Planning Into the Future and a Short Goodbye

A word web highlighting the most used words in my blog (Source: http://www.wordclouds.com/)

Over the past few months my knowledge about geoengineering has developed beyond a simple fascination of China's cloud seeding or Abu Dhabi generating rainfalls. I have explored both CDR and SRM schemes of management and have been pleasantly surprised by the potential of both. Interestingly, the word web above highlights my most used words in the blog, brining air to a few in particular:

'Management', 'governance', 'public' and 'politics'.

Each of these, as well as further research, highlights the issues geoengineering now faces if it is to be implemented on a global scale.

However, optimism surrounding the topic is seen in:

 'potential', 'future' 'mitigation' and 'time'.

From my posts I see geoengineering as a 'potential' 'future' management strategy used to 'mitigate' rising temperatures and carbon dioxide levels to provide 'time' for countries to achieve emissions targets. This optimism has led me to produce a future management strategy to incorporate geoengineering into climate change strategy:

The Plan of Action:

2020:
- Establish a global framework for geoengineering management and regulation, incorporating leading technologies in the field and government officials from all countries.
- Encourage the framework to work closely with emission reduction programmes to ensure targets are continually made and met despite geoengineering research.
- Place bans on all forms of 'rogue geoengineering'.
- Begin further laboratory research into aerosol spraying whilst banning any field trials across the globe.
- Begin funding research into carbon air capture technologies and other CDR methods and provide financial incentives for commercialised technologies, funded through the global framework.

2025:
- After 5 years of research and lab trials on aerosol spraying, the method can be assessed to be viable for field testing. If so, very fine tuned, controlled trials of spraying over small desert regions can begin. Records should be taken meticulously to highlight daily temperature differences and any potential social, economic and environmental side effects noted. So long as trials are kept small, the mitigation of side effects should be achievable. Downstream implications and management of aerosol spraying should also be understood during this period.
- Continued research into cost effective CDR global scale methods.

2050:
- After small scale trials, aerosol spraying can be assessed. If efficiency and manageability of small trials has been successful then confidence can be placed in region wide aerosol spraying. If the fine tuned experiments were difficult to control and outcomes variable then no further research should be conducted into this method.
- Improved technology should allow carbon air capture to begin becoming a commercially viable option to reducing emissions. If so, schemes should be financed and small scale projects placed globally and monitored to identify how efficient they are.

The Future:
- Aerosol spraying and CDR should both be continually assessed and redesigned to be as cost effective, efficient and risk free as possible.
- Both can be used as a time saving policy to allow emission reduction targets to be met by countries and new targets set. By no means should these provide justification for business as usual scenarios.
- If successful there can be an expected decrease in global carbon dioxide levels and a temporary temperature decline to provide a time period for emissions reductions.

Bye for now!

It was extremely enjoyable to blog about this topic over the past few months and I believe it has allowed me to form a strong opinion on the subject. Who knows what the future may hold, only time will tell!

Sorry Robock, Here is 5 Reasons Why Geoengineering May Be a Good Idea

Having read 20 reasons why geoengineering may be a bad idea by Alan Robock (2008) I felt inclined to argue against some of the main issues he has raised having now formed an opinion on the matter after weeks of research and blogging.

Robock's (2008) much cited article on the negatives of geoengineering provided me with a platform to contest his concerns (Source: http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pdf/20Reasons.pdf).

1. 'Effects on regional climate, plants and ozone depletion' are all manageable or short term:

Robock makes reference to unknown meteorological implications in a range of regions from aerosol spraying, using the Mount Pinatubo eruption (1991) as an example. Robock's fear is not one to be taken lightly but it does not present strong enough grounds to completely neglect any aerosol spraying methods. I previously highlighted the need for controlled fine tune spraying experiments by scientists to better understand the regional implications of aerosol spraying. Over time these small side effects will be managed and spraying will become more efficient and better understood. Robock also makes reference to plants which again was explored and it was suggested that further photosynthesis could result from aerosol spraying (Caldiera et al, 2013).  The ozone depletion was highlighted as being relatively small scale with effects diminishing over time, especially when experiments are done in controlled conditions and at small scales. Further information on these counterarguments can be found on this previous blog post.

