Running head: GEOENGINEERING

Geoengineering: Method Comparison, Risk Analysis, and Recommendation

Jem van Tyn

Animas High School

GEOENGINEERING
2

Abstract

Ice caps are melting, tropical storms amplifying, and deserts spreading. It has become impossible
to plausibly deny the fact that climate change is happening now and at an unprecedented rate. As
it becomes increasingly likely that we will not be able to halt climate change before positive
feedback loops take it out of control, it becomes necessary to investigate other methods of
keeping the earth cool. Through the analysis of several academic studies from the last 15 years,
this paper investigates the different forms of geoengineering (also known as climate
engineering), and their prospective contributions towards the cessation of global warming. This
paper discusses the relative merits of carbon dioxide reduction techniques, including ocean iron
fertilization, afforestation, ocean afforestation, and direct air capture, as well as the methods for
the sequestration or repurposing of the carbon once captured. It also analyzes solar radiation
modification geoengineering methods, focusing on stratospheric aerosol injection, marine sky
brightening, and cirrus cloud thinning. This paper concludes by proposing an implementation
strategy comprised of several different geoengineering approaches used in tandem and in varying
amounts. The intention of this proposal is to minimize additional environmental damage while
simultaneously keeping the global mean temperature from increasing more than 2​0​C over
pre-industrial levels.
GEOENGINEERING
3

Geoengineering: Method Comparison, Risk Analysis, and Recommendation

Introduction

The nation shuddered as hurricane Katrina struck off of the gulf coast, obliterating towns

and families and leaving the city of New Orleans crippled in its wake. One of the worst

hurricanes to ever hit North America, it killed over 1800 people and caused north of 100 billion

dollars in damage (Zimmerman, 2015). At the same time, California was still in the throes of one

of the worst droughts on record. Spanning more than 11 years, it was so severe that it crippled

the booming agricultural sector and prompted the unstoppable spread of wildfires (NIDIS, 2020).

Is it a coincidence that water is drying up on one side of the country while the other side is

drowning? Did these events just happen to coincide with a decade in which we have experienced

9 of the 10 hottest years on record (NOAA, 2019)? Scientists since the beginning of the 20th

century have shown that an increase in global temperature can be tied directly to both the

intensification of tropical storms and a sharp uptick in extreme droughts around the world, along

with a host of other global symptoms (NASA, 2020). This is what we refer to as climate change,

but it can also be aptly thought of as climate amplification, with the increased temperature

wreaking damage on our semi-stable climate system.

An increased average global temperature has many adverse effects on all manner of

ecosystems. According to NASA, climate change will alter global precipitation patterns,
GEOENGINEERING
4
resulting in intense precipitation amplification in some regions of the world, while others get

robbed of their annual rainfall. Both floods and droughts will get more severe, and intense heat

waves will become more commonplace. Tropical storms and hurricanes will become stronger

and occur more frequently, also staying intact for longer periods of time, extending their reach

and damage potential. The average global sea level will rise exponentially, increasing by 1-4 feet

by the end of the century as both halosteric and thermosteric ocean expansion accelerate. A 2017

report by Cornell University estimates that this rise will have the effect of displacing 2 billion

people currently living on coastlines around the world (Friedlander). Other negative effects of

anthropogenic carbon emissions include ocean acidification, as dissolved CO​2 creates carbonic

acid. According to PMEL at NOAA (2019), even a slight increase in ocean acidity can prevent

coral from calcifying, crippling the delicate coral ecosystems that 25 percent of all marine life

depends on (EPA, 2019).

It has been shown many times over that the best long-term solution to climate change and

its plethora of adverse effects is carbon emission reduction. If we were to decrease global carbon

emissions to pre-industrial levels over the next few years, it would prove sufficient to keep the

world well below the Paris Accord’s 2-degree threshold, and virtually eliminate harmful ocean

acidification (Ritchie & Roser, 2019). This would call for an unprecedented surge of funding and

governmental action from the entire global community, countries that have been using fossil

fuels indiscriminately since the industrial revolution. It may be impractical to hope for a global

effort to cut emissions coming soon enough to prevent the worst effects of climate change.

Instead, it is necessary to look at measures that can be taken to buy the world some time to make

the switch to an emission-free lifestyle.

GEOENGINEERING
5
That is why, in hopes of delaying the worst effects of climate change, several climate

experts have proposed the use of geoengineering, a relatively new branch of science involving

the manipulation of the weather. The main constituents of geoengineering are solar radiation

modification (SRM) and carbon dioxide reduction (CDR). CDR focuses on the root cause of

climate change, attempting to remove enough atmospheric carbon to restore global temperatures

to a state more akin to pre-industrial levels. SRM, on the other hand, is a more fast-acting branch

of geoengineering and is used to change the albedo1 of the earth’s surface or atmosphere. This

has the effect of shading the earth, allowing less of the sun’s radiation to reach the ground and

thus reducing average atmospheric temperature.

It is important to note that while these two geoengineering strategies may be appealing in

the short term, they also have adverse effects that could outweigh their benefits if implemented

poorly. Muri et al (2018) and Scharping (2018) both agree that implementation of

geoengineering would likely lead to a dramatic shift in regional precipitation, potentially moving

the subtropical rain belt which millions rely on for agriculture. They also state that geo-

engineering (in particular SRM) would lead to a heterogeneous cooling of the earth’s surface,

undercooling the poles and overcooling the tropics. A study by Heckdorn et al concluded that the

introduction of SRM geoengineering would result in a marked decrease in ozone concentrations,

which could be catastrophic if the geoengineering were to be terminated. Rapid termination

would cause a very rapid snap-back effect, resulting in the average global temperature rising by

1.5​0​C in a mere decade (Muri et al, 2018).

1
Albedo means reflectivity or the extent to which a substance or surface can scatter or reflect
light.
GEOENGINEERING
6
The time for deliberation is drawing to a close, however, as more lives are affected by

climate change every day. “The majority of models indicate alarming consequences for

biodiversity, with the worst-case scenarios leading to extinction rates that would qualify as the

sixth mass extinction in the history of the earth” (Bellard, 2012). It is for that reason that it is

now important to discuss not ‘if’ but ‘how’ we will implement geoengineering in the future, and

the answer to that question will not be simple. In light of current climate models, geoengineering

is an important short-term measure to keep climate change from reaching a dangerous

self-perpetuating level. Through a combination of SRM and CDR geoengineering strategies, it is

possible to halt the acceleration of climate change until sufficient carbon emission reductions can

be adopted.

