Climate Engineering

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Konrad Ott ◽  
Frederike Neuber
Keyword(s):  
Solar Radiation ◽  
Large Scale ◽  
Global Climate ◽  
Solar Radiation Management ◽  
Climate Engineering ◽  
Ethical Perspective ◽  
Climate Conditions ◽  
Carbon Cycles ◽  
Radiation Management ◽  
Investment Portfolios

The means to combat dangerous anthropogenic climate change constitutes a portfolio. Beside abatement of greenhouse gas emissions, this portfolio entails adaptation to changing climate conditions, and so-called climate engineering measures. The overall portfolio has to be judged on technical, economic, and moral grounds. This requires an in-depth understanding of the moral aspects of climate engineering options. Climate engineering (CE) is a large-scale intentional intervention either in carbon cycles (carbon dioxide removal; CDR) or in solar radiation (solar radiation management; SRM). The ethical discourse on climate engineering has gained momentum since the 2010s. The set of arguments pro and contra specific CE technologies constitute a vast landscape of discourse. Single arguments must be analyzed with scrutiny according to their ethical background, their normative premises, their inferential logic, and their practical and political consequences. CE ethics, then, has a threefold task: (a) it must suppose a solid understanding of different CE technologies and their risks; (b) it has to analyze the moral arguments that speak in favor or against specific CE technologies; and (c) it has to assess the impacts of accepting or rejecting specific arguments for the overall climate portfolio’s design. The global climate portfolio differs from ordinary investment portfolios since stakes are huge, moral values in dispute, risks and uncertainties pervasive, and collective decision-making urgent. Any argument has implications of how to design the overall portfolio best. From an ethical perspective, however, one must reflect upon the premises and inferential structures of the arguments as such. Analysis of arguments and mapping them logically can be seen as core business of CE ethics. Highly general arguments about CE usually fall short, since the diverse features of individual technologies may not be addressed by overarching arguments that necessarily homogenize different technologies. It can be stated with confidence that the moral profiles of CDR and SRM are highly different. Every single deployment scheme ought to be judged specifically, for it is a huge difference to propose SRM as a substitute for abatement, or to embed it within a comprehensive climate portfolio including abatement and adaptation, where SRM will be used sporadically and only for a matter of decades.

scholarly journals Anthropocenic Limitations to Climate Engineering

Humanities ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 8 (4) ◽  
pp. 186 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeroen Oomen
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Solar Radiation ◽  
Solar Radiation Management ◽  
Climate Engineering ◽  
Engineering Research ◽  
Future Experimentation ◽  
Fundamental Objection ◽  
Climatic System ◽  
Radiation Management ◽  
And Control

The development of climate engineering research has historically depended on mostly western, holistic perceptions of climate and climate change. Determinations of climate and climate change as a global system have played a defining role in the development of climate engineering. As a result, climate engineering research in general, and solar radiation management (SRM) in particular, is primarily engaged in research of quantified, whole-Earth solutions. I argue that in the potential act of solar radiation management, a view of climate change that relies on the holistic western science of the climatic system is enshrined. This view, dependent on a deliberative intentionality that seems connected to anthropocenic notions of responsibility and control, profoundly influences the assumptions and research methods connected to climate engineering. While this may not necessarily be to the detriment of climate engineering proposals—in fact, it may be the only workable conception of SRM—it is a conceptual limit to the enterprise that has to be acknowledged. Additionally, in terms of governance, reliability, and cultural acceptance, this limit could be a fundamental objection to future experimentation (or implementation).

scholarly journals The Buying Time Argument within the Solar Radiation Management Discourse

2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (13) ◽  
pp. 4637 ◽  
Author(s):  
Frederike Neuber ◽  
Konrad Ott
Keyword(s):  
Solar Radiation ◽  
Critical Points ◽  
Solar Radiation Management ◽  
Climate Engineering ◽  
Management Discourse ◽  
Time Argument ◽  
Radiation Management

In this article, we will establish a version of the buying time argument (BTA) in favor of Sulphur Aerosol Injection (SAI) Climate Engineering (CE). The idea is not to promote the deployment of such scheme, but rather to present the strongest possible argument pro SAI in order to look at its presuppositions, implications, critical points and uncertainties. In discussing BTA being the only morally sound argument in favor of SAI, the stakes and the overall framework will become visible. If, however, the strongest pro-SAI argument enables us to recognize some major flaws of this technology, this option should be disregarded.

