Climate engineering

1
Climate engineering
See also: environmental engineering, geotechnical engineering and planetary engineering
An oceanic phytoplankton bloom in the South
Atlantic Ocean, off the coast of Argentina. The
aim of ocean iron fertilization in theory is to
increase such blooms by adding some iron, which
would then draw carbon from the atmosphere and
fix it on the seabed.
Climate engineering, also referred to as geoengineering, is the
deliberate and large-scale intervention in the Earths climatic system
with the aim of reducing global warming.
[1]
Climate engineering has
two categories of technologies- carbon dioxide removal and solar
radiation management. Carbon dioxide removal addresses a cause of
climate change by removing one of the greenhouse gases from the
atmosphere. Solar radiation management attempts to offset effects of
greenhouse gases by causing the Earth to absorb less solar radiation.
Geoengineering has been proposed as a potential third option for
tackling global warming, alongside mitigation and adaptation.
Scientists do not typically suggest geoengineering the climate as an
alternative to emissions control, but rather an accompanying strategy.
Reviews of geoengineering techniques for climate control have
emphasised that they are not substitutes for emission controls and have
identified potentially stronger and weaker schemes. The costs, benefits,
and risks of many geoengineering approaches to climate change are not
well understood.
[2]
However, a study from 2014 concluded that the
most common climate engineering methods are either relatively
ineffective or have potentially severe side effects and cannot be
stopped without causing rapid climate change.
There are no known large-scale climate engineering projects except one conducted outside the scientific mainstream
by Russ George. Almost all research has consisted of computer modelling or laboratory tests, and attempts to move
to real-world experimentation have proved controversial. Some limited tree planting and cool roof projects are
already underway. Ocean iron fertilization has been given small-scale research trials. Field research into sulfur
aerosols has also started.
Voices of caution against viewing geoengineered interventions as a simple solution to climate change are largely due
to the risks and partially unknown side-effects of the technologies in question. Given the vastly insufficient action on
emissions reductions in climate policy to date some have argued though that the risks of such interventions are to be
seen in the context of risks of dangerous climate change. As a rule of thumb it would appear that the scale of risks
and costs of each climate engineering option appear to be somewhat inverse: The lower the costs, the greater the
risks.WP:POV Some have suggested that the concept of geoengineering the climate presents a moral hazard because
it could reduce political and public pressure for emissions reduction. Groups such as ETC Group and individuals
such as Raymond Pierrehumbert have called for a moratorium on deployment and out-of-doors testing of
geoengineering techniques for climate control.
[3]
Climate engineering
2
Background
Several notable organizations have investigated geoengineering with a view to evaluating its potential, including the
US Congress, NASA, the Royal Society, the Institute of Mechanical Engineers,
[4]
and the UK Parliament. The
Asilomar International Conference on Climate Intervention Technologies was convened to identify and develop risk
reduction guidelines for climate intervention experimentation.
Major environmental organisations such as Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace have typically been reluctant to
endorse solar radiation management, but are often more supportive of some carbon dioxide removal projects, such as
afforestation and peatland restoration. Some authors have argued that any public support for geoengineering may
weaken the fragile political consensus to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Proposed strategies
See also: List of proposed geoengineering projects
Several geoengineering strategies have been proposed. IPCC documents detail several notable proposals. These fall
into two main categories: solar radiation management and carbon dioxide removal. However, other proposals exist.
The Geoengineering Climate: Technical Evaluation and Discussion of Impacts project of the National Academy of
Sciences funded by United States agencies, including NOAA, NASA, and the CIA, commenced in March 2013, is
expected to issue a report in fall 2014.
"An ad hoc committee will conduct a technical evaluation of a limited number of proposed geoengineering
techniques, including examples of both solar radiation management (SRM) and carbon dioxide removal (CDR)
techniques, and comment generally on the potential impacts of deploying these technologies, including possible
environmental, economic, and national security concerns. The study will:
1. 1. Evaluate what is currently known about the science of several (3-4) selected example techniques, including
potential risks and consequences (both intended and unintended), such as impacts, or lack thereof, on ocean
acidification,
2. 2. Describe what is known about the viability for implementation of the proposed techniques including
technological and cost considerations,
3. 3. Briefly explain other geoengineering technologies that have been proposed (beyond the selected examples), and
4. 4. Identify future research needed to provide a credible scientific underpinning for future discussions.
The study will also discuss historical examples of related technologies (e.g., cloud seeding and other weather
modification) for lessons that might be learned about societal reactions, examine what international agreements exist
which may be relevant to the experimental testing or deployment of geoengineering technologies, and briefly explore
potential societal and ethical considerations related to geoengineering. This study is intended to provide a careful,
clear scientific foundation that informs ethical, legal, and political discussions surrounding geoengineering.
The project has support from the National Academy of Sciences, the U.S. intelligence community, the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. The approximate
start date for the project is March 2013; a report is expected be issued in fall 2014."
[5]
Climate engineering
3
Solar radiation management
Main article: Solar radiation management
See also: Stratospheric sulfate aerosols (geoengineering) and Marine Cloud Brightening
Solar radiation management (SRM)
[6]
projects seek to reduce sunlight absorbed (ultra-violet, near infra-red and
visible). This would be achieved by deflecting sunlight away from the Earth, or by increasing the reflectivity
(albedo) of the atmosphere or the Earth's surface. These methods do not reduce greenhouse gas concentrations in the
atmosphere, and thus do not seek to address problems such as the ocean acidification caused by CO
2
. Solar radiation
management projects often have the advantage of speedy deployment and effect. While greenhouse gas remediation
offers a more comprehensive possible solution to climate change, it does not give instantaneous results; for that,
solar radiation management is required.Wikipedia:Disputed statement
Solar radiation management methods may include:
Surface-based (land or ocean albedo modification); e.g. cool roofusing pale-coloured roofing and paving
materials.
Troposphere-based, for example cloud whitening using fine sea water spray to whiten clouds and thus increase
cloud reflectivity.