Climate Change

As the human race continues to expand its influence over our planet, we are forced to

reckon with the unforseen consequences of our actions as a species. While the discovery of the

many uses of fossil fuels has enabled us to perform feats of travel and fabrication previously

thought impossible, it brought with it the emission of greenhouse gases and accelerated global

warming. To understand the reason for this climate change (also dubbed global warming by

some), it is essential to understand how energy both enters and exits our atmosphere. When

energy is released from the sun in the form of electromagnetic radiation, it travels a mere eight

minutes before reaching the earth. Upon hitting the earth’s atmosphere, the radiation is either

absorbed by stratospheric particles, scattered and reflected back into space, or let through the thin

layer of air to the earth’s surface. Much of what makes it to the surface is then absorbed by
GEOENGINEERING
7
oceans, plants, roads, and tourists, to be reemitted in the form of long-wave (LW) radiation, what

we experience as heat. The rest of it is reflected back upwards, to attempt to breach the

atmosphere one more time. A lot of this energy simply radiates away into space, while some of it

is reflected once more, and sent back to the surface of the earth.

At least, this is how it usually works. Through our dependence on fossil fuels, among

other things, we have introduced a new factor into this equation. Now, as the reflected or

reemitted energy attempts to move back into space, it comes across the stratospheric border

patrol: greenhouse gases. When you burn fuel, like coal, the combustion reaction produces

carbon dioxide (CO​2​). This CO​2 gas, also the byproduct of cellular respiration, has the effect that,

when in the atmosphere, it induces what we call the “greenhouse effect.”2 It traps out-going

radiation, reflecting it back to earth at a greater rate than before. The effect is quite predictable if

you have ever sat in a real greenhouse. As more and more energy is poured into the system, but

little is allowed to escape, things start to heat up fast. The effect is akin to turning up the sun, and

since the industrial revolution, the average temperature3 of the earth has increased by over 1​0​C

(NASA, 2020).

2
Called greenhouse gasses (GHG’s), many chemicals can induce the greenhouse effect in our
atmosphere. CO​2​ is the most abundant and remains in the atmosphere for hundreds of years
which is the reason that most climate fixing schemes are directly related to it. Another common
GHG is methane (CH​4​), which is much less abundant in the atmosphere, but more than 30 times
more efficient at reflecting heat as CO​2​.
3
Here it is important to make the distinction between climate and weather. While the weather
can change very rapidly, swinging dozens of degrees in a matter of hours, the climate refers to
the general environmental trend and stays relatively stagnant. While it is true that the global
climate goes through great cyclical changes, resulting in long periods of time with a hotter or
colder planet, these things have historically occurred very gradually, with the cycle taking an
average of 2.6 million years to reset (Andrews, 2016).
GEOENGINEERING
8
Although 1​0​C may seem like an insignificant change in temperature, the added energy is

all it takes to expand the ocean, melt polar ice, and increase evaporation rates, thus amplifying

the hydrologic cycle. This shifts weather patterns dramatically, drenching one city while bringing

incredible droughts to others (Patrick, 2019). This has already displayed devastating effects on

regions around the world. It has led to longer and more severe droughts and record fire levels in

some areas while causing a marked increase in flooding in others (NOAA, 2019). It has made

tropical storms increase in both frequency and intensity and killed off key coral colonies, robbing

coastal communities of both safety and sustenance. As our population continues to grow, climate

change is making it harder and harder to support life on vast swaths of land. In his book

Windfall: The Booming Business of Global Warming​, McKenzie Funk (2015) elucidates the

effect of desertification on key cropland and the permanent flooding of coastal regions and island

nations. And with GHG emissions still rising, the predicament will only worsen over the next

few decades (Ritchie & Roser, 2018).

If we do nothing to cease CO​2 emissions, we are predicted to see a median 5.2​0​C increase

in average global temperature by the end of the century (Sokolov, 2009). This was why, in hopes

of mitigating the worst effects of anthropogenic climate change, the UNFCCC’s 2016 Paris

Agreement was drafted, with the express intention of keeping the average global temperature

from rising more than 2​0​C above pre-industrial levels. Although many have criticized the

underwhelming implementation of the treaty, it is important to understand why it is necessary to

keep warming below that 2​0​C threshold (Patrick, 2019; Friedlander, 2017). “A rise of 2​0​C may

be tolerable, current models concur, but beyond that, [there is a high] likelihood of

positive-feedback effects kicking in that can take the climate into a new state, far from the
GEOENGINEERING
9
present zone of stability” (Denney, 2017). As it stands now, much of the incoming radiation is

reflected off of the ice at the earth’s poles, but it is likely that once across the 2​0​C threshold, the

poles will have melted enough to create a dangerous feedback loop. The increased atmospheric

temperature will melt the ice, lowering the albedo of the polar ice caps. This will, in turn, cause

the poles to reflect less of the incoming radiation back into space, causing a further rise in

atmospheric temperature, which increases the melting of the poles and so on, until there is no

longer enough of the polar ice left for the positive feedback loop to consume. By that time, the

average atmospheric temperature will have increased greatly, exacerbating the already

devastating effects of unfettered climate change. It is thus crucial that we prevent climate change

from reaching that critical threshold, though due to the ever-increasing amount of CO​2 released

annually, that will not be as easy to accomplish now as it would have been two decades ago.

It has become impossible to ignore the fact that climate change has accelerated at a

frightening rate, so much so that it is unlikely we will be able to avoid calamitous repercussions

without immediate and drastic action. As Stewart Patric explains:

The world is losing its battle against climate change. Greenhouse gas emissions
rose to record levels last year, as countries lagged in meeting their already
inadequate pledges under the Paris Agreement. Based on the current trajectory,
the warming earth will blow well past the 2-degrees Celsius ceiling widely agreed
to be the maximum acceptable increase in average global temperatures before
catastrophic impacts set in. In the face of this looming threat, climate change
mitigation and adaptation efforts are necessary but insufficient (2019).

