Climate engineering

Climate engineering or climate intervention,[1] commonly referred to as geoengineering, is the deliberate and large-scale intervention in the Earth's climate system, usually with the aim of mitigating the adverse effects of global warming.[2][3][4] The most prominent subcategory of climate engineering is solar radiation management. Solar radiation management attempts to offset the effects of greenhouse gases by causing the Earth to absorb less solar radiation. Almost all research into solar radiation management has to date consisted of computer modelling or laboratory tests, and an attempt to move to outdoor experimentation has proven controversial.[5] A 2014 paper in Nature found that among a variety of climate engineering subcategories: afforestation, ocean upwelling, ocean iron fertilization, and ocean alkalinization, only solar radiation management was able to stabilize global temperatures to pre-industrial levels.[6]

"Geoengineering" redirects here. For other uses, see Geoengineering (disambiguation).

Some methods of greenhouse gas removal, such as ocean iron fertilization, are forms of climate engineering.[7] Ocean iron fertilization has been investigated in small-scale research trials. These experiments have proven controversial.[8] The World Wildlife Fund has criticized iron fertilization experiments due to their potential risks to marine life.[9]

Climate engineering approaches are sometimes viewed as potential options for limiting climate change or its impacts, alongside mitigation and adaptation.[10][4] There is substantial agreement among scientists that climate engineering cannot substitute for climate change mitigation. Some approaches might be used as accompanying measures to sharp cuts in greenhouse gas emissions.[11] Given that all types of measures for addressing climate change have economic, political, or physical limitations,[12][13] some climate engineering approaches might eventually be used as part of an ensemble of measures, which can be referred to as climate restoration.[4] Research on costs, benefits, and various types of risks of most climate engineering approaches is at an early stage and their understanding needs to improve to judge their adequacy and feasibility.[2]

Most experts and major reports advise against relying on climate engineering techniques as a main solution to global warming, in part due to the large uncertainties over effectiveness and side effects and unforeseen consequences. However, most experts also argue that the risks of such interventions must be seen in the context of risks of dangerous global warming.[14][15] Interventions at large scale may run a greater risk of disrupting natural systems resulting in a dilemma that those approaches that could prove highly (cost-)effective in addressing extreme climate risk, might themselves cause substantial risk.[14] Some have suggested that the concept of engineering the climate presents a moral hazard because it could reduce political and public pressure for emissions reduction, which could exacerbate overall climate risks; others assert that the threat of climate engineering could spur emissions cuts.[16][17][18] Some are in favour of a moratorium on out-of-doors testing and deployment of solar radiation management (SRM).[19]

The United Nations is involved in discussions regarding some aspects of the topic.[20]

General
See also: Human impact on the environment

With respect to climate, geoengineering is defined by the Royal Society as "... the deliberate large-scale intervention in the Earth's climate system, in order to moderate global warming."[4]

Several organizations have investigated climate engineering with a view to evaluating its potential, including the US Congress,[21] the National Academy of Sciences,[22] the Royal Society,[23] and the UK Parliament.[24] The Asilomar International Conference on Climate Intervention Technologies was convened to identify and develop risk reduction guidelines for climate intervention experimentation.[25]

Some environmental organisations (such as Friends of the Earth[26] and Greenpeace[27]) have 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 climate engineering may weaken the fragile political consensus to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.[28]

History
See also: History of climate change science
Climate change during the last 65 million years. The Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum is labelled PETM.

The 1965 landmark report "Restoring the Quality of Our Environment" by U.S. President Lyndon B. Johnson's Science Advisory Committee warned of the harmful effects of fossil fuel emissions, and also mentioned "deliberately bringing about countervailing climatic changes," including "raising the albedo, or reflectivity, of the Earth."[29] Teller et al. 1997 suggested to research and deploy reflective particles, to reduce incoming solar radiation, and thus to cancel the effects of fossil fuel burning.[30]

Proposed strategies

Several climate engineering strategies have been proposed. IPCC documents detail several notable proposals.[31] These fall into two main categories: solar radiation management and carbon dioxide removal.

Solar radiation management
Main article: Solar radiation management
Change in sea surface pH caused by anthropogenic CO2 between the 1700s and the 1990s. This ocean acidification will still be a major problem unless atmospheric CO2 is reduced.

Solar radiation management (SRM)[4][32] techniques would 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 are not a substitute for climate change mitigation because they would not reduce greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere, and thus would not address problems such as the ocean acidification caused by CO2.[33] In general, solar radiation management projects presently appear to be able to take effect rapidly and to have very low direct implementation costs relative to greenhouse gas emissions cuts and carbon dioxide removal. Furthermore, many proposed SRM methods would be reversible in their direct climatic effects. While greenhouse gas remediation offers a more comprehensive possible solution to global warming, it does not give instantaneous results; for that, solar radiation management is required.