Upper atmosphere-based: creating reflective aerosols, such as stratospheric sulfate aerosols, aluminium oxide
particles, even specifically designed self-levitating aerosols.
Space-based: space sunshadeobstructing solar radiation with space-based mirrors, asteroid dust, etc.
Carbon dioxide removal
Main articles: Carbon dioxide removal, Greenhouse gas remediation and Carbon sequestration
Carbon dioxide removal projects seek to remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere. Proposed methods include
those that directly remove such gases from the atmosphere, as well as indirect methods that seek to use natural
processes (e.g. tree planting). Many projects overlap with carbon capture and storage and carbon sequestration
projects, and may not be considered to be geoengineering by all commentators. Techniques in this category include:
Creating biochar and mixing it with soil to create terra preta
Bio-energy with carbon capture and storage to sequester carbon and simultaneously provide energy
Carbon air capture to remove carbon dioxide from ambient air
Planting trees to offset carbon emissions
Ocean nourishment including iron fertilisation of the oceans
Climate engineering
4
Significant reduction in ice volume in the Arctic Ocean in the range
between 1979 and 2007 years
Justification
Tipping points and positive feedback
Climate change during the last 65 million years. The PaleoceneEocene Thermal
Maximum is labelled PETM.
It is argued that climate change may cross
tipping points where elements of the climate
system may 'tip' from one stable state to
another stable state, much like a glass
tipping over. When the new state is reached,
further warming may be caused by positive
feedback effects,. An example of a proposed
causal chain leading to runaway global
warming is the collapse of Arctic sea ice
triggering subsequent release of methane.
The precise identity of such "tipping points"
is not clear, with scientists taking differing
views on whether specific systems are
capable of "tipping" and the point at which
this "tipping" will occur. An example of a previous tipping point is that which preceded the rapid warming leading
up to the PaleoceneEocene Thermal Maximum. Once a tipping point is crossed, cuts in anthropogenic greenhouse
gas emissions will not be able to reverse the change. Conservation of resources and reduction of greenhouse
emissions, used in conjunction with geoengineering, are therefore considered a viable option by some
commentators.
[7]
Geoengineering offers the hope of temporarily reversing some aspects of climate change and
allowing the natural climate to be substantially preserved whilst greenhouse gas emissions are brought under control
and removed from the atmosphere by natural or artificial processes.
Climate engineering
5
Costs
Some geoengineering techniques, such as cool roof techniques, can be achieved at little or no cost, and may even
offer a financial payback. IPCC (2007) concluded that reliable cost estimates for geoengineering options had not
been published. More recently, early research into costs of solar radiation management have been published. This
suggests that "well designed systems" might be available for costs in the order of a few hundred million dollars per
year. These are much lower than costs to achieve comprehensive reductions in CO
2
emissions.Wikipedia:Citation
needed Such costs would be within the budget of most nations, and even a handful of rich individuals.
In their 2009 report Geoengineering the climate the Royal Society adjudged afforestation and stratospheric aerosols
as the methods with the "highest affordability" (meaning lowest costs). Furthermore stratospheric aerosol injection,
having the highest effectiveness and affordability, would be the nearest approximation to the "ideal method", with
the (significant) disadvantage of high uncertainties considering safety and unwanted side effects. While afforestation
scored highly for safety, it was found to be of limited effectiveness for treating climate change (see Table 5.1, Figure
5.1., pages 4849)
Ethics and responsibility
Climate engineering would represent a large-scale, intentional effort to modify the environment, which differ from
inadvertent climate change through activities such as burning fossil fuels. Intentional climate change is viewed very
differently from a moral standpoint.
[8]
This raises questions of whether we as humans have the right to change the
climate, and under what conditions this right obtains. Furthermore, ethical arguments often confront larger
considerations of worldview, including individual and social religious commitments. For many, religious beliefs are
pivotal in defining the role of human beings in the wider world. Some religious communities might claim that
humans have no responsibility in managing the climate, instead seeing such world systems as the exclusive domain
of a Creator. In contrast, other religious communities might see the human role as one of "stewardship" or
benevolent management of the world.
[9]
The question of ethics also relates to issues of policy decision-making. For
example, the selection of a globally agreed target temperature is a significant problem in any geoengineering
governance regime, as different countries or interest groups may seek different global temperatures.
[10]
What most ethicists, policy-makers, and scientists agree on is this: Solar radiation management is an incomplete
solution to global warming.
[11]
The possible option of geoengineering may reduce incentives to reduce emissions of
greenhouse gases. It is argued that geoengineering could be used to 'buy time' before drastic climate change happens,
allowing mitigation and adaptation measures more time to be implemented and work.
[12]
But the opposition points
out that the resources spent on geoengineering could be used for mitigation and efforts to reduce emissions of
greenhouse gases. Geoengineering also does not resolve other issues related to increasing levels of carbon dioxide.
Political viability
It has been argued that regardless of the economic, scientific and technical aspects, the difficulty of achieving
concerted political action on climate change requires other approaches. Those arguing political expediency say the
difficulty of achieving meaningful emissions cuts and the effective failure of the Kyoto Protocol demonstrate the
practical difficulties of achieving carbon dioxide emissions reduction by the agreement of the international
community. However, others point to support for geoengineering proposals among think tanks with a history of
climate change skepticism and opposition to emissions reductions as evidence that the prospect of geoengineering is
itself already politicized and being promoted as part of an argument against the need for (and viability of) emissions
reductions; that, rather than geoengineering being a solution to the difficulties of emissions reductions, the prospect
of geoengineering is being used as part of an argument to stall emissions reductions in the first place.
Geoenginering poses several challenges in the context of governance because of issues of power and jurisdiction.
