scholarly journals Balancing a budget or running a deficit? The offset regime of carbon removal and solar geoengineering under a carbon budget

2021 ◽  
Vol 167 (1-2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Shinichiro Asayama ◽  
Mike Hulme ◽  
Nils Markusson
Keyword(s):  
Budget Deficit ◽  
Carbon Budget ◽  
Solar Radiation Management ◽  
Budget Balance ◽  
Budget Management ◽  
Conceptual Tool ◽  
Net Zero ◽  
Solar Geoengineering ◽  
Heuristic Device ◽  
Radiation Management

AbstractThe idea of the carbon budget is a powerful conceptual tool to define and quantify the climate challenge. Whilst scientists present the carbon budget as the geophysical foundation for global net-zero targets, the financial metaphor of a budget implies figuratively the existence of a ‘budget manager’ who oversees the budget balance. Using this fictive character of budget manager as a heuristic device, the paper analyses the roles of carbon dioxide removal (CDR) and solar radiation management (SRM) under a carbon budget. We argue that both CDR and SRM can be understood as ‘technologies of offset’. CDR offsets positive carbon emissions by negative emissions, whereas SRM offsets the warming from positive greenhouse gas forcing by the induced cooling from negative forcing. These offset technologies serve as flexible budgeting tools in two different strategies for budget management: they offer the promise of achieving a balanced budget, but also introduce the possibility for running a budget deficit. The lure of offsetting rests on the flexibility of keeping up an ‘appearance’ of delivering a given budget whilst at the same time easing budget constraints for a certain period of time. The political side-effect of offsetting is to change the stringency of budgetary constraints from being regulated by geophysics to being adjustable by human discretion. As a result, a budget deficit can be normalised as an acceptable fiscal condition. We suggest that the behavioural tendency of policymakers to avoid blame could lead them to resort to using offset technologies to circumvent the admission of failure to secure a given temperature target.

scholarly journals Field experiments on solar geoengineering: report of a workshop exploring a representative research portfolio

2014 ◽  
Vol 372 (2031) ◽  
pp. 20140175 ◽  
Author(s):  
David W. Keith ◽  
Riley Duren ◽  
Douglas G. MacMartin
Keyword(s):  
Solar Radiation ◽  
Radiative Forcing ◽  
Field Experiments ◽  
Field Research ◽  
Research Programme ◽  
Solar Radiation Management ◽  
Systematic Research ◽  
Cirrus Cloud ◽  
Solar Geoengineering ◽  
Radiation Management

We summarize a portfolio of possible field experiments on solar radiation management (SRM) and related technologies. The portfolio is intended to support analysis of potential field research related to SRM including discussions about the overall merit and risk of such research as well as mechanisms for governing such research and assessments of observational needs. The proposals were generated with contributions from leading researchers at a workshop held in March 2014 at which the proposals were critically reviewed. The proposed research dealt with three major classes of SRM proposals: marine cloud brightening, stratospheric aerosols and cirrus cloud manipulation. The proposals are summarized here along with an analysis exploring variables such as space and time scale, risk and radiative forcing. Possible gaps, biases and cross-cutting considerations are discussed. Finally, suggestions for plausible next steps in the development of a systematic research programme are presented.

scholarly journals Solar geoengineering to reduce climate change: a review of governance proposals

2019 ◽  
Vol 475 (2229) ◽  
pp. 20190255 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jesse L. Reynolds
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Solar Radiation ◽  
Solar Radiation Management ◽  
Outdoor Activities ◽  
Social Challenges ◽  
Goods And Services ◽  
Radiation Modification ◽  
Solar Geoengineering ◽  
Governance Roles ◽  
Radiation Management