Solar radiation management methods[4] may include:

  • Surface-based: for example, protecting or expanding polar sea ice and glaciers, including the use of insulating blankets or artificial snow,[34][35] using pale-colors for roofing materials and other man-made surfaces (i.e. roadways and exterior paints), attempting to change the oceans' brightness, growing high-albedo crops, or by distributing hollow glass beads in selected areas to increase ice coverage and lower temperatures.[36]
  • Troposphere-based: for example, marine cloud brightening, which would spray fine sea water to whiten clouds and thus increase cloud reflectivity.
  • Upper atmosphere-based: creating reflective aerosols, such as stratospheric sulfate aerosols, specifically designed self-levitating aerosols,[37] or other substances.
  • Space-based: space sunshade – obstructing solar radiation with space-based mirrors, dust,[38] etc.

Greenhouse gas removal
Main articles: Carbon dioxide removal, Greenhouse gas remediation, and Carbon sequestration
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.
Significant reduction in ice volume in the Arctic Ocean in the range between 1979 and 2007

Some forms of greenhouse gas removal, but not all, may be regarded as a form of climate engineering.

Carbon dioxide removal (sometimes known as negative emissions technologies or greenhouse gas removal) projects seek to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Proposed methods include those that directly remove such gases from the atmosphere, as well as indirect methods that seek to promote natural processes that drawdown and sequester CO2 (e.g. tree planting).[39] Many projects overlap with carbon capture and storage projects, and may not be considered to be climate engineering by all commentators.[39] Techniques in this category include:

Many of the IPCC model projections to keep global mean temperature rise below 2 °C, are based on scenarios assuming deployment of negative emissions technologies.[40]

Justification

Tipping points and positive feedback

Climate change may cross tipping points[41] 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.[42] An example of a proposed causal chain leading to more warming is the decline of Arctic sea ice, potentially triggering subsequent release of ocean methane.[43] Evidence suggests a gradual and prolonged release of greenhouse gases from thawing permafrost.[44]

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.[45] An example of a previous tipping point is that which preceded the rapid warming leading up to the Paleocene–Eocene 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 climate engineering, are therefore considered a viable option by some commentators.[46][47]

Buying time

Climate engineering offers the hope of temporarily reversing some aspects of global warming 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.[48]

Costs

Estimates of direct costs for climate engineering implementation vary widely. In general, carbon dioxide removal methods are more expensive than the solar radiation management ones. In their 2009 report Geoengineering the Climate the Royal Society judged afforestation and stratospheric aerosol injection as the methods with the "highest affordability" (lowest costs). More recently, research into costs of solar radiation management have been published.[49] This suggests that "well designed systems" might be available for costs in the order of a few hundred million to tens of billions of dollars per year.[50] These are much lower than costs to achieve comprehensive reductions in CO2 emissions. Such costs would be within the budget of most nations, and even some wealthy individuals.[51]

Ethics and responsibility

Climate engineering would represent a large-scale, intentional effort to modify the climate. It would differ from activities such as burning fossil fuels, as they change the climate inadvertently. Intentional climate change is often viewed differently from a moral standpoint.[52] It raises questions of whether humans have the right to change the climate deliberately, and under what conditions. For example, there may be an ethical distinction between climate engineering to minimize global warming and doing so to optimize the climate. Furthermore, ethical arguments often confront larger considerations of worldview, including individual and social-religious commitments. This may imply that discussions of climate engineering should reflect on how religious commitments might influence the discourse.[53] For many people, 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 of 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.[54] 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 climate engineering governance regime, as different countries or interest groups may seek different global temperatures.[55]

Politics

It has been argued that regardless of the economic, scientific and technical aspects, the difficulty of achieving concerted political action on global warming requires other approaches.[56] Those arguing political expediency say the difficulty of achieving meaningful emissions cuts[57] 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.[26] However, others point to support for climate engineering proposals among think tanks with a history of global warming denial and opposition to emissions reductions as evidence that the prospect of climate engineering is itself already politicized and being promoted as part of an argument against the need for (and viability of) emissions reductions; that, rather than climate engineering being a solution to the difficulties of emissions reductions, the prospect of climate engineering is being used as part of an argument to stall emissions reductions in the first place.[58]

Risks and criticisms
See also: Solar radiation management § Limitations and risks, and Technological fix § Concerns

Various criticisms have been made of climate engineering,[59] particularly solar radiation management (SRM) methods.[60] Decision making suffers from intransitivity of policy choice.[61] Some commentators appear fundamentally opposed. Groups such as ETC Group[62] and individuals such as Raymond Pierrehumbert have called for a moratorium on climate engineering techniques.[19][63]