[]
Geoengineering as a climate change solution differs from other mitigation and adaptation strategies. Unlike a carbon
trading system that would be focused on participation from multiple parties along with transparency, monitoring
Climate engineering
6
measures and compliance procedures; this is not necessarily required by geoengineering. Bengtsson
[13]
(2006)
argues that "the artificial release of sulphate aerosols is a commitment of at least several hundred years". This
highlights the importance for a political framework that is sustainable enough to contain a multilateral commitment
over such a long period and yet is flexible as the techniques innovate through time. There are many controversies
surrounding this topic and hence, geoengineering has been made into a very political issue. Most discussions and
debates are not about which geoengineering technique is better than the other, or which one is more economically
and socially feasible. Discussions are broadly on who will have control over the deployment of geoengineering and
under what governance regime the deployment can be monitored and supervised. This is especially important due to
the regional variability of the effects of many geoengineering techniques, benefiting some countries while damaging
others. The challenge posed by geoengineering is not how to get countries to do it. It is to address the fundamental
question of who should decide whether and how geoengineering should be attempted a problem of governance.
[14]
Risks and criticisms
Change in sea surface pH caused by anthropogenic CO
2
between the 1700s and the
1990s. This ocean acidification will still be a major problem unless atmospheric
CO
2
is reduced.
Various criticisms have been made of
geoengineering, particularly Solar Radiaton
Management (SRM) methods. Decision
making suffers from intransitivity of policy
choice. Some commentators appear
fundamentally opposed. Groups such as
ETC Group and individuals such as
Raymond Pierrehumbert have called for a
moratorium on geoengineering techniques.
Ineffectiveness
The effectiveness of the schemes proposed
may fall short of predictions. In ocean iron
fertilization, for example, the amount of
carbon dioxide removed from the
atmosphere may be much lower than
predicted, as carbon taken up by plankton may be released back into the atmosphere from dead plankton, rather than
being carried to the bottom of the sea and sequestered.
[15]
Incomplete solution to CO
2
emissions
Techniques that do not remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere may control global warming, but do not
reduce other effects from these gases, such as ocean acidification.
[16]
While not an argument against geoengineering
per se, this is an argument against reliance on geoengineering to the exclusion of greenhouse gas reduction.
Climate engineering
7
Control and predictability problems
The full effects of various geoengineering schemes are not well understood. Matthews et al. compared
geoengineering to a number of previous environmental interventions and concluded that "Given our current level of
understanding of the climate system, it is likely that the result of at least some geoengineering efforts would follow
previous ecological examples where increased human intervention has led to an overall increase in negative
environmental consequences."
Performance of the systems may become ineffective, unpredictable or unstable as a result of external events, such as
volcanic eruptions, phytoplankton blooms, El Nio, solar flares, etc., potentially leading to profound and
unpredictable disruption to the climate system.
It may be difficult to predict the effectiveness of projects,
[17]
with models of techniques giving widely varying
results.
[18]
In the instances of systems which involve tipping points, this may result in irreversible effects. Climate
modelling is far from an exact science even when applied to comparatively well-understood natural climate systems,
and it is made more complex by the need to understand novel and unnatural processes which by definition lack
relevant observation data.
Side effects
The techniques themselves may cause significant foreseen or unforeseen harm. For example, the use of reflective
balloons may result in significant litter, which may be harmful to wildlife.
Ozone depletion is a risk of some geoengineering techniques, notably those involving sulfur delivery into the
stratosphere.
[19]
The active nature of geoengineering may in some cases create a clear division between winners and losers. Most of
the proposed interventions are regional, such as albedo modification in the Arctic.
There may be unintended climatic consequences, such as changes to the hydrological cycle including droughts
[20]
or
floods, caused by the geoengineering techniques, but possibly not predicted by the models used to plan them.
[21]
Such effects may be cumulative or chaotic in nature, making prediction and control very difficult.
Not all side effects are negative, and an increase in agricultural productivity has been predicted by some studies.
Unreliable systems
The performance of the interventions may be inconsistent due to mechanical failure, non-availability of consumables
or funding problems.
The geoengineering techniques would, in many instances, be vulnerable to being switched off or deliberately
destroyed. As examples, cloud making ships could be switched off or sunk and space mirrors could be tilted to make
them useless. Anyone capable of exerting such power may seek to abuse it for commercial gain, military advantage
or simple terrorism.
Climate engineering
8
Termination shock
If solar radiation management were to abruptly stop, the climate would rapidly warm. This would cause a sudden
rise in global temperatures towards levels which would have existed without the use of the geoengineering
technique. The rapid rise in temperature may lead to more severe consequences than a gradual rise of the same
magnitude.
Weaponisation
In 1976, 85 countries signed the U.N. Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of
Environmental Modification Techniques. The Environmental Modification Convention generally prohibits
weaponising geoengineering techniques. However, this does not eliminate the risk. Geoengineering techniques may
serve as weapons of mass destruction, creating droughts or famines designed to destroy or disable an enemy. They
could also be used simply to make battlefield conditions more favourable to one side or the other in a war. For
example, laser-guided weapons are confounded by clouds, and thus switching off cloud machines would favour
forces using such weapons, and switching them on would favour ground forces defending against them.
Whilst laws or treaties may prevent the manipulation of the climate as a weapon of war,
[22]
it could be argued that
geoengineering is itself a manipulation, and thus destroying or disabling the geoengineering structures is not
prohibited. A new legal framework may be necessary in the event that large-scale geoengineering becomes
established.Wikipedia:No original research
Carnegie's Ken Caldeira said, "It will make it harder to achieve broad consensus on developing and governing these
technologies if there is suspicion that gaining military advantage is an underlying motivation for its development..."
Effect on sunlight, sky and clouds
Managing solar radiation using aerosols or cloud cover would change the ratio between direct and indirect solar
radiation. This may affect plant life
[23]
and solar energy.
[24]
There will be a significant effect on the appearance of
the sky from aerosol projects, notably a hazing of blue skies and a change in the appearance of sunsets.
[25]
Aerosols
may affect the formation of clouds, especially cirrus clouds.
[26]
Moral hazard
The existence of such techniques may reduce the political and social impetus to reduce carbon emissions.