Even if we were to start cutting emissions tomorrow, the residual greenhouse gas concentrations

could drive us past the temperature ceiling touted by the UNFCCC’s Paris Agreement. In order

to keep total warming to 2​0​C, we would need to more than halve our total emissions by the year
GEOENGINEERING
10
2040. If we intend to limit warming further to 1.5​0​C, we would need to halve carbon emission

within a mere six years (Ritchie & Roser, 2017). And in the words of BBC correspondent, Matt

McGrath, “[the UN] is very slow moving. It’s made up of 200 countries and it can’t go forward

on any particular thing on climate change unless every single one of those is agreed.” (2018) It is

unlikely that emission reduction can be funded and applied in the time frame that is necessary

(NASA, 2020; Revkin, 2018). Whether that is due primarily to political precedence or the

economic allure of fossil fuels, it is nicely illustrated by a 1956 New York Times article, in

which Waldemar Kaempffert warns of the damages of anthropogenic climate change, concluding

“coal and oil are still plentiful in many parts of the world, and there is every reason to believe

that both will be consumed by industry so long as it pays to do so.” It is no longer sufficient to

simply hope that emission reduction policies will come about before it is too late to preserve the

state of the climate, which forces us to consider the implementation of a risky idea with the

potential to reverse climate change: geoengineering.

Geoengineering

As demonstrated above, we may not be able to cut carbon emissions quickly enough to

protect the crucial state of climate equilibrium that allows plant and animal life to flourish on

earth. This means that we have three options: mitigation, adaptation, or geoengineering.

Adaptation to climate change means directly fighting the effects, much like bailing out a boat but

not plugging the leak. Climate change adaptation looks like building sea walls around major

cities or building dikes to protect crop fields from flooding. Mitigation, on the other hand, is the

attempt to directly address the root cause of the problem. This is more like gluing shut the hole in
GEOENGINEERING
11
the boat and is by far the best long-term solution. For climate change, this would mean

dramatically reducing our emission of greenhouse gases, requiring a social, political, and

economic paradigm shift that will likely take more time than we have.

This is where the third option, geoengineering, steps in to lend a hand. Imagine your boat

is sinking, and you simply cannot bail out water fast enough. You then notice some glue, but by

the time it dries, you will already be at the bottom of the ocean. So you tie a whole bunch of

inflated balloons to the sides of the boat to keep you afloat until the glue patching the side of the

boat can dry. Geoengineering, also referred to as climate engineering, is the practice of

intentionally manipulating the environment on a global scale to effect a large change. Much like

the aforementioned balloons, however, it is meant only as a temporary fix and can have

catastrophic consequences if improperly implemented.

Aside from their mode of operation, geoengineering approaches differ in the time needed

to instigate a change and their potential side-effects. One popular approach, solar radiation

modification (SRM) is very fast-acting and has been proposed as a means to cool specific

regions of the ocean for mere days at a time. it is important to remember, however, that it is not

the same as removing greenhouse gases. While SRM may result in a decrease in average

atmospheric temperature, it will not cool the earth evenly in all regions, and will not counteract

other side effects of climate change, such as ocean acidification. Carbon Dioxide Reduction

(CDR), on the other hand, does counteract ocean acidification and will decrease the average

global temperature much more evenly. The downside is that in order to be effective, CDR

methods often take a lot more time and space to be successfully implemented.
GEOENGINEERING
12
Solar Radiation Modification (SRM)

Often the first thing to come to mind when envisioning geoengineering, solar radiation

modification is used to influence the amount of energy reaching the earth, as well as the amount

of energy leaving it. Essentially, the less energy in the atmosphere, the better. SRM techniques

can be broken down into the three main strategies that hold the most promise in terms of cost,

scope, effectivity, and practicality: stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI), marine sky brightening

(MSB), and cirrus cloud thinning (CCT).

Stratospheric Aerosol Injection (SAI). ​Stratospheric aerosol injection is perhaps the

most widely discussed form of SRM geoengineering in the world of climate science. It works by

injecting aerosols like sulfur dioxide (SO​2​) into the upper atmosphere where they increase the

atmospheric albedo. Certain aerosols, due to their particle size, are especially adept at scattering

short wave (SW) radiation4. This means that there is a negative correlation between stratospheric

aerosol concentrations and the heat of the near-surface atmosphere.

The current aerosol of choice is SO​2​, in part because of its abundance and ease of

handling. Sulfur is created in quantities every day by mining operations great enough that “a

mining outfit in Alberta, Canada is stacking the stuff into a sulfur pyramid that could eventually

dwarf Egypt’s” (Scharping, 2018). Once injected into the atmosphere, the sulfur dioxide reacts

with water particulates to form a sulfuric acid (H​2​SO​4​) aerosol. These particulates are ideal for

scattering the light from the sun, in part due to their size. Heckdorn notes:

4
Short wave (SW) radiation consists of visible and UV light, as well as anything else with a
frequency greater than that of IR (infrared) radiation. Nearly all of the radiation reaching the
earth from the sun is classified as SW.
GEOENGINEERING
13
[several studies] showed that the effect on surface cooling depends strongly on the
size of the particles; assuming the same aerosol mass in the stratosphere for each
case, small particles are more efficient scatterers of SW radiation.” (2009)

He then goes on to note that “particles with radii in the range of 0.1 μm are most efficient in

cooling the Earth’s surface, as these particles have the largest backscattering cross-section per

unit mass.” By altering the manner in which the sulfur is introduced into the atmosphere, it is

possible to dictate the size of the resultant aerosol particulates, allowing for the production of

very efficient SW light-scattering aerosols.

Studies conducted by Muri et al suggest that SAI geoengineering with SO​2 could be used

to decrease the radiation balance by 4.0 W/m​2 by the year 2100, enough to halt positive feedback

loops and set the earth into a climate state more akin to a pre-industrial world (2017). Given that

SAI is focused primarily on the removal of energy from the atmosphere, it is no surprise that it

has a relatively small impact on CO​2 concentrations in the atmosphere. That said, the amount of

atmospheric CO​2 is less in a scenario in which SAI is utilized than one in which no

geoengineering practices are implemented. This is due to the fact that when atmospheric

temperature is reduced, it slows the melting of the permafrost and the subsequent release of

trapped CO​2​ and methane (CH​4​).

SAI, like many SRM geoengineering methods, comes with some dire consequences if

utilized improperly. Applied globally, SAI is likely to overcool the tropics and undercool the

poles, and if done on a relatively local scale, it could shift the position of the rain belt, shifting

the monsoons that many around the world rely on for agriculture (Heckdorn et al, 2009). The

total precipitation is also decreased significantly. On top of that, the presence of sulfuric acid
GEOENGINEERING
14
particulates in the upper atmosphere has been shown to accelerate the degradation of ozone5

(O​3​), one of the best particles for shielding the earth from UV radiation (Heckdorn et al).