Ineffectiveness

The effectiveness of the techniques 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.[64] Model results from a 2016 study suggest that blooming algae could even accelerate Arctic warming.[65][66]

Moral hazard or risk compensation

The existence of such techniques may reduce the political and social impetus to reduce carbon emissions.[26] This has generally been called a potential moral hazard, although risk compensation may be a more accurate term. This concern causes many environmental groups and campaigners to be reluctant to advocate or discuss climate engineering for fear of reducing the imperative to cut greenhouse gas emissions.[67] However, several public opinion surveys and focus groups have found evidence of either assertions of a desire to increase emission cuts in the face of climate engineering, or of no effect.[4][68][69][70][71][72][73] Other modelling work suggests that the threat of climate engineering may in fact increase the likelihood of emissions reduction.[74][75][76][77]

Governance
See also: Solar radiation management § Governance

Climate engineering opens up various political and economic issues. The governance issues characterizing carbon dioxide removal compared to solar radiation management tend to be distinct. Carbon dioxide removal techniques are typically slow to act, expensive, and entail risks that are relatively familiar, such as the risk of carbon dioxide leakage from underground storage formations. In contrast, solar radiation management methods are fast-acting, comparatively cheap, and involve novel and more significant risks such as regional climate disruptions. As a result of these differing characteristics, the key governance problem for carbon dioxide removal (as with emissions reductions) is making sure actors do enough of it (the so-called "free rider problem"), whereas the key governance issue for solar radiation management is making sure actors do not do too much (the "free driver" problem).[78]

Domestic and international governance vary by the proposed climate engineering method. There is presently a lack of a universally agreed framework for the regulation of either climate engineering activity or research. The London Convention addresses some aspects of the law in relation to ocean fertilization. Scientists at the Oxford Martin School at Oxford University have proposed a set of voluntary principles, which may guide climate engineering research. The short version of the 'Oxford Principles'[79] 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",[80] and have been referred to by authors discussing the issue of governance.[81]

The Asilomar conference was replicated to deal with the issue of climate engineering governance,[81] and covered in a TV documentary, broadcast in Canada.

Implementation issues

There is general consensus that no climate engineering technique is currently sufficiently safe or effective to greatly reduce climate change risks, for the reasons listed above. However, some may be able to contribute to reducing climate risks within relatively short times.

All proposed solar radiation management techniques require implementation on a relatively large scale, in order to impact the Earth's climate. The least costly proposals are budgeted at tens of billions of US dollars annually, or around 0.1% of world GDP.[10] Space sunshades would cost far more. Who was to bear the substantial costs of some climate engineering techniques may be hard to agree with. However, the more effective solar radiation management proposals currently appear to have low enough direct implementation costs that it would be in the interests of several single countries to implement them unilaterally.

In contrast, carbon dioxide removal, like greenhouse gas emissions reductions, have impacts proportional to their scale. These techniques would not be "implemented" in the same sense as solar radiation management ones. The problem structure of carbon dioxide removal resembles that of emissions cuts, in that both are somewhat expensive public goods, whose provision presents a collective action problem.

Before they are ready to be used, most techniques would require technical development processes that are not yet in place. As a result, many promising proposed climate engineering do not yet have the engineering development or experimental evidence to determine their feasibility or efficacy.

Public perception

A large 2018 study investigated public perceptions of six climate engineering methods, with an online survey in the United States, United Kingdom, Australia, and New Zealand.[82] The findings were also compared against similar 2012 survey in Australia and New Zealand.[83]

Public awareness of climate engineering was low with less than a fifth of respondents reporting prior knowledge. Public perceptions of the six climate engineering methods were largely negative and frequently associated with attributes like 'risky', 'artificial' and 'unknown effects'. Carbon dioxide removal, methods like Bio-energy with carbon capture and storage, Direct air capture with carbon storage, and Enhanced weathering, were preferred over Solar radiation management methods like Marine cloud brightening, Space mirrors (climate engineering), and Stratospheric aerosol injection. Public perceptions were remarkably stable with only minor differences between the different countries in the 2018 and 2012 surveys.[82][83]

In a 2017 focus group study conducted by the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences (CIRES) in the United States, Japan, New Zealand, and Sweden, participants were asked about carbon sequestration options, reflection proposals such as with space mirrors, or brightening of clouds, and their majority responses could be summed up as follows:

  • What happens if the technologies backfire with unintended consequences?
  • Are these solutions treating the symptoms of climate change rather than the cause?
  • Shouldn't we just change our lifestyle and consumption patterns to fight climate change, making climate engineering a last resort?
  • Isn't there a greater need to address political solutions to reduce our emissions?

