When the new state is reached, further warming may be caused by positive feedback effects. Once a tipping point is crossed, cuts in anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions will not be able to reverse the change. Conservation of resources[ clarification needed ] and reduction of greenhouse emissions, used in conjunction with climate engineering, are therefore considered a viable option by some commentators. In general, carbon dioxide removal methods are more expensive than the solar radiation management ones. In their report Geoengineering the Climate the Royal Society judged afforestation and stratospheric aerosol injection as the methods with the "highest affordability" lowest costs.
|Published (Last):||4 February 2011|
|PDF File Size:||8.19 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||2.14 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
When the new state is reached, further warming may be caused by positive feedback effects. Once a tipping point is crossed, cuts in anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions will not be able to reverse the change. Conservation of resources[ clarification needed ] and reduction of greenhouse emissions, used in conjunction with climate engineering, are therefore considered a viable option by some commentators. In general, carbon dioxide removal methods are more expensive than the solar radiation management ones.
In their report Geoengineering the Climate the Royal Society judged afforestation and stratospheric aerosol injection as the methods with the "highest affordability" lowest costs.
More recently, research into costs of solar radiation management have been published. Such costs would be within the budget of most nations, and even some wealthy individuals. It would differ from activities such as burning fossil fuels, as they change the climate inadvertently. Intentional climate change is often viewed differently from a moral standpoint. For example, there may be an ethical distinction between climate engineering to minimize global warming and doing so to optimize the climate.
Furthermore, ethical arguments often confront larger considerations of worldview, including individual and social-religious commitments. This may imply that discussions of climate engineering should reflect on how religious commitments might influence the discourse. Some religious communities might claim that humans have no responsibility in managing the climate, instead of seeing such world systems as the exclusive domain of a Creator.
In contrast, other religious communities might see the human role as one of "stewardship" or benevolent management of the world. For example, the selection of a globally agreed target temperature is a significant problem in any climate engineering governance regime, as different countries or interest groups may seek different global temperatures.
Groups such as ETC Group  and individuals such as Raymond Pierrehumbert have called for a moratorium on climate engineering techniques. In ocean iron fertilization , for example, the amount of carbon dioxide removed from the atmosphere may be much lower than predicted, as carbon taken up by plankton may be released back into the atmosphere from dead plankton, rather than being carried to the bottom of the sea and sequestered.
This concern causes many environmental groups and campaigners to be reluctant to advocate or discuss climate engineering for fear of reducing the imperative to cut greenhouse gas emissions. The governance issues characterizing carbon dioxide removal compared to solar radiation management tend to be distinct.
Carbon dioxide removal techniques are typically slow to act, expensive, and entail risks that are relatively familiar, such as the risk of carbon dioxide leakage from underground storage formations.
In contrast, solar radiation management methods are fast-acting, comparatively cheap, and involve novel and more significant risks such as regional climate disruptions. As a result of these differing characteristics, the key governance problem for carbon dioxide removal as with emissions reductions is making sure actors do enough of it the so-called " free rider problem " , whereas the key governance issue for solar radiation management is making sure actors do not do too much the "free driver" problem.
There is presently a lack of a universally agreed framework for the regulation of either climate engineering activity or research. The London Convention addresses some aspects of the law in relation to ocean fertilization.
Scientists at the Oxford Martin School at Oxford University have proposed a set of voluntary principles, which may guide climate engineering research. Principle 2: Public participation in geoengineering decision-making Principle 3: Disclosure of geoengineering research and open publication of results Principle 4: Independent assessment of impacts Principle 5: Governance before deployment These principles have been endorsed by the House of Commons of the United Kingdom Science and Technology Select Committee on "The Regulation of Geoengineering",  and have been referred to by authors discussing the issue of governance.
Implementation issues[ edit ] There is general consensus[ who? However, some may be able to contribute to reducing climate risks within relatively short times. The least costly proposals are budgeted at tens of billions of US dollars annually, or around 0. Who was to bear the substantial costs of some climate engineering techniques may be hard to agree with. However, the more effective solar radiation management proposals currently appear to have low enough direct implementation costs that it would be in the interests of several single countries to implement them unilaterally.
