Geoengineering Deployment Research Articles

Global climate governance in the light of geoengineering: A shot in the dark?

Solar radiation management (SRM), as one form of geoengineering, has been proposed as a last exit strategy to address global warming. Even though SRM is expected to be cheap, it may be risky and associated with high collateral damages. We analyze how SRM affects equilibrium mitigation strategies, the governance architecture of a climate agreement and whether and how signatories to a climate agreement can avoid the deployment of geoengineering, either by all or a subgroup of countries. We show under which conditions the threat to deploy geoengineering can stabilize a large climate agreement.

Geoengineering, climate change and ecological security

ABSTRACT Is it possible to imagine the deployment of geoengineering in the service of ecological security? Ecological security––a concern with the resilience of ecosystems––appears to caution against forms of intervention that might serve to change and/or undermine the functionality of ecosystems. Yet ecosystem functionality is already challenged by processes associated with climate change, and some degree of climate change is already locked in. This paper examines this challenging but important issue. After defining ecological security and noting varied forms of geoengineering, the paper explores the opportunities for––and challenges of––imagining geoengineering in the service of ecological security, especially in the context of solar radiation management. While arguing that it is possible to conceive a role for geoengineering in the service of ecological security, this must be contingent on extensive research supporting deployment and must be tempered by restraint and a commitment to precaution, humility, reflexivity and dialogue.

Solar geoengineering governance: a dynamic framework of farsighted coalition formation

Abstract Climate interventions with solar geoengineering could reduce climate damages if deployed in a globally coordinated regime. In the absence of such a regime, however, strategic incentives of single actors might result in detrimental outcomes. A well-known concern is that a ‘free-driver’ (Weitzman ML. A voting architecture for the governance of free-driver externalities, with application to geoengineering. Scand J Econ 2015;117:1049–68), the country with the strongest preference for cooling, might unilaterally set the global thermostat to its preferred level, thus imposing damages on others. Governance structures, i.e. more or less formal institutional arrangements between countries, could steer the decentralized geoengineering deployment towards the preferable global outcome. In this paper, we show that the coalition formation literature can make a valuable contribution to assessing the relative merit of different governance schemes. An important feature of the coalition formation literature is the sophisticated dynamic structure. A country pondering whether to leave a coalition anticipates that its departure could spark another process of disintegration among the remaining members of that coalition, which in turn may affect the assessment of whether leaving the coalition is worthwhile in the first place. This dynamic structure thus enables a more realistic picture of what coalitions are likely to form and remain stable. A second important feature of coalition formation models is wide control over the ‘rules of the game’, for instance, which agents need to consent to a transition from one coalitional arrangement to another. This control over the institutional setting allows consistently comparing and discussing various international governance arrangements.

The cost of stratospheric aerosol injection through 2100

This paper presents the estimated direct costs of a stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI) program through the end of this century. It displays a range of future solar geoengineering deployment scenarios that are intended to reduce anthropogenically-caused radiative forcing beginning in 2035. The scenarios reviewed herein include three commonly modeled representative concentration pathways (4.5, 6.0, and 8.5) and three possible radiative forcing targets (halving future warming, halting warming, and reversing temperatures to 2020 levels). The program relies on three successive generations of newly designed high-altitude tanker aircraft to deliver aerosols to an altitude of ∼20 km. Sulfates are assumed to be the aerosol used in conjunction with the first generation tanker, supplanted by an as-yet-determined ‘Aerosol 2’ with the later generation aircraft. The aggregate cost over the remainder of the 21st century and the annual cost in 2100 both vary by an order of magnitude between the cheapest and the most expensive scenarios. However, the cost-per-ton of deployed aerosol varies little among scenarios and the cost-per-degree-of-warming-avoided is similarly consistent. Relative to other climate interventions and solutions, SAI remains inexpensive, but at about $18 billion yr−1 per degree Celsius of warming avoided (in 2020 USD), a solar geoengineering program with substantial climate impact would lie well beyond the financial reach of individuals, small states, or other non-state potential rogue actors and would instead be the exclusive domain of large national economies or coalitions including at least one such economy.