Moderators floated then the idea of a future "climate emergency" such as rapid environmental change. The participants felt that mitigation and adaptation to climate change were strongly preferred options in such a situation, and climate engineering was seen as a last resort.[84] Some extremists have proposed that there are secret government actions implementing geoengineering on a large scale, affecting weather to produce winter, or cooling, or large fires, or other detrimental effects. There is no evidence to substantiate these unorthodox claims. Yet, search engines routinely link to these "fake news" and conspiracy theories sites.

Evaluation of climate engineering

Most of what is known about the suggested techniques are based on laboratory experiments, observations of natural phenomena, and on computer modeling techniques. Some proposed climate engineering methods employ methods that have analogs in natural phenomena such as stratospheric sulfur aerosols and cloud condensation nuclei. As such, studies about the efficacy of these methods 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 modeling uncertainties and the early stage of engineering development of many proposed climate engineering methods.[85]

Reports into climate engineering have also been published in the United Kingdom by the Institution of Mechanical Engineers[13] and the Royal Society.[4] The IMechE report examined a small subset of proposed methods (air capture, urban albedo and algal-based CO
2 capture techniques), and its main conclusions were that climate engineering should be researched and trialed at the small scale alongside a wider decarbonization of the economy.[13]

The Royal Society review examined a wide range of proposed climate engineering methods and evaluated them in terms of effectiveness, affordability, timeliness and safety (assigning qualitative estimates in each assessment). The report divided proposed methods 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 climate engineering options gives any reason to diminish these efforts".[4] Nonetheless, the report also recommended that "research and development of climate engineering 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".[4]

In a 2009 review study, Lenton and Vaughan evaluated a range of proposed climate engineering techniques 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.[12] In order to permit a comparison of disparate techniques, they used a common evaluation for each technique based on its effect on net radiative forcing. As such, the review examined the scientific plausibility of proposed methods 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 attention, in particular, "ocean pipes" appear to be ineffective".[12] 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".[12]

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".[86]

National Academy of Sciences

The National Academy of Sciences conducted a 21-month project to study the potential impacts, benefits, and costs of two different types of climate engineering: carbon dioxide removal and albedo modification (solar radiation management). The differences between these two classes of climate engineering "led the committee to evaluate the two types of approaches separately in companion reports, a distinction it hopes carries over to future scientific and policy discussions."[87][10][88]

According to the two-volume study released in February 2015:

Climate intervention is no substitute for reductions in carbon dioxide emissions and adaptation efforts aimed at reducing the negative consequences of climate change. However, as our planet enters a period of changing climate never before experienced in recorded human history, interest is growing in the potential for deliberate intervention in the climate system to counter climate change. ...Carbon dioxide removal strategies address a key driver of climate change, but research is needed to fully assess if any of these technologies could be appropriate for large-scale deployment. Albedo modification strategies could rapidly cool the planet's surface but pose environmental and other risks that are not well understood and therefore should not be deployed at climate-altering scales; more research is needed to determine if albedo modification approaches could be viable in the future.[89]

The project was sponsored by the National Academy of Sciences, U.S. Intelligence Community, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NASA, and U.S. Department of Energy.[87][90]

As of October 2019, The National Academy of Sciences is working on a project, "Developing a Research Agenda and Research Governance Approaches for Climate Intervention Strategies that Reflect Sunlight to Cool Earth."[91]

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assessed the scientific literature on climate engineering (referred to as "geoengineering" in its reports), in which it considered carbon dioxide removal and solar radiation separately. Its Fifth Assessment Report states:[92]

Models consistently suggest that SRM would generally reduce climate differences compared to a world with elevated GHG concentrations and no SRM; however, there would also be residual regional differences in climate (e.g., temperature and rainfall) when compared to a climate without elevated GHGs....

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.

gollark: Because if not, no player will particularly care.]
gollark: Is this meant as server *hosting*, or something?
gollark: Kind of hard to pronounce, I admit.
gollark: I vote oxcel for the 4D one.
gollark: A... dot?

