Climate Engineering: A critical review of proposals, their

0,23

MB

scientific and political context, and possible impacts.

42

stron

2512

ID

School of Environmental Sciences

2000

rok

Abstract:

This review of climate engineering proposals aims to provide a comprehensive resource of up to

date information and ideas for people concerned about the development of large-scale technical

fixes to counter the problem of global warming. The proposals fall into three main categories:

increasing the reflection of solar radiation back to space, enhancing natural sinks of carbon dioxide,

and direct disposal of carbon dioxide captured at source. In addition, proposals involving weather

modification, ozone chemistry and terraforming Mars are mentioned briefly. Direct disposal of

carbon dioxide is included because it involves exploitation of "global commons" such as the deep

ocean, and because it is often compared with schemes to increase natural sinks. Some of these

proposals are realistic and thus a real cause for concern, whilst the reader may find amusement in

reading some of the crazier schemes! All of these technical fixes are intended to tackle the

symptom of the problem of fossil fuel consumption. The development of technology to encourage

energy efficiency or renewable energy, on the other hand, which is intended to reduce that

consumption, is much less controversial, and is not considered here.

Some academic research projects which may lead to climate engineering, such as fertilisation of

the Southern Ocean with added Iron, have recently received much media attention. However, the

media seems to be less aware of the much larger community of researchers who are employed by

the fossil fuel and power industries to investigate similar proposals for enhancing CO2 sinks. This

review aims to clarify not only how each proposal might work or fail, but also who is promoting each

idea. Sponsorship by the fossil fuel industry is closely linked to the bluffing game of international

greenhouse politics, where excuses for doing nothing are always welcome. Hidden political values

are concealed in cost-benefit analyses, in which a trade off can be made between climate

engineering or climate warming damages, implying that consumption is already non-negotiable. The

"just in case" argument for backing climate engineering research may become a self-fulfilling

prophesy in this political context, but in the real world the choice might then be between two

potential catastrophes, for positive feedback processes make the climate system inherently

surprising. I conclude by asking whether such research should continue, and how we might check its

momentum in the future.