• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
 
March 2009
Number 327
GEO-ENGINEERING RESEARCH
There is evidence that efforts to reduce emissions ofgreenhouse gases may be insufficient to avertunacceptable levels of climate change; global emissionlevels are currently higher than even the highestscenario produced by the Intergovernmental Panel onClimate Change (2001). Geo-engineering seeks to useglobal scale engineering to offset the effects ofgreenhouse gas emissions. This POSTnote summarisesthe arguments relating to research funding for geo-engineering.
Background
Increasing awareness of the threat that climate changerepresents has propelled many respected scientists,including Nobel Laureate Professor Paul Crutzen andformer UK Government Chief Scientist Professor Sir DavidKing to call for a significant research programme into geo-engineering to combat climate change directly. Thisbriefing focuses on two areas of such research:
•
 
Solar Radiation Management (SRM) – cooling theEarth by reducing the amount of the Sun’s energyabsorbed by the climate system, by altering terrestrialalbedo (Box 1).
•
 
Carbon Capture from Air – capturing CO
2
from air withthe intent of storing it in the long term.
Current Funding of Geo-engineering Research
There is currently very little public funding specificallyearmarked for geo-engineering. Despite a US Departmentof Energy White Paper (Unpublished) that in 2001recommended a $64M, five year programme, less than$1M of public money is currently directly funding geo-engineering research in the USA. In the UK, theEngineering and Physical Sciences Research Council(EPSRC) has proposed a £3M ‘Ideas Factory’commencing in 2010. To date, therefore, most researchhas been either funded using existing climate sciencegrants or has been unfunded, performed in researchers’spare time. Researchers in the field believe that aninternational research programme of around $100Mcould advance the scientific and engineering knowledgesignificantly, of which the suggested UK contributioncould be £10-20M
1
. One priority would be to gain agreater understanding of the risks associated withinterfering with the climate system.
Box 1 – The Earth’s Albedo
The term terrestrial albedo refers to the fraction of the Sun’senergy that is reflected back into space by the Earth’ssurface or atmosphere. The albedo of an object is generallyquoted as a number between one and zero, one indicatingthat all radiation is reflected, zero that all is absorbed.Different parts of the Earth’s surface can have radicallydifferent albedos. Sea ice generally has a value of 0.5-0.7,whereas the open ocean can be as low as 0.06 with 94% ofthe Sun’s energy being absorbed as heat. Any changes inthe albedo of the Earth would have dramatic consequencesfor global temperatures.
Climate Change
The extent of the threat that climate change represents isdocumented in detail elsewhere (POSTnote 295, 245).Several key risks give the context in which geo-engineering research is advocated:
 
•
 
CO
2
levels may need to be brought down to below350ppm (parts per million, CO
2
in the atmosphere)from current levels of 385ppm, within decades, toavoid significant climate change
2
.
•
 
Without a step change in mitigation efforts, especiallyin the developing world, green house gas, (GHG),concentrations of 1000ppm CO
2
equivalent(POSTnote 318) may be passed by the end of thiscentury
3
.
•
 
Above 1000ppm, catastrophic and irreversiblechanges to the climate system may occur, includingthe loss of the majority of the Greenland ice sheet andsea level rise that would threaten coastal cities.
Runaway Climate Change
As Arctic sea ice melts, more open ocean is exposed tosunlight. Less sunlight is therefore reflected back intospace (see Box 1) leading the ocean to warm, meltingmore ice. A similar effect can be seen in Arctic permafrostregions where melting releases methane, a significantGHG. This causes further warming and methane release.There is a risk that, past a certain temperature threshold,
 
