Saturday 25 November 2017

The Stakeholders of Geoengineering

November 25, 2017 CDR , Geoengineering 0 Comments
Discussions regarding geoengineering are centred around stakeholders, scientists and academics (dominates the hyperlinks used in posts). Today's post focuses on the significance of other stakeholders from the public, policymakers as well as 'expert-knowledge' in making critical decisions about geoengineering (fig.1).

Fig.1 Quote from IAGP showing why stakeholders are important in geoengineering discussions (IAGP, 2014)

Stakeholders

The ongoing debate on how scientists and academics communicate with the public, in a meaningful and engaging manner can be emphasised, through upstream engagement (an approach originally adopted during the development of nanotechnologies and GM crops). By opening a dialogue between 'expert-knowledge' and public views. Scientific bodies (ie. NERC, IAGP), argue that this allows us to 'democratise' decision-making around geoengineering technologies so that research can continue in a responsible manner. 


Upstream engagement is illustrated by the UK government funded SPICE project, a real-world experiment assessing the feasibility of stratospheric aerosol release. The two-way dialogue indicated strong support for public consultation, going on to state that other stakeholders must be involved such as the media, to inform the public and encourage engagement, as well as local governments in decision making (pg.22).

IAGP (2014) engagement concluded:
  1. The public to favour CDR over SRM - as they become more aware of the pitfalls of solar methods.
  2. Though the public largely supported geoengineering, mitigation strategies like scaling-up of renewable technologies are prioritised by the public, NGOs and policymakers.

Considerations

However, this does not mean the public views are listened to, concerning research development or policies implemented (fig.2). For instance, the Solar Radiation Management Governance Initiative (SRGMI) adopted upstream engagement in developing nations in 2010. But, public views from these communities were reported to be insignificant (IAGP, 2014). 
Fig.2 Screenshot from lessons for future practices of upstream engagement (NERC & Sciencewise, 2014)
The overuse of the media in public engagement was cautioned by SPICE participants stating the risk of manipulation and even sensationalism of geoengineering. Which may have massive ramifications in geoengineering development because of 'fake news' (ie. Chemtrails conspiracy), or heavy backlash from NGOs like Greenpeace.


Policymakers also have a considerable role in geoengineering decisions. Simulations show that if SRM methods are implemented globally and interrupted (ie. terrorism/conflict), it would result in even more drastic warming than today. Present-day governance approaches to geoengineering do not address the following critical questions and are illustrated by the top-down governance of the Arctic (fig.3). 

Who owns it?
Who will be responsible if things go wrong?
Who will profit from it?
                                                                                (IAGP (2014) from five important questions)  

Fig.3 Case study of how we could govern Arctic geoengineering (blue) existing Arctic Council (green) new international organisation based on Keith et al. (2010) and critiqued and sourced from Parthasarathy et al. (2010)

Conclusions

Including public, NGOs and policymaker views into decision-making about emerging geoengineering technologies are important, ensuring development occurs responsibly and considers the ethical, societal and unknown implications of the technology, in the early stages of development. However, views from 'non-technical' individuals may not necessarily be listened to over 'expert-knowledge', but this does not mean they should not get involved. The public can lobby or support current geoengineering developments shaping how it is governed in a sustainable way.

.

Climate change is an all-encompassing issue, that will affect us all.
- No comments:
Labels: , , , , , ,

Saturday 18 November 2017

Rapid Arctic Warming is Scarier Than Geoengineering

November 18, 2017 Arctic , climate change 2 Comments

The past

Vostok ice core records demonstrate a correspondence between temperature fluctuations and levels of greenhouse gases (GHGs) in the atmosphere. A sawtooth pattern of temperature ranges (+2 to -9o C), concentrations of CO2 (280 to 190ppm), and methane (0.78 to 0.32ppm) from 160,000-year records.  A consequence of the Earth's orbit and for the absorption of CO2 from vegetation and weathering (fig.1). 


Fig.1 Fluctuating temperature, methane and atmospheric CO2 concentrations from air samples in ice cores taken from the Antarctic (adaptations of Sowers and Bender, 1995; Blunier et al. 1997; Fischer et al. 1999 & Petit et al. 1999). 

What isn't shown in Fig.1 is the rapid present day increases in GHGs, particularly CO2.  Professor Tim Lenton states, that plants  significantly reduce atmospheric CO2, cooling the planet, but this is inhibited by the rate of anthropogenic-induced GHGs. Natural sequestering cannot keep up with the rate of burning woodlands, fossil fuel processing and peatlands that release stored CO2 and methane (86 times greater than the warming potential of CO2), amplifying warming (fig.2).

- For the interests climate sceptics that argue that CO2 increases lag whilst temperature rises over Antarctica please watch this video.


Fig. 2 Illustration of two positive feedbacks as a result of warming temperatures in the Arctic. A negative feedback would be a cooling in temperature ie. promoting sea ice extent, increasing albedo, radiation reflected and hydroxyl production.