In order to be effective, SAI needs to be re-administered continuously, which leads to a

few problems. The first is a loss of efficiency. As mentioned before, stratospheric aerosols are

the best at scattering SW radiation if their radii are in the range of 0.1 μm. When more sulfur is

added constantly, however, the H​2​SO​4 begins to coagulate around nucleation sites, forming much

larger particles with radii up to 0.4 μm. Not only does this greatly decrease the efficiency of light

scattering, but it also means that gravitational sedimentation6 plays a far greater role (Heckdorn

et al, 2009). The increased sedimentation rate, along with the decreased effectivity of each sulfur

particle, means that the amount of sulfur released daily will need to be increased several times

over7.

This need for constant administration adds another potential for disaster to the use of

SAI. Muri et al ran several simulations on what would happen if funding were cut off for a

geoengineering operation. It was found that the newly weakened ozone layer would cause the

climate to snap back, with the average global temperature increasing by 1.5​0​C over the span of a

single decade after termination. To put that in perspective, the sum total of all anthropogenic

climate change has increased the average global temperature by just 1​0​C over the span of 200

5
H​2​SO​4​ does not directly decompose O​3​, but its presence in the atmosphere increases the
generation of HNO​3​, which breaks O​3​ molecules apart. It also amplifies HO catalyzed ozone
decomposition (Heckdorn et al, 2009).
6
Note: Sulfuric acid in the atmosphere is what causes acid rain, but that is not a concern in the
context of SAI, as the sulfur would be much less concentrated than what occurs above coal
power plants, the primary source of acid rain.
7
This issue can be mitigated somewhat if the SAI is used in larger batches and at longer time
intervals. If it is only implemented twice a year, “the mode radius could be reduced by up to 50%
and the equilibrium aerosol loading increased by 30%” (Heckdorn et al, 2009).
GEOENGINEERING
15
years. This rapid warming would be devastating, and would likely “be more dangerous for

animals adapting to climate change than never attempting [geoengineering] at all” (Scharping,

2018).

If SAI geoengineering were to be attempted, we would need to invent some method to

efficiently transport the SO​2 into the stratosphere. This is not a great challenge, however, and

could be easily achieved in a relatively short amount of time, as most delivery systems have been

tested at one time or another for cloud seeding (Denny, 2017). Potential delivery systems range

from fleets of bombers flying constantly around the equator to ground-based cannons firing

sulfur into the stratosphere to giant inflatable smokestacks up which sulfur is pumped directly

into the upper atmosphere (Funk, 2015; Denney, 2017; Scharping, 2018).

Marine Sky Brightening (MSB). ​Close cousin to SAI, MSB (or marine sky brightening)

is the process of lacing clouds above the ocean with saltwater aerosols to increase their surface

area and albedo (Buck, 2019; Muri et al, 2018). Saltwater is even easier to procure than sulfur

dioxide, and no complicated reverse-osmosis is required for the filtration as the salt is intended to

remain in solution. It has the added benefit that it does not increase the acidity of the rain in the

region, and any slight uptick in precipitation salinity is negated by the fact that nearly all of the

salt precipitates out over the ocean (Buck, 2019).

On a large scale, MSB has very similar effects to those of SAI. It too influences incoming

SW radiation and can be used to achieve a state of pseudo equilibrium with the climate looking

much as it does now. Its effects on global precipitation are also very similar to SAI, and there is

an identical snap-back effect if terminated.

GEOENGINEERING
16
The main difference between MSB and SAI is the fact that MSB could on much smaller

scales to protect specific areas, as proposed by Buck (2019). Coral reefs, for instance, are much

more temperature-sensitive than other ecosystems. The great barrier reef of Australia, which

brings an estimated $6 billion to the Australian economy annually, could be decimated by a mere

1​0​C increase in ocean temperature (Buck, 2019). Buck proposes the implementation of MSB in

just one spot over the reef, and only in times of increased heat. This is estimated to be able to

effect a change in water temperature of between 0.5 and 1​0​C over a relatively short period of

time. These quick applications could be achieved by floating water cannons, firing jets of

seawater into the atmosphere as needed.

This regionalization has its pitfalls, however. The first of those is the fact that it leads to a

much less uniform cooling of the earth’s surface than SAI. The fact that it is constrained to

functioning over the ocean means that it will overcool the oceans (particularly tropical ones) and

undercool the continental landmasses. Additionally, it is not as effective as SAI at stopping

extreme precipitation weather events8 over land, which, often including massive floods and

landslides, can be truly devastating at times (USGCRP, 2016; Muri et al, 2018).

Cirrus Cloud Thinning (CCT). ​The least well known of the three SRM geoengineering

techniques, cirrus cloud thinning (CCT) does not work to reduce the SW radiation making it to

earth. Rather, it focuses on letting more LW (longwave) radiation escape back to space. Cirrus

clouds are very effective at reflecting LW radiation back to earth, so if you can eliminate them,

the average global temperature will drop. This is achieved by seeding clouds and cloud forming

regions with nucleation particles, causing rapid coagulation (Muri et al, 2018). The larger

8
An extreme precipitation event is defined by Global Change as a day with precipitation in the
top one percent of all days with precipitation (USGCRP, 2016).
GEOENGINEERING
17
particles then settle out of the atmosphere at a faster rate, leaving the sky clear for the

transmission of LW radiation.

Unlike SAI and MSB, there is a limit to the extent of the radiation forcing that can be

achieved via the use of CCT, capping off at around 3.8 W/m​2 (as opposed to the 4 W/m​2 needed

to lower warming levels to mirror the RCP4.59 scenario). This is due to the fact that there are

only so many cirrus clouds to remove. This means that you cannot quite achieve the entire

desired climate effect through the use of CCT alone. An interesting side effect of CCT is the way

in which it cools the earth’s surface. CCT overcools the poles and undercools the tropics, the

opposite of the effect demonstrated by both MSB and SAI. It also has the effect of reducing the

average temperature in the southern hemisphere much more rapidly than in the northern

hemisphere (Muri et al, 2018). Both of these phenomena are due to the relative spatial

concentrations of cirrus clouds10.

