UNIVERSITY OF OTAGO

Geoengineering: Carbon
Removal and Reduction of Solar
Radiation
A Summary of Current Research and Political
Issues

Randy Kirk
11/19/2010
Geoengineering options to mitigate climate change are discussed. The two main
branches of geoengineering according to the Royal Society are solar radiation
reduction strategies and atmospheric carbon removal strategies. The
technologies are assessed based on four variables, cost, environmental impact,
environmental risk and main barriers to adoption. Geoengineering in terms of
carbon removal is very difficult in terms of cost even for the most cost efficient
methods, while two options (cloud albedo and stratospheric aerosol) appear
initially promising as solar radiation reduction strategies. However, nearly all
geoengineering strategies will likely not be adopted on a large scale, unless there
is a major climatic crisis, due to environmental risks and political complications.
Contents
Contents................................................................................................................ 3

Introduction:.......................................................................................................... 4

Geoengineering Overview:....................................................................................6

Carbon Removal from Atmospheric Technologies:................................................7

Ocean Based Technologies Assessment:.............................................................10

Which Technologies Appear to be the Most Promising Carbon Removal Methods?

............................................................................................................................ 10

What are the Most Promising Solar Radiation Reduction Technologies?..............13

Brief Overview of the Political and Ethical Aspects of Geoengineering Options:..15

Conclusion:.......................................................................................................... 16

Works Cited......................................................................................................... 17
Introduction:

John Von Neumann, one of the greatest scientists of the middle 20 th century,
forecasted global heating to become a serious concern for humanity in the 21st
century, due to excess carbon production that would retain solar radiation. Von
Neumann predicted that mitigating climate change by geoengineering would be
considered, even if the technologies and externalities were not to be fully
understood. Geoengineering, Von Neumann argued, would link all of the world’s
countries together, in so far as actions by one country or a group of countries to
change the world’s climate would impact all the others, and could potentially be
used as a weapon of war. (Von Neumann, 1955).

In late 2010, the predictions by John Von Neumann have come to pass. Interest
in geoengineering by the academic community has exploded, with research
papers published in 2010 at approximately 4x the number in 2007 (see Figure 1).
Interest by the scientific community has been driven in part by Nobel prize
winning scientist Paul Crutzen, who has recommended geoengineering as an
emergency option to combat climate change in a 2006 paper. (Crutzen, 2006)
Additionally, the renowned economist William Nordhaus has advised seriously
researching geoengineering as an mitigating option for climate change
(Nordhaus, 1994, Nordhaus, 2003).

Geoengineering has also drawn interest from business and political groups. Bill
Gates has reportedly donated $4M to research on geoengineering in 2009 and
has been funding geoengineering since 2007 (Kintisch, 2010). Russian president
Vladimir Putin has been advised by Russian scientist Yuri Izrael to pump Sulphur
dioxide into the atmosphere in order to prevent global warming (Phillips, 2010).
China also been reportedly researching geoengineering concepts, (Geddes,
2010) and the US government’s chief scientific advisor John Holden has advised
the US president to seriously consider advocating geoengineering. (Jha, 2009)

Figure 1: The Number of Research Papers Published in Academic Journals on

Geoengineering:
Source: (Economist, 2010)

The late Steven Schneider of Stanford University, one of the world’s experts on
climate change, once joked in a lecture he gave to the American Association for
the Advancement of Science (AAAS) in 1972, “Mark Twain had it backwards.
Nowadays, everyone is doing something about the weather, but nobody is
talking about it.” (Economist , 2010) This quip could accurately be used to
describe the state of affairs in 2010.

The concept of geoengineering has met with significant resistance from groups
within the scientific community, as well as environmental groups, and
economists and lower income nations who would not have a significant say in the
geoengineering projects but may be overly exposed to the side effects. Further
resistance stems from those who advocate moving the world’s energy system to
a more renewable one based on wind and solar. An example of the scientific
community’s resistance to geoengineering is expressed by the venerable James
Lovelock, who has stated that “Using geoengineering is like using 19th century
medicine to combat 21st century diseases.” (Lovelock, 2009). Further, Lovelock
has warned that geoengineering may cause irreversible damage. (Lovelock,
2009). Many of not most scientists agree that the world is too complex to be
satisfactorily understood and therefore unintended consequences would likely
result from the wide scale adoption of geoengineering projects.