The present

Over recent years the Arctic has become less ice-solated, the body Snow, Water, Ice, Permafrost in the Arctic (SWIPA), reported that over the past three decades the total area of sea ice in the Arctic has declined by more than half, also predicting that by 2040 the Arctic will be free of sea ice during summer, 30 years earlier than previous estimations. 


Global populations would have to be carbon zero by 2035 if we want to avoid Arctic melting. - Dr Hugh Hunt
There is a growing consensus that geoengineering is necessary. Historical records suggest we may have passed the 'carbon tipping-point', accelerating unprecedented warming that isn't solved by stabilising and/or reducing GHGs emissions. SRM may, therefore, have a role to play.

Though SRM does not tackle atmospheric CO2 concentrations, multiple studies indicate SRM's massive cooling potential, that may reduce warming and in turn,  reduce the impacts on biodiversity in  tundra biomes. Supported by Applegate & Keller (2015), who state stratospheric aerosol stimulation mitigates the melting of the Greenland Ice Sheet, aiding the growth in sea ice and more importantly thickness during summer. It could, in theory, do the same for the Arctic.

Astrophysicist Steven Desch et al. (2017), proposed that wind turbines on the Arctic sea ice that pump water from below onto the surface, to thicken the sea ice during winter so that in summer ,sea ice does not retreat to the same extent. Simulations suggest that turbines covering 10% of the Arctic ice would result in a meter of thickening per year. And if implemented over the entire Arctic by 2030 a year of adding a meter of ice would revert the Arctic back to present day volume and size. But this simple idea is plagued with issues surrounding:

  1. Freezing seawater and promoting growth of old ice and not new.
  2. Estimated cost of  $500 billion (£400 billion).
  3. Logistics of shipping 10 million wind turbine pumps and individual weight of 10 tonnes of steel.

It is important to understand that SRM albedo modification is not a new concept. These approaches are often not as extreme, large in scale or  as effective as the construction of solar reflectors or releasing aerosols. But they seem to be working, with minimal negative effects after implementation (Fig.3). 

Fig.3 Screenshot of examples of small-scale SRM methods being applied in real life Ming et al. (2014).

Source: Save the Arctic illustration.

The future


The imbalance between winners and losers, and the unforeseen consequences of environmental and governance issues, means SRM, cannot be used exclusively. Dr Hugh Hunt, states SRM is required if we urgently need to slow melting in the Arctic. But if we are too late and Arctic permafrost starts to thaw then we will need to implement other means to capture billions of tonnes of atmospheric methane released. The debate still exists concerning which geoengineering approach is better SRM or CDR?  Conclusions are blurred, and perhaps policy makers, scientists and societies need to consider a diverse approach to tackling climate change. 

- 2 comments:
Labels: , , , , ,

Saturday 11 November 2017

Stratospheric Aerosols: The Solution?

November 11, 2017 climate change , ethics 0 Comments
Nobel laureate Paul Crutzen 2006, conceptualised geoengineering as an 'escape route' from climate change, particularly, stratospheric aerosol injection. (Fig.1) Fuelling the divide further between  anti- and pro-. This post outlines the benefits and costs of deploying SRM.

Fig.1 Screen capture analysing the total publications with 'geoengineering' in its title (source: Web of Science [Last accessed: 11/10/17]).


 Why?

In 2010, the International Risk Governance Council stated that an 80% reduction in CO2 emissions is required to avoid drastic climate change, (a report today shows increasing CO2 levels in China and India). In comparison, SRM approaches only require a small increase in the proportion of solar radiation reflected into space to significantly cool temperatures over a short period of time (Table 1), but it does not tackle the root cause of climate change, or, ocean acidification, only warming and thus often branded as a 'last resort'.

Table 1 Summary of SRM approaches taken from Calderia et al. (2013)
SRM method
Maximum cooling potential a
Attainable speed of deployment b
Relative cost per unit effect c
Relative risk to environment per unit effect d
Selected references
Space-based schemes
High
Slow
High
Low
Angel 2006, Early 1989
Stratospheric aerosols
High
Fast
Low
Medium
Budyko 1982; Rasch et al. 2008b, 2009; Robock et al. 2008
Whitening of clouds
Medium
Fast
Low
High
Latham et al. 2008, Rasch et al. 2009
Whitening of the ocean
Medium
???
???
???
Pres. Sci. Advis. Comm. Environ. Pollut. Panel 1965, Seitz 2011
Plant reflectivity
Low
Medium
Medium
High
Doughty et al. 2011, Ridgwell et al. 2009
Whitening of built structures
Low
Medium
Medium
High
Akbari et al. 2009, Menon et al. 2010

The quick deployment, high cooling, low cost and medium risk of stratospheric aerosols has incentivised research.

The case of stratospheric aerosols

Studies suggest that injection of sulphates into the atmosphere aids in the destruction of the ozone layer, enhancing incoming solar radiation, warming the planet and effecting public health. However, this is a short-term issue that is resolved over time as fewer chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) can react with ozone particles. Using alkaline aerosol (calcite) in geoengineering could cool the planet whilst repairing the ozone layer, by neutralising acids from anthropocentric emissions. SRM could ensure the Earth remains below the agreed 1.5o C in Paris, and prevent sea level rise this century, saving coral reefs and halting the displacement of populations.