2. 'Cost' is likely to decrease with competitive innovation:

Robock highlights that currently CDR schemes are too expensive to be implemented globally at a scale that is likely to make a difference. However, I have formed the opinion that these technologies will become extremely cost efficient as their demand increases and competition toughens. In the short term it is unlikely that air capture will be economically viable but with new innovative companies already appearing, it is a viable long term solution with some authors (Pielke, 2009) already suggesting similar costs between air capture and other mitigation approaches. Further information can be found on this previous blog post.

3. 'Moral authority' and 'undermining emissions mitigation' are not concerns when geoengineering is used as a conjunctive strategy:

Many scientists fear that geoengineering strategies will justify further carbon emissions as SRM or CDR are seen by politicians and the public as a silver bullet cure. However, throughout all my blog posts I took the clear stance that this would not be the case if geoengineering were to be implemented. In a cartoon analysis, I highlighted a need for integrated approaches without hidden political agendas. Through exploring Lovelock's views I came to the conclusion that our real moral authority lies in mending our feverish Earth through using geoengineering as a time buying strategy to allow for further emissions reductions and stricter policy making.

4. 'Military use', 'commercial control' and overall 'control of the thermostat' can be managed under a global framework: 

In a recent post I made reference to 'rogue engineers' who aim to take geoengineering into their own hands and use it for military, commercial or personal purposes. In a post on iron fertilisation I also highlighted the issues of 'nutrient robbing' that may occur where changes in one location can affect downstream locations. Robock raises awareness to each of these issues and concludes continuing with such a strategy would be too risky when so many concerns are attached. However, these concerns can be answered through the generation of restrictions under a global governance unit for geoengineering practice. Countries should come together to form a framework for managing and understanding geoengineering to prevent issues of governance, commerciality and military usage surrounding this strategy. In the short term this agency will require restructuring but with time it can become a global management body for geoengineering practices.

5. 'Unexpected consequences', 'no going back' and 'public scepticism' are built on a poor understanding of the term geoengineering:

Robock is right to say that if geoengineering schemes were implemented globally at this point in time then there would likely be severe irreversible impacts. However, there is yet time to understand more about these potential side effects through small, controlled trials. With further studies, mitigation for knock on impacts can be developed and the irreversibility of geoengineering reduced. As explored previously through public perspectives on geoengineering, this uncertainty is routed in deteriorated connotations of the term, often misaligning it with conspiracies and mistrust stories. The term geoengineering takes on many meanings and understood in a variety of contexts. Therefore, it is no surprise that the public remain sceptical and blur the science and fiction surrounding the term. The term must be redefined to be provided with greater authority in the scientific and public community as a potential mitigation strategy and not simply a fictional fantasy.

Conclusive Thoughts:

Through contesting Robock's arguments I have brought together each of my blog posts to highlight their relevance in the larger picture of the geoengineering debate. Having started this blog uncertain about the path I would take, I have now firmed my view, with the likes of David Keith and Paul Crutzen, as a scientists urging for further research into geoengineering and its potential as a future climate strategy.

Rogue Geoengineers on the Loose!

Over the past posts I have concentrated on different types of geoengineering schemes, their viability and public opinions on the matter. This has allowed me to form an opinion that geoengineering (both CDR and SRM) is an attractive management strategy and although portraying uncertainties, requires time and technology to develop before used in climate management. Currently, at the end of 2016, I believe that we still know too little about SRM schemes and fine-tuned trials should now be conducted to improve the deployment. I also believe that CDR schemes such as artificial trees show great potential but need more time to innovate to be both efficient and economically viable. Therefore, in my opinion we can expect a future where geoengineering provides us with more time to regulate our carbon levels.

However, this post aims to concentrate on the global implementation of geoengineering and the politics that arise when deciding who practices it and when. In previous posts, I have only slightly touched upon the threat that unilateral actors may have on the global climate, especially when acting without sufficient research.  The World Economic Forum (2013) highlighted that island states threatened by sea level rise may have nothing to lose, or even a well-funded individual may wish to take the climate issue into his own hands. Currently, both actors would be able to engage in geoengineering without international or scientific consent, providing they have the funds.  The approaches would most likely be high impact, low cost (e.g aerosol spraying and ocean fertilisation) which also contain the highest uncertainty.

