications and issues that we are currently facing. the possibilities of weather warfare. While such studies have managed to examine The main research findings, consequent- the possibilities of weaponization and ly, have proven to conclude that the tech- the conduct of warfare, they all represent nological evolution of warfare does not separate notions, which in relation to so- have to necessarily represent a parallel lar geoengineering, have shown that the notion with non-hostile scientific de- militarization of the Anthropocene can be velopment, especially when considered a appropriately justified in the fight against public good. Additionally, predetermined climate change. applications of climate change techniques do not necessarily imply weather warfare The research methodology, on the oth- perceived by an unethical manner, but er hand, primarily relies upon the anal- instead proposes an appropriate sever- ysis of data in relation to anthropology, ity-based classification and, therefore, legislation and ethics, with a particular it is necessary to properly regulate solar emphasis upon the Slippery Slope ar- geoengineering applications as both mili- gument as a logical fallacy in relation to tary and non-military dimensions. misleading public opinion with the purpose of proving that its logical structure, as a pattern of reasoning, is invalid. The MILITARY-ORIENTED CLIMATE CHANGE reason why these particular fields and AND IMPACTS: A LEGAL ANALYSIS approaches have been chosen is because it is relevant to analyze and understand While currently facing harmful conse- the non-technical aspects of the mili- quences of climate change and other se- tarization of the Anthropocene through rious environmental issues, it is gener- solar geoengineering applications. Be- ally believed that mankind manifests its ing regarded as irrational factors mani- existence within the parameters of the fested by the global community, it is im- Anthropocene – a proposed term for the portant to better understand and justify present geological epoch (from the time the non-technical aspects of solar geo- of the Industrial Revolution onwards), engineering. Scientific developments in during which humanity has begun to

174 Climate Change: Challenges and Building Resilience have a significant impact on the environ- new generation of sophisticated electro- ment. (Dictionary, 2012) magnetic weapons. Both the US and Rus- sia have developed capabilities to manip- The indication of human actions having a ulate the climate for military use. (Chos- significant impact upon climate and eco- sudovsky, 2018) systems, particularly since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution has created Despite a vast body of scientific knowl- the assumption that the Anthropocene edge, the issue of deliberate climatic ma- would eventually succeed the Holocene, nipulations for military use has never being identified as the current official- been explicitly part of the UN agenda on ly acknowledged epoch, which manifests climate change. Neither the official del- great climate stability. And while global egations nor the environmental action warming has occurred prior to the Holo- groups participating in the Hague Con- cene its cause originate from strictly nat- ference on Climate Change (CO6) (No- ural contributions, as it occurred after vember 2000) have raised the broad issue the last ice age. Hence, the identification of "weather warfare" or "environmental of the human factor regarding climate modification techniques (ENMOD)" as change appears after various technologi- relevant to an understanding of climate cal developments that affect our environ- change. Furthermore, a simulation study ment. However, history has shown us that of future defense "scenarios" commis- selected segments of such advancements sioned for the US Air Force calls for: simultaneously address climate change more deliberately, which is perceived as "US aerospace forces to 'own the weather' if humanity almost forcefully aims to by capitalizing on emerging technologies further emphasize its dominant position and focusing development of those technol- and manifestations of control concerning ogies to war-fighting applications... From climate change. The Anthropocene is not enhancing friendly operations or disrupting formally acknowledged within scientif- those of the enemy via small-scale tailor- ic parameters, though it plays a relevant ing of natural weather patterns to complete role when discussing climate change, dominance of global communications and while lacking specific scientific attributes. counterspace control, weather-modifica- Predetermined climate change technique tion offers the war fighter a wide-range applications could lay the foundation for of possible options to defeat or coerce an the concept of a militarized Anthropo- adversary... In the United States, weath- cene – the manifestation of preset tem- er-modification will likely become a part of poral aspects of humanity’s destructive national security policy with both domestic influence regarding climate change for and international applications. Our govern- military use. Despite military-oriented ment will pursue such a policy, depending weather modification applications repre- on its interests, at various levels.” (Chossu- senting a scientific taboo, the utilization dovsky, 2002) of weather warfare, explicitly described Military-oriented climate change and its as weather modification techniques for impact, being perceived as national se- military purposes, cannot be considered curity, are likely regarded as governmen- as an unfamiliar notion, scientifically and tal activities, aiming to protect a certain legally speaking. Military strategy has al- State and its national aspects. Therefore, ways opted to take advantage of climate the weaponized concept of climate change change for various leverages in the bat- should be ordinarily utilized to justify the tlefield. Rarely acknowledged in the de- State’s right of protection against mili- bate on global climate change, the world’s tary attack through its military power as weather can now be modified as part of a an ultimate measure. Concerning the de-