Counteracting global warming by using a locally variable Solar Radiation Management

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Davide Marchegiani ◽  
Dietmar Dommenget
Keyword(s):  
Global Warming ◽  
Solar Radiation ◽  
Cloud Cover ◽  
Global Climate ◽  
Solar Radiation Management ◽  
Intergovernmental Panel ◽  
Global Average ◽  
Temperature And Precipitation ◽  
Precipitation Response ◽  
Radiation Management

<p>Solar Radiation Management (SRM) is regarded as a tool which could potentially mitigate or completely offset global warming by increasing planetary albedo. However, this approach could potentially reduce precipitation as well, as shown in the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (ICPP) 5<sup>th</sup> report. Thus, although SRM might weaken global climate risks, it may enhance those in some regions. Here, using the Globally Resolved Energy Balance (GREB) model, we present experiments designed to completely offset the temperature and precipitation response due to a CO<sub>2</sub>-doubling experiment (abrupt2×CO2). The main idea around which our study is built upon is to employ a localized and seasonally varying SRM, as opposed to the most recent Geo-Engineering experiments which just apply a global and homogeneous one. In order to achieve such condition, we carry out the computation by using an “artificial cloud cover”. The usage of this localized approach allows us to globally cut down temperature warming in the abrupt2×CO2 scenario by 99.8% (which corresponds to an increase of 0.07 °C on a global average basis), while at the same time only having minor changes in precipitation (0.003 mm/day on a global average basis). To achieve this the cloud cover is increased by about 8% on a global average. Moreover, neither temperature nor precipitation response are exacerbated when averaged over any IPCC Special Report on Extremes (SREX) region. Indeed, for temperatures, 90% of SREX regions averages fall within 0.3 °C change, with all regional mean anomalies being under 0.38 °C. Whereas, as far as precipitation is concerned, changes go up to 0.01 mm/day for 90% of SREX regions, with all of them changing by less than 0.02 mm/day. Similar results are achieved for seasonal variations, with Seasonal Cycle (DJF-JJA) having no major changes in both surface temperature and precipitation.</p>

From Improvement Towards Enhancement

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Han Somsen
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Solar Radiation ◽  
Ad Hoc ◽  
Environmental Law ◽  
Human Life ◽  
Life Forms ◽  
Solar Radiation Management ◽  
Climate Engineering ◽  
Radiation Management ◽  
Life On Earth

This chapter discusses a host of what mostly are still isolated ad hoc technology-driven initiatives, usually in support of human (rights) imperatives, which effectively endeavour to engineer and re-engineer living and non-living environments in ways that have no natural, legal, or historical precedent. The umbrella term I propose to capture such initiatives is ‘environmental enhancement’. Potential examples that fit this definition include genetic modification of disease-transmitting mosquitoes to protect human health, solar radiation-management initiatives and other forms of climate engineering to sustain human life on earth, the creation of new life forms to secure food supplies and absorb population growth, and de-extinction efforts that help restore the integrity of ecosystems. The question this paper asks, in the words of Brownsword, is whether conventional environmental law ‘connects’ with environmental enhancement, focusing on EU environmental law, and whether states may be duty-bound to enhance environments in pursuit of human rights imperatives.

scholarly journals Mapping the landscape of climate engineering

2014 ◽  
Vol 372 (2031) ◽  
pp. 20140065 ◽  
Author(s):  
P. Oldham ◽  
B. Szerszynski ◽  
J. Stilgoe ◽  
C. Brown ◽  
B. Eacott ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Solar Radiation ◽  
Research Strategy ◽  
Solar Radiation Management ◽  
Climate Engineering ◽  
Scientific Publications ◽  
Anticipatory Governance ◽  
Emerging Patterns ◽  
Radiation Management ◽  
Property Acquisition

In the absence of a governance framework for climate engineering technologies such as solar radiation management (SRM), the practices of scientific research and intellectual property acquisition can de facto shape the development of the field. It is therefore important to make visible emerging patterns of research and patenting, which we suggest can effectively be done using bibliometric methods. We explore the challenges in defining the boundary of climate engineering, and set out the research strategy taken in this study. A dataset of 825 scientific publications on climate engineering between 1971 and 2013 was identified, including 193 on SRM; these are analysed in terms of trends, institutions, authors and funders. For our patent dataset, we identified 143 first filings directly or indirectly related to climate engineering technologies—of which 28 were related to SRM technologies—linked to 910 family members. We analyse the main patterns discerned in patent trends, applicants and inventors. We compare our own findings with those of an earlier bibliometric study of climate engineering, and show how our method is consistent with the need for transparency and repeatability, and the need to adjust the method as the field develops. We conclude that bibliometric monitoring techniques can play an important role in the anticipatory governance of climate engineering.