See also

References
  1. "Public Release Event: Climate Intervention Reports; Climate Intervention: Carbon Dioxide Removal and Reliable Sequestration and Climate Intervention: Reflecting Sunlight to Cool Earth". nas-sites.org/americasclimatechoices. National Academy of Sciences. Retrieved September 21, 2016.
  2. Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2013). "Summary for Policy Makers". In Stocker,T.F.; D. Qin; G.-K. Plattner; M. Tignor; S.K. Allen; J. Boschung; A. Nauels; Y. Xia; V. Bex; P.M. Midgley (eds.). Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis (PDF) (Report). Cambridge, UK and New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. p. 29. Retrieved 2015-08-30.
  3. Climate Engineering: Technical Status, Future Directions, and Potential Responses (PDF) (Report). United States Government Accountability Office (GAO); Center for Science, Technology, and Engineering. July 2011. p. 3. Retrieved 2011-12-01.
  4. Working group (2009). Geoengineering the Climate: Science, Governance and Uncertainty (PDF) (Report). London: The Royal Society. p. 1. ISBN 978-0-85403-773-5. RS1636. Retrieved 2011-12-01.
  5. Kevin Loria (July 20, 2017). "A last-resort 'planet-hacking' plan could make Earth habitable for longer – but scientists warn it could have dramatic consequences". Business Insider. Retrieved August 7, 2017.
  6. Keller, David P. (2014). "Potential climate engineering effectiveness and side effects during a high carbon dioxide-emission scenario". Nature Communications. 5 (1). doi:10.1038/ncomms4304. Retrieved 2020-07-27.
  7. "Tackle climate change by fertilising ocean with iron, expert says". The Independent. 2019-07-04. Retrieved 2019-11-30.
  8. Boyd, P.W.; et al. (2007). "Mesoscale Iron Enrichment Experiments 1993–2005: Synthesis and Future Directions". Science. 315 (5812): 612–617. Bibcode:2007Sci...315..612B. doi:10.1126/science.1131669. PMID 17272712.
  9. "WWF condemns iron fertilization scheme to fight global warming". News.mongabay.com. December 2012. Retrieved 2012-09-06.
  10. National Research Council (2015). Climate Intervention: Reflecting Sunlight to Cool Earth. The National Academies Press. doi:10.17226/18988. ISBN 978-0-309-31482-4. Ebook: ISBN 978-0-309-31485-5.
  11. Wigley, T. M. L. (Oct 2006). "A combined mitigation/geoengineering approach to climate stabilization". Science. 314 (5798): 452–454. Bibcode:2006Sci...314..452W. doi:10.1126/science.1131728. ISSN 0036-8075. PMID 16973840.
  12. Lenton, T.M.; Vaughan, N.E. (2009). "The radiative forcing potential of different climate geoengineering options". Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics. 9 (15): 5539–5561. doi:10.5194/acp-9-5539-2009.
  13. "Geo-engineering – Giving us the time to act?". I Mech E. Archived from the original on 2011-07-22. Retrieved 2011-03-12.
  14. Matthias Honegger; Axel Michaelowa; Sonja Butzengeiger-Geyer (2012). Climate Engineering – Avoiding Pandora's Box through Research and Governance (PDF). FNI Climate Policy Perspectives. Fridtjof Nansen Institute (FNI), Perspectives. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2015-09-06. Retrieved 2018-10-09.
  15. Zahra Hirji (October 6, 2016). "Removing CO2 From the Air Only Hope for Fixing Climate Change, New Study Says; Without 'negative emissions' to help return atmospheric CO2 to 350 ppm, future generations could face costs that 'may become too heavy to bear,' paper says". insideclimatenews.org. InsideClimate News. Retrieved October 7, 2016.
  16. "Geoengineering". International Risk Governance Council. 2009. Archived from the original on 2009-12-03. Retrieved 2009-10-07.
  17. Reynolds, Jesse (2015-08-01). "A critical examination of the climate engineering moral hazard and risk compensation concern". The Anthropocene Review. 2 (2): 174–191. doi:10.1177/2053019614554304. ISSN 2053-0196.
  18. Morrow, David R. (2014-12-28). "Ethical aspects of the mitigation obstruction argument against climate engineering research". Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences. 372 (2031): 20140062. Bibcode:2014RSPTA.37240062M. doi:10.1098/rsta.2014.0062. ISSN 1364-503X. PMID 25404676.
  19. "Evaluation + Tools + Best Practices: How Do We Intelligently Discuss Politicized Geoengineering?". Worldchanging. Archived from the original on 2008-06-10. Retrieved 2012-09-06.