This essay will briefly review the existing potential geoengineering options, with
options reviewed based on the Royal Academy of Science’s comprehensive
report on geoengineering published September of 2009 (Royal Society, 2009). It
should be noted that the author is not an expert in the field of geoengineering.
Therefore, the purpose of this paper is to review the options listed by established
experts as well as perform relatively straightforward calculations of potential
energy and resources required by the mitigating options (note the author has
covered oil and natural gas for an investment fund, and is familiar with
calculations of conversion of energy, and also of scale). Secondly, the purpose of
this paper is to move from “unconscious incompetence” of geoengineering,
which is to say, “not knowing that one does not know” to “conscious
incompetence,” which is, “knowing that one does not know.” This movement
should be beneficial in so far that conscious incompetence has been shown in
studies to produce a more accurate assessment of knowledge and capabilities
than unconscious incompetence. (Chapman, 2008) Finally, this essay will
provide a brief overview of the political obstacles towards the adoption of
geoengineering, concluding that it is unlikely that geoengineering will be
adopted as a solution to global warming, unless there is a significant climate
crisis.

Geoengineering Overview:

The Royal Society published their landmark study Geoengineering the Climate:
Science, Governance and Uncertainty, in September 2009. The study received
input from over 200 scientists in the area of geoengineering, climate and earth
sciences, and took over 12 months to research and complete. This study has
split geoengineering techniques into two broad categories: 1. carbon removal
methods, and 2. solar radiation management techniques. (Royal Society, 2009)
The Royal Society’s geoengineering options can be further segmented into two
options out of four to stabilize the world’s climate (Caldeira, 2008)(see Figure 2).

Figure 2: Diagram of Methods to Stabilize the World’s Climate: (Note that

Geoengineering involves the last two options)
Source: Caldeira, 2008

This report will focus on the last two options, but does not imply that these
technologies are superior to energy utilization technologies. In fact, the first two
options listed in Figure 2 above would very likely incur less risk for the
environment than the geoengineering options. As Ken Caldeira, a climate
scientist at the Carneigie Department of Global Ecology has stated,
geoengineering should be viewed as a “catastrophe avoiding” option, one that
as a last chance would avoid global climate change if society utilization of the
first two options failed (Calderia, 2008).

It is possible that global climate change mitigation would likely need many
options or “wedges” in order to stabilize the world’s climate – wedges defined as
separate initiatives adopted which combine to reach a reduction in carbon and
global warming – according to Stephen Pacala and Robert Socolow of Princeton
University (Socolow and Pacala, 2004). Therefore, it is possible that all the
options listed in Figure 2 above could be considered in order to prevent
damaging climate change in future years, but the risks may need to be fully
considered.

Carbon Removal from Atmospheric Technologies:

The Royal Society has divided the carbon removal technologies into a two by
three matrix, based on land and ocean technologies, and by biological and
physical and chemical means. See figure 3 below for the Royal Society’s listed
carbon removal technologies based on either land or ocean based technologies.

Figure 3: Atmospheric Carbon Removal Techniques:

Land
Biological: • Afforestation and
land use
• Biomass/fuels with
carbon sequestration
Ocean
• Iron fertilisation
• Phosphorus/nitrogen
• Fertilisation
• Enhanced upwelling

Physical • Atmospheric CO2 • Changing overturning

scrubbers (‘air capture’) circulation
Chemical • In-situ carbonation • Alkalinity enhancement
(enhanced of silicates (grinding, dispersing
weathering’ • Basic minerals (incl. and dissolving limestone, silicates,
techniques) olivine) on soil or calcium hydroxide)

Source: Royal Society, 2009

Initially, in the author’s (uneducated) assessment, the most promising methods

appeared to be ocean and biological based, due to the fact that the ocean holds
approximately 50 times the carbon of the atmosphere and covers a significantly
larger area than land for the earth as a whole. The biological basis would mean
that costs could be lowered, as growing a biological medium would not require
the constant addition of materials, in theory – this is to say, the cost would be
relatively low, but the effectiveness would potentially be high, due to the large
area.