Another way in which CCT diverges from the other SRM techniques is in its effect on

average global precipitation. According to Muri et al, while SAI and CCT are both demonstrated

to have a net negative effect on average yearly rainfall, CCT actually increases the amount of

precipitation experienced annually (2018). In simulations run by Muri et al (based on the RCP8.5

simulation of the current climate trajectory), after 80 years of implementation, both MSB and

9
RCP4.5 is the computer model that shows the “ideal” climate, one in which CO​2​ levels are
comparable to the pre-industrial era. This would mean, among other things, an increase in
temperature of only around 1​0​C over the next 80 years, as opposed to the 3.5​0​C increase
predicted for the business-as-usual scenario over the same time frame (Muri et al, 2018).
10
The NorESM computer model estimates an average ice water content (IWC) of 5.5 mg/kg over
the northern hemisphere and 8 mg/kg over the southern hemisphere. This prediction is closely
aligned with observational data collected about the IWC concentrations in the northern
hemisphere which show IWC levels sitting at around 4.5 mg/kg (Muri et al, 2018).
GEOENGINEERING
18
SAI have the effect of decreasing the precipitation rate by 0.07 mm/day from the projected

RCP4.5 levels. CCT, on the other hand, increases the precipitation rate over the same time frame

by about 0.1 mm/day on average11 (Muri et al, 2018). This means that when terminated, the

scenario in which CCT was implemented showed a marked decrease in precipitation rates

globally, with the CCT model becoming indistinguishable from the MSB and SAI within 10

years of termination. Other than with precipitation levels, the effect of a complete cessation of

CCT after 80 years of use demonstrates all of the same snap-back symptoms shown in the other

SRM models (Muri et al, 2018).

While CCT may appear vastly different from the other two methods of solar radiation

modification, its method of delivery would actually be very similar to the other two, as it is

mechanically just the delivery of an aerosol or fine powder into the stratosphere. The only way in

which it would need to differ is its precision, as it would be useless to pump nucleation particles

into parts of the atmosphere that don’t contain cirrus clouds. This makes the more portable

methods of delivery (eg. planes or drones) more promising than stationary ones (eg.

ground-to-air cannons or suspended tubes).

Carbon Dioxide Reduction (CDR)

In many ways the opposite of SRM, carbon dioxide reduction (CDR) geoengineering is

often more popular among the general scientific community due to its relative lack of potentially

Earth-threatening side-effects. While SRM generally works to reduce the amount of energy that

makes it to the earth’s surface, CDR is aimed at attacking the root of the problem: greenhouse

11
This is, coincidentally, within 0.01 mm/day of the current projected business-as-usual daily
precipitation rate.
GEOENGINEERING
19
gases. Anthropogenic climate change can be defined by the release of greenhouse gases

(GHG’s), which has steadily increased since the dawn of the industrial revolution (Ritchie &

Roser, 2019). With increased GHG levels (in particular CO​2​) comes an inevitable increase in the

average global temperature. It is for that reason that CDR geoengineering aims to remove CO​2

from the atmosphere, allowing more energy to escape back to space.

CDR is a direct reversal of the main cause of climate change, which means that the

resultant cooling effect would be relatively homogenous, without the wide variance of SRM.

This would limit the negative effects of geoengineering, as things like critical monsoons would

not be moved or altered, so threatening the lives and livelihoods of millions. On top of that, some

of the less well known consequences of increased atmospheric CO​2 levels, such as ocean

acidification12, would be counteracted by CDR geoengineering.

The main downside to CDR is the scale at which it must be implemented. In 2018, the

human population of the world was responsible for the introduction of more than 36 billion tons

of CO​2 into the atmosphere, and that number continues to grow (Ritchie & Roser, 2019). This

has led to an unprecedented rise in atmospheric CO​2 concentration, with more than 408 ppm13

(parts per million) of the atmosphere currently made up of carbon dioxide (Ritchie & Roser,

2019). While this is a lot when viewed alongside historic atmospheric CO​2 concentrations, it is

12
Ocean acidification is the process where CO​2​ from the atmosphere is absorbed into the oceans,
where it reacts to form carbonic acid. This decreases the ocean’s pH. Increased acidity can be
detrimental to ocean creatures, especially the delicate coral reefs.
13
​This is well outside of what could be considered normal for the average global atmospheric
concentration. The climate has typically cycled through times of higher and lower atmospheric
CO​2​ concentrations, directly coinciding with times of markedly higher and lower average global
temperature. That said, the atmospheric concentration has never been nearly this high, with the
previous maximum in the year 333152 BCE being just shy of 300 ppm (Ritchie & Roser, 2019).
GEOENGINEERING
20
still only 0.04% of our atmosphere. This means that it is difficult to separate the CO2 and

remove it quickly, and any machines doing this must be massive in scale. The faster-acting

proponents of CDR range in price from $100 to $500 per ton of CO​2 captured and sequestered

(Cho, 2018). That adds up quickly, considering that we need to remove more CO​2 than we emit

each year in order to stay below a 1.5​0​C average global temperature increase.

There are a variety of ways by which carbon dioxide can be removed from the

atmosphere in order to stay below the Paris Agreement’s 2-degree limit, including some which

we are already beginning to implement. Certain CDR approaches rely on the augmentation of

natural carbon removing cycles, hinging on plants to absorb atmospheric CO​2​. The most

prominent of these methods include afforestation and reforestation, along with ocean iron

fertilization (OIF). Other methods of carbon removal are purely mechanical in nature and are

often referred to as direct air capture (DAC).

Afforestation and reforestation. ​Probably the most widely explored type of

geoengineering, large-scale afforestation projects have been going on since World War 1

(Ajorlo, 2003). Afforestation is the practice of planting vast numbers of trees in areas that were

previously bare earth, or (in the case of reforestation), on earth where old forests were cut down.

This can be anywhere from the edge of the Sahara desert, like the great green wall of Africa

(Funk, 2015), to the Bangladeshi coastline. In both of those cases, trees are planted to protect the

land from erosion or desertification, but they also serve another key purpose. As trees grow, they

remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and strip it of its oxygen, leaving pure carbon to be

used for the growth of the tree. Each year, the average mature hardwood tree can sequester 22 kg

of atmospheric CO​2​, trapping it in its wood indefinitely (EEA, 2012). That is great news, as once
GEOENGINEERING
21
a tree is planted, it just needs to be left alone and it will continue to remove carbon from the

atmosphere.