  20. "Governments Seek UN Scrutiny of Technologies to Cool the Climate". Reuters. March 11, 2019. Retrieved March 14, 2019 – via Voanews.com.
  21. Bullis, Kevin. "U.S. Congress Considers Geoengineering". MIT Technology Review. Retrieved 26 December 2012.
  22. "Climate Intervention Reports » Climate Change at the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine". nas-sites.org. Retrieved 2015-11-02.
  23. "Stop emitting CO2 or geoengineering could be our only hope" (Press release). The Royal Society. 28 August 2009. Retrieved 14 June 2011.
  24. "Geo-engineering research" (PDF). Postnote. Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology. March 2009. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2009-06-18. Retrieved 2009-05-23.
  25. "Conference Home". Climateresponsefund.org. Archived from the original on 2012-10-16. Retrieved 2012-09-06.
  26. Adam, David (1 September 2008). "Extreme and risky action the only way to tackle global warming, say scientists". The Guardian. Retrieved 2009-05-23.
  27. Parr, Doug (1 September 2008). "Geo-engineering is no solution to climate change". Guardian Newspaper. London. Retrieved 2009-05-23.
  28. "Geo-engineering – 21st Century Challenges – Royal Geographical Society with IBG". 21st Century Challenges. 2010-09-30. Archived from the original on 2012-11-22. Retrieved 2012-09-06.
  29. "Geoengineering: A Short History". Foreign Policy. 2013.
  30. "Global Warming and Ice Ages: Prospects For Physics-Based Modulation Of Global Change" (PDF). Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. 1997. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2018-08-15. Retrieved 2017-05-21.
  31. "IPCC Third Assessment Report – Climate Change 2001 – Complete online versions | UNEP/GRID-Arendal – Publications". UNEP/GRID-Arendal. Archived from the original on 2012-09-27. Retrieved 2012-09-06.
  32. "Proposed Outline for Solar Radiation Management (Geoengineering) Framework" (PDF).
  33. NASEM (2015). Climate Intervention: Reflecting Sunlight to Cool Earth. National Academies Press. doi:10.17226/18988. ISBN 978-0-309-31482-4.
  34. Desch, Steven J.; Smith, Nathan; Groppi, Christopher; Vargas, Perry; Jackson, Rebecca; Kalyaan, Anusha; Nguyen, Peter; Probst, Luke; Rubin, Mark E.; Singleton, Heather; Spacek, Alexander; Truitt, Amanda; Zaw, Pye Pye; Hartnett, Hilairy E. (2017). "Arctic ice management". Earth's Future. 5 (1): 107–127. Bibcode:2017EaFut...5..107D. doi:10.1002/2016EF000410.
  35. Harvey, Chelsea (March 6, 2018). "Geoengineering: Can we refreeze the Arctic? Scientists are beginning to ask". E&E News – Climatewire. Archived from the original on September 3, 2019. Retrieved 2019-10-26.
  36. "Can Tiny Glass Beads Keep Arctic Ice From Melting? Maaaybe". Wired. ISSN 1059-1028. Retrieved 2019-10-19.
  37. Keith, D. W. (2010). "Photophoretic levitation of engineered aerosols for geoengineering". PNAS. 107 (38): 16428–16431. Bibcode:2010PNAS..10716428K. doi:10.1073/pnas.1009519107. PMC 2944714. PMID 20823254. Retrieved 2012-05-16.
  38. Bewick, R.; Sanchez, J. P.; McInnes, C. R. (2012). "Gravitationally bound geoengineering dust shade at the inner Lagrange point". Advances in Space Research. 50 (10): 1405–1410. Bibcode:2012AdSpR..50.1405B. doi:10.1016/j.asr.2012.07.008.
  39. National Academies Of Sciences, Engineering (2019). Negative Emissions Technologies and Reliable Sequestration: A Research Agenda. Washington, DC: National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. p. 23. doi:10.17226/25259. ISBN 978-0-309-48452-7. PMID 31120708.
  40. "In-depth: Experts assess the feasibility of 'negative emissions'". CarbonBrief. 2016.
  41. Lenton, T. M.; Held, H.; Kriegler, E.; Hall, J. W.; Lucht, W.; Rahmstorf, S.; Schellnhuber, H. J. (2008). "Inaugural Article: Tipping elements in the Earth's climate system". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 105 (6): 1786–1793. Bibcode:2008PNAS..105.1786L. doi:10.1073/pnas.0705414105. PMC 2538841. PMID 18258748.
  42. "Stopping Runaway Climate Change". Energy Bulletin. Archived from the original on 2012-02-12. Retrieved 2012-09-06.