However, ocean based technologies did not fare too well in the Royal Society’s
educated appraisal. The Royal Society published its assessment of the carbon
sequestration technologies based across four main criteria: 1. Cost in terms of
capital and resources, and hours of labour, 2. Probable Environmental Impact, 3.
Environmental Risk, and 4. The Maximum Reduction in CO2. Comments were
also made on the ultimate restraint on the technology. The land or ocean basis
of the technology is indicated in blue (ocean) or green (land), and the biological
process is indicated by italics (no indication for chemical and physical
processes). See figure

Figure 4: Summary of the Royal Society’s Assessment of the Carbon Removal

Technologies Across Cost, Environmental Impact, Environmental Risk and
Maximum Reduction in CO2.

Deployed to remove 1 GtC/Yr

Cos Env En Ultimate Max Reference
t Imp vRi constraint Reducti
pp ct sk on in
m CO2
Land use and Low Low Lo Competition with n/a Canadell; Raupach
afforestation w other uses, (2008)
(Land)(Biological) especially
agriculture
Biomass with Med Med Me Competition with 50 to Read & Parshotam,
Carbon d other uses, 150 ppm 2007; Korbeinikov
Sequestration especially (2006)
(Land)(Biological) agriculture
Biomass and Med Med Me Supply of 10 to 50 Gaunt & Lehmann
biochar (Land) d Agricultural, ppm (2008)
(Biological) Forestry Waste
Enhanced Med Med Lo Extraction and n/a Schuiling &
Weathering on w Energy Costs Krijgsman (2006)
Land (Land)
Enhanced Med Med Me Extraction and n/a Kheshgi (1995);
weathering— d energy costs Rau (2008)
increasing ocean
alkalinity (Ocean)
Chemical air Hig Low Lo Cost availability of No Keith et al. (2005)
capture and carbon h w sequestration sites obvious
sequestration limit
(Land)
Ocean Iron Low Med Hig Dynamics of ocean 10 to 30 Aumont & Bopp
Fertilization h carbon system (2006)
(Ocean)(Biological)
Ocean N and P Med Med Hig Cost and availability 5 to 20 Lenton & Vaughan
fertilisation h of nutrients (2009)
(Ocean)(Biological)
Ocean upwelling, Not 1 to 5 Zhou & Flynn
downwelling Possible (2005)
(Ocean)(Biological)
Source: Royal Society, 2009
Ocean Based Technologies Assessment:

As shown in figure 4, ocean based carbon sequestration technologies pose

significant risk to the environment, according to the Royal Society. One of the
most publicized ocean-based technologies for sequestering carbon is iron
fertilization of the ocean to stimulate growth of phytoplankton, which, in turn,
theoretically would utilize carbon from the atmosphere to produce sugars
through photosynthesis. This technology can disrupt ocean food cycles
(Abraham, 2004; Aumont, 2006; Royal Society, 2009), and iron fertilization has
not been thoroughly tested (Coale, 1996; Aumont, 2006; Royal Society, 2009).
Further, iron sequestration has been theorized to only sequester 10 to 30 ppm
total of carbon from the atmosphere if utilized on a large scale, (Royal Society,
2009) which is far lower than some scientists and observers had projected. The
technology therefore does not appear to be a significant solution to reducing
carbon from the atmosphere based on the risks to the environment and the low
potential for carbon sequestration in terms of reduction of ppm of carbon in the
atmosphere.

Which Technologies Appear to be the Most Promising

Carbon Removal Methods?