Geopolitical ecology of solar geoengineering: from a 'logic of multilateralism' to logics of militarization

Solar geoengineering technologies intended to slow climate change by injecting sulfate aerosols into the stratosphere are gaining traction in climate policy. Solar geoengineering is considered "fast, cheap, and imperfect" in that it could rapidly reduce planetary temperatures with low cost technology, but potentially generate catastrophic consequences for climate, weather, and biodiversity. Governance has therefore been central to solar geoengineering debates, particularly the question of unilateral deployment, whereby a state or group of states could deploy the technology against the wishes of the international community. In this context, recent, influential scenarios posit that – given technological and political complexities – solar geoengineering deployment will likely be guided by a "logic of multilateralism." I challenge this assertion by arguing that solar geoengineering is defined by equally compelling 'logics of militarization.' I detail recent involvement in solar geoengineering development on the part of U.S. defense, intelligence, and foreign policy institutions, geoengineering scenarios that adopt militarized logics and expertise, and Realist international relations theories that undergird leading governance scenarios. I then demonstrate that the U.S. military has a strategic interest in solar geoengineering, as U.S. hegemony is predicated on expanding fossil fuels, but the military deems climate change a threat to national security. The unique spatio-temporal qualities of solar geoengineering can bridge the gap between these contradictory positions. In examining the militarization of solar geoengineering, I aim to ground recent conceptions of "planetary sovereignty" in the emergent field of "geopolitical ecology" through the latter's more granular approach to the world-making powers of key geopolitical-ecological actors. Key Words: solar geoengineering, geopolitical ecology, militarization, U.S. hegemony, climate intervention

Geoengineering the climate and ethical challenges: what we can learn from moral emotions and art

ABSTRACT Climate change is an urgent problem, requiring ways and approaches to address it. Possible solutions are mitigation, adaptation and deployment of geoengineering. In this article we argue that geoengineering gives rise to ethical challenges of its own. Reflecting on these ethical challenges requires approaches that go beyond conventional, quantitative methods of risk assessment. Quantitative methods leave out important ethical considerations such as justice, fairness, autonomy and legitimacy. We argue that emotions and art can play an important role in ethical deliberation about geoengineering. Emotions can point out what morally matters. We also examine the role that works of art can play. Recently, artists have become involved with risky technologies. We argue that such artworks can contribute to emotional-moral reflection and public deliberation on geoengineering, by making abstract problems more concrete, letting us broaden narrow personal perspectives, exploring new scenarios, and challenging our imagination.

Technical characteristics of a solar geoengineering deployment and implications for governance

ABSTRACTConsideration of solar geoengineering as a potential response to climate change will demand complex decisions. These include not only the choice of whether to deploy solar engineering, but decisions regarding how to deploy, and ongoing decision-making throughout deployment. Research on the governance of solar geoengineering to date has primarily engaged only with the question of whether to deploy. We examine the science of solar geoengineering in order to clarify the technical dimensions of decisions about deployment – both strategic and operational – and how these might influence governance considerations, while consciously refraining from making specific recommendations. The focus here is on a hypothetical deployment rather than governance of the research itself. We first consider the complexity surrounding the design of a deployment scheme, in particular the complicated and difficult decision of what its objective(s) would be, given that different choices for how to deploy will lead to different climate outcomes. Next, we discuss the on-going decisions across multiple timescales, from the sub-annual to the multi-decadal. For example, feedback approaches might effectively manage some uncertainties, but would require frequent adjustments to the solar geoengineering deployment in response to observations. Other decisions would be tied to the inherently slow process of detection and attribution of climate effects in the presence of natural variability. Both of these present challenges to decision-making. These considerations point toward particular governance requirements, including an important role for technical experts – with all the challenges that entails.Key policy insightsDecisions about solar geoengineering deployment will be informed not only by political choices, but also by climate science and engineering.Design decisions will pertain to the spatial and temporal goals of a climate intervention and strategies for achieving those goals.Some uncertainty can be managed through feedback, but this would require frequent operational decisions.Some strategic decisions will depend on the detection and attribution of climatic effects from solar geoengineering, which may take decades.Governance for solar geoengineering deployment will likely need to incorporate technical expertise for making short-term adjustments to the deployment and conducting attribution analysis, while also slowing down decisions made in response to attribution analysis to avoid hasty choices.