175 Fifteenth Annual International Conference on European Integration – AICEI 2020 velopment of climate change-based se- tions. While the US Force acknowledges curity policy, such a controversial type of that ENMOD weapons are part of mili- warfare occurred prior to the 1978 Envi- tary arsenal, there is no formal proof or ronmental Modification Convention, be- evidence that ENMOD techniques have ing ratified by the UN General Assembly, been used by US military against a for- prohibits the utilization of weather war- eign country or enemy of the US. (Chos- fare, as stated in Article I: sudovsky, 2018)

“Each State Party to this Convention under- Furthermore, there have been past at- takes not to engage in military or any other tempts to legally regulate environmen- hostile use of environmental modification tal modification utilization for military techniques having widespread, long-lasting application. For instance, the Weather or severe effects as the means of destruction, Modification Operations and Research damage or injury to any other State Party.” Board had been previously created with (Convention on the Prohibition of Mili- an identical purpose; tary or Any Other Hostile Use of Environ- A bill requiring the creation of the board mental Modification Techniques, 1976) was introduced in the U.S. Senate on two Weaponized climate change methods of occasions by Texas Senator Kay Bailey technological and scientific background Hutchinson, the first on March 4, 2004, lead to significant environmental dam- and the second on March 3, 2005. How- ages, whose effects wouldn’t be limited ever, the bill did not become law on either within the State’s territory that applied occasion, and the board was never created. such military-oriented methods upon Notwithstanding, the inter-operational its own or a foreign nation. Consequent- geo-engineering, weather modification, ly, the international convention further and "global warming mitigation" efforts manages to explicitly describe the mean- of corporations and institutions involved ing of “environmental modification with the proposed board have been ex- techniques” due to reasons of clarifica- ceedingly designative of a large-scale un- tion. According to Article II: official program, which has long involved such dictatorial entities as the Depart- “The term "environmental modification ment of Commerce, and thereby, the Fed- techniques" refers to any technique for eral Reserve system and Federal Taxation changing - through the deliberate manip- monetary allocation. (Academic n.d.) ulation of natural processes - the dynamics, composition or structure of the Earth, in- As noted from the excerpt above, ENMOD cluding its biota, lithosphere, hydrosphere techniques potentially address multi- and atmosphere, or of outer space.”(Con- ple environments of atmospheric, ma- vention on the Prohibition of Military or rine, terrestrial and even extraterrestri- Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental al nature. Compared to current climate Modification Techniques, 1976) change issues, various suggestions have emerged for scientific and legal analy- While discussion of the post-Cold War sis. Solar Geoengineering, also known military applications of weather warfare as Solar Radiation Management (SRM) is a taboo, the US Air Force has none- proposals have offered scientists, politi- theless acknowledged the strategic im- cians, scholars, legislators and ordinary portance of ENMOD techniques in the civilians, various ranges of methods that modern battlefield of non-conventional address climate engineering intending to warfare and intel ops, including the con- reduce global warming. Although solar duct, without the enemy’s knowledge, of geoengineering possesses many benefits, “covert” weather modification opera- such as low financial costs, technological

