Showing posts with label Geoengineering. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Geoengineering. Show all posts

Monday, 8 January 2018

So Long, Farewell.

January 08, 2018 CDR , climate change 2 Comments

Word map of words used frequently throughout my posts (Word Clouds).


Over the past months, we have explored the viability of geoengineering techniques that are receiving traction, from stratospheric aerosols to CCS. Throughout the blog, my standpoint for SRM and CDR has developed. From yes! SRM could work. To no, it tackles the disease not the cause. To CDR is better and BECCS is going to save us! to I don't really think it can... Overall, I'm feeling conflicted. I want there to be a solution but instead, this has highlighted that there is no 'silver bullet', inevitably climate change and geoengineering will force us to deploy a utilitarian view on the issue. And the moral debates ensue further.

Unfortunately, it has been impossible to cover all the techniques listed in the initial second and third posts and I have not been able to dedicate a post to moral debates, but this article explores this. I can now understand why it is difficult to reach global agreements and set genuine targets, and many considerations must be made. 

Finally, lay-persons should not feel disconnected from climate change discussions, though easy to do so. By adopting an active approach to this issue, we could collectively make a huge impact on GHG emissions and aid in meeting targets. By making a small change in your lifestyle.

Geoengineering should not be viewed as a last-ditch attempt to addressing climate change, an aggressive reduction in GHG emissions should be "Plan A", and failing to do so may leave us with no "Plan B". All geoengineering techniques are unproven to work in real-life. But, if they can be used responsibly with moral decisions considered, perhaps we can  engineer our own climate and Friedrich Nietzche will be correct:

"The time is coming when the struggle for dominion over the earth will be carried on. It will be carried on in the name of fundamental philosophical doctrines"

 .

Farewell for now. I have enjoyed this experience and hope you've learnt something new. Check out the other blogs on the sidebar to learn more about your changing environment.
- 2 comments:
Labels: , , , , ,

Saturday, 23 December 2017

Opinion Polls & Games

December 23, 2017 Geoengineering , Opinions 0 Comments



Q1. Which approach should we implement?

Solar Radiation Management (SRM)
Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR)
Neither, we should stop using fossil fuels and reduce emissions 
Both



Q2. Will geoengineering happen?

Yes
No 
Unsure



Q3. Will the USA re-join climate negotiations?

Yes, they should and will
No, they shouldn't and won't
Unsure




Q4. Can we solve climate change?

Yes
No
Perhaps


- No comments:
Labels: ,

Saturday, 9 December 2017

Negative Emissions I: CCS A Costly, Risky Distraction?

December 09, 2017 Carbon Dioxide Removal , CDR 0 Comments
To meet targets, we must stop emitting GHGs by 2050. However scepticism around meeting the desired 1.5C is increasing, many believe this can only be achieved using CDR negative emission technologies like Carbon Capture & Storage (CCS) and Bio-Energy with CCS (BECCS), mentioned in over 80% of IPCC pathways to emissions reductions.


There is increasing interest in adapting pre-existing industries. Today there are 17 fully operating CCS facilities that annually captures 31 million tonnes of CO2. Contrary to popular belief (or my ideas) OPEC countries and oil companies (example Shell, 2015), are investing in greener technologies. The Al Reyadah project is a joint venture between Abu Dhabi National Oil Company and Masdar, it's facility captures 800,000 tonnes of CO2/year from the Emirates Steel factory and sequesters captures CO2 to enhance oil recovery, (with more facilities planned to be built).

Despite, steps in the right direction, it is opposed strongly by environmental groups like Greenpeace branding CCS as a 'costly, risky distraction'. 

Problems

  1. Small-scale
    1. Only 17 fully operating CCS facilities.
    2. Little progress for large-scale deployment since 2008.
  2. High profile projects cancelled
    1. UK 2015.
    2. Norway 2013.
    3. USA 2015.
  3. Storing CO2 permanently 
    1. An oil company in Mississippi sequestered CO2 underground that created well blowouts releasing CO2 back into the atmosphere, and in one case released so much, it suffocated wildlife.
  4. Costly 
    1. To meet 1.5C CCS must capture 5 gigatonnes of CO2/year from 2050-2100, costing approximately $500 billion/year. 
    2. May contaminate groundwater supplies.
  5. Morally wrong
    1. Enhancing oil recovery prolongs the use of fossil fuels.
    2. Pressure on freshwater supplies.
    3. Does not address ocean acidification and may enhance this.


The Future

Further research and innovation into negative emissions technologies may overcome major limitations of current CCS technologies. For instance, Origen Power, a by-product of heating limestone can be used to neutralise acidic waters and capture atmospheric CO2 (see video below). But, at present, this has not been implemented on a commercial scale.


TED talk: Can we stop climate change by removing CO2 from the air? (Tim Kruger, 2017).
 "All [CDR] ideas come with trade-offs, none of them are perfect, but many have potential."

Perhaps the future solution should be a mixture of CDR negative emissions technologies like CCS, alongside reductions in GHGs. CCS alone will not solve climate change, especially when there are only 17 facilities worldwide and finite sources of fossil fuels left, it's long-term sustainability is questionable. But more research and funding is required for the development of all geoengineering approaches.



Perhaps, Bio-energy with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS), is the future for long-term sustainability of CCS. We shall see...
- No comments:
Labels: , , , , , ,

Saturday, 2 December 2017

What the COP?

December 02, 2017 CDR , COP23 0 Comments

We need CDR geoengineering,
here's why:

The Climate-Interactive simulations developed by the Massachusetts Institute for Technology, engage the public in climate change discussions. It illustrates the challenges in negotiating a comprehensive agreement that meets 2C agreed temperature increase (COP16) and further 1.5C (COP21).


Rounds 1&2 



During the COP23 simulation, I represented India with four peers, and other members forming: The USA, EU, Other Developed Nations, Fossil Fuel Companies, China, Other Developing Nations and climate lobbyist.

I was apprehensive during the initial rounds of negotiation, it was difficult to negotiate with more developed groups than ourselves, their priorities seemed to be more important, we focused on ensuring economic growth, alleviating poverty and improving living standards in our country, but other groups didn't seem to care. After reporting our pledges, a maximum temperature increase of 2.8C was obtained, an improvement from current pledges, estimated at 3.3C by 2100. But, ultimately we were unable to agree on how to split the funds available to developing countries (India, China and other), and no agreement was made (even the USA was willing to reduce emissions!).



During round 2, all parties pledged a massive 3% reduction in deforestation, use of fossil fuels and increase in afforestation by 2050-2060. But this still did not result in a temperature increase of 2C. 

So why didn't we reach the 1.5-2C? Simply put we need(ed) to act sooner than 2050 and more drastically (fig.1). 
Fig.1 Quotes from scientists and academics in ways we can meet the agreed targets (Source: The Guardian, 2016).

Outcomes

    1. An understanding of why countries' pledge to particular targets.
    2. Allocating power to the public to challenge governments and demand more.
    3. Publicising the progress of global negotiations.

A reinforcing for need for geoengineering in tackling climate change, particularly CDR when meeting challenging pledges.  By no means should we stop aiming to stabilise GHG emissions and diversify away from fossil fuels, but this may not be enough to reverse a prolonged period of climate warming, modelled by Matthews (2006). Lastly, I highly recommend taking part in a COP23 simulation.

In the end, one person can change it all.
(for the good or for the bad, it's up to you)
- No comments:
Labels: , , , , ,

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: , , , , , ,