Land based afforestation and enhanced weathering on land appear to be the

most promising methods to reduce carbon from the atmosphere, according to
the Royal Society. Land afforestation is the planting of trees and bush that
would remove carbon from the atmosphere through photosynthesis. Enhanced
weathering processes include the conversion of carbon from the atmosphere to
rocks and or substances through chemical means. Typically, some form of
limestone, such as a proposal by the firm Cquestrate - -which is funded by Royal
Dutch Shell -- to covert limestone into a carbon capturing chemical through the
chemical process of Ca(OH)2 + 2CO2 A Ca2+ + 2HCO3 (Cquestrate, 2008).
Land afforestation has not been estimated by the Royal Society in its ability to
sequester carbon from the atmosphere, other sources cite the lack of non-
farmable land to grow enough forests in order to be able to sequester significant
carbon from the. () It should be noted that it takes approximately 50 new trees
planted per year in order to offset the carbon production per year of a typical
American citizen, () therefore the scale of large scale tree and bush planting can
be begun to be imagined.
The two main barriers to Cquestrate is the energy usage and limestone
availability. A simple calculation of the energy required to reduce the carbon in
the atmosphere will be presented here, to reduce atmospheric carbon by 50
ppm: (note the Royal Society estimates that up to 150 ppm of carbon could be
reduced from the atmosphere by enhanced weathering processes such as
Cquestrate’s methods) (note all calculations are performed by the author, as
energy usage is not addressed in depth by Cquestrate):

1. CaCO 3 + 178 kJ/mol  CaO + CO2 (1 atm, 25°C) (Kheshgi, 1995)

2. Weight of 391 ppm in KG of carbon in the atmosphere = 3.16*10^15 KG
(Hydrogen Now Journal, 2009)
3. Weight of 50 ppm in KG of carbon in the atmosphere (as a percentage of 391
ppm)= 4.12*10^14 KG
4. Mols of Carbon of 50 ppm in the atmosphere =
grams of CO2 in 1 mol = 44.0095 (Conversion Calculator, 2010)
4.12*10^17 grams / 44.0095 = 9.39*10^15 mols of CO2 in the
atmosphere for 50 ppm
9.39*10^15 mols * 178 kJ = 1.67*10^18 KJ required/2 (because the
process takes two atoms of carbon for every one atom of CaO produced =
8.33*10^17 KJ required
5. Number of KJ in 1 Sq meter of natural gas = 38,300 kJ (EIA, 2010)
6. Amount of natural gas in Sq meters to remove 50 ppm of carbon dioxide from
the atmosphere = 8.33*10^17/38,300 = 2.18*10^13 sq meters of natural
gas
7. Current world production of natural gas = 2.978*10^12 sq meters (BP, 2010)
8. Natural gas required as a percentage of current production to reduce 50 ppm
= 2.18*10^13/2.978*10^12 = 732%.

Unless there are errors in the calculation above, the amount of natural gas
required to remove 50 ppm from the atmosphere is 732% or 7.32x current world
production of natural gas. (It is little wonder that Cquestrate does not include
this calculation on its website or its promotion materials!). Clearly, this option
faces resource challenges, if this calculation is close to being accurate. Note
that, in support of the above calculation, Ken Caldeira has stated that the
amount of excess energy trapped from carbon dioxide in the earth’s atmosphere
per year is over 1000 times that produced by all of mankind per year (Caldeira,
2008). Therefore the numbers to remove this carbon and trapped energy will be
very large.

Reduction of Solar Radiation Technologies:

Solar reduction technologies fall into three main categories, first, albedo
technologies, which involve increasing the reflective qualities of clouds, human
settlement, the desert and/or the ocean generally by “whitening” these surfaces
and mediums. (note however, the methodology of whiting the mediums and
surfaces differs significantly depending on the medium). The second technology
involves sending aerosols – sulphur is often mentioned as a possible aerosol --
into the atmosphere into order to reflect some of the incoming sunlight. The
third possibility are space based reflectors, such as large mirrors in space, but
the high cost is likely prohibitive for this measure.

Figure 5: Solar Radiation Reduction Assessment:

SRM Maximum Cost per year Risk Possible Side Effects

Techniqu radiative per unit of (at
e forcing radiative max
(W/m2) forcing likely
($109/yr/W/ level)
m2)
Human -0.2 2000 Low Regional Climate
Settleme Change
nt Albedo
Medium Regional Climate
Change,
Grassland -1 n/a Low Possible reduction in
and Crop crop yields
Albedo
High Regional Climate
Change
Desert -3 1000 High Ecosystem Impacts
Surface
Albedo
 High Termination Impact (1)
Cloud -4 0.2 Medium Regional Climate
Albedo Change
Low Changes in Strat.
Chemistry
Stratosph Unlimited 0.2 Medium Regional Climate
eric Change
Aerosols
High Termination Impact (1)
Low Reduction in Crop
Yields
Space- Unlimited 5 Medium Changes in Strat.
based Chemistry
Reflector
s
High Termination Impact (1)
Low Reduction in Crop Yields
Conventio -2 to -5 200 Low Reduction in Crop Yields
nal
Methods
Source: Royal Society, 2009
Notes: The three main methods, albedo, aerosols and space-based reflectors are
colour coded for ease of reference.
(1) Termination impact is defined as the impact if the method is discontinued.
For example, if stratospheric aerosols are not continuously pumped into
the atmosphere, the aerosols will dissipate from the atmosphere in a few
years and solar radiation will impact the ground as before.

What are the Most Promising Solar Radiation Reduction

Technologies?

The two solar radiation reduction technologies according to the Royal Society are
cloud based albedo and stratospheric aerosols. These methods have relatively
lower regional ecological and environmental risks compared to other albedo
options (desert, urban, glass and cropland), and also are more cost effective per
unit of solar radiation reduced than the other options. John Latham of the
University of Colorado, Boulder and Stephen Salter of the University of Edinburgh
have proposed to spray seawater in the atmosphere to increase the
reflectiveness of clouds (Latham, 2010, Salter, 2010)). The sprayers would use a
fleet of around 1500 unmanned ships to spray water mist into the clouds to
whiten them, an effect known as the Twomey Effect (Latham, 2010). According
to the Royal Society, this would be one of the least expensive mitigation options,
with low risk of changing the chemistry of the clouds and/or atmosphere. (Royal
Society, 2009)

Perhaps the solar radiation reduction strategy that has received the most
attention is stratospheric aerosols. The economist Steven Lewitt of the
University of Chicago has recommended this option in his best-selling book
“SuperFreakonomics” (Levitt, 2009) (to considerable controversy). Further, Bill
Gates has been believed to be funding the research of this option through the
venture capital fund Intellectual Ventures, which is run by Nathan Myhrvold (also
formerly of Microsoft) (Kintisch, 2010). Intellectual Ventures has hired the
scientist Ken Caldeira as a research scientist to focus on this venture. The option
would send a compound of sulphur into the atmosphere either through a hose
suspended by helium balloons, or by adding sulphuric compounds to jet fuel.
The cost is estimated by Ken Caldeira to be only a few billion US dollars to
implement, in order to bring the earth’s temperature down by approximately 2
degrees. Caldeira has stated that Sulphurs would not stay in the atmosphere for
more than a few years, and also do not significant impact plant growth and
photosynthesis (Calderia 2008).

The three main problems with sulphur is that, first, they do not solve the higher
concentration problems of CO2, therefore would do nothing to assist in the
saving of coral reefs and other ecosystems that are highly sensitive to carbon
concentrations in the atmosphere and water. Secondly, sending sulphur into
the atmosphere would have unanticipated effects on the climate, although note
that Calderia states that this risk is partially mitigated by the fact that volcanoes
have put sulphur into the atmosphere for 1000’s of years without lasting ill
effects to the climate. (Calderia,2008) However, other scientists have noted that
the project may give the sky a yellowish tinge, which could mean ill effects in
terms of other problems. Third, the project would be highly reversible, meaning
that if the project was not continued, then global warming would come back,
probably in a more rapidly as carbon concentrations would have likely increased
significantly during the period of the sulphuring atmospheric aerosols. As
Stanford scientist David Victor has stated, we haven’t done anything unabated
for over 100 years, therefore it is not likely that we could continue to pump
aerosols into the atmosphere without an interruption. (Victor, 2009)

Brief Overview of the Political and Ethical Aspects of

Geoengineering Options:

A short note is warranted concerning the political aspects of geoengineering

options. According to Ken Caldeira, it is unlikely that geoengineering will be
deployed as a climate mitigation option unless there is a serious crisis. This is
due to the fact that Caldeira expects first world countries will take the lead in the
deployment of geoengineering, due to their superior resources. If there is a
problem going forward that impacts poor countries, due to unforeseen
consequences of geoengineering, then the poor countries will potentially go to
war over this extremely sensitive issue. Further, if one country goes ahead with
geoengineering without the consent of other countries, this could be considered
a cause for serious political repercussions, even war.