Such was the case in 2012, when the American entrepreneur, Russ George (founder of Planktos Inc) attempted to restore salmon populations and reduce atmospheric CO2 by dumping 120 tonnes of iron sulphate (FeSO4) along Canada's West coast. What followed was a planktonic bloom spreading over 10,000 square kilometres. However, George made no investigation into potential side effects or ecological damages this large scale experiment could have, and simply acted of his own accord. Rightly so, Naomi Klein from the New York Times labelled George as a 'rogue geoengineer'.

Russ George dumping iron sulphate into Canadian waters without scientific or governmental approval (Source: http://newenergytimes.com)

What is of most concern, is that the example above took place during a period when climate change impacts were still not substantial. If we were to look into the future, say 50 years, it would not be wrong to say that rogue geoengineers such as George may be plentiful and have new and exciting technologies to test on our complex earth systems. Only a few years ago, Bill Gates set aside millions on geoengineering research, investing in Intellectual Ventures, who are currently developing the 'StratoShield', an 18-mile high hose supported by balloons, releasing aerosols into the stratosphere.

The 'StratoShield' aerosol pumper (Source: www.intellectualventureslab.com)

Although novel and innovative, issues of governance arise when understanding the deployment of such technologies. Will rogue actors such as George or Intellectual Ventures deploy these innovations or will it be down to a global decision. Furthermore, Millard-Ball, 2012 suggests that nations at risk may see these novel ideas as a final 'silver bullet' to end their climate change conundrum, without considering other nations that are likely to be affected. In some cases, private actors may deploy geoengineering to generate tradable carbon credits and in others, nations can use it as a quick fix.


Governance:

The growing interest in geoengineering schemes calls for the international community to bring to light the issues surrounding geoengineering governance in a global response to climate change (MacNaghten & Owen, 2011). Regulations should be set to prevent geoengineering techniques from being used in military, hostile or private gain purposes. A working group should be set up to investigate the specifics of individual geonengineering scheme deployments and must clearly evaluate the risks and reconsiderations to all global regions before implementation. What takes priority in the near-term is the development of a more general framework for understanding and managing geoengineering. Over time, this can be redesigned and restructured, but for now, this will give grounds for global governance of this strategy.

Answers to last week's quiz: 1-B, 2-D, 3-C, 4-C, 5-A, 6-A

Who Wants To Be A Geoengineer?

In the holiday spirit I decided to make a short quiz on geoengineering topics I discussed throughout the blog. Be sure to check the next post for answers!

Which of these is NOT an example of Geoengineering?

A) Iron Fertilisation
B) Chemtrails
C) Aerosol Spraying
D) Biochar

What does SRM stand for?

A) Solar Reduction Management
B) Sun Radiation Management
C) Solar Reduction Measures
D) Solar Radiation Management

What is SRM said to achieve?

A) Global reduction in Carbon Dioxide levels.
B) Reduced acidification of oceans.
C) Reduced incoming radiation.
D) Protection from incoming asteroids.

What is the MAIN current downside to the CDR idea of 'Artificial Trees'?

A) They justify further deforestation.
B) They are harmful to birds.
C) They are too expensive.
D) They are not aesthetically pleasing.

What did James Lovelock refer to the 'Earth System' as?

A) Gaia
B) Giai
C) Gia
D) Pluto

Which of the following is a leading advocate of geoengineering?

A) Paul Crutzen.
B) Alan Robock
C) Raymond Pierrehumbert
D) Lynn Russell

Soaring fever? Take a dose of geoengineering.

In this blogpost I step away from the commonly debated arguments in geoengineering and review a different perspective through the eyes of James Lovelock. His work highlights the Earth as a self regulating entity providing the view of geoengineers as Earth doctors, altering the way the planet regulates itself.

The Gaia Hypothesis:

Lovelock formulated the Gaia Hypothesis. Although initially controversial, the hypothesis has been revised to recognise the earth as a single, self regulating system with physical, chemical, biological and anthropogenic components. Lovelock's Gaia view of the Earth System highlights humans as a fundamental part of Gaia, not as a disease but as it's nervous system - as the heart and mind of the Earth (Lovelock, 2008).