Although solar geoengineering (alternatively ‘solar radiation management’ or ‘solar radiation modification’) appears to offer a potentially effective, inexpensive and technologically feasible additional response to climate change, it would pose serious physical risks and social challenges. Governance of its research, development and deployment is thus salient. This article reviews proposals for governing solar geoengineering. Its research may warrant dedicated governance to facilitate effectiveness and to reduce direct and socially mediated risks. Because states are not substantially engaging with solar geoengineering, non-state actors can play important governance roles. Although the concern that solar geoengineering would harmfully lessen abatement of greenhouse gas emissions is widespread, what can be done to reduce such displacement remains unclear. A moratorium on outdoor activities that would surpass certain scales is often endorsed, but an effective one would require resolving some critical, difficult details. In the long term, how to legitimately make decisions regarding whether, when and how solar geoengineering would be used is central, and suggestions how to do so diverge. Most proposals to govern commercial actors, who could provide goods and services for solar geoengineering, focus on intellectual property policy. Compensation for possible harm from outdoor activities could be through liability or a compensation fund. The review closes with suggested lines of future inquiry.

scholarly journals Ozone changes under solar geoengineering: implications for UV exposure and air quality

2015 ◽  
Vol 15 (21) ◽  
pp. 31973-32004 ◽  
Author(s):  
P. J. Nowack ◽  
N. L. Abraham ◽  
P. Braesicke ◽  
J. A. Pyle
Keyword(s):  
Air Quality ◽  
Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide ◽  
Climate Model ◽  
Stratospheric Ozone ◽  
Surface Ozone ◽  
Atmospheric Composition ◽  
Uv Exposure ◽  
Solar Radiation Management ◽  
Solar Geoengineering ◽  
Radiation Management

Abstract. Various forms of geoengineering have been proposed to counter anthropogenic climate change. Methods which aim to modify the Earth's energy balance by reducing insolation are often subsumed under the term Solar Radiation Management (SRM). Here, we present results of a standard SRM modelling experiment in which the incoming solar irradiance is reduced to offset the global mean warming induced by a quadrupling of atmospheric carbon dioxide. For the first time in an atmosphere–ocean coupled climate model, we include atmospheric composition feedbacks such as ozone changes under this scenario. Including the composition changes, we find large reductions in surface UV-B irradiance, with implications for vitamin D production, and increases in surface ozone concentrations, both of which could be important for human health. We highlight that both tropospheric and stratospheric ozone changes should be considered in the assessment of any SRM scheme, due to their important roles in regulating UV exposure and air quality.

scholarly journals Trade-offs of Solar Geoengineering and Mitigation under Climate Targets

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mohammad M. Khabbazan ◽  
Marius Stankoweit ◽  
Elnaz Roshan ◽  
Hauke Schmidt ◽  
Hermann Held
Keyword(s):  
Policy Option ◽  
Solar Radiation Management ◽  
Value System ◽  
Policy Tool ◽  
Climate Targets ◽  
Trade Offs ◽  
Solar Geoengineering ◽  
Pros And Cons ◽  
Radiation Management ◽  
Do So

Abstract. So far scientific analyses have mainly focused on the pros and cons of solar geoengineering or solar radiation management (SRM) as a climate policy option in mere isolation. Here we put SRM into the context of mitigation by a strictly temperature-target based approach. As a main innovation, we present a scheme by which the applicability regime of temperature targets is extended from mitigation-only to SRM-mitigation analyses. Hereby we explicitly account for a risk-risk comparison of SRM and global warming, while minimizing economic costs for complying with the 2 °C temperature target. To do so, we suggest precipitation guardrails that are compatible with the 2 °C target. Our analysis shows that the value system enshrined in the 2 °C target would be almost prohibitive for SRM, while still about half to nearly two-third of mitigation costs could be saved, depending on the choice of extra room for precipitation. In addition, assuming a climate sensitivity of 3 °C or more, in case of a delayed enough policy, a modest admixture of SRM to the policy portfolio might provide debatable trade-offs compared to a mitigation-only future. In addition, in our analysis for climate sensitivities higher than 4 °C, SRM will be an unavoidable policy tool to comply with the temperature targets.