[27]
However, this issue has been researched in an in-depth study by Ipsos MORI for NERC,
[28]
which does not support
the Moral Hazard argument. Other modelling work suggests that the threat of geoengineering by a rogue state may in
fact increase the likelihood of emissions reduction. The issue of moral hazard means that many environmental
groups and campaigners are reluctant to advocate geoengineering for fear of reducing the imperative to cut
greenhouse gas emissions.
Other criticism comes from those who see geoengineering projects as reacting to the symptoms of global warming
rather than addressing the real causes of climate change. Because geoengineering is a form of controlling the risks
associated with global warming, it leads to a moral hazard problem. The problem is that knowledge that
geoengineering is possible could lead to climate impacts seeming less fearsome, which could in turn lead to an even
weaker commitment to reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
Climate engineering
9
Governance
Geoengineering opens up various political and economic issues. David Keith argues that the cost of geoengineering
the Earth is within the realm of small countries, large corporations, or even very wealthy individuals. Steve Rayner
agrees that not all geoengineering possibilities are expensive, and that some, such as ocean iron fertilisation, are
within the reach of very wealthy individuals, calling them a "Greenfinger" (after the fictional Goldfinger). David
Victor suggests that geoengineering is within the reach of any individual who has a small fraction of the bank
account of Bill Gates, who takes it upon him or her self to be the "self-appointed protector of the planet". However, it
has been argued that a rogue state threatening geoengineering may strengthen action on mitigation.
This may seem to eliminates any control over who gets to decide when to cool the Earth and how this should be
done. The resulting power would be enormous, and could not necessarily be readily controlled by legal, political or
regulatory systems. The legal and regulatory systems may face a significant challenge in effectively regulating the
use of these technologies in a manner that allows for an acceptable result for society. There are however significant
incentives for states to cooperate in choosing a specific geoengineering policy, which make unilateral deployment a
rather unlikely event.
A small number carbon offsetting firms have in the past attempted to set up unregulated and unsupervised
geoengineering projects. In the long-run such firms may aim to sell carbon credits to individuals, firms or countries.
Geoengineering has the potential to cause significant environmental damage, and could even end up releasing further
greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.
[29]
Opposition to some early schemes has been intense, with respected
environmental groups campaigning against them.
[30]
Some researchers have suggested that building a global
agreement on geoengineering deployment will be very difficult, and instead power blocs are likely to emerge.
There is presently a lack of a universally agreed framework for the regulation of either geoengineering activity or
research. The London Convention addresses some aspects of the law in relation to biomass ocean storage and ocean
fertilization. Scientists at the Oxford Martin School at Oxford University have proposed a set of voluntary principles,
which may guide geoengineering research. The short version of the 'Oxford Principles' is:
Principle 1: Geoengineering to be regulated as a public good.
Principle 2: Public participation in geoengineering decision-making
Principle 3: Disclosure of geoengineering research and open publication of results
Principle 4: Independent assessment of impacts
Principle 5: Governance before deployment
These principles have been endorsed by the House of Commons of the United Kingdom Science and Technology
Select Committee on The Regulation of Geoengineering,
[31]
and have been referred to by authors discussing the
issue of governance.
[32]
The Asilomar conference was replicated to deal with the issue of geoengineering governance, and covered in a TV
documentary, broadcast in Canada.
Implementation issues
There is no general consensus that geoengineering is safe, appropriate or effective, for the reasons listed above.
Other environmentalists see calls for geoengineering as part of an explicit strategy to delay emissions reductions on
the part of those with connections to coal and oil industries.
[33]
Wikipedia:No original research#Synthesis of
published material that advances a position
All proposed geoengineering techniques require implementation on a relatively large scale, in order to make a
significant difference to the Earth's climate. The least costly schemes are budgeted at a cost of millions,
[34]
with
many more complex schemes such as space sunshade costing far more.
Climate engineering
10
Many techniques, again such as space sunshade, require a complex technical development process before they are
ready to be implemented. There is no clear institutional mechanism for handling this research and development
process. As a result, many promising techniques do not have the engineering development or experimental evidence
to determine their feasibility or efficacy at present.
Once a technique has been developed and tested, its implementation is still likely to be difficult. Climate change is
by nature a global problem, and therefore no one institution, company or government is responsible for it. The
substantial costs of most geoengineering techniques therefore cannot currently be apportioned. Roll-out of such
technologies is therefore likely to be delayed until these issues can be resolved. A notable exception is the use of
small albedo manipulation projects, known as cool roof, in which the colour of roofing or paving surfaces can be
manipulated to reflect solar radiation back into space. These can be, and are, implemented by individuals, companies
and governments without controversy.
[35]
Due to the radical changes caused by geoengineering interventions, legal issues are also an impediment to
implementation. The changes resulting from geoengineering necessarily benefit some people and disadvantage
others. There may therefore be legal challenges to the implementation of geoengineering techniques by those
adversely affected by them.
[36]
Evaluation of geoengineering
Most of what is known about the suggested techniques is based on laboratory experiments, observations of natural
phenomena and on computer modelling techniques. Some geoengineering schemes employ methods that have
analogues in natural phenomena such as stratospheric sulfur aerosols and cloud condensation nuclei. As such, studies
about the efficacy of these schemes can draw on information already available from other research, such as that
following the 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo. However, comparative evaluation of the relative merits of each
technology is complicated, especially given modelling uncertainties and the early stage of engineering development
of many geoengineering schemes.
[37]
Reports into geoengineering have also been published in the United Kingdom by the Institution of Mechanical
Engineers and the Royal Society. The IMechE report examined a small subset of proposed schemes (air capture,
urban albedo and algal-based CO
2 capture schemes), and its main conclusions were that geoengineering should be researched and trialled at the small
scale alongside a wider decarbonisation of the economy.