176 Climate Change: Challenges and Building Resilience efficiency and direct climate change re- public and civil society dialogue will be versibility, most SRM proposals are re- required to identify and address concerns garded as hypothetical, meaning that the about potential environmental, social majority of proposals have not been prac- and economic impacts and unintended tically applied and only manifest theo- consequences. (The Royal Society, 2009) retical effectiveness. Still, hypothetical traits should not represent the main con- Solar geoengineering, primarily concerns regarding SRM proposals, but rath- stituted by SAI, has been universally er the high potentiality of their weaponi- presented as a promising climate engi- zation and concerning ethical questions. neering technology currently undergo- Contrastingly, one may ask how it is even ing rigorous technological research con- possible for currently theoretical climate ducted by civilian scientists. While the modification techniques to be considered weaponization of ENMOD techniques is as potential components in the arsenal generally banned by the Environmen- of weather warfare, as the concept itself tal Modification Convention, this does seems rather far-fetched. Specifically, not entirely eliminate risks of military among the recognized SRM proposals is misuse. International legislation may the concept of Stratospheric Aerosol In- contribute for SAI’s rigorous utilization jection (SAI), which represents one of in weather warfare however its imme- the most promising atmospheric forms diate application as an environmental of SRM proposals in the scientific com- action could inevitably lead towards its munity. By rationalizing artificial control weaponization. In other words, the uti- of the global temperature by spreading lization of SAI itself represents an exer- tons of sulfur dioxide into Earth’s strat- tion of devious influence specifically for osphere, its only existing governance is military advantages. This legal conse- identical to solar radiation management quence seems unintended by the public governance. The international mecha- and is simultaneously influenced by the nisms most applicable to geoengineering amount of trust in the military regarded methods and their impacts have not been as the potential undertaker of SAI im- developed for the purpose of regulating plementation, as well as its explicit mo- geoengineering, and for some methods tivations of undertaking such actions. there are as yet no regulatory mecha- The military is addressed as the highest nisms in place. (The Royal Society, 2009) rated and most trusted governmental institution. Therefore, the public opinion of militaries, particularly in the US, is an MISLEADING PUBLIC OPINION AND THE extremely relevant factor. The American SLIPPERY SLOPE FALLACY armed forces are dependent upon public opinion in several ways. First, the ser- Public attitudes towards geoengineering, vices must secure funding through the and public engagement in the develop- federal appropriations process. Without ment of individual methods proposed, strong public support for the military, will have a critical bearing on its future. members of Congress will have less in- Perception of the risks involved, levels centive to increase or to maintain fund- of trust in those undertaking research or ing. Second, the all-volunteer military implementation, and the transparency of requires thousands of young Americans actions, purposes and vested interests, to “vote” every year with their feet. This will determine the political feasibility of requires the active support of not only geoengineering. If geoengineering is to these young people but also the relatives, play a role in reducing climate change an teachers, counselors, and others who in- active and international programme of fluence them. If growing segments of the

177 Fifteenth Annual International Conference on European Integration – AICEI 2020 population are less enthusiastic about of military-aimed solar geoengineering the military, the result could be future techniques, including the weaponization recruiting difficulties. (Leal, 2005) of SAI, does not represent a risk by itself, but rather the interference between the Public opinion concerning military ac- belligerent nations. If one State considers tivities, however, is fairly variable de- using weather warfare through solar geo- pending on divided political supports engineering upon the enemy’s territori- surrounding the war in question. The al environment, as a result, that military public would either manifest favorable or activity may inflict unintentional damage less favorable perceptions of its military on States, either its environment’s sta- forces, generally speaking. For instance, bility or the wellbeing of its civilians and public opinion regarding the US mili- beyond. This perception may result in the tary was very low during its engagement emergence of the slippery slope argu- in the Vietnam War. American Air Force ment, often recognized as a logical fallacy veteran Jason Nulton, on one particular manifested by global psychology and in- occasion, had stated: “Historically, Amer- ternational awareness, which could po- icans have been fairly kind, but the coun- tentially cause certain military-related try reached a low point during the Vietnam disadvantages concerning the utilization War, which left scars on our national psyche of solar geoengineering as a method of that remain today.” (Nulton 2015) weather warfare. Despite the importance of public opin- If A then B; If B then C; If C then…Z ion of the militaries, it cannot be equally applied regarding potential solar geoen- In this case, the development of assumed gineering and weaponized SAI utiliza- military-aimed solar geoengineering tion concerns. Public opinions represent techniques represents the “small event” a national perspective for engaged mili- (A) that would lead to consequential- tary operations. Any utilized methods of ly negative and unintended effects that warfare should be the main concern of the would have a global impact upon Earth’s belligerent nations. Climate change, on environment (Z). The weaponization of the other hand, represents a global issue solar geoengineering techniques, as an for mankind whose effects cannot be en- exaggerated logic of this ultimate result tirely limited. Consequently, politics do is not necessarily perceived as the be- not represent the main contributor, play- ginning step, but rather its reference as ing a less significant role in the weaponi- a “weapon of mass destruction”, derived zation of the Anthropocene. The potential from the dilemma of weaponizing solar application of any climate engineering geoengineering applications still being techniques could trigger potential side debatable and under rigorous suspicions, effects, problems and risks, including hu- in order to prevent the military, as the man health. Nevertheless, military forc- most suitable governmental institution, es opting to apply solar geoengineering from having the privilege and obligation techniques in the future would be prom- of developing solar geoengineering tech- inently perceived to benefit from those niques as promising methods in regards side effects and use them in their ulti- to climate change issues. At the same mate advantage to win any war they are time, it can be noticed in the above-men- engaged in. However, it is also important tioned setting, that the only recognized to notice that this concept represents a bi- events are “A” and “Z”, reflecting the ased and one-sided perception. What the misleading public opinion that regard majority of the public fails to recognize the issue in question. The public opin- is that the development and existence ion would not necessarily perceive the

