The unsure way forward...

The hugely controversial topic of geoengineering is not looking as if it’s going to sort itself out anytime soon. While undertaking this blog, I have formed some very strong views both for and against different geoengineering techniques and the more I read into them, the more my views seem to change and shift between the various proposed solutions. 

Over Christmas I mentioned the SPICE project to my family and their general feeling was, “it’s years till we could ever be able to do that” or “it’ll never happen”. When I told them that  it was ready to commence last September a look of shock crossed everyones faces. 

In my mind, some resolutions are inconceivable (K.I. Roy’s idea of space mirrors for example). However, many techniques are definitely feasible and merely waiting for the go-ahead from governments. But which ones should be implemented? And at what scale? With such global effects of geoengineering, the geopolitical complications involved in implementing any of the ideas are obvious.

However, from my research, I believe that geoengineering should be seen only as a back-up plan. Our primary concern should be with increasing our use of renewable fuels with governments offering significant incentives for ‘green’ industry. However, I also believe that  research into geoengineering should increase and where deemed ‘safe’ by independent academics, small scale experimentation should be allowed. 

How would cloud seeding affect sea ice?

We have already discussed the possibility of implementing the SPICE project (Robock, 2000) but some fascinating research has been undertaken which looks at quantifying the extent of the sea ice changes post cloud seeing. 

If you’ve forgotten the basics of the SPICE project then let me give you a few reminders. It consists of injecting aerosol particles into boundary layer clouds which act as condensation nuclei. This results in increased droplet numbers being present leading to an increased albedo. Consequently, the planet undergoes a trend of cooling. For more in depth information on this method may i refer you to a previous post.

Rashch et al. (2009) agree that cloud seeding can indeed stabilise earth temperatures and ice extent. However, the issue that would arise if this was attempted would be the difficulty in compensating uniformly for all changes across the globe. As in the majority of studies in this field, Rashch et al. simulate the affects geoengineering in a simulation where atmospheric CO2 is twice the levels that it is presently at. The great loss of ice that would result is shown in (a) and (b) in the figure below. However, with varying magnitudes of cloud seeding, large increases in sea ice are demonstrated leading to both restoration and stabilisation of the sea ice extent which is present today.

The Case Against Geoengineering

A recent report, powerfully entitled ‘Geopiracy’, has been published that gives an interesting insight of some of the obstacles that face geoengineering proponents  (ETC Group, 2010)

Can’t be sufficiently tested -      

          Cannot be experimented with at an extent to show a significant impact whilst not risking the possible  negative effects that  might occur through large scale deployment    

Violation of treaties -    

          The UN Environmental Modification Treaty states that the use of environmental modification for hostile action is not permitted

Unilateral -    

          Geoengineering is a hugely expensive business which can put it out of the reach of small, less developed countries. However, those more wealthy countries (and in some cases, individuals) will be able to put into place their own schemes to suit their needs. How can we govern this on a global scale?

Commodification of Climate  -           

          Should any one individual or company own a patent for the the climate   possible climate fix? This owner might purely wish to profit by their actions and are unlikely to have to best wishes of the planet at heart. Again, global treaties would need to be signed to govern this.

An excuse -  

          Lastly, but believed by many to be the most important critique of geoengineering is that it provides an excuse for governments not to reduce emissions. This in the long term could have devastating effects on the environment 

“We cannot solve our problems
with the same thinking we used
when we created them.”

Albert Einstein

“We already are
inadvertently changing the climate.
So why not advertently try to
counterbalance it?”

Michael MacCracken,
Climate Institute, USA

Climate change targets......meaningless?

In 1997, The Kyoto Protocol was signed by 191 states (not including the U.S.) which promised to reduce there greenhouse emissions by between 5.2%. Other goals have been set for example the Montreal Protocol which focuses on reducing CFC’s. However, these targets have will not be met, but does this matter? Are countries penalised for not reaching these targets? Well, in short, no!