Multilateral parametric climate risk insurance: a tool to facilitate agreement about deployment of solar geoengineering?

ABSTRACTStates will disagree about deployment of solar geoengineering, technologies that would reflect a small portion of incoming sunlight to reduce risks of climate change, and most disagreements will be grounded in conflicting interests. States that object to deployment will have many options to oppose it, so states favouring deployment will have a powerful incentive to meet their objections. Objections rooted in opposition to the anticipated unequal consequences of deployment may be met through compensation, yet climate policy is inhospitable to compensation via liability. We propose that multilateral parametric climate risk insurance might be a useful tool to facilitate agreement on solar geoengineering deployment. With parametric insurance, predetermined payouts are triggered when climate indices deviate from set ranges. We suggest that states favouring deployment could underwrite reduced-rate parametric climate insurance. This mechanism would be particularly suited to resolving disagreements based on divergent judgments about the outcomes of proposed implementation. This would be especially relevant in cases where disagreements are rooted in varying levels of trust in climate model predictions of solar geoengineering effectiveness and risks. Negotiations over the pricing and terms of a parametric risk pool would make divergent judgments explicit and quantitative. Reduced-rate insurance would provide a way for states that favour implementation to demonstrate their confidence in solar geoengineering by underwriting risk transfer and ensuring compensation without the need for attribution. This would offer a powerful incentive for states opposing implementation to moderate their opposition.Key policy insightsStates favouring deployment of solar geoengineering will need to address other states’ objections—unilateralism is implausible in practiceThis might be partially achieved using parametric climate risk insurance based on objective indicatorsA sovereign risk pool offering reduced-rate parametric insurance underwritten by states backing deployment could facilitate cooperation on solar geoengineering deploymentStates favouring deployment would demonstrate their confidence in solar geoengineering by supporting the risk poolOpposing states would be insured against solar geoengineering risks and proposing states would be incentivized to guard against overconfidence

Stratospheric aerosol injection tactics and costs in the first 15 years of deployment

We review the capabilities and costs of various lofting methods intended to deliver sulfates into the lower stratosphere. We lay out a future solar geoengineering deployment scenario of halving the increase in anthropogenic radiative forcing beginning 15 years hence, by deploying material to altitudes as high as ∼20 km. After surveying an exhaustive list of potential deployment techniques, we settle upon an aircraft-based delivery system. Unlike the one prior comprehensive study on the topic (McClellan et al 2012 Environ. Res. Lett. 7 034019), we conclude that no existing aircraft design—even with extensive modifications—can reasonably fulfill this mission. However, we also conclude that developing a new, purpose-built high-altitude tanker with substantial payload capabilities would neither be technologically difficult nor prohibitively expensive. We calculate early-year costs of ∼$1500 ton−1 of material deployed, resulting in average costs of ∼$2.25 billion yr−1 over the first 15 years of deployment. We further calculate the number of flights at ∼4000 in year one, linearly increasing by ∼4000 yr−1. We conclude by arguing that, while cheap, such an aircraft-based program would unlikely be a secret, given the need for thousands of flights annually by airliner-sized aircraft operating from an international array of bases.

A scenario process to inform Australian geoengineering policy

Geoengineering is a high-stakes policy issue that calls for research and debate that is pluralistic, reflexive and socially accountable. This paper reflects on an Australian geoengineering scenario project as a practical and innovative platform for informing governance. We produce multi-scale scenarios—representing Australia and the world— built on four fundamentally different archetypes, in which three include geoengineering. According to the four scenarios: greenhouse gas emissions continue increasing to 2050 but not long beyond; except with accelerated technology development and adoption, climate change impacts by 2050 become globally relevant; the risk of unilateral geoengineering deployment without adequate governance is low; and the framing of geoengineering deployment can be characterized as either climate mitigation, adaptation or optimization. Australia’s role in geoengineering can be described as passive in the global context, but Australia can benefit from an early transition to a low-carbon economy. A review of the evolution of ideas throughout the exercise reveals a process of shared learning that helps to focus governance discussions around key issues. This study is one step towards increasing the presence and influence of the Asia-Pacific in geoengineering discussions, and highlights the value that a tailored scenario exercise can bring to governance discussions.

