Australia's backing for geo-engineering cops international criticism

High-level international discussions are focussing on the threats of a more direct form of climate intervention – 'geo-engineering'. The UN's Subsidiary Body of Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice recently recommended a formal moratorium on carrying out geo-engineering experiments.

But in March this year, the Victorian government was the sole 'strategic partner' and major sponsor of a heavily promoted conference devoted to advancing geo-engineering. The 'Asilomar' conference represented a huge practical and public relations push by geo-engineering proponents to give the controversial sector a veneer of respectability.

So why did the Victorian government not only provide $250,000 in funding to be the sole 'strategic partner' of the conference, but also commit to advocate for the conference recommendations – sight unseen? There are already international perceptions that Australia is not serious about reducing greenhouse emissions. Efforts at Copenhagen to negotiate climate agreements that favoured Australian industry at the expense of rigorous emissions reduction provoked strong criticism from other delegates. Now, given the parlous state of international negotiations to cut greenhouse gas emissions, a significant concern is that unproven geo-engineering techno-fixes will be used as a smokescreen for inaction.

Geo-engineering, or large-scale intentional climate manipulation, remains an untested, largely hypothetical and high-risk new sector. Many eminent scientists are sceptical that sending small mirrors into outer space, pumping sulphate nanoparticles into the stratosphere or triggering giant algal blooms in the ocean, will really save us from dangerous climate change. Some suggest that the unintended consequences could be catastrophic.

Nonetheless, there are no shortage of techno-optimists and entrepreneurs willing to bet they can find a quick techno-fix to climate change. In May, the London Times newspaper revealed that a team of scientists and engineers funded by billionaire Bill Gates are planning to carry out a 10,000 square kilometre 'cloud-whitening' experiment. If it goes ahead, this 'cloud-bleaching' experiment would be the largest known geo-engineering field trial to date.

At present, there are few rules or restrictions on carrying out geo-engineering experiments, irrespective of their ecological risk. A 2008 meeting of 191 nations at the UN Convention on Biological Diversity supported a de facto moratorium on ocean fertilisation (which Australia, Brazil and China opposed until the last minute). However this has been poorly policed. There are no restrictions on atmospheric manipulation.

Serious scientific concern exists about the ecological and social risks of geo-engineering experiments gone wrong – disruption to regional rainfall and weather patterns, acidified oceans and soils, depletion of the ozone layer, crop failure and population displacement. Geo-engineering is also vulnerable to misuse by self-interested actors for commercial, political or military purposes.

Fossil fuel proponents are already trying to use geo-engineering as a reason to postpone measures to cut emissions and are doing their best to win government supporters, especially among those nations dependent on emission-intensive industries. So at a time when scientists are trying hard to regain momentum for international action to reduce emissions, efforts by the Victorian government to promote geo-engineering are particularly unhelpful.

The Victorian government has taken action to drive investment in renewable energy. Yet recent analysis by Green Energy Markets, commissioned by Environment Victoria, found that renewables still contribute only 5.4% to Victoria's electricity generation – up less than 1% from 2000 − while 91.5% comes from burning coal. Over the past decade, Victoria's carbon emissions from burning brown coal have grown by nearly 10%.

Hazelwood, one of the dirtiest power stations in the industrialised world, was due to be decommissioned last year. The Brumby government extended its operation for another 20 years. Worse, the government supports building more coal-fired plants. Documents leaked last year also revealed that some in state Cabinet want to establish a brown coal export market.

At the same time as Victoria is considering an expansion of its dirty brown coal sector, and while renewables are languishing, the state's sponsorship of the high profile geo-engineering meeting is a very bad look.

If we are to avoid Australia being denigrated at home and overseas as an irresponsible climate wrecker, it's time to get serious about the real business of emissions reduction. This means a dramatic rethink in both federal and state governments' approach to energy and climate policy. The Brumby government should start phasing out use of brown coal, arrest its flirtation with climate manipulation and bring in serious measures to support a transition to renewable energy. Smoke and mirrors are not a good basis for climate policy.