In contrast, carbon dioxide removal, like greenhouse gas emissions reductions, have impacts proportional to their scale. These techniques would not be "implemented" in the same sense as solar radiation management ones. The problem structure of carbon dioxide removal resembles that of emissions cuts, in that both are somewhat expensive public goods , whose provision presents a collective action problem.
Before they are ready to be used, most techniques would require technical development processes that are not yet in place. As a result, many promising proposed climate engineering do not yet have the engineering development or experimental evidence to determine their feasibility or efficacy. Public perception[ edit ] In a focus group study conducted by the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences CIRES in the United States, Japan, New Zealand, and Sweden, participants were asked about carbon sequestration options, reflection proposals such as with space mirrors, or brightening of clouds, and their majority responses could be summed up as follows: What happens if the technologies backfire with unintended consequences?
Are these solutions treating the symptoms of climate change rather than the cause? Moderators floated then the idea of a future " climate emergency " such as rapid environmental change. The participants felt that mitigation and adaptation to climate change were strongly preferred options in such a situation, and climate engineering was seen as a last resort. There is no evidence to substantiate these unorthodox claims.
Yet, search engines routinely link to these "fake news" and conspiracy theories sites. Evaluation of climate engineering[ edit ] Most of what is known about the suggested techniques are based on laboratory experiments, observations of natural phenomena, and on computer modeling techniques.
Some proposed climate engineering methods employ methods that have analogs in natural phenomena such as stratospheric sulfur aerosols and cloud condensation nuclei. As such, studies about the efficacy of these methods can draw on information already available from other research, such as that following the eruption of Mount Pinatubo. However, comparative evaluation of the relative merits of each technology is complicated, especially given modeling uncertainties and the early stage of engineering development of many proposed climate engineering methods.
The report divided proposed methods into "carbon dioxide removal" CDR and "solar radiation management" SRM approaches that respectively address longwave and shortwave radiation. The key recommendations of the report were that "Parties to the UNFCCC should make increased efforts towards mitigating and adapting to climate change, and in particular to agreeing to global emissions reductions", and that "[nothing] now known about climate engineering options gives any reason to diminish these efforts".
As such, the review examined the scientific plausibility of proposed methods rather than the practical considerations such as engineering feasibility or economic cost. Lenton and Vaughan found that "[air] capture and storage shows the greatest potential, combined with afforestation, reforestation and bio-char production", and noted that "other suggestions that have received considerable media attention, in particular, "ocean pipes" appear to be ineffective".
The differences between these two classes of climate engineering "led the committee to evaluate the two types of approaches separately in companion reports, a distinction it hopes carries over to future scientific and policy discussions. However, as our planet enters a period of changing climate never before experienced in recorded human history, interest is growing in the potential for deliberate intervention in the climate system to counter climate change.
Carbon dioxide removal strategies address a key driver of climate change, but research is needed to fully assess if any of these technologies could be appropriate for large-scale deployment.
Its Fifth Assessment Report states:  Models consistently suggest that SRM would generally reduce climate differences compared to a world with elevated GHG concentrations and no SRM; however, there would also be residual regional differences in climate e. Models suggest that if SRM methods were realizable they would be effective in countering increasing temperatures, and would be less, but still, effective in countering some other climate changes.
SRM would not counter all effects of climate change, and all proposed geoengineering methods also carry risks and side effects. Additional consequences cannot yet be anticipated as the level of scientific understanding about both SRM and CDR is low. There are also many political, ethical, and practical issues involving geoengineering that are beyond the scope of this report.
We increasingly come across robots in every imaginable area — but how do we define robots today? Future Analysis Footer Up Recommend this page to a friend. However, the results geoengineeriing not coordinated with other ministries or research institutes and it is not intended to interfere with their responsibilities. It provides ideas and concepts for the future orientation of the Bundeswehr in an open-ended way without being bound by instructions and thus constitutes a central element with regard to the establishment of targets.
Planungsamt der Bundeswehr
Bundeswehr: Geo-Engineering – Gezielt das Klima beeinflussen