POSTnote
March 2009 Number 327
Geo-engineering Research
Page 2
these processes take over as the main driver of climatechange. After this point, no level of emissions cuts wouldprevent continued warming and runaway climate change.
Emissions Cuts and Geo-engineering
According to a recent survey by the
Independent
4
a smallmajority of climate scientists believes that these risksjustify research into geo-engineering as a potential ‘planB’ or ‘insurance policy’. There is scientific consensus thatthe risks justify a massive global effort to reducegreenhouse emissions, above and beyond what is alreadyunder way. There is also a widely held view
5
that geo-engineering should not reduce efforts to reduce GHGemissions, either by sapping research funding, occupyingsignificant numbers of climate scientists or by reducingthe political pressure for action. Some environmentalNGOs, politicians
6
and climate scientists, have evenargued that geo-engineering should not even be exploredwhile politicians are attempting to negotiate bindingcommitments to cut GHG emissions.
Geo-engineering
Carbon Capture from Air
These proposals are similar to carbon capture and storage(CCS) technologies (see POSTnote 238). However,instead of removing CO
2
from fossil fuel power stationemissions, CO
2
would be extracted directly fromatmosphere for storage.
Geological
Industrial processes for achieving this have receivedmedia attention, for example “Artificial Trees”
7
. Achemical is used to scrub CO
2
from the atmosphere. Thisis then treated to yield pure CO
2
. As with CCS, once theCO
2
is collected, sites where it could be stored ongeological timescales must be found, such as depleted oilwells. Energy would be required to produce the scrubbingchemical, to recycle it and to release the CO
2
, as well asto transport it to the storage location.
Biological
Biological mechanisms could be used to remove CO
2
fromthe air. For example, biological material can be heated tohigh temperatures in the absence of oxygen to producecharcoal (biochar). This is then mixed into the soil ofagricultural land, sequestering the carbon in the charcoalfor centuries and also improving soil quality. Furtherresearch is required to determine the geographic andeconomic scale at which such processes would need tobe implemented to be effective.More controversial are proposals to fertilise areas ofocean to encourage the growth of algae. In large areas ofthe world’s oceans the factor limiting algal growth is alack of the nutrient iron. Ocean Iron Fertilisation (OIF) –spreading this nutrient from ships – has been shown tocause algal blooms which will consume CO
2
as theygrow. When the algae die, a fraction of them will sink tothe deep ocean, sequestering the carbon. There is,however, debate surrounding both how much of thecarbon absorbed is permanently removed in this way, andpotential effects on marine eco-systems. Several privatecompanies have attempted to commercialise OIF, seekingto claim carbon credits from emissions trading schemes(POSTnote 318). At present, there is an internationalmoratorium on the commercialisation of OIF (Box 4). Thebiggest challenges for OIF are:
•
 
assessing whether carbon has been sequestered inthe long term,
•
 
proving that any damage to ecosystems would belimited to an acceptable level.
Summary
Both forms of geo-engineering by air capture address theroot cause of the problem – atmospheric CO
2
and could,therefore, be used to return its presence in theatmosphere to pre-industrial levels. The economics andlogistics of CO
2
capture from air are significant issues,given the volumes of CO
2
– of the order of hundreds ofcubic kilometres
 
– that would need to be extracted tohave an effect. Further research is required to establishthe likely costs of implementing these technologies onsuch a scale. In principle, the deployment of carboncapture and storage from air could be funded by inclusionin an emissions trading scheme. However, even if theseissues were resolved, it is difficult to imagine a systemthat could be deployed rapidly in response to a climateemergency.
Solar Radiation Management
SRM attempts to offset global warming by increasing theamount of solar radiation reflected back into space, forexample by increasing the Earth’s albedo (Box 1). A
Figure 1 (Scales in degrees Celsius): Climate model predictions of averagelocal surface temperatures for the year 2100, compared with those of 1900.Figure A shows temperature change for a ‘business as usual’ scenario (IPCC A2) where emissions cuts are not made to the required extent and greenhouse gas levels reach 880 ppm by 2100. Figure B represents the same scenario where simplified, uniform solar radiation management is usedto maintain average global temperature at pre-industrial levels.
8
 
Figure 1 – Predicted temperature changes at 880 ppmwithout (A) and with (B) solar radiation management
BA
 