This method of carbon removal is relatively cheap as well, costing between $0 and $20

per ton of CO​2 captured. The only downside is the time and space required for afforestation to

have a noticeable environmental impact. A tree can take decades to mature, and the US would

have to increase the total number of trees in the country nearly 8 times over just to keep up with

our current emissions (Cho, 2018). Given that food production needs to increase by an estimated

70% by 2050, land space is becoming more valuable by the day (Cho). However, there is a lot of

surface area on the world’s oceans that could be used instead.

Ocean afforestation. ​Originally proposed by Antoine de Ramon N'Yeurt, ocean

afforestation is a geoengineering method consisting of “planting” vast quantities of macroalgae

on the surface of the ocean (2012). This seaweed is fast-growing and can absorb huge amounts

of CO​2​, with one square kilometer of algae being capable of sequestering around 1656 tons of

CO​2 each year (N’Yeurt, 2012). Once grown, the macroalgae are food for many species of

marine animals, which means that ocean afforestation would directly increase the fish population

in the affected oceans, providing a food source for an ever-growing human population.

One key difference between the planting of trees and the growing of seaweed is their

lifespan. Algae grow quickly, reproduce, then die. It is for that reason that N’Yeurt includes in

his proposal a stipulation that there must be a method in place to harvest the algae once it has

grown to maturity. This can then be run through a biodigester14 to make biogas, which can then

be used for everything from electricity generation to aircraft fuel (Buck, 2019).

Anaerobic biodigesters use bacterial cultures to (in the absence of oxygen) convert organic
14

matter into CH​4​ and CO​2​. The CH​4​ is then captured for use as a relatively clean-burning fuel.
GEOENGINEERING
22
Given the surplus of unused ocean surface, it is not impractical to envision allotting just

over 32 million square kilometers to algae growth. According to N’Yeurt, that much macroalgae

could remove an astounding 53 billion tons of CO​2 from the atmosphere every year. The

implementation of ocean afforestation on that scale would require an unprecedented surge in

investment and research, but the environmental payoffs could be well worth the investment.

Ocean Iron Fertilization (OIF). ​Ocean iron fertilization (OIF) is another CDR

geoengineering technique, very similar to the concept of ocean afforestation. Instead of planting

macroalgae cultures, OIF proposes that if great quantities of iron were to be dumped into the

oceans, it would stimulate the growth of already present algae, creating widespread algae

blooms. Lampitt et al estimate that for every ton of iron seeded into the ocean, between 30 and

100 thousand tons of CO​2 can be sequestered (2008). However, algae blooms can cause

widespread eutrophication15 and starving great swaths of the ocean of oxygen. Additionally, a

differential application of OIF could severely undermine the phytoplankton productivity of

nearby regions (Burns, 2013).

Direct Air Capture (DAC). ​Direct air capture, or DAC geoengineering, uses chemical

extraction processes to remove CO​2 from the atmosphere. This works by pumping air either

through a liquid solution or a membrane coated with a material that attaches to CO​2​, but nothing

else. One such solution is potassium hydroxide (KOH), which absorbs CO​2 and turns it into

potassium carbonate (K​2​CO​3​). The potassium carbonate stays in solution and is transported to a

15
Eutrophication: ​excessive richness of nutrients in a lake or other body of water, frequently due
to runoff from the land, which causes a dense growth of plant life and death of animal life from
lack of oxygen.
GEOENGINEERING
23
tank where, with added heat and pressure, the CO​2 can be retrieved and stored as a compressed

gas, ready to be sequestered or reused (Carbon Engineering, 2020).

Companies from around the world have already started designing and building DAC

plants, including one in western Canada that can remove 1 million tons of CO​2 from the

atmosphere each year (Cho, 2018). Given the relatively small amount of land needed for each

plant and the fact that they are not location-specific, there is no practical physical limit to how

much CO​2​ can be removed from the atmosphere via DAC.

That said, DAC has a few key disadvantages, chief among those being the price. Each

plant costs millions of dollars to build. An early estimate put direct air capture at costing around

$600 per ton of CO​2​, but recent advances in the requisite technology have decreased the cost to

between $100 and $200 per ton (Cho, 2018). New leaps in technology, including Orchestra

Scientific’s metal-organic framework, continue to bring down the cost of the direct air capture of

CO​2​, and companies aim to have the cost as low as $50 per ton (Cho, 2018).

The success of direct air capture technologies is dependent on where it gets its energy.

The process of extracting CO​2 in the form of a pure gas requires substantial energy input. If that

energy comes from a coal-burning powerplant, then its net negative emissions are greatly

diminished (Cho, 2018). It is for that reason that the installation of a DAC plant must be

mirrored by a surge in renewable energy generation in the area.

Another dilemma comes when considering the fact that after implementing DAC, there

will be millions of tons of CO​2 being stored in tanks on the ground. It is impractical to simply

keep adding storage units, so the carbon dioxide must be either sequestered or reused.

Sequestration of carbon often entails its transportation and then injection deep underground,
GEOENGINEERING
24
where it can be stored indefinitely (Cho, 2018). Some companies have even explored the

possibility of using injection sites that are rich with peridotite or basaltic lava, which will bond

with the CO​2 gas and trap it in a salt form. CarbFix, a company working on the sequestration and

mineralization of carbon dioxide off the Oregon coast, currently injects 12,000 tons of CO​2

annually, with a net cost of $30 per ton (Cho).

Other uses for trapped CO​2 vary widely. It can be sold to soda companies or even used to

increase crop yields in greenhouse environments by as much as 20% (Cho, 2018). It can be used

in the generation of CH​4 and other gasses, which can, in turn, be used for electricity generation,

the heating of homes, or the running of cars (Biogen, 2020). It can even be transformed into

carbon fiber, graphite, or graphene. With the exception of the soda making, the process of

turning CO​2 into a meaningful product is very energy-intensive and so only environmentally

beneficial if done with renewably sourced electricity. The process of extracting carbon from CO​2

is also very expensive when compared to other carbon sources. This may be one reason why we

have seen only limited implementation of DAC. Until it is seen as a competitively priced source

for carbon, the private sector is unlikely to invest heavily in its development and application.

Steps are being taken to bridge that gap, however.