The Revenge of Gaia:

In Lovelock's 2006 book, The Revenge of Gaia, he represents Gaia as the Earth System and criticises humans for their lack of respect for it. The book argues that it is too late for human's to repair the damage they have now made and that the planet will begin to undergo a range of irreversible positive feedbacks leading to the demise of the human race. However, in A geophysiologist's thoughts on geoengineering Lovelock follows this same view but characterises geoengineering as a time buying strategy allowing us to adapt before extreme climate change. The interview below taken by Nature from 7:30 minutes onwards, provides a short summary of Lovelock's views on geoengineering and the future of the planet. Of particular note is his mention of how humans are capable of prolonging the life of the planet through intelligent innovation.

Is Lovelock right?

In his recent publications and the interview above, Lovelock has taken a fairly pessimistic stance point on our long term ability to manage climate change, suggesting geoengineering as simply a time saving strategy. Despite this, he remains optimistic that the Earth System itself will overcome such changes but mentions that the fate of humanity remains questionable, requiring intense adaptation.  In my opinion, Lovelock's mention of 'intense adaptation' is what I class as geoengineering. Rather than accepting our fate new strategies are being developed and therefore I disagree with Lovelock when he refers to the future of humanity as doomed. Geoengineering represents our adaptation.

What did stand out to me as meaningful in this debate was Lovelock's underlying view that all organisms are planetary geoengineers. He believes species work to provide the most favourable conditions for themselves and ultimately reproduce to become a dominating population (Morton, 2007). Similarly, humans became geoengineers soon after we began clearing land, using fire and cooking food. Only now however, have we become aware of our actions as we surround ourself within an engineered world. Lovelock went on to describe this as the final straw for humanity, with our downfall inevitable. However, I disagree. Humans managed to engineer the Earth to suit our needs, through discovery, innovations, working together and developing technology. As the planet begins to provide unfavourable needs, I am confident that the human race can once more engineer the Earth back to a desired state.

Medicine for a feverish Earth:

Lovelock made an interesting comparison between current geoengineering pioneers and physiologists before the 1940s. As discussed in Lewis Thomas' (1983) book The Youngest Science, before the second World War, there were only 5 medicines available, treating 5 illnesses. During this period, physiologists knew little about these medicines and remained ignorant about the human body. A similar ignorance can also be applied to the Earth System today. The few cures we are currently presented with (CDR and solar management) are surrounded with suspicion and uncertainty. However, with time, technology and greater attention to the Earth System we could be met with a plethora of cures for individual biomes, components or cells within the Earth System that we are such a key part of. Therefore, geoengineers should be celebrated as Earth doctors who must strive to find a cure to our feverish Earth.

James Lovelock posing with a statue of the greek god Gaia (Source: http://ecolo.org)

Justification for a fossil fuel nation?

Is Geoengineering simply a term to justify further descruction? (Source: http://www.stephaniemcmillan.org/codegreen/comics/2011-12-12-good-question.jpg)

I recently stumbled across this interesting cartoon following through with the theme of politics and geoengineering. An American bureaucrat is portrayed here as identifying Geoengineering as a worst case scenario, fall back management policy to solve all problems. His American top hat and flag coloured attire gives hide to his razor sharp teeth and hidden political agendas.

The cartoon gives air to key issues in climate policy through making clear the link between politics and power. Those financing and contributing to campaigns for key political figures are often those who have reaped the wealth from exploiting our environment.  Here, geoengineering is seen as a cover to justify further exploitation and damage to our environment. This leads me to question the viability of geoengineering - is it simply a concept spoken about publicly for political gains?

Seeing it as a last resort silver bullet solution is dangerous. Regardless of geoengineering's success, there is no sole solution to the climate change issue, integrated approaches are necessary and cannot be put off any longer.

SRM: Can It Help?

This post takes a more literature-based review of Solar Radiation Management (SRM).  I aim to assess the role SRM can play in managing future climate change and provide my personal opinion on the matter.

A Review of Methods:

A range of studies have resorted to SRM as a 'last resort' or an 'emergency geoengineering measure' due to the large amount of uncertainty surrounding the method. However, the option of SRM is fairly attractive when looking at the rapid cooling capabilities provided. The table below by Caldeira et al, 2013 highlights space-based schemes and stratospheric aerosols as the most effective proposed methods. When assessing all schemes, stratospheric aerosol pumping highlights the most potential due to its quick deployment, high potential, low cost and medium risk. Therefore, this post will concentrate predominantly on this method.