178 Climate Change: Challenges and Building Resilience weaponization of solar geoengineering and deployment of advanced climate en- techniques as a complicated, condition- gineering methods (B), equipped aircraft al process, but rather as a straight-for- and missiles, particularly the utilization ward cause-effect notion, more likely to of military aircraft as a delivery tech- be logically presented in the simple man- nique for aerosol precursor gases in the ner: If A then Z, with the impression of case of SAI application (C), Large-scale going over the entire alphabet, starting deployment activity (D), funding capac- from the letter “A” and ultimately reach- ity for solar geoengineering research and ing the letter “Z”, while skipping the al- development (E), etc. The existence of phabet letters in-between, which further these advantages, decrease the probabil- generates the following question: Where ity of the occurrence of the assumed “A are the events B, C, D, E, etc. in the first to Z” argument logic – promising solar scenario, and more importantly, what do geoengineering proposals to represent a they represent in practice? weapon of “mass destruction”, resulting in irreparable environmental damages. It The international phenomena that man- is concluded that there is no occurrence ifests a global rationalization of climate of event “Z” for the completeness of change, addressed as an universal issue, the slippery slope argument. Misleading through the argument logic of “A to Z”, public opinion disregard the “intermedi- from a psychological standpoint, ex- ate advantages”, them being the opposite cludes the original concept of the slip- of plausible intermediate events which pery slope – the beginning event “A” simultaneously leads to the infeasible would only imply the ultimate event “Z” characterization of the slippery slope. through the intermediate events B, C, D, E, etc. Mislead public opinion in this case proves that it is not required to follow MILITARIZATION OF THE ANTHROPOCENE: this pattern. Even without the occurrence AN ANTHROPOLOGICAL APPROACH of the intermediate events B, C, D, E, etc, the supposed weaponization of solar Apart from the misleading public opinion geoengineering techniques under mil- argumentation, weather warfare does itary development contributes enough not represent a contemporary concept, for its identification as a slippery slope when perceived objectively. The mili- for the immediate consequence of “mass tary successfully acknowledges the re- destruction”. This is the part where the ality of climate change, including its role non-plausibility factor appears to dis- and influence upon the Anthropocene. credit the slippery slope logical fallacy. Therefore, concerning strategic military Namely, in order for the “A to Z” argu- planning, two recent reports, the “2014 ment logic to effectively apply in practice, Climate Change Adaptation Roadmap” every intermediate event should be in its and the “Strategic Sustainability Per- favor. However, in the case of weaponiz- formance Plan FY 2014”, detail the mil- ing solar geoengineering techniques, the itary’s thinking about climate change, notion of favorable intermediate events how changing environmental conditions is non-existent. Contrarily, we ac- will impact its ability to carry out mis- knowledge the replacement of the term sions, and how the DoD will also create “events” with “advantages”, specifically new forms of missions and operations referring to the military’s superiority as a stresses and challenges. (Bickford 2015) governmental institution. What could be considered as “intermediate advantag- One of the main goals established with- es” are for instance, the military’s no- in the “2014 Climate Change Adaptation table experience regarding development Roadmap” concerns plans and opera-

