Geoengineering Methods Research Articles

Geoengineering the climate: an overview and update

The climate change that we are experiencing now is caused by an increase in greenhouse gases due to human activities, including burning fossil fuels, agriculture and deforestation. There is now widespread belief that a global warming of greater than 2(°)C above pre-industrial levels would be dangerous and should therefore be avoided. However, despite growing concerns over climate change and numerous international attempts to agree on reductions of global CO(2) emissions, these have continued to climb. This has led some commentators to suggest more radical 'geoengineering' alternatives to conventional mitigation by reductions in CO(2) emissions. Geoengineering is deliberate intervention in the climate system to counteract man-made global warming. There are two main classes of geoengineering: direct carbon dioxide removal and solar radiation management that aims to cool the planet by reflecting more sunlight back to space. The findings of the review of geoengineering carried out by the UK Royal Society in 2009 are summarized here, including the climate effects, costs, risks and research and governance needs for various approaches. The possible role of geoengineering in a portfolio of responses to climate change is discussed, and various recent initiatives to establish good governance of research activity are reviewed. Key findings include the following.- Geoengineering is not a magic bullet and not an alternative to emissions reductions. - Cutting global greenhouse gas emissions must remain our highest priority. (i) But this is proving to be difficult, and geoengineering may be useful to support it. - Geoengineering is very likely to be technically possible. (i) However, there are major uncertainties and potential risks concerning effectiveness, costs and social and environmental impacts. - Much more research is needed, as well as public engagement and a system of regulation (for both deployment and for possible large-scale field tests). - The acceptability of geoengineering will be determined as much by social, legal and political issues as by scientific and technical factors. Some methods of both types would involve release of materials to the environment, either to the atmosphere or to the oceans, in areas beyond national jurisdiction. The intended impacts on climate would in any case affect many or all countries, possibly to a variable extent. There are therefore inherent international implications for deployment of such geoengineering methods (and possibly also for some forms of research), which need early and collaborative consideration, before any deployment or large-scale experiments could be undertaken responsibly.

Scientists share blame for public’s ignorance of science

Social scientists call for “smartening up” the process of disseminating scientific information to lay audiences.

The potential of waste-to-energy in reducing GHG emissions

Background: The combustion of municipal solid waste (MSW) to generate heat or electricity (waste-to-energy [WTE]) could reduce net GHG emissions in the USA compared with combusting methane from landfills. Moreover, negative CO2 emissions could be achieved with CCS because 66% of the carbon in MSW is typically biogenic. Results and conclusion: For the five largest landfill sites in each state, we estimate that at least 58 and 11 sites have enough MSW to fuel WTE plants of >50 MWe and >100 MWe, respectively. Furthermore, half of these sites lie within 20 km of potential underground saline and other CO2 storage reservoirs. We estimate that the levelized electricity cost for WTE without CO2 capture is US$94/MWh and is $285/MWh with amine-based post-combustion capture technology. The cost of CO2 capture is $58/Mg CO2, resulting in a cost for carbon negative emissions of $93/Mg CO2; substantially lower than for some geoengineering methods, including capturing CO2 from air.

Ecosystem Impacts of Geoengineering: A Review for Developing a Science Plan

Geoengineering methods are intended to reduce climate change, which is already having demonstrable effects on ecosystem structure and functioning in some regions. Two types of geoengineering activities that have been proposed are: carbon dioxide (CO(2)) removal (CDR), which removes CO(2) from the atmosphere, and solar radiation management (SRM, or sunlight reflection methods), which reflects a small percentage of sunlight back into space to offset warming from greenhouse gases (GHGs). Current research suggests that SRM or CDR might diminish the impacts of climate change on ecosystems by reducing changes in temperature and precipitation. However, sudden cessation of SRM would exacerbate the climate effects on ecosystems, and some CDR might interfere with oceanic and terrestrial ecosystem processes. The many risks and uncertainties associated with these new kinds of purposeful perturbations to the Earth system are not well understood and require cautious and comprehensive research.

Climate engineering: The way forward?

The deliberate large-scale manipulation of the climate is increasingly being discussed as a potential tool to ensure the basic condition for a sustainable future: a habitable climate. While far from the ideal solution, the rate of climate change continues to outpace our attempts at a response, prompting some scientists and politicians to call for the consideration of climate engineering or geoengineering to avoid catastrophic climate change, while political processes to reduce greenhouse gases catch up. A November 2010 expert meeting was held at UNESCO to raise awareness of geoengineering, its potential to counteract climate change and its risks, and to broaden the discussion within the international community. Potential geoengineering methods include solar radiation management and carbon dioxide removal techniques that are largely theoretical and remain untested, despite a long history. Responsible research can only proceed, and informed decisions be made, once governance structures have been developed beyond mere principles insufficient to guide researchers and policy makers. At the same time, realistic communication on these activities must increase and improve so that civil society can play a role in determining acceptable levels and types of human intervention. Appropriate geoengineering research should be considered for solar geoengineering methods that promise to quickly and affordably decrease global mean temperature, and for carbon geoengineering methods that target the core problem of climate change by directly removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. A small cadre of scientists and policy makers has advanced the discussion of geoengineering and its likely impacts, but the path to a sustainable future cannot be charted until the wider international community asks some fundamental questions about what kind of regulation is appropriate, how it should be implemented and by whom and at what cost. This task is urgent, and only by raising awareness of geoengineering can we secure the participation of the international community in developing governance structures and ensuring that responsible research on geoengineering proceeds in a timely and consensual manner.

Taming the Climate Emergency: Geoengineering and Ethics

In this article, we shed some light into two questions with regard to te idea of climate emergency and dangerous climate change: Presuming that the negative effects of climate change can occur abruptly we want to investigate, in particular, whether there is any kind of rational basis to the conclusion that a state of climate emergency would require geoengineering implementations such as solar radiation management (SRM). Related to this, we will pose the question whether there can be exemptions from conventional morality justified by climate emergency for instance to use such largely untested geoengineering methods like SRM. We will take a look at SRM from an ethical point of view and analyze the concept of climate emergency and its policy relevance in order to assess the moral justification for the implementation of SRM.

Lithofacies-genetic characteristics of sedimentary basins in the foreland of the Pomeranian Stage in the Drawsko Lakeland (northern Poland)

Lithofacies-genetic characteristics of sedimentary basins in the foreland of the Pomeranian Stage in the Drawsko Lakeland (northern Poland) The research carried out in the years 1995-98 in the area of the Złocieniec proglacial lake inclined its authors to take a broader view of the operation of proglacial basins in the Drawsko Lakeland (Paluszkiewicz 2004). Glaciolacustrine deposits in the studied lakeland area were discovered by Maksiak and Mróz in 1978. Until that time, the varved deposits at Złocieniec had not been subjected to lithological analysis. The more detailed studies conducted by the present authors in the years 2006-2007 at both Złocieniec and Wierzchowo sites with the help of geo-engineering methods allowed them to show that the two sites with varved clays in this region should be treated as separate sedimentary basins. The basins differ in thickness of varved deposits, in size, and processes responsible for the formation of the rhythmically stratified series.