Geoengineering: rights, risks and ethics

This article discusses arguments that manipulating the Earth’s climate may provoke unforeseen, unintended and uncontrollable consequences that threaten human rights. The risks arise from both main types of geoengineering: solar radiation management (SRM) techniques and carbon dioxide removal (CDR). SRM creates particular risks because it is difficult to test on a wide scale and may not be capable of being recalled after deployment. Adequate, enforceable governance structures do not currently exist to assess and regulate the risks of climate engineering, not least whether such technologies can be terminated in the absence of significant emissions reductions. This article is divided into six sections. After the opening introductory section, section 2 discusses the links between climate change and human rights. It briefly outlines the range of rights, including procedural rights, that might be violated by geoengineering. This is followed, in section 3, by an evaluation of the risks of SRM and CDR. The fourth section discusses debates on the ethics of geoengineering. Section 5 critiques hubristic faith in technological solutions. The final section examines the governance of geoengineering and the extent to which international environmental law and human rights law might be used to regulate the research and deployment of geoengineering.

Towards a comprehensive climate impacts assessment of solar geoengineering

Despite a growing literature on the climate response to solar geoengineering—proposals to cool the planet by increasing the planetary albedo—there has been little published on the impacts of solar geoengineering on natural and human systems such as agriculture, health, water resources, and ecosystems. An understanding of the impacts of different scenarios of solar geoengineering deployment will be crucial for informing decisions on whether and how to deploy it. Here we review the current state of knowledge about impacts of a solar‐geoengineered climate and identify the major research gaps. We suggest that a thorough assessment of the climate impacts of a range of scenarios of solar geoengineering deployment is needed and can be built upon existing frameworks. However, solar geoengineering poses a novel challenge for climate impacts research as the manner of deployment could be tailored to pursue different objectives making possible a wide range of climate outcomes. We present a number of ideas for approaches to extend the survey of climate impacts beyond standard scenarios of solar geoengineering deployment to address this challenge. Reducing the impacts of climate change is the fundamental motivator for emissions reductions and for considering whether and how to deploy solar geoengineering. This means that the active engagement of the climate impacts research community will be important for improving the overall understanding of the opportunities, challenges, and risks presented by solar geoengineering.

Aerosol Geoengineering Deployment and Fairness

If deployed, aerosol geoengineering (AG) could involve unfairness to both present and future parties. I discuss three broad risks of unfairness that an AG deployment policy might carry: (1) causing disproportionate harm to those least responsible for climate change, (2) burdening future parties with the costs and risks of AG and (3) excluding some interested parties from contributing to AG decision-making. Yet despite these risks, it may be too hasty to reject AG deployment as a potential climate-change policy. I argue that since it is very unlikely that a completely fair climate-change policy will be pursued, we have ethical reason to prefer some ‘incompletely fair’ policy. Given various facts about our world, it might be the case that some AG policy is ethically preferable to many other feasible climate change policies, even if AG carries deeply problematic risks of unfairness.

Using Legal Principles to Guide Geoengineering Deployment

Climate change will be unavoidable, long-lasting, and potentially catastrophic. While mitigation is critical, it can no longer enable us to avoid many of the consequences of climate change. Not surprisingly, many nations and their scientists are beginning to study the feasibility of engineering the climate. Indeed, earlier this year the United States’ National Research Council concluded that the likelihood that society will need to deploy some form of geoengineering is becoming increasingly likely. Nevertheless, no one has begun determining what principles society should apply when deciding whether to deploy geoengineering. This article identifies and reviews legal concepts that can inform this decision. Then, it determines which legal principles should be used and which can be discarded. Next, it applies decision-making theories to determine the best approach to utilize these principles. With this background, it proposes a prioritization of the principles – cost-benefit analysis, consideration of alternatives, intergenerational equity, regional equity, reversibility of consequences, and containment of effects. Finally, it demonstrates the value of the principles by applying them to some of the most promising climate engineering technologies to determine, based upon present information, which would be the most acceptable to deploy.