179 Fifteenth Annual International Conference on European Integration – AICEI 2020 tions, which “include the activities dedi- about how the military is responding to it cated to preparing for and carrying out the as well. (Bickford 2015) full range of military operations. Also included are the operating environments in The comprehensive solution to this is- the air, on land, and at sea, at home and sue would be for policy-makers to ad- abroad, that shape the development of plans dress SRM proposals with the inten- and execution of operations.” (Department tion of manifesting global consent, but of Defense, 2014) not necessarily through international treaties and agreements, although that Adequately enough, solar geoengineering would be more favorable during wartime. includes a wide variety of techniques for Simply put, policy makers—those who the military that include the above-men- control the purse strings for funding and tioned environments for research devel- procurement—can get behind climate opment and practical application. The change as long as it’s framed as a na- most discussed SRM proposals involve tional security issue, a framing that fits injecting sulfate aerosols into the strat- a worldview of protection, power projec- osphere and brightening sea clouds. To tion, and profit. (Bickford 2015) date, no geoengineering proposal has been researched to the point of becoming However, even when identified as a na- a policy option. (Scott, 2012) tional security issue, solar geoengineering proposals would need to be catego- Furthermore, the Federal Trade Com- rized on a severity-of-utilization basis, mission (FTC), concerning within the additionally provided by military re- Climate Change Resilience goal of wheth- search development. For instance, the er it incorporates climate preparedness “Weather as a Force Multiplier: Own- and resilience into planning and imple- ing the Weather in 2025” research pa- mentation guidelines for agency-imple- per contains an identical categorization mented projects, the report stated that regarding the notion of weather modi- “the climate change adaptation plan spec- fication: “In the broadest sense, weather ifies actions to take. The plan will be used if modification can be divided into two ma- there is the possibility of climate change or a jor categories: suppression and intensifica- severe weather event that impacts an agen- tion of weather patterns. In extreme cases, cy project.” (Robbins and Mantiply, 2014) it might involve the creation of completely new weather patterns, attenuation or con- Pragmatically, military forces should ex- trol of severe storms, or even alteration of plicitly rationalize the utilization of so- global climate on a far-reaching and/or lar geoengineering techniques in regards long-lasting scale. In the mildest and least to climate change. Mankind is currently controversial cases it may consist of induc- living in the Anthropocene as a particu- ing or suppressing precipitation, clouds, or larly different epoch. How the military for short times over a small-scale region. plans for and responds to climate change Other low-intensity applications might in- will have an impact on how we conduct clude the alteration and/or use of near space anthropology. This is a broad claim, and as a medium to enhance communications, hopefully not as straightforward and me- disrupt active or passive sensing, or other chanical as it appears, but the new global purposes.” (United States Air Force, 1996) political and military realities brought on by the Anthropocene will have an impact Following this categorization, promising on how we do our work. We need to think SRM proposals should undergo identical about, theorize, and study the impacts organization, primarily depending on ap- of climate change, and we need to think plicatory purposes and the severity of its environmental efficiency. Additionally,

180 Climate Change: Challenges and Building Resilience such classification should serve as a foun- gies in case some day they are faced with dation for national/international policy a choice between catastrophic climate and governance. While the 2025 study is change or geoengineering. (Scott, 2012) not officially US policy, it was drafted with the intent that it would provide a platform The ethics of geoengineering discussed to build policy (and weapon systems) on. in literature commonly address solar (Smith, 2006) geoengineering proposals, however all of these ethical frameworks have one thing This change in the military’s thinking in common – they refer to environmen- about the world and its climate will have tal ethics, under the assumption of solar an impact on anthropology. If the military geoengineering methods being primar- is developing militarized responses to cli- ily developed by civilian scientists. Un- mate change, we’ll need to think about dertaking large scale solar geoengineer- how these militarized—or at least mili- ing would require capabilities (logistics, tary-influenced—responses will poten- aviation and particularly security) and tially result in a militarization of climate delivery systems (rockets, artillery, air- change research, and how that in turn will craft) that are now mainly held by the impact an anthropology of the Anthropo- military and their contractors. The mili- cene and the military. (Bickford 2015) tary are also less constrained than scientists by international law because of their national security exemptions. Solar geo- MILITARY ETHICS REGARDING SOLAR engineering therefore has an inherent GEOENGINEERING APPLICATIONS potential to be controlled by defense es- tablishment institutions. (Geoengineer- Until recently, high-level scientific and ing Governance Research n.d.) policy discussions about geoengineering research have been largely off the If the military intends to develop SRM table. There is a consistent concern that proposals to be developed specifical- significant research efforts could cause ly, it is essential to replace the concept some leaders to see geoengineering as a of environmental ethics with military cheap solution to the climate crisis. This ethics, respectively. However, the term attitude might undermine efforts to get “military ethics” simultaneously covers at the root of the problem. In addition to a wider range of aspects and is often re- this potential "moral hazard," numerous garded as an oxymoron, since the nature ethical issues have been raised. The two of military force and its application gives most extensive treatments of ethical is- rise to contexts in which the requirement sues to date are by the philosophers Dale to act ethically can be very challenging. Jamieson (Jamieson 1997) and Stephan (Baker, 2015) Gardiner (Gardiner 2010). In his early es- When addressing solar geoengineer- say, Jamieson lists a set of conditions that ing applications, military ethics would any geoengineering proposal would need exclude questioning ethics of climate to meet in order to be morally permissi- change methods, while emphasizing ble. These conditions set a high bar, and their development and application for it would be very difficult for any geoengi- public good and warfare. The utilization neering proposal to meet them. In his es- of solar geoengineering would ultimate- say, Gardiner exhaustively analyzes the ly change the character of wars held in argument that geoengineering might be the future, as well as the levels of scien- the lesser of two evils. More specifically, tific development and utilization during that it would be morally prudent to arm peacetimes, for climate change purposes. future generations with these technolo- In such situations, military ethics cannot