Governing the Sun

2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 19-34
Author(s):  
Klaus Radunsky ◽  
Tim Cadman
Keyword(s):  
Carbon Dioxide ◽  
Carbon Capture ◽  
Emerging Technologies ◽  
Carbon Capture And Storage ◽  
Stratospheric Aerosol ◽  
Solar Radiation Management ◽  
Mitigation And Adaptation ◽  
Governance Systems ◽  
Solar Geoengineering ◽  
Radiation Management

Governments have previously sought to reduce climate-change-inducing concentrations of carbon dioxide in the earth’s atmosphere through mitigation and adaptation activities, with limited success. New approaches are being explored, such as negative emissions technologies, including carbon dioxide removal, as well as solar geoengineering, also known as solar radiation management, or modification. This article outlines these emerging technologies focusing on bioenergy, carbon capture and storage, and stratospheric aerosol injection, and explores some of the challenges they pose. Prevention of emissions and their reliable, safe, and environmentally benign removal remain the best options. Robust governance systems and a careful, unbiased, and knowledge-driven assessment of the risks of these emerging technologies are required before they are implemented any further.

The Controversial One

2021 ◽  
pp. 196-227
Author(s):  
Eelco J. Rohling
Keyword(s):  
Global Warming ◽  
Solar Radiation ◽  
Solar Energy ◽  
Solar Radiation Management ◽  
The Sun ◽  
Earth’S Atmosphere ◽  
Solar Geoengineering ◽  
Earth's Atmosphere ◽  
Earth’S Climate ◽  
Radiation Management

This chapter considers solar radiation management, also known as solar geoengineering, which seeks to manipulate Earth’s climate energy balance by reducing the absorption of incoming solar energy. As the chapter explains, this approach spans a class of proposed measures that has been polarizing the community, with some advocating it as an essential means of keeping global warming within acceptable limits, while others see only grave drawbacks and dangers. The chapter describes the two approaches to limiting the absorption of solar energy: measures taken in space, between Earth and the Sun, to reflect or disperse solar radiation before it even hits Earth’s atmosphere; and measures taken in Earth’s atmosphere or at the Earth’s surface to reflect incoming solar radiation. It goes on to discuss the various proposed methods, their potential, and their drawbacks.

scholarly journals Solar Geoengineering and Democracy

2018 ◽  
Vol 18 (3) ◽  
pp. 5-24 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joshua B. Horton ◽  
Jesse L. Reynolds ◽  
Holly Jean Buck ◽  
Daniel Callies ◽  
Stefan Schäfer ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Solar Radiation ◽  
Social Effects ◽  
Solar Radiation Management ◽  
Democratic Institutions ◽  
Opting Out ◽  
Solar Geoengineering ◽  
Radiation Management

Some scientists suggest that it might be possible to reflect a portion of incoming sunlight back into space to reduce climate change and its impacts. Others argue that such solar radiation management (SRM) geoengineering is inherently incompatible with democracy. In this article, we reject this incompatibility argument. First, we counterargue that technologies such as SRM lack innate political characteristics and predetermined social effects, and that democracy need not be deliberative to serve as a standard for governance. We then rebut each of the argument’s core claims, countering that (1) democratic institutions are sufficiently resilient to manage SRM, (2) opting out of governance decisions is not a fundamental democratic right, (3) SRM may not require an undue degree of technocracy, and (4) its implementation may not concentrate power and promote authoritarianism. Although we reject the incompatibility argument, we do not argue that SRM is necessarily, or even likely to be, democratic in practice.

scholarly journals Governing solar geoengineering research as it leaves the laboratory

2014 ◽  
Vol 372 (2031) ◽  
pp. 20140173 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andy Parker
Keyword(s):  
Field Experiments ◽  
Good Governance ◽  
Learning By Doing ◽  
Solar Radiation Management ◽  
International Agreement ◽  
Management Research ◽  
Mixed Effect ◽  
Governance Practices ◽  
Solar Geoengineering ◽  
Radiation Management

One of the greatest controversies in geoengineering policy concerns the next stages of solar radiation management research, and when and how it leaves the laboratory. Citing numerous risks and concerns, a range of prominent commentators have called for field experiments to be delayed until there is formalized research governance, such as an international agreement. As a piece of pragmatic policy analysis, this paper explores the practicalities and implications of demands for ‘governance before research’. It concludes that ‘governance before research’ is a desirable goal, but that a delay in experimentation—a moratorium—would probably be an ineffective and counterproductive way to achieve it. Firstly, it is very unlikely that a moratorium could be imposed. Secondly, even if it were practicable it seems that a temporary ban on field experiments would have at best a mixed effect addressing the main risks and concerns, while blocking and stigmatizing safe research and delaying the development of good governance practices from learning by doing. The paper suggests a number of steps to ensure ‘governance before research’ that can be taken in the absence of an international agreement or national legislation, emphasizing the roles of researchers and research funders in developing and implementing good practices.