The Royal Society review examined a wide range of geoengineering schemes and evaluated them in terms of
effectiveness, affordability, timeliness and safety (assigning qualitative estimates in each assessment). Similarly to
Lenton and Vaughan, the report divided schemes into "carbon dioxide removal" (CDR) and "solar radiation
management" (SRM) approaches that respectively address longwave and shortwave radiation. The key
recommendations of the report were that "Parties to the UNFCCC should make increased efforts towards mitigating
and adapting to climate change, and in particular to agreeing to global emissions reductions", and that "[nothing]
now known about geoengineering options gives any reason to diminish these efforts". Nonetheless, the report also
recommended that "research and development of geoengineering options should be undertaken to investigate
whether low risk methods can be made available if it becomes necessary to reduce the rate of warming this century".
In a 2009 review study, Lenton and Vaughan evaluated a range of geoengineering schemes from those that sequester
CO
2 from the atmosphere and decrease longwave radiation trapping, to those that decrease the Earth's receipt of
shortwave radiation. In order to permit a comparison of disparate techniques, they used a common evaluation for
each scheme based on its effect on net radiative forcing. As such, the review examined the scientific plausibility of
schemes rather than the practical considerations such as engineering feasibility or economic cost. Lenton and
Vaughan found that "[air] capture and storage shows the greatest potential, combined with afforestation,
reforestation and bio-char production", and noted that "other suggestions that have received considerable media
Climate engineering
11
attention, in particular "ocean pipes" appear to be ineffective". They concluded that "[climate] geoengineering is best
considered as a potential complement to the mitigation of CO
2 emissions, rather than as an alternative to it".
In October 2011, a Bipartisan Policy Center panel issued a report urging immediate researching and testing in case
"the climate system reaches a 'tipping point' and swift remedial action is required".
[38]
The National Academy of
Sciences is running 21-month project which will study how humans might influence weather patterns, assess dangers
and investigate possible national security implications of geoengineering attempts. The project will be funded by the
CIA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and NASA.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has assessed the scientific literature on climate engineering
(referred to as "geoengineering" in its reports). The IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report was published in 2007. It
states:
Geo-engineering options, such as ocean fertilization to remove CO
2
directly from the atmosphere, or
blocking sunlight by bringing material into the upper atmosphere, remain largely speculative and
unproven, and with the risk of unknown side-effects. Reliable cost estimates for these options have not
been published
Working Group I's contribution to the IPCC's Fifth Assessment Report was published in 2013. It states:
[39]
Models suggest that if SRM methods were realizable they would be effective in countering increasing
temperatures, and would be less, but still, effective in countering some other climate changes. SRM
would not counter all effects of climate change, and all proposed geoengineering methods also carry
risks and side effects. Additional consequences cannot yet be anticipated as the level of scientific
understanding about both SRM and CDR is low. There are also many (political, ethical, and practical)
issues involving geoengineering that are beyond the scope of this report.
References
[1] Policy Implications of Greenhouse Warming: Mitigation, Adaptation, and the Science Base (http:/ / books. nap. edu/ openbook.
php?record_id=1605& page=433) (1992), Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy (COSEPUP)
[2] [2] , p.53.
[3] Can we engineer a cooler earth? (http:/ / features. csmonitor. com/ environment/ 2008/ 07/ 16/ can-we-engineer-a-cooler-earth/ )
[4] http:/ / www. imeche.org/ Libraries/ Key_Themes/ IMechEGeoengineeringReport. sflb. ashx
[5] [5] The extended quote is in the public domain as the work of an employee of the United States government in the performance of their duties.
[6] Proposed Outline for Solar Radiation Management (Geoengineering) Framework (http:/ / thehardlook. typepad. com/ thehardlook/ files/
schnare_supplemental_testimony_a_framework_for_geoengineering. pdf)
[7] http:/ / ipsnews.net/ news.asp?idnews=42662
[8] Bodansky, D. (1996) May we engineer the climate? Climatic Change 33: 309321
[9] Clingerman, F. (2012) "Between Babel and Pelagius: Religion, Theology and Geoengineering," in Preston, C. (ed.), Engineering the Climate:
The Ethics of Solar Radiation Management. Lantham, MD: Lexington, pp. 201-219.
[10] Victor, D. G., M. G. Morgan, J. Apt, J. Steinbruner, K. Ricke (2009) The Geoengineering Option: A last resort against global warming?
Foreign Affairs March/April 2009
[11] Michaelson, J. (1998) 'Geoengineering: a climate change Manhattan project'. Stanford Environmental Law Journal, Stanford CA, January
1998
[12] Gardiner, S. M. Is "Arming the Future" with geoengineering really the lesser evil? Some doubts about the ethics of intentionally
manipulating the climate system in Gardiner, S., S. Caney, D. Jamieson & H. Shue (eds) Climate Ethics: Essential Readings. Oxford
University Press, 2010, 284314
[13] Bengtsson, L. (2006) 'Geo-engineering to confine climate change: is it at all feasible?' Climatic Change 77: 229234
[14] [14] Barrett, S (2007) Why cooperate? The incentive to supply global public goods. Oxford University Press, Oxford