It is getting some Congressional support in the form of the FUTURE Act (the
Furthering carbon capture, Utilization, Technology, Underground storage, and
Reduced Emissions Act). The act doubles tax credits for capturing and
permanently storing carbon dioxide in geological formations and using it for
enhanced oil recovery; for companies that convert carbon to other products such
as cement, chemicals, plastics and fuels; and provides a $35 tax credit per ton of
CO​2​ via direct air capture. (Cho, 2018)
GEOENGINEERING
25
If the government continues to provide incentives for the capture and utilization of atmospheric

CO​2​, we could see a rapid increase in the implementation of direct air capture from corporate

entities. Other ways to incentivize the application of atmospheric carbon removal operations

include a carbon tax or carbon credit system, both of which would make it financially beneficial

for large corporations to both decrease emissions and invest in DAC technology, and both of

which prove to be a net economic gain for countries implementing such strategies (University

College London, 2020).

Conclusion

Populations around the globe are increasingly subjected to more intense and frequent

extreme weather events. In light of these localized effects of climate change, geoengineering

appears to be one of the more politically and economically viable short-term solutions to combat

the worst of anthropogenic climate change. However, it is critical to carefully weigh the effects

that each method has on all the variables of our environment. Stratospheric aerosol injection, for

instance, has great promise for cooling the earth’s surface, but cools the earth asymmetrically

and upsets the rain cycle. If used in tandem with CCT, however, the cooling patterns and

precipitation effects neutralize each other, allowing for the cooling of the earth with a far weaker

negative impact. The best approach to geoengineering may be a combination of methods.

The simplest geoengineering solution to our current climate crisis is a multi-pronged

sequential approach. The first priority should be SRM. Given the current climate trajectory,

immediate action is needed, which means geoengineering methods that do not require the
GEOENGINEERING
26
development of radical new technologies or long implementation times. CDR should follow

quickly afterwards, with the SRM giving it enough time to become effective.

Once the CDR has reached sufficient levels to keep further warming from occurring, the

SRM can be reduced and eliminated. It is important that SRM techniques be phased out as

quickly as possible to avoid the possibility of a catastrophic snap-back (Muri, et al, 2018;

Sharping, 2018). Ideally, SRM should be completely replaced with CDR within 30 years of

initiation. CDR, having far fewer side-effects, is a much more viable long-term solution than

SRM, and should be relatively simple to operate over an extended period of time. The most

promising techniques, OIF and DAC, are both relatively fast-acting, while land afforestation and

ocean afforestation are both self-perpetuating once initiated16.

The final step is to use the time bought with CDR to develop better ways to cut down on

carbon emissions. As less and less CO​2 is emitted annually, the CDR strategies can be

decommissioned as well until we are no longer utilizing geoengineering and have returned the

climate to a more stable zone, as well as reduced anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions to a

negligible level.

It is imperative that any geoengineering is accompanied by immediate and robust carbon

emission cuts, and people must be dissuaded from taking this approach half way. Even though

CDR may be relatively simple to operate for longer periods of time, it still is an unsustainable

end state. It will be costly to operate indefinitely, and if emissions continue to rise, the CDR will

soon become inadequate. In the long run, it will be more economically and environmentally

beneficial to fund a complete elimination of carbon emissions wherever possible.

An advisable approach to CDR would be to use all four of these, but rely most heavily on
16

DAC and afforestation as they do not pose the threat of oceanic eutrophication and anoxia.
GEOENGINEERING
27
That said, a paradigm shift of that magnitude will require an unprecedented global

investment. If not incentivized, the private sector will not support these carbon cuts, but several

potential funding schemes have already been successfully tested in other countries. One possible

way to accelerate the transition is through a carbon tax or cap and trade carbon market, which

would provide the necessary incentives to mobilize the private sector and have little to no effect

on the average consumer.

It is not too late to save our environment. If we act quickly and cohesively, the adoption

of the aforementioned strategy or something similar could help us smoothly enter a new era of

climate stability. The window cannot be allowed to close on this opportunity to save our planet.

It’s the only one we have.

GEOENGINEERING
28
References

Ajorlo, M. (2003). The History of Afforestation in Iran. Retrieved from

http://www.fao.org/3/XII/0402-B1.htm

Andrews, K., & ABC Science. (2016, June 15). What causes an ice age and why do they matter?

Retrieved February 28, 2020, from

https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2016-06-15/what-is-an-ice-age-explainer/7185002

Bellard, C., Bertelsmeier, C., Leadley, P., Thuiller, W., & Courchamp, F. (2012). Impacts of

climate change on the future of biodiversity. Ecology letters, 15(4), 365-377.

Biogen. (2020). What is Anaerobic Digestion. Retrieved from

http://www.biogen.co.uk/Anaerobic-Digestion/What-is-Anaerobic-Digestion

Buck, H. J. (2019). How to Cool an Ocean. MIT Technology Review, 122(3), 56–61. Retrieved

from https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=

true&db=aph&AN=135940399&site=ehost-live

Burns, W. (2013). Introduction: Climate Change Geoengineering. Carbon & Climate Law

Review, 7(2), 87–89. https://doi.org/10.21552/CCLR/2013/2/249

Carbon Engineering. (2020). Direct Air Capture Technology. Retrieved from

https://carbonengineering.com/our-technology/

Carl, J., & Fedor, D. (2016, May 27). Tracking global carbon revenues: A survey of carbon taxes

versus cap-and-trade in the real world. Retrieved from

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421516302531
GEOENGINEERING
29
Cho, R., & Columbia University Earth Institute (2019, September 26). Can Removing Carbon

From the Atmosphere Save Us From Climate Catastrophe? Retrieved March 30, 2020,

from https://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2018/11/27/carbon-dioxide-removal-climate-change/

Climate Reality Project. (2019, November 20). Climate adaptation vs. mitigation: What's the

difference, and why does it matter? Retrieved March 3, 2020, from

https://climaterealityproject.org/blog/climate-adaptation-vs-mitigation-

why-does-it-matter

CO2 meter. (2018, October 29). Could Global CO2 Levels be Reduced by Planting Trees?

Retrieved March 31, 2020, from

https://www.co2meter.com/blogs/news/could-global-co2-

levels-be-reduced-by-planting-trees

Denny, M. (2017). Geoengineering. Natural History, 125(6), 32–33. Retrieved from

https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=

122973837&site=ehost-live

de Ramon N’Yeurt, A., Chynoweth, D. P., Capron, M. E., Stewart, J. R., & Hasan, M. A. (2012).