POSTnote
March 2009 Number 327
Geo-engineering Research
Page 3
reduction in the amount of solar radiation absorbed bythe climate system will result in a corresponding coolingeffect (Figure 1). Simulations performed by Dr Dan Lunt,a glaciologist at the University of Bristol, have alsosuggested SRM has the potential to avert the collapse ofthe Greenland ice sheet. Important factors, includingscalability, negative effects, reversibility, costs anduncertainty (Box 2) influence the potential of SRMtechniques.
Stratospheric Aerosols
The geo-engineering proposal that has received the mostattention
9
is SRM by the introduction of aerosols into theupper atmosphere (Box 3). Initial research has suggestedthat the technique could exert a cooling effect at a lowercost than other geo-engineering proposals. The lead timefor deployment of some form of stratospheric sulphatescheme could be very short, 3-5 years. It is suggestedthat a research effort, backed up by small scale tests,could quantify the risks involved and the likely costs.
Box 2 – Key Factors for SRM
Scalability
– Simulations suggest that approximately 2%more solar energy would need to be reflected back into spaceto maintain average global temperatures with GHGs atdouble their pre-industrial levels. To have a significant effect,therefore, SRM must increase the albedo of the Earth on acontinental scale.
Negative Effects
– SRM proposals generally aim to increasereflection of wavelengths shorter than those absorbed bygreenhouse gases. The spatial distribution of the coolingeffect is also likely to be different from that of greenhousegas warming. These effects add up to give a climate that isnot equivalent to that were GHG levels to be reduced. Onesignificant concern is that precipitation will be affected asevaporation of water is more sensitive to levels of directsunlight than to temperature. The Meteorological Office hasperformed simulations of SRM that result in a dieback of theSouth American rain forest and changes in the El Niñoweather cycle
10
. Proponents of SRM argue that this workwas not representative of their proposals, and that whileresultant climatic patterns may not be equivalent to those forthe pre-industrial, they would be more similar than thosearising without any attempt to compensate for the warming.
Uncertainty
– As with all climate predictions, there issignificant uncertainty involved with the models used topredict the effects of SRM. The complexities of the climatesystem mean that, while this uncertainty can be reduced, itcan not be eliminated. Were a system implemented, it islikely that there would be climate consequences not foreseenby modelling.
Reversibility –
Given such uncertainty, it is critical that anySRM project can be reversed quickly.
Tropospheric Cloud Seeding
Proposals have also been made to alter the albedo ofclouds in the troposphere (lower atmosphere). In largeareas of the oceans, overall cloud reflectivity is limited byabsence of airborne particles on which water droplets canform. Professors Stephen Salter of the University ofEdinburgh, and John Latham of the US National Centerfor Atmospheric Research have produced plans for aprototype ship that would inject a fine spay of salt waterinto the lower atmosphere This would evaporate to formsuch seeding particles. The resulting greater cloud coverwould increase the local albedo, yielding a cooling localeffect.Proponents claim that, initially, a fleet of 50 ships wouldneed to be deployed continuously to yield the desiredglobal cooling effect. The potential also exists for localcooling to be achieved over sensitive areas such as theArctic or coral reefs. The key advantage of thismechanism is that the process would be, in terms ofpollution, largely environmentally benign. However, if anadverse climate impact were observed and seedingterminated, the effects should dissipate in a matter ofdays.
Box 3 – Stratospheric Aerosols
In 1991, Mt Pinatubo, a volcano in the Philippines, erupted,discharging ~20 million tonnes of sulphur dioxide, (SO
2
),into the stratosphere. Much greater volcanic releases of SO
2
have occurred throughout geological history. The resultantsulphate particles from Pinatubo increased global albedo,reflecting enough solar energy back into space to cool theglobal climate by an average of 0.5
˚
C over the following 1-2years. Paul Crutzen, recipient of the Nobel Prize in chemistryfor his work on the atmospheric chemistry of ozone, arguedin the journal
Climate Change
11
that this effect could beused to counteract climate change.There are various ways in which the aerosol precursorscould, in principle, be launched into the atmosphereincluding using aircraft, rockets or heavy lift balloons. Theparticles could also be tuned to reflect as much sunlight aspossible per gram. More sophisticated particles thansulphates are proposed that could potentially have greaterresidence times in the atmosphere or that could preferentiallyabsorb harmful UV radiation.Observations suggest that geo-engineering based on sulphateaerosols would have lower costs relative to other geo-engineering proposals. Professor David Keith, director of theEnergy and Environmental Systems Group at the Universityof Calgary, has suggested that for as little as 0.01% of globalGDP temperatures could be lowered to the extent of initiatingan ice age using this technique
12
. Sulphate emissions fromindustry (mainly coal power plants in the USA, China andIndia) already counteract the warming effect of approximately100ppm of CO
2
. Estimates of the costs of implementing thisform of geo-engineering are in the region of $10-50 billion ayear to return to ‘pre-industrial’ average global temperatures.If particle injection were suspended due to unforeseenconsequences, the effects would dissipate over 2-3 years. Itis, however, known that increased sulphate aerosolconcentrations in the stratosphere would catalyse ozonedestruction, and an increase in levels of acid rain wouldoccur. The greatest harm, however, is thought to be theeffect on precipitation levels (Box 2). There is considerabledebate on the extent of this effect, with different simulationsproducing outcomes varying from a minimal effect to asignificant drop-off in rainfall.
Mirrors in Space
A proposal to place an array of mirrors in space betweenthe Earth and the Sun has received significant pressattention. In principle, the climate could be cooled bysuch a scheme but it is thought that the costs (estimatedin the range of 1 US $trillion) and reliance on as yetundeveloped technologies mean that this proposal isunlikely to be taken further.
Surface Based SRM
There are also proposals to change the albedo of theEarth’s surface, for example, by genetically modifying
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...