[15] Seasonal rhythms of net primary production and particulate organic carbon flux to depth describe the efficiency of biological pump in the
global ocean", Journal of Geophysical Research, vol. 112, C10011,
[16] http:/ / infohost.nmt. edu/ ~chem/ wingenter/ Wingenter_PeECE_III_GRL_2007. pdf
Climate engineering
12
[17] Keith Bower et al., 2006 Computational assessment of a proposed technique for global warming mitigation via albedo-enhancement of
marine stratocumulus clouds. Atmos. Res., vol. 82, no. 1-2, 2006, pp. 328336
[18] http:/ / royalsociety.org/ page. asp?tip=1& id=6232
[19] The Sensitivity of Polar Ozone Depletion to Proposed Geoengineering Schemes", Science, vol. 320, no. 5880, 30 May 2008, pp. 12011204,
[20] I. M. Held et al., "Simulation of Sahel drought in the 20th and 21st centuries", Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 102,
no. 50, pp. 1789117896, . Available online at: http:/ / climate. envsci. rutgers. edu/ pdf/ 2008JD010050small. pdf
[21] Keith Bower et al., 2006 Computational assessment of a proposed technique for global warming mitigation via albedo-enhancement of
marine stratocumulus clouds. Atmos. Res., vol. 82, no. 1-2, 2006, pp. 328336
[22] http:/ / www.state.gov/ t/ ac/ trt/ 4783.htm
[23] L. Gu et al., "Responses of Net Ecosystem Exchanges of Carbon Dioxide to Changes in Cloudiness: Results from Two North American
Deciduous Forests", Journal of Geophysical Research, vol. 104, no. 31, pp. 42131, 434 (1999); L. Gu et al., "Advantages of Diffuse
Radiation for Terrestrial Ecosystem Productivity", Journal of Geophysical Research, vol. 107, (2002); L. Gu et al., "Response of a Deciduous
Forest to the Mount Pinatubo Eruption: Enhanced Photosynthesis", Science, vol. 299, pp. 2,03538 (2003)
[24] Balan Govindasamy and Ken Caldeira, "Geoengineering Earth's Radiation Balance to Mitigate CO2-Induced Climate Change", Geophysical
Research Letters, vol. 27, pp. 2,14144 (2000). For the response of solar power systems, see Michael C. MacCracken, "Geoengineering:
Worthy of Cautious Evaluation?" Climatic Change, vol. 77, pp. 23543 (2006)
[25] NASA - Geoengineering: Why or Why Not? (http:/ / www. nasa. gov/ centers/ langley/ news/ researchernews/ rn_robockfeature. html)
[26] K. Sassen et al., ";The 56 December 1991 FIRE IFO II Jet Stream Cirrus Case Study: Possible Influences of Volcanic Aerosols", Journal of
the Atmospheric Sciences, vol. 52, pp. 97123 (1993)
[27] David Adam, "Extreme and risky action the only way to tackle global warming, say scientists", Guardian, 1 September 2008. Available
online at: http:/ / www. guardian.co. uk/ environment/ 2008/sep/01/climatechange.scienceofclimatechange2
[28] Ipsos MORI (for NERC) (2010) Experiment Earth? Report on a Public Dialogue on Geoengineering http:/ / www. nerc. ac. uk/ about/
consult/ geoengineering-dialogue-final-report. pdf
[29] Urea 'climate solution' may backfire Analysis (ABC Science) (http:/ / www. abc. net. au/ science/ articles/ 2007/ 11/ 09/ 2085584. htm)
[30] News & Press | WWF (http:/ / www.worldwildlife.org/ who/ media/ press/ 2007/ WWFPresitem973. html)
[31] http:/ / www.geoengineering. ox. ac. uk/ oxford-principles/ history/
[32] We all want to change the world (http:/ / www.economist. com/ node/ 15814427)
[33] Worldchanging | Evaluation + Tools + Best Practices: Don't Wait for the Lifeboat: A Response to Geoengineering (http:/ / www.
worldchanging. com/ archives/ / 009753.html)
[34] http:/ / docs. google. com/ gview?attid=0.1& thid=11e473ed2477ae05& a=v& pli=1
[35] Cool Roofs (http:/ / www. consumerenergycenter.org/ coolroof/ )
[36] The Politics of Geoengineering (http:/ / ieet.org/ index. php/ IEET/ more/ 2094/ )
[37] http:/ / www.imeche. org/ media/ Public+ Affairs/ geoenginq. htm
[38] Group Urges Research Into Aggressive Efforts to Fight Climate Change (http:/ / www. nytimes. com/ 2011/ 10/ 04/ science/ earth/
04climate. html), October 4, 2011
[39] FAQ 7.3 (http:/ / www. climatechange2013.org/ images/ report/ WG1AR5_Chapter07_FINAL. pdf), in
IPCC AR5 WG1 (2013), Stocker, T.F., et al., ed., Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Working
Group 1 (WG1) Contribution to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 5th Assessment Report
(AR5) (http:/ / www. ipcc. ch/ report/ ar5/ wg1/ ), Cambridge University Press. Climate Change 2013 Working
Group 1 website. (http:/ / www. climatechange2013. org/ )
Further reading
Macnaghten, Phil; Owen, Richard (November 2011). "Environmental Science: Good Governance for
Geoengineering". Nature 479 (7373): 293. Bibcode: 2011Natur.479..293M (http:/ / adsabs. harvard. edu/ abs/
2011Natur. 479. . 293M). doi: 10.1038/479293a (http:/ / dx. doi. org/ 10. 1038/ 479293a). PMID 22094673
(http:/ / www. ncbi. nlm. nih. gov/ pubmed/ 22094673). Abstract only (subscription required)
Royal Society (September 2009) (PDF). Geoengineering the Climate: Science, Governance and Uncertainty
(http:/ / royalsociety. org/ uploadedFiles/ Royal_Society_Content/ policy/ publications/ 2009/ 8693. pdf) (Report).
p. 1. ISBN978-0-85403-773-5. Retrieved 2011-12-01.
GAO (July 2011) (PDF). Climate Engineering: Technical Status, Future Directions, and Potential Responses
(http:/ / psych. cf. ac. uk/ understandingrisk/ docs/ spice. pdf) (Report). Center for Science, Technology, and
Engineering. Retrieved 2011-12-01.
Launder, Brian; Thompson, J. Michael T., eds. (December 2009). Geo-Engineering Climate Change:
Environmental Necessity or Pandora's Box?. Cambridge University Press. ISBN978-0-521-19803-5.
Climate engineering
13
Eli Kintisch (2010). Hack the Planet: Science's Best Hope, or Worst Nightmare, for Averting Climate
Catastrophe. ISBN978-0-470-52426-8.
Jeff Goodell (2010). How to Cool the Planet: Geoengineering and the Audacious Quest to Fix Earth's Climate.
ISBN978-0-618-99061-0.