  43. Kort, E. A.; Wofsy, S. C.; Daube, B. C.; Diao, M.; Elkins, J. W.; Gao, R. S.; Hintsa, E. J.; Hurst, D. F.; Jimenez, R.; Moore, F. L.; Spackman, J. R.; Zondlo, M. A. (2012). "Atmospheric observations of Arctic Ocean methane emissions up to 82° north". Nature Geoscience. 5 (5): 318–321. Bibcode:2012NatGe...5..318K. doi:10.1038/ngeo1452.
  44. Schuur, E. a. G.; McGuire, A. D.; Schädel, C.; Grosse, G.; Harden, J. W.; Hayes, D. J.; Hugelius, G.; Koven, C. D.; Kuhry, P. (2015-04-09). "Climate change and the permafrost carbon feedback". Nature. 520 (7546): 171–179. Bibcode:2015Natur.520..171S. doi:10.1038/nature14338. ISSN 0028-0836. PMID 25855454.
  45. "Tipping points in the Earth system". ResearchPages.net. 2005-10-06. Retrieved 2012-09-06.
  46. "We're Running the Risk of Unstoppable Climate Change". Inter Press Service. Archived from the original on 2008-12-13.
  47. Arthur, Charles (2001-01-23). "Global warming now 'unstoppable', scientists warn". The Independent. London. Retrieved 2010-03-30.
  48. "Geoengineering could buy the time needed to develop a sustainable energy economy". Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. Retrieved 2016-02-03.
  49. McClellan, J.; Keith, D. W.; Apt, J. (2012). "Cost analysis of stratospheric albedo modification delivery systems". Environmental Research Letters. 7 (3): 034019. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/7/3/034019.
  50. Robock, A.; Marquardt, A.; Kravitz, B.; Stenchikov, G. (2009). "Benefits, Risks, and costs of stratospheric geoengineering". Geophysical Research Letters. 36 (19): D19703. Bibcode:2009GeoRL..3619703R. doi:10.1029/2009GL039209. hdl:10754/552099.
  51. "Unilateral Geoengineering" (PDF). CFR. Retrieved 2012-05-16.
  52. Bodansky, D (1996). "May we engineer the climate?". Climatic Change. 33 (3): 309–321. Bibcode:1996ClCh...33..309B. doi:10.1007/bf00142579.
  53. Clingerman, F.; O'Brien, K. (2014). "Playing God: why religion belongs in the climate engineering debate". Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. 70 (3): 27–37. Bibcode:2014BuAtS..70c..27C. doi:10.1177/0096340214531181.
  54. 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.
  55. 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
  56. Appell, David (2008-12-12). "Let's get real on the environment". The Guardian. London. Retrieved 2010-03-30.
  57. Caldeira, Ken (2007-10-24). "How to Cool the Globe". The New York Times. Retrieved 2010-03-30.
  58. "Evaluation + Tools + Best Practices: Geoengineering and the New Climate Denialism". Worldchanging. Archived from the original on 2012-08-28. Retrieved 2012-09-06.
  59. "AMS Policy Statement on Geoengineering the Climate System". American Meteorological Society. Retrieved 2019-03-14.
  60. "Geo-engineering – A Tool in the Fight to Tackle Climate Change, or a Dangerous Distraction?". Huffington Post. 2012-09-11. Retrieved 2012-10-02.
  61. John Hickman (2013-12-28). "Rock, Paper, Scissors, Lizard, Spock… and Global Warming Policy Choice". The Space Review. Retrieved 2013-12-28.
  62. "Climate & Geoengineering". ETC Group.
  63. "Can we engineer a cooler earth?". Christian Science Monitor. July 16, 2008.
  64. Lutz, Michael J.; Caldeira, Ken; Dunbar, Robert B.; Behrenfeld, Michael J. (2007). "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. 112 (C10): C10011. Bibcode:2007JGRC..11210011L. doi:10.1029/2006JC003706.
  65. Lemonick, Michael D. (April 27, 2015). "Blooming Algae Could Accelerate Arctic Warming". ClimateCentral.
  66. Park, Jong-Yeon; Kug, Jong-Seong; Bader, Jürgen; Rolph, Rebecca; Kwon, Minho (May 12, 2015). Garrett, Christopher J. R. (ed.). "Amplified Arctic warming by phytoplankton under greenhouse warming". PNAS. 112 (19): 5921–5926. Bibcode:2015PNAS..112.5921P. doi:10.1073/pnas.1416884112. PMC 4434777. PMID 25902494.
  67. "Geo-Engineering – a Moral Hazard". celsias.com. 14 November 2007. Archived from the original on 14 January 2011. Retrieved 9 September 2010.
  68. Ipsos MORI (August 2010). Experiment Earth? Report on a Public Dialogue on Geoengineering (PDF) (Report).
  69. Mercer, A M; Keith, D W; Sharp, J D (2011-12-01). "Public understanding of solar radiation management – IOPscience" (PDF). Environmental Research Letters. 6 (4): 044006. Bibcode:2011ERL.....6d4006M. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/6/4/044006.