Another poignant argument against stratospheric aerosols is the promoted consequence of acid rain. The effects are robust in research, especially concerning the reduction and termination of freshwater fish populations, lake bacteria and causing forest dieback which in turn reduces food supply affecting forest bird communities. However, globally acid rain increase from sulphate aerosols is likely to be a moderate price to pay for global cooling, but, this depends on the amount of sulphur introduced into the atmosphere and amount converted into sulphuric acid. Using alkaline aerosols, as supposed to sulphates would also avoid this issue whilst simultaneously cooling the planet.  


The natural analogue for aerosol injection has been seen to have had no effect on climate other than reducing global temperatures. However, studies indicate that volcanic eruptions in the tropics induce changes in atmospheric circulation, warming continents in the Northern Hemisphere. Whilst eruptions at high-latitudes weaken the Asian and African monsoons by reducing precipitation over continents that subsist to stay alive, ie. Laki fissure, Iceland eruptions from 1783-84 caused famine in Africa, India and Japan. A global release of stratospheric aerosols will be problematic, but Scientists in 2007 released simulations of aerosol injection over isolated regions (the Arctic), this, however, would still reduce precipitation over wide regions and succumb populations to drought and climate variability. 
 
Contentious ethical issues arise concerning SRM. The unilateral implementation of this method creates apparent winners and losers. The issue of governance and who calls the shots? is critical, SRM may induce conflict or the 'weaponising of nature' (Geostorm film).

Conclusion

The cooling capabilities of SRM are enticing despite the implications it may have on earthly systems. Alan Robock (2012) states:
Testing of geoengineering should be indoors for the foreseeable future, either in computer models or laboratories, without potential to affect the environment. Only once we feel that we have developed a good understanding of a potential system and have devised an outdoor test that is crucial, should it go ahead - pg204 
In contrast, I believe SRM will be implemented overtime. The potential to halt sea-level rise and global warming may change perceptions on SRM to save key habitats of magnificent species like the polar bear. However, SRM should not be viewed as an 'easy fix', we must continue to change global consumption patterns and energy infrastructures the tipping point.
.

 I only see SRM working properly under a utilitarian power, leaving me with conflicted feelings over who the winners and losers are. Should we really have all this power?

- No comments:
Labels: , , , , ,

Friday 3 November 2017

Regulating Sunlight

November 03, 2017 climate change , Geoengineering 2 Comments

Solar Radiation Management (SRM), is another form of geoengineering aiming to manage and reduce incoming solar energy reaching the Earth, to counteract GHG forcing. Models indicate that the climate system reacts quickly to artificially reduced insolation, and therefore SRM is often branded as a last resort against 'dangerous' warming.


Fig.1 Illustration of geoengineering approaches (source: IPCC / Royal Society).

  1. Stratospheric aerosols

    1. Extensive studies have shown major volcanic eruptions to cool global temperatures over short-timescales (Fig.2). The ejection of sulphate particles in the stratosphere from eruptions causes an increase in diffused solar energy and reduction in total energy reaching the Earth. A natural analogue for the stratospheric release of sulphate aerosols. According to models cooling could start within months of release and cool significantly within decades. Thus, receiving growing traction from scientists and policymakers. 


      Fig. 2 Mean global average temperatures from 1970-2012 with major volcanic eruptions highlighted (source: Kosaka & Xie, 2013).

  2. Albedo enhancement

    1. Approaches that aim to enhance the reflectiveness of surfaces (land, oceans and clouds) to increase the amount of solar energy reflected into space. For instance, painting cityscape roofs white as suggested by Barack Obama in 2009, to seeding marine clouds to enhance the total of cloud condensation nuclei (CCN) present, thus increasing cloud surface area and brightness. 

  3. Space reflectors

    1. Roger Angel (2006), presented the idea of 100 000km wide 'sunshades' (aka space reflectors) to be placed in outer space.  Reflecting and/or blocking incoming solar radiation. Calculating that only ~2% of incoming solar radiation would have to be blocked to offset current warming. In line with calculated energy transfer figures.

Fig.3 An article headline from NY Times (source: Friedman & Thrush, 2017) 
However, a consensus within the scientific community is that SRM is bad and infeasible (I'm a little on the fence about it too). A contemporary argument for this would be the justification for the Trump administration to deny climate change (despite the arguments many USA scientists make Fig.3), disregarding the Paris Agreement and continuing fossil fuel exploitation (ie. pipeline exploration destroying indigenous lands and fracking).

Conclusion

Initially, SRM seems to be a viable climate fix. However, SRM is controversial and prone to issues surrounding governance, equity and ethics. 

However, there may be a place for SRM especially if we adopt the business-as-usual approach to climate change. SRM may 'save' us and provide us time to change current social, economic and environmental practices. In this regard, I perceive SRM to be a form of adaptation and not mitigation.
- 2 comments:
Labels: , , , , ,