Morton, Oliver (May 10, 2007). "Climate change: Is this what it takes to save the world?". Nature 447 (7141):
132136. Bibcode: 2007Natur.447..132M (http:/ / adsabs. harvard. edu/ abs/ 2007Natur. 447. . 132M). doi:
10.1038/447132a (http:/ / dx. doi. org/ 10. 1038/ 447132a). PMID 17495899 (http:/ / www. ncbi. nlm. nih. gov/
pubmed/ 17495899). Abstract only (subscription required)
James Rodger Fleming (September 15, 2010). Fixing the Sky: The Checkered History of Weather and Climate
Control. Columbia University Press. ISBN978-0-231-14412-4.
Granger Morgan (http:/ / www. irgc. org/ -Granger-Morgan-. html), Katharine Ricke (2010). An Opinion Piece
for IRGC (http:/ / www. irgc. org). Cooling the Earth Through Solar Radiation Management: The need for
research and an approach to its governance. ISBN 978-2-9700672-8-3
If Cutting Carbon Emissions Isn't Working, What's Next? (http:/ / green. blogs. nytimes. com/ 2012/ 03/ 12/
if-cutting-carbon-emissions-isnt-working-whats-next) March 2012 "Suck It Up" book review
External links
Studies
Royal Society "Geoengineering the Climate: Science, Governance and Uncertainty." (http:/ / royalsociety. org/
uploadedFiles/ Royal_Society_Content/ policy/ publications/ 2009/ 8693. pdf) Report. ISBN 978-0-85403-773-5.
September, 2009
Climate Engineering (http:/ / www. climate-engineering. eu/ ) Kiel Earth Institute and Marsilius Kolleg of
Heidelberg University, since Sept 2011
Engineering the Climate : Research Needs and Strategies for International Coordination October 2010 report
(http:/ / www. washingtonpost. com/ wp-srv/ nation/ pdfs/ Geongineeringreport. pdf) from the U.S. House of
Representatives
Cost evaluation study of 6 geoengineering schemes (http:/ / www. kurzweilai. net/
blocking-the-sun-study-looks-at-costs-of-6-geoengineering-schemes?utm_source=KurzweilAI+ Daily+
Newsletter& utm_campaign=01ee9bd702-UA-946742-1& utm_medium=email)Wikipedia:Identifying reliable
sources
Articles (newspapers and magazines)
Geoengineering may be our best chance to save what sea ice is left (http:/ / www. scientificamerican. com/
article. cfm?id=geoengineering-last-chance-save-sea-ice) by Peter Wadhams Scientific American December 15,
2012
Geo-engineering - A Tool in the Fight to Tackle Climate Change, or a Dangerous Distraction? (http:/ / www.
huffingtonpost. co. uk/ jon-taylor/ geoengineering-climate-change_b_1873231. html) by Jon Taylor, Climate
Change Programme Manager at WWF-UK, September 11, 2012 Huffington Post
Field test stashes climate-warming carbon in deep ocean; Strategically dumping metal puts greenhouse gas
away, possibly for good (http:/ / www. sciencenews. org/ view/ generic/ id/ 342377/ title/
Field_test_stashes_climate-warming_carbon_in_deep_ocean) July 18, 2012 Science News
Geoengineering: An Interim strategy to curb global warming? (http:/ / www. vagabondjourney. com/
geoengineering-interim-strategy-curb-global-warming-john-latham/ ) - An interview with John Latham
What the UN ban on geoengineering really means (http:/ / www. newscientist. com/ article/
dn19660-what-the-un-ban-on-geoengineering-really-means. html) November 1, 2010 by Fred Pearce of New
Scientist
Climate engineering
14
Geoengineering sparks international ban, first-ever congressional report (http:/ / www. washingtonpost. com/
wp-dyn/ content/ article/ 2010/ 10/ 29/ AR2010102906361. html) Juliet Eilperin Washington Post October 30,
2010
Threat of global warming sparks U.S. interest in geoengineering (http:/ / www. washingtonpost. com/ wp-dyn/
content/ article/ 2010/ 10/ 03/ AR2010100303437. html) by Juliet Eilperin of the Washington Post October 3,
2010
The powerful coalition that wants to engineer the world's climate: Businessmen, scientists and right-wing
thinktanks are joining forces to promote 'geo-engineering' ideas to cool the planet's climate (http:/ / www.
guardian. co. uk/ environment/ 2010/ sep/ 13/ geoengineering-coalition-world-climate) Clive Hamilton The
Guardian, September 13, 2010
Bill Gates' cloud-whitening trials 'a dangerous experiment' (http:/ / www. guardian. co. uk/ environment/ 2010/
may/ 14/ bill-gates-cloud-whitening-dangerous), The Guardian, May 14, 2010 regarding Bill Gates
We need birth control, not geoengineering (http:/ / www. guardian. co. uk/ environment/ 2010/ apr/ 06/
geoengineering-carbon-emissions), The Guardian, April 6, 2010
"The Geoengineering Gambit" (http:/ / www. technologyreview. com/ energy/ 24157/ ), Technology Review, Jan.
2010
Re-Engineering the Earth (http:/ / www. theatlantic. com/ magazine/ archive/ 2009/ 07/ re-engineering-the-earth/
7552/ ) July 2009 The Atlantic
Geo-engineering in the Southern Ocean (http:/ / orgprints. org/ 15528/ 01/ 15528. pdf), by John Paull, Australian
National University, 2009
10 Ideas That Are Changing The World: 6.Geoengineering (http:/ / www. time. com/ time/ specials/ 2007/ article/
0,28804,1720049_1720050_1721653,00. html) Time (magazine), March 2008
Geoengineering Retrospective (http:/ / www. worldchanging. com/ archives/ 008364. html) Overview of articles
on geoengineering by Julia Levitt, Worldchanging, August 2008
"Futuristic fleet of 'cloudseeders'" (http:/ / news. bbc. co. uk/ 2/ hi/ programmes/ 6354759. stm) John Latham
BBC News. Feb. 15, 2007
Geo-engineering website, describing current methods/proposals done to revert climate change by geo-engineering
(http:/ / geo-engineering. blogspot. com/ ), by Sam Carana
Climate Engineering Is Doable, as Long as We Never Stop (http:/ / www. wired. com/ science/ planetearth/ news/
2007/ 07/ geoengineering) Wired (magazine), July 2007
Geoengineering links (http:/ / www. geocrisis. com/ cpe_geoengineering_menu. htm), GeoCrisis annotated list,
2006?