scholarly journals Governing Climate Engineering: A Proposal for Immediate Governance of Solar Radiation Management

2019 ◽  
Vol 11 (14) ◽  
pp. 3954 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sikina Jinnah ◽  
Simon Nicholson ◽  
David R. Morrow ◽  
Zachary Dove ◽  
Paul Wapner ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Solar Radiation ◽  
Knowledge Creation ◽  
Working Group ◽  
Good Reason ◽  
Solar Radiation Management ◽  
Climate Engineering ◽  
Global Response ◽  
Mitigation And Adaptation ◽  
Near Term ◽  
Radiation Management

Solar radiation management (SRM) technologies would reflect a small amount of incoming solar radiation back into space before the radiation can warm the planet. Although SRM may emerge as a useful component of a global response to climate change, there is also good reason for caution. In June 2017, the Academic Working Group on Climate Engineering Governance released a policy report, “Governing Solar Radiation Management”, which developed a set of objectives to govern SRM in the near-term future: (1) keep mitigation and adaptation first; (2) thoroughly and transparently evaluate risks, burdens, and benefits; (3) enable responsible knowledge creation; and (4) ensure robust governance before any consideration of deployment. To advance the governance objectives identified above, the working group developed twelve recommendations, grouped into three clusters: (1) create politically legitimate deliberative bodies; (2) leverage existing institutions; and (3) make research transparent and accountable. This communication discusses the rationale behind each cluster and elaborates on a subset of the recommendations from each cluster.

State Responsibility for Environmental Harm from Climate Engineering

Climate Law ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 5 (2-4) ◽  
pp. 142-181 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Reichwein ◽  
Anna-Maria Hubert ◽  
Peter J. Irvine ◽  
Francois Benduhn ◽  
Mark G. Lawrence
Keyword(s):  
Large Scale ◽  
Stratospheric Aerosol ◽  
Legal Responsibility ◽  
Environmental Harm ◽  
Solar Radiation Management ◽  
State Responsibility ◽  
Climate Engineering ◽  
Trade Offs ◽  
Increased Risk ◽  
Radiation Management

Some have proposed that climate-engineering methods could be developed to offset climate change. However, whilst some of these methods, in particular a form of solar-radiation management referred to as stratospheric aerosol injection (sai), could potentially reduce the overall degree of global warming as well as some associated risks, they are also likely to redistribute some environmental risks globally. Moreover, they could give rise to new risks, raising the issue of legal responsibility for transboundary harm caused. This article examines the question of international accountability of states for an increased risk of environmental harm arising from a large-scale climate intervention using sai, and the legal consequences that would follow. Examination of the applicability of customary rules on state responsibility to sai are useful for understanding the limitations of the existing accountability framework for climate engineering, particularly in the context of global environmental problems involving risk-risk trade-offs and large uncertainties.

Regulating Solar Radiation Management

2016 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 75-86 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anne Therese Gullberg ◽  
Jon Hovi
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Solar Radiation ◽  
Public Engagement ◽  
Solar Radiation Management ◽  
Climate Engineering ◽  
Technical Feasibility ◽  
Decision Making Processes ◽  
Legislative Procedure ◽  
Radiation Management

Climate engineering in general and solar radiation management (SRM) in particular raise profound and complex political, legal, social, and ethical questions that go well beyond technical feasibility issues. We consider three such questions. First, can existing EU decision-making processes accommodate sufficient public engagement to ensure legitimate decisions on SRM? Second, does politics influence the choice of legislative procedure for SRM regulation? Third, does the choice of legislative procedure influence the likelihood of SRM implementation? Three main conclusions emerge from our analysis. First, existing EU decision-making processes can – given certain conditions – accommodate considerable public engagement and hence ensure legitimate decisions on SRM. Second, politics matters; indeed, the EU's choice of legislative procedure concerning SRM may well become subject to political negotiations. Finally, the choice of legislative procedure may substantially influence the likelihood of SRM implementation.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document