A summary of SRM strategies assessed by potential, deployment speed, cost and risk (Source: Caldeira et al, 2013)

It must also be noted that all SRM approaches have no effect on the carbon dioxide levels already present in the atmosphere. Their sole purpose is to reduce global temperatures. Therefore, if implementation of such management were to occur, it would have to be done with CDR schemes working to also reduce atmospheric CO2 levels.

Is SRM a viable management strategy?

A range of issues have been highlighted surrounding aerosol pumping but with these, scientists have produced counter arguments. I will attempt to review a few of these here.

It has been suggested that the sulphur particles ejected into the atmosphere can contribute to depletion of the stratospheric ozone layer, leading to further solar radiation. However, Calderia et al. (2013) highlight that this is only a short term issue. He highlighted how this effect will diminish over time as fewer chloroflourocarbons become capable of reaching the stratosphere. Other authors have suggested that SRM will have a negative effect on solar energy efficiency, due to decreased solar radiation (Robock, 2008). However, Calderia believes that SRM will in fact scatter incoming sunlight providing a greater fraction of diffuse light. This is expected to expose more parts of individual plants to light, leading to more global photosynthesis and greater CO2 absorbance. General arguments against SRM also raise concerns over the side effect of increased acid rain from sulphur additions. However, through simulation models Kravitz et al (2009) found that on a global scale, the additional acid rain caused is likely to be relatively small with modest consequences. In addition, managing incoming solar radiation has been linked to a global increase in biomass due to the CO2 fertilisation effect where plant photosynthesis increases with CO2 concentrations. If SRM successfully maintained the global temperatures we have today well into the future, Pongratz et al (2012) indicated that CO2 levels will continue rising and once reaching 800ppm (compared to 400ppm today), crop yields will be 8-21% greater than current yields, dependent on the crop. The reason for this is a reduced temperature stress on plants associated with higher CO2 concentrations with the continued effect of CO2 fertilisation. Thus allowing plants to photosynthesis more, without being affected by increased temperatures. Despite this, 800ppm CO2 concentrations will lead to extensive ocean acidification and a range of health issues, making this scenario not only unlikely, but dangerous too.

Importantly, it must also be noted that SRM schemes have no positive effect on ocean acidification (Matthews et al, 2009). Furthermore, this method of management is taken unilaterally across the globe, introducing issues surrounding governance and matters of who decides when and if such a scheme should take place (Barrett, 2014). Rather than acting as a means to prevent climate conflict, it could act a source to stimulate international conflict. However, the potential for SRM in reducing global temperatures to prolong the time required to reduce carbon dioxide levels through emission reductions looks attractive.

Thinking into the future:

Imagine yourself in 2100, living in rural India where climate change has led to an array of monsoons, flooding, vastly reduced crop yields and death and famine to a large number of friends and family. The country is beginning to slip into a dire situation and food insecurity is rapidly increasing. Agreed emissions reductions across the globe have been unsuccessful and future targets seem extremely unrealistic. However, in the midst of this crisis, there remains talk of one, potentially risky management strategy - Solar Radiation Management. You, as well as the general public see no other option and democracy begins to speak. Governments are pressured into implementing this emergency solution. Nationwide aerosol spraying begins despite countries across the globe strongly opposing the idea. Neighbouring countries begin to protest and before long, this will be an issue of global concern as the atmosphere is shared by all. Either a peaceful resolution is sought or conflict arises.

What should we do?

Further research on SRM is required through small, controlled experiments. Once better understood, any use of it should be restricted to fine-tuned injections to manage global issues such as melting of the Greenland ice sheets. Spraying should be at low concentrations and done following natural seasons. Over time, the side effects will be managed as all use is small scale. Furthermore, with time the strategy is very likely to improve in efficiency and become more controllable, a belief shared by (Morenzo-Cruz & Keith, 2013). In this scenario, countries that are hit by climate crisis in the future will be more aware of side effects and a global SRM organisation would have already been set up, providing them with the best course of action. By no means should SRM provide a justification for further CO2 emissions, it can simply be used to prevent overcoming tipping points, providing time for CRD technologies to become affordable and efficient and allow reduction targets to be implemented and met. Only when SRM is used in this context, will it be a justifiable management strategy.