Many of these goals (including those set within individuals countries) are just constantly postponed. When the deadline gets closer...its just constantly pushed back! alternatively, these targets are quietly reduced! Canada in June 2005 cut its target for 2010 by 5 million tonnes in the hope of not falling too short (esciencenews, 2010). Today Canada have also rejected signing the new international agreement on the future of the Kyoto Agreement (AFP, 2011). This shows that countries are starting to follow the path of the US in attempting to reduce their own emmisions, but in their own time, and without international commissions looking over their shoulder.

I think it is best summed up by this quote taken from Nature:

‘The Kyoto Protocol is a symbolically important expression of governments' concern about climate change. But as an instrument for achieving emissions reductions, it has failed. It has produced no demonstrable reductions in emissions or even in anticipated emissions growth’

                                                            (Prins and Rayner, 2007)

How might geoengineering affect our terrestrial biosphere?

Climate stabilisation schemes for example the SPICE project will have a profound affect on terrestrial biosphere. If this scheme works in the way that its proponents claim then we should all benefit from decreased solar radiation. However, CO2 will continue to increase nonetheless (causing CO2 fertilisation). However, what impacts will these changes have on Net Primary Production (NPP) and biomass?

Govindasamy et al. (2002) attempted to model these changes and yielded some staggering results. They judged that with a predicted decrease of 1.8% of solar fluxes then NPP would decrease by around 2.4%. However, with a model where CO2 reaches double that of the present level, NPP increases by around 76%. However, as noted by Schimel (1998), changes in nitrogen availability are crucial to the carbon cycle as they affect nutrient levels in the soil. Consequently, these nutrient levels (which are unaccounted for in the model) might in fact limit the NPP increases calculated.

The model used in this paper acts give an estimate and should be used more to give qualitative projections on future changes in the terrestrial biosphere. The authors admit that although they have produced quantitative data, it should be treated with caution. They have used a very simple ocean model and have prescribed the levels of CO2. With more in depth models and taking climate feedbacks into account, different results will likely be calculated.

                                                                                                  Govindasamy et al. (2002)

Although this might appear to produce very positive affects on the terrestrial biosphere, we still must remind ourselves of the uncertainties that exist regarding geoengineering, many of which have been discussed in past posts

A few words from a very influential man

I’ve recently found myself engrossed in a series of televised lectures from TED conferences (Technology, Entertainment and Design). They have some of the most inspiring and intelligent speakers from Bill Clinton to Steve Jobs and if this is all news to you then i couldn’t recommend it more! (they are all on youtube and only about 20mins long) (TED, 2011)

Although slightly off topic for this blog, I really thought that it might be of great interest to anyone with a passion towards solving climate change to listen to Bill Gates speak on climate change in 2010 (Innovating to zero). He mainly discusses a form of renewable energy known as ‘Terra Power’ (TerraPower, 2011) This is the process of using depleted uranium (what we would know as radioactive waste) as a substitute to the current fuel, enriched uranium. Basically, a complicated form of recycling.......how can that be bad!?  It sounds good in principle but we all know what happened at Fukushima and Chernobyl and the further 33 serious cases since 1952 (The Guardian, 2011). Anyway, i’ll let you make your own minds up on that issue!

Gates briefly mentions geoengineering 24 minutes in and I thought it would be very useful to look at the view of a non-academic. He shares the same views that Schelling talks of relating to a preference for dealing with the cause rather than the symptoms. However, Gates uses an interesting analogy for geoengineeering (Schelling, 1996)

Burning fossil fuels____________Climate change_____________Geoengineering

Over-eating__________________Heart attack________________Surgery

Geoengineering, like heart surgery is a useful insurance policy. But, Gates worries that if we know it is possible, will we neglect to get to the source of the problem and try to fix our polluting ways?

However, he does state that it would be very unwise not to at least research geoengineering as it would be useful to have in the back pocket.

I have posted the video below and i would strongly suggest giving it a watch:

Also, on a very unrelated note, might I suggest watching the TED talk that I have linked.....this one of my favourites!