181 Fifteenth Annual International Conference on European Integration – AICEI 2020 be regarded by standard, but rather indi- ner, but instead proposes an appropriate vidually divided for both weaponized and severity-based classification. Many ir- non-weaponized climate change meth- rational factors manifested by the glob- ods. Hence, SRM proposals would only al community, particularly derived from be partially included as warfare, mainly the slippery slope argument fallacy, con- shaped by aspects of science and nation- tribute for the military to be perceived in al/international legislation. Although a rigorously destructive manner, instead weaponized solar geoengineering meth- of a potential of scientific and technolog- ods are not entirely excluded, the bene- ical advantage against climate change. fits of the military-conducted solar geo- Simply put, the technological evolution of engineering applications would reflect warfare does not have to necessarily rep- for military ethics to not be perceived as resent a parallel notion with non-hostile much of an oxymoron. scientific development, especially when considered a public good. However, military-aimed utilization of environment CONCLUSION modification techniques, rationalized otherwise, can be rightfully regarded The importance of simultaneous mili- as national security that represents the tary-developed and military-conducted duty of the military as the most trusted solar geoengineering methods empha- and highest ranked governmental insti- sized throughout this paper contribute tution, generally speaking. Hence, it is for the emergence of a militarized An- necessary to properly regulate solar geo- thropocene, even though predetermined engineering applications as both military applications of climate change tech- and non-military dimensions. niques do not necessarily imply weather warfare perceived by an unethical man-

182 Climate Change: Challenges and Building Resilience

REFERENCES

Academic n.d., Weather Modification Op- Dictionary 2012, Anthropocene, viewed 19 erations and Research Board, viewed 18 April 2020, https://www.dictionary.com/ April 2020, https://enacademic.com/dic. browse/anthropocene nsf/enwiki/1352772/Weather_Modifica- tion_Operations_and_Research_Board Geoengineering Governance Research (n.d.) What Are the Security Implications Of Baker, D. (2015) Key Concepts in Military Solar Geoengineering? (s.l.): Climate Geo- Ethics. Sydney: NewSouth Publishing. engineering Governance (CGG) Project.

Bickford, A 2015, Anthropology, the An- House, J, T et al. 1996. Weather as a Force thropocene and the Military, viewed 18 Multiplier: Owning the Weather in 2025. April 2020, https://www.envirosociety. United States Air Force. Available at: https:// org/2015/01/anthropology-the-anthropo- apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a333462.pdf cene-and-the-military/ Leal, L, D. (2005) American Public Opin- Chossudovsky, M 2002, Washington’s ion toward the Military. Armed Forced and New World Order Weapons Have the Ability Society, 32(1): 123-138. to Trigger Climate Change, viewed 19 April 2020, https://archives.globalresearch.ca/ Nulton, J 2015, The Shifting Public Per- articles/CHO201A.html ception of America’s Veterans, viewed 20 April 2020, https://taskandpurpose.com/ Chossudovsky, M 2018, The Ultimate Weap- community/the-shifting-public-percep- on of Mass Destruction: “Owning the Weath- tion-of-americas-veterans er” for Military Use, viewed 19 April 2020, https://www.globalresearch.ca/the-ultimate- Robbins, D. and Mantiply, R. (2014) 2014 weapon-of-mass-destruction-owning-the- Strategic Sustainability Performance Plan. weather-for-military-use-2/5306386?utm_ DC: Federal Trade Commission. campaign=magnet&utm_source=article_ page&utm_medium=related_articles Scott, D. (2012) Geoengineering and En- Convention on the Prohibition of Military or vironmental Ethics. Nature Education Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Mod- Knowledge, 3(10):10. ification Techniques, Geneva, 10 December 1976, United Nations Treaty Series, vol. 1108, Smith, E, J. (2006) Weather Warfare. p.151, available from https://treaties.un.org/ Kempton: Adventures Unlimited Press. pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_ no=XXVI-1&chapter=26&lang=en The Royal Society (2009) Geoengineering the climate: Science, governance and un- Department of Defense (2014) 2014 Cli- certainty. London: The Royal Society. mate Change Adaptation Roadmap. DC: Of- fice of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Energy, Installations, and Environment).

183