Assessing solar geoengineering research funders: Insights from two US public deliberations

2020 ◽  
pp. 205301962096484
Author(s):  
John P Nelson ◽  
Leah Kaplan ◽  
David Tomblin
Keyword(s):  
Public Perceptions ◽  
Radiative Energy ◽  
Solar Radiation Management ◽  
Public Preferences ◽  
Environmental Consequences ◽  
Research Competencies ◽  
Solar Geoengineering ◽  
Public Perspectives ◽  
Radiation Management ◽  
Public Views

Solar radiation management (SRM), a class of geoengineering methods aiming to alter the earth’s radiative energy balance, carries uncertain and potentially extensive social, ethical, and environmental consequences. For both normative and pragmatic reasons, actors interested in SRM research and implementation would do well to attend to public preferences and concerns regarding SRM work. But despite growing literature treating public perspectives on SRM governance, little is known about public perceptions or preferences regarding potential SRM research funders. Specific research funders could significantly affect both the varieties, scales, and aims of research performed and public responses to SRM research. Drawing from two deliberative public forums on SRM research involving 171 participants in total, this paper begins to fill this gap in the literature. Results reveal diverse and nuanced modes of participant reasoning regarding potential research funders. Among other criteria, participants evaluated funders according to perceived funding capabilities, motivations, and research competencies. Our results significantly expand knowledge on public views, preferences, and modes of reasoning regarding SRM research actors and funders.

scholarly journals How can solar geoengineering and mitigation be combined under climate targets?

2021 ◽  
Vol 12 (4) ◽  
pp. 1529-1542
Author(s):  
Mohammad M. Khabbazan ◽  
Marius Stankoweit ◽  
Elnaz Roshan ◽  
Hauke Schmidt ◽  
Hermann Held
Keyword(s):  
Side Effects ◽  
Climate Policy ◽  
Policy Option ◽  
Solar Radiation Management ◽  
Policy Tool ◽  
Trade Offs ◽  
Negative Emissions ◽  
Solar Geoengineering ◽  
Radiation Management

Abstract. So far, scientific analyses have mainly focused on the pros and cons of solar geoengineering or solar radiation management (SRM) as a climate policy option in mere isolation. Here, we put SRM into the context of mitigation by a strictly temperature-target-based approach. As the main innovation, we present a scheme that extends the applicability regime of temperature targets from mitigation-only to SRM-mitigation analyses. We explicitly account for one major category of side effects of SRM while minimizing economic costs for complying with the 2 ∘C temperature target. To do so, we suggest regional precipitation guardrails that are compatible with the 2 ∘C target. Our analysis shows that the value system enshrined in the 2 ∘C target leads to an elimination of most of the SRM from the policy scenario if a transgression of environmental targets is confined to 1/10 of the standard deviation of natural variability. Correspondingly, about half to nearly two-thirds of mitigation costs could be saved, depending on the relaxation of the precipitation criterion. In addition, assuming a climate sensitivity of 3 ∘C or more, in case of a delayed enough policy, a modest admixture of SRM to the policy portfolio might provide debatable trade-offs compared to a mitigation-only future. Also, in our analysis which abstains from a utilization of negative emissions technologies, for climate sensitivities higher than 4 ∘C, SRM will be an unavoidable policy tool to comply with the temperature targets. The economic numbers we present must be interpreted as upper bounds in the sense that cost-lowering effects by including negative emissions technologies are absent. However, with an additional climate policy option such as carbon dioxide removal present, the role of SRM would be even more limited. Hence, our results, pointing to a limited role of SRM in a situation of immediate implementation of a climate policy, are robust in that regard. This limitation would be enhanced if further side effects of SRM are taken into account in a target-based integrated assessment of SRM.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document