Note that the UN placed a moratorium on geoengineering in November, 2010

pending proof that geoengineering will not harm the environment. (McDermott,
2010) As this memorandum only came out in the last two weeks of the writing of
this paper, the implications of this act has not been fully debated and discussed.

Steve Rayner of the University of Oxford has recommended a series of ethical

considerations in the deployment of geoengineering, including: (Rayner, 2010)
• Regulation of geoengineering as a public good, similar to the regulation of
a public utility or public schools
• Public Participation in geoengineering discussions and decision making
• Open publication of results of geoengineering research
• Independent assessment of the results of geoengineering results and
research, and potential impacts
• Governance beyond deployment
Beginning discussion of ethical deployment and governance of geoengineering
ensures that, according to Steve Rayner, if the option is needed in a crisis, then
serious issues will have been potentially resolved ahead of this critical time.

Conclusion:

Interest in geoengineering has been increasing, particularly over the last three
years, as climate change has increasingly demanded the attention of scientists,
politicians, economists, businessmen and citizens. In the two main areas of
geoengineering, carbon removal and storage and reduction of solar radiation,
the two most promising techniques for carbon removal are afforestation and
chemical and physical weathering. The two most promising options for solar
radiation reduction are cloud albedo and atmospheric aerosols. It is possible that
carbon removal geoengineering techniques could form part of Princeton
University’s Robert Socolow’s “wedges” – particularly the afforestation options.
However it is unlikely that solar radiation reduction technologies will be
implemented without a serious crisis.

It should be noted that most scientists believe that the earth is too complex to
be understood by scientists in their present state of knowledge, and therefore
geoengineering the planet based on this incomplete knowledge could lead to
unintended consequences and, possibly, irreversible damage. As Ken Caldeira
stated (perhaps unintentionally) in a lecture, “If we do irreversible damage to the
climate, there’s nothing you can do about it.” (Caldeira, 2008). It is possible that
the earth may never be fully understood by humans even in the future, in so far,
that as according to the great mathematician Kurt Gödel’s incompleteness
theorem, in order for something to be fully understood (in mathematical
language “proven”) then axioms at a higher level to the current problem must be
utilized to prove the current problem. This is to say, paraphrasing, that in order
to understand a system, a system that is higher in complexity, order or level
must be utilized to understand the lower system. As we appears as merely tiny
specks on the much larger and more complex Earth, according to Kurt Gödel
perhaps we do not have the capability to understand the Earth’s climate. A lack
of understanding would mean that our attempts to control and engineer the
Earth’s climate will be fraught with unintended consequences.
Works Cited
Aumont, O. &. (2006). Globalizing results from ocean in situ iron fertilization
studies. Global Biogeochem , 331-346.

BP. (2010). BP Statistical Review of World Energy. Retrieved 11 16, 2010, from
BP Statistical Review of World Energy:
http://www.bp.com/sectiongenericarticle.do?
categoryId=9023780&contentId=7044476

Caldeira, K. (2008, 1 7). Google Tech Talks. Retrieved 11 16, 2010, from
youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vzMVfJKJK_c

Chapman, A. (2008). Conscious competence learning model. Retrieved 11 16,

2010, from BusinessBalls:
http://www.businessballs.com/consciouscompetencelearningmodel.htm

Conversion Calculator. (2010). Retrieved 11 16, 2010, from Convertunits.com:

http://www.convertunits.com/from/grams+co2/to/moles

Cquestrate. (2008). Cquestrate: Detailed Description of the Idea. Retrieved 11

16, 2010, from Cquestrate: http://www.cquestrate.com/the-idea/detailed-
description-of-the-idea

Crutzen, P. (2006). Albedo enhancement by stratospheric sulfur injections: A

contribution to resolve a policy dilemma? Climatic Change , 77.