Negative carbon via Ocean Afforestation. Process Safety & Environmental Protection:

Transactions of the Institution of Chemical Engineers Part B, 90(6), 467–474.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psep.2012.10.008

Dutreuil, S. (2019). Is the Decisive Issue in Geoengineering Debates Really One of

Representation of Nature? Gaia Against (or With?) Prometheus? Carbon & Climate Law

Review, 13(2), 94–103. https://doi.org/10.21552/cclr/2019/2/4

GEOENGINEERING
30
EEA. (2012, January 6). Trees help tackle climate change. Retrieved from

https://www.eea.europa.eu/articles/forests-health-and-climate-change/key-facts/trees-help

-tackle-climate-change

EPA. (2019, October 4). Effects of Ocean and Coastal Acidification on Ecosystems. Retrieved

from https://www.epa.gov/ocean-acidification/effects-ocean-and-coastal-

acidification-ecosystems

Friedlander, B., & Cornell University. (2017, June 19). Rising seas could result in 2 billion

refugees by 2100. Retrieved from

https://news.cornell.edu/stories/2017/06/rising-seas-could-result-2-billion-refugees-2100

Funk, M. K. (2015). ​Windfall: the booming business of global warming.​ NY, NY: Penguin

Books.

Heckendorn, P., Weisenstein, D., Fueglistaler, S., Luo, B. P., Rozanov, E., Schraner, M., ... &

Peter, T. (2009). The impact of geoengineering aerosols on stratospheric temperature and

ozone. Environmental research letters, 4(4), 045108.

Johnson, K. (2019, November 5). Is the United States Really Leaving the Paris Climate

Agreement? Retrieved from

https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/11/05/paris-climate-agreement-united-states-withdraw/

Kaempffert, W. (1956, October 28). Warmer Climate on the Earth May Be Due to More Carbon

Dioxide in the Air. New York Times, p. 191. Retrieved from

https://static01.nyt.com/packages/pdf/weekinreview/warm1956.pdf

Lampitt, R. S., Achterberg, E. P., Anderson, T. R., Hughes, J. A., Iglesias-Rodriguez, M. D.,

Kelly-Gerreyn, B. A., ... & Smythe-Wright, D. (2008). Ocean fertilization: a potential

GEOENGINEERING
31
means of geoengineering?. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A:

Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 366(1882), 3919-3945.

McGrath, M., & BBC. (2018, December 9). Climate change: Why are governments taking so

long to take action? Retrieved from

https://www.bbc.com/news/av/science-environment-46496140/climate-change-why-are-g

overnments-taking-so-long-to-take-action

Muri, H., Tjiputra, J., Otterå, O. H., Adakudlu, M., Lauvset, S. K., Grini, A., Schulz, M.,

Niemeier, U., & Kristjánsson, J. E. (2018). Climate Response to Aerosol Geoengineering:

A Multimethod Comparison. Journal of Climate, 31(16), 6319–6340.

https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-17-0620.1

NASA. (2020, February 6). Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation. Retrieved March 3,

2020, from https://climate.nasa.gov/solutions/adaptation-mitigation/

NASA. (2020, February 27). Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet. Retrieved February 27,

2020, from https://climate.nasa.gov/

NASA. (2020, April 6). Is it too late to prevent climate change? – Climate Change: Vital Signs

of the Planet. Retrieved from

https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/16/is-it-too-late-to-prevent-climate-change/

NOAA. (2019, February 1). Climate change impacts. Retrieved February 28, 2020, from

https://www.noaa.gov/education/resource-collections/climate-education-resources/climat

e-change-impacts

NOAA. (2020, January 15). 2019 was 2nd hottest year on record for Earth say NOAA, NASA.

Retrieved March 3, 2020, from https://www.noaa.gov/news/2019-was-2nd-hottest-

GEOENGINEERING
32
year-on-record-for-earth-say-noaa-nasa

Paris Agreement,​ Dec. 12, 2015, United Nations Treaty Collection No. 54113 (entered into force

4 November 2016)

Patrick, S. M. (2019). Geoengineering Is Inevitable in the Face of Climate Change. But at What

Cost? World Politics Review (Selective Content), 1. Retrieved from

https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=

true&db=aph&AN=136365337&site=ehost-live

PMEL. (2019). What is Ocean Acidification? Retrieved from

https://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/What is Ocean Acidification?

Predictions of Future Global Climate. (2011). Retrieved from

https://scied.ucar.edu/longcontent/predictions-future-global-climate

Revkin, A., & National Geographic. (2018, June 21). Climate Change First Became News 30

Years Ago. Why Haven't We Fixed It? Retrieved from

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2018/07/embark-essay-climate-change-p

ollution-revkin/

Ritchie, H., & Roser, M. (2019, Dec 11). CO₂ and Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Retrieved March

2, 2020, from https://ourworldindata.org/co2-and-other-greenhouse-gas-emissions#

how-have-global-co2-emissions-changed-over-time

Scharping, N. (2018). Should We Cool Earth? Discover, 39(5), 10–11. Retrieved from

https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=

true&db=aph&AN=128978573&site=ehost-live
GEOENGINEERING
33
Sokolov, A. P., Stone, P. H., Forest, C. E., Prinn, R., Sarofim, M. C., Webster, M., Paltsev, S.,

Schlosser, C. A., Kicklighter, D., Dutkiewicz, S., Reilly, J., Wang, C., Felzer, B., Melillo,

J. M., & Jacoby, H. D. (2009). Probabilistic Forecast for Twenty-First-Century Climate

Based on Uncertainties in Emissions (Without Policy) and Climate Parameters. Journal of

Climate, 22(19), 5175–5204. https://doi.org/10.1175/2009JCLI2863.1

University College London. (2020, January 27). British carbon tax leads to 93% drop in

coal-fired electricity. Retrieved April 4, 2020, from

https://phys.org/news/2020-01-british-carbon-tax-coal-fired-electricity.html

USGCRP. (2016). USGCRP Indicator Details. Retrieved from

https://www.globalchange.gov/browse/indicators/heavy-precipitation

Zimmermann, K. A. (2015, August 27). Hurricane Katrina: Facts, Damage & Aftermath.

Retrieved March 3, 2020, from

https://www.livescience.com/22522-hurricane-katrina-facts.html