  70. Kahan, Dan M.; Jenkins-Smith, Hank; Tarantola, Tor; Silva, Carol L.; Braman, Donald (2015-03-01). "Geoengineering and Climate Change Polarization Testing a Two-Channel Model of Science Communication". The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science. 658 (1): 192–222. doi:10.1177/0002716214559002. ISSN 0002-7162.
  71. Views about geoengineering: Key findings from public discussion groups (PDF) (Report). Integrated Assessment of Geoengineering Proposals. 2014-07-31.
  72. Wibeck, Victoria; Hansson, Anders; Anshelm, Jonas (2015-05-01). "Questioning the technological fix to climate change – Lay sense-making of geoengineering in Sweden". Energy Research & Social Science. 7: 23–30. doi:10.1016/j.erss.2015.03.001.
  73. Merk, Christine; Pönitzsch, Gert; Kniebes, Carola; Rehdanz, Katrin; Schmidt, Ulrich (2015-02-10). "Exploring public perceptions of stratospheric sulfate injection". Climatic Change. 130 (2): 299–312. Bibcode:2015ClCh..130..299M. doi:10.1007/s10584-014-1317-7. ISSN 0165-0009.
  74. Millard-Ball, A. (2011). "The Tuvalu Syndrome". Climatic Change. 110 (3–4): 1047–1066. doi:10.1007/s10584-011-0102-0.
  75. Urpelainen, Johannes (2012-02-10). "Geoengineering and global warming: a strategic perspective". International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics. 12 (4): 375–389. doi:10.1007/s10784-012-9167-0. ISSN 1567-9764.
  76. Goeschl, Timo; Heyen, Daniel; Moreno-Cruz, Juan (2013-03-20). "The Intergenerational Transfer of Solar Radiation Management Capabilities and Atmospheric Carbon Stocks" (PDF). Environmental and Resource Economics. 56 (1): 85–104. doi:10.1007/s10640-013-9647-x. hdl:10419/127358. ISSN 0924-6460.
  77. Moreno-Cruz, Juan B. (2015-08-01). "Mitigation and the geoengineering threat". Resource and Energy Economics. 41: 248–263. doi:10.1016/j.reseneeco.2015.06.001.
  78. Weitzman, Martin L. (2015). "A Voting Architecture for the Governance of Free-Driver Externalities, with Application to Geoengineering". The Scandinavian Journal of Economics. 117 (4): 1049–1068. doi:10.1111/sjoe.12120.
  79. Rayner, S.; Heyward, C.; Kruger, T.; Pidgeon, N.; Redgwell, C.; Savulescu, J. (2013). "The Oxford Principles". Climatic Change. 121 (3): 499–512. Bibcode:2013ClCh..121..499R. doi:10.1007/s10584-012-0675-2.
  80. Oxford Geoengineering Programme. "Oxford Geoengineering Programme // History of the Oxford Principles". www.geoengineering.ox.ac.uk. Retrieved 2016-02-03.
  81. "We all want to change the world". The Economist. March 31, 2010.
  82. Carlisle, Daniel P.; Feetham, Pamela M.; Wright, Malcolm J.; Teagle, Damon A. H. (2020-04-12). "The public remain uninformed and wary of climate engineering". Climatic Change. doi:10.1007/s10584-020-02706-5. ISSN 1573-1480.
  83. Wright, Malcolm J.; Teagle, Damon A. H.; Feetham, Pamela M. (February 2014). "A quantitative evaluation of the public response to climate engineering". Nature Climate Change. 4 (2): 106–110. doi:10.1038/nclimate2087. ISSN 1758-6798.
  84. "Study Illuminates Public Perceptions of Climate Engineering". CIRES. October 9, 2017.
  85. "Geo-Engineering Inquiry". Institution of Mechanical Engineers. November 17, 2008. Archived from the original on 2008-12-20.
  86. "Group Urges Research Into Aggressive Efforts to Fight Climate Change", October 4, 2011
  87. "Climate Intervention Is Not a Replacement for Reducing Carbon Emissions; Proposed Intervention Techniques Not Ready for Wide-Scale Deployment". NEWS from the national academies (Press release). Feb 10, 2015. Retrieved 2015-11-24.
  88. Council, National Research (2015). Climate Intervention: Carbon Dioxide Removal and Reliable Sequestration. doi:10.17226/18805. ISBN 978-0-309-30529-7.
  89. "Climate Intervention Reports » Climate Change at the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine". nas-sites.org. Retrieved 2015-09-02.
  90. "Project". www8.nationalacademies.org. Archived from the original on 2019-09-30. Retrieved 2019-10-19.
  91. "Developing a Research Agenda and Research Governance Approaches for Climate Intervention Strategies that Reflect Sunlight to Cool Earth". Projects & Activities. The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Retrieved 2019-10-26.
  92. IPCC AR5 WG1, pp. 575, 632

Further reading
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.