Economist. (2010, 11 4). Geoengineering: Lift Off. Retrieved 11 16, 2010, from
The Economist: http://www.economist.com/node/17414216

Economist, T. (2010, 7 29). Stephen Schneider, climate scientist, died on July

19th, aged 65. Retrieved 11 16, 2010, from The Economist:
http://www.economist.com/node/16690669

Edward R. Abraham1, C. S. (2004). Importance of stirring in the development of

an iron-fertilized phytoplankton bloom. Nature , 727-730.

EIA. (2010). EIA Energy Conversion Calculator. Retrieved 11 16, 2010, from EIA:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/kids/energy.cfm?
page=about_energy_conversion_calculator-basics

Geddes, P. (n.d.). Solving global climate change through geoengineering

solutions and technology . Retrieved 11 16, 2010, from Helium:
http://www.helium.com/items/711467-solving-global-climate-change-through-
geoengineering-solutions-and-technology

Jha, A. (2009, 4 14). Obama Climate Advisor Open to Geoengineering to Tackle

Climate Change. Retrieved 11 16, 2010, from guardian.co.uk:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/apr/08/geo-engineering-john-
holdren

Journal, H. N. (2009). CO2 Content of the Atmosphere. Retrieved 11 16, 2010,

from hydrogen.co.uk:
http://www.hydrogen.co.uk/h2_now/journal/articles/2_global_warming.htm

KH Coale, K. J. (1996). A massive phytop ikton bloom Induced by an ecosystem-

scale iron fertilization experiment in the equatorial Pacific Ocean. Nature , 495-
501.

Kheshgi, H. S. (1995). Sequestering atmospheric carbon dioxide by increasing

ocean alkalinity. Energy , 915-922.

Kintisch, E. (2010, January 26). Bill Gates Funding Geoengineering Research.

Retrieved November 18, 2010, from ScienceInsider:
http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2010/01/bill-gates-fund.html

Latham, J. (2010). John Latham's Individual Webpage. Retrieved 11 18, 2010,

from MMM: http://www.mmm.ucar.edu/people/latham/

Levitt, S. a. (2009). SuperFreakonomics. New York: William Morrow.

Lovelock, J. (2009, 9 22). Such Dramatic Climate Therapy Could Make Things
Worse. Retrieved 11 16, 2010, from guardian.co.uk:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cif-
green/2009/sep/20/geoengineering-royal-society-earth

McDermott, M. (2010, 11 1). Why the UN Moratorium on Geoengineering Is a

Good Thing, Maybe. Retrieved 11 16, 2010, from Treehugger:
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2010/11/geoengineering-moratorium-good-
thing-maybe.php

Nordhaus, W. a. (2003). Warming the World: Economic Models of Global

Warming. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Nordhaus, W. (1994). Managing the Global Commons:The Economics of Climate

Change. Boston: The MIT Press.

Phillips, S. (2010, 4 27). Why geoengineering is like the Manhattan project.

Retrieved November 16, 2010, from ABC Environment:
http://www.abc.net.au/environment/articles/2010/04/27//2883373.htm

Rayner, S. (2010, April 18). Oxford Principles on Regulation of Geoengineering.

Retrieved 11 18, 2010, from peopleandplace.net:
http://www.peopleandplace.net/on_the_wire/2010/4/18/oxford_principles_on_regu
lation_of_geoengineering

Salter, S. (2010). Personal Homepages. Retrieved 11 18, 2010, from School of

Geosciences -- University of Edinburgh:
http://www.geos.ed.ac.uk/homes/harvieb/salter.html
Society, T. R. (2009, 9 1). Geoengineering the Climate: Science, Governance and
Uncertainty. Retrieved 11 16, 2010, from The Royal Society:
http://royalsociety.org/geoengineering-the-climate/

Socolow, S. P. (2008). Stabilization Wedges: Solving the Climate Problem for the
Next 50 Years with Current Technologies. Science , 968-972.

Victor, D. (2009, 6 9). Reengineering the Earth. Retrieved 11 18, 2010, from FSI
Stanford: http://pesd.stanford.edu/news/geoengineering_atlantic_monthly/

Von Neumann, J. (1955). The Fabulous Future: America in 1980. United States of
America: Time, Inc.