Terraforming Earth IV: The Question of Methane (http:/ / www. openthefuture. com/ wcarchive/ 2005/ 08/
terraforming_earth_iv_the_ques. html) August 11, 2005 Jamais Cascio
Geoengineering: 'A Bad Idea Whose Time Has Come' (http:/ / www. npr. org/ templates/ story/ story.
php?storyId=127245606) discussion on NPR
"Geoengineering: A Climate Change Manhattan Project" (http:/ / www. metatronics. net/ lit/ geo2. html) by Jay
Michaelson, Stanford Environmental Law Journal, 1998
Climate engineering
15
Videos (documentaries, interviews, video reports)
A Debate on Geoengineering: Vandana Shiva vs. Gwynne Dyer (http:/ / www. democracynow. org/ 2010/ 7/ 8/
a_debate_on_geoengineering_vandana_shiva) video report by Democracy Now!
5 ways to save the earth (http:/ / news. bbc. co. uk/ 1/ hi/ programmes/ 6298507. stm), BBC documentary about
geo-engineering, 20 February 2007
Wonderfest 2010: Dare We Try to Engineer Earth's Climate? (http:/ / fora. tv/ 2010/ 11/ 07/
Wonderfest_2010_Dare_We_Try_to_Engineer_Earths_Climate), Speakers: Julio Friedmann, Jane C.S. Long,
Location: Stanley Hall, Berkeley (CA), 11 July 2010
Project Earth (TV series) on climate engineering
Article Sources and Contributors
16
Article Sources and Contributors
Climate engineering Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=611219232 Contributors: 5 albert square, AdventurousSquirrel, Alan Liefting, Alikaalex, Altenmann, Andrewjlockley,
Apotheon, Arthur Rubin, Atama, Atomicgurl00, Autonova, Awickert, BDD, Beagel, Bebe35, Belfrey, Bender235, Bgwhite, Bhadani, Bhny, BlueSky2012, Borgx, Boris Barowski, Brian
Everlasting, Bryan Derksen, Capitalismojo, Carwil, Chris the speller, ChrisGualtieri, Chuck Marean, ClionarchZRaleigh, CorineDe, Cupco, Cybercobra, DASonnenfeld, Daniel J. Leivick,
Daniele Pugliesi, Dmitriy01, Docu, DonutGuy, Elonka, Enescot, Erik Kennedy, Farmjustice2010, FirstPrinciples, Flumstead, FrancisTyers, Fred Bauder, Freethinker22, Gaianauta, Gasetus,
Gioto, Gob Lofa, GoingBatty, GorillaWarfare, Gralo, Grantstanleywilson, Grifter1405, Ground Zero, HJ Mitchell, Icairns, Invest in knowledge, IstvanWolf, JaGa, Jackpickard1985, Jakec,
JamesBWatson, Jestus47, Jim1138, John Nissen, Johnfos, JorisvS, Joshuahorton533, Jpe77, JuanFox, KimDabelsteinPetersen, KuduIO, Kwhilden, LOL, Lfstevens, Lickandqui, LilHelpa,
LinguisticEngineer, Lizia7, Lorast, MC MasterChef, MINITEK, Malik Shabazz, Maranium, Martarius, Materialscientist, Mild Bill Hiccup, Motoko18, MrOllie, Mrfebruary, Nathan Johnson,
Nczempin, Nealmcb, Neilrieck, Nepomuk 3, Neum, NewsAndEventsGuy, Niceguyedc, Nigelj, Nopetro, Northamerica1000, Oangola, Observer2050, Oceanflynn, Palamabron, Paul A, Pcirrus2,
Pearle, Pete.irvine, Peterdx, Pinethicket, Plumbago, Poco a poco, Polargeo, Prakash021, Prokaryotes, RA0808, Redthoreau, Rhall28, Rich Farmbrough, Rjwilmsi, Roadcreature, Rotblats09,
SchreyP, Scott Illini, Shining.Star, Short Brigade Harvester Boris, Skizzik, Smallman12q, Solace098, Sphilbrick, Squiddy, Srich32977, Ssilvers, TeH nOmInAtOr, Thatguyflint, Theo Pardilla,
ThomasNichols, Tillman, Tiltnes, Uncle G, Viriditas, Vsmith, WVhybrid, Wavelength, Wetman, WikHead, Will Beback, William M. Connolley, Winterst, Woohookitty, Xzarnum, Yellowjade,
Yngvadottir, 406 anonymous edits
Image Sources, Licenses and Contributors
File:Phytoplankton SoAtlantic 20060215.jpg Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Phytoplankton_SoAtlantic_20060215.jpg License: Public Domain Contributors: NASA
File:2007 Arctic Sea Ice.jpg Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:2007_Arctic_Sea_Ice.jpg License: Public Domain Contributors: NASA image created by Jesse Allen, using
AMSR-E data courtesy of the National Snow and Ice Data (NSIDC), and sea ice extent contours courtesy of Terry Haran and Matt Savoie, NSIDC, based on Special Sensor Microwave Imager
(SSM/I) data.
File:65 Myr Climate Change.png Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:65_Myr_Climate_Change.png License: unknown Contributors: Bender235, Boronian, Ciaurlec,
Dragons flight, Glenn, Kevmin, Martinlsmith, Moroboshi, Pflatau, Saperaud, SeL media, 9 anonymous edits
File:WOA05 GLODAP del pH AYool.png Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:WOA05_GLODAP_del_pH_AYool.png License: Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike
3.0 Contributors: Plumbago
License
Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0
//creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/