May I just point out that I haven't seen any more significant discussion of "Geoengineering" (in its initial meaning and definition – spanning large-scale carbon dioxide removal and solar radiation modification) in the international climate governance context. The use of this term is now basically limited to a handful of advocacy organizations, some academics who have missed that discursive development, and journalists (who have also missed the boat).
In the climate change governance context we are now working with increasing impetus on the "mitigation of climate change" – which includes carbon dioxide removal at various scales (see Honegger, Burns, Morrow, 2021 <https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/reel.12401>). Now, we may also want to talk about possible ramifications of some of these ideas (esp. when they are envisaged at larger scales), but we can do so by referring to the specific ones we have in mind (e.g. ocean fertilization) without taking recourse to unspecific terms such as the G-word. Unfortunately I am not sure the term "climate intervention" brings more clarity either. At the same time we can observe ongoing research – across disciplines – into potentials and potential implications of solar radiation modification (or sometimes, in North American contexts, "solar geoengineering"), which - for very different reasons and governance implications - is an important topic of its own. Claudia Wieners schrieb am Montag, 22. November 2021 um 08:42:45 UTC+1: > ... speaking of clear communication: we plainly should admit that climate > sensitivity (how much warming per doubling CO2) is still uncertain, so the > "2.7º", probably calculated with a best estimate value, could be > considerably higher if we are unlucky with climate sensitivity. > In my view it would be better to say something like "expected 2.7 degree > but 5% chance of exceeding 4.5º" (or similar, I didn't double-check the > numbers). > > Best > Claudia > > Op ma 22 nov. 2021 om 08:33 schreef Dr. Maiken Winter < > con...@maikenwinter.de>: > >> Thanks for this very interesting interview that finally convinces me that >> we truly really need to accept climate intervention as a very important >> method to avoid catastrpohe. >> >> One question: Everywhere I read about 2,4 or 2,7 Degree celsius of >> warming by 2100. Would it not be important to talk about warming past 2100? >> >> We will have way more than "jus" 2,7 degrees warming, right? >> >> I think it´s time to communicate that clearly. >> >> Best, >> >> Maiken >> >> >> Am 21.11.2021 um 20:46 schrieb Geoeng Info: >> >> https://spectrum.ieee.org/geoengineering-climate-change >> >> Climate Expert: Stop Talking About "Geoengineering" >> <https://spectrum.ieee.org/geoengineering-climate-change> >> >> Term is a distraction from crucial research on climate interventions >> >> The leaders of the world have just returned from the UN's latest climate >> change summit, COP26 <https://ukcop26.org/>, in which the countries that >> have signed on to the Paris Agreement upped their commitments to fight >> climate change. Everyone solemnly agreed, again, to follow the science, >> which has shown in exhaustive detail that humanity will suffer from heat, >> fire, floods, and droughts >> <https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_SPM_final.pdf> >> if >> the world warms beyond 1.5° C >> <https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/sites/2/2019/06/SR15_Full_Report_High_Res.pdf> >> above >> pre-industrial levels. >> >> Yet if countries continue on their present course, the world will likely >> have warmed by 2.7° C by the year 2100 >> <https://climateactiontracker.org/press/Glasgows-one-degree-2030-credibility-gap-net-zeros-lip-service-to-climate-action/>, >> >> according to Climate Action Tracker <https://climateactiontracker.org/>. >> If they meet all the pledges they've made for emission reductions by 2030, >> global temperature rise will be at 2.4° C by then. Hardly the breakthroughs >> we need to stave off disaster. >> >> In light of this situation, there's increasing talk >> <https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/25/climate/geoengineering-sunlight.html> of >> actions that governments can take beyond reducing greenhouse gas >> emissions—actions that could either remove existing greenhouse gases from >> the atmosphere or reduce the amount of sunlight >> <https://www.nap.edu/catalog/25762/reflecting-sunlight-recommendations-for-solar-geoengineering-research-and-research-governance> >> coming >> into the atmosphere. Nobody's proposing relying solely on such tactics, but >> they could potentially help the planet in the short-term. >> >> Such approaches are usually called geoengineering >> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_engineering>, and they're >> controversial: Many people worry about the unintended consequences of >> interfering with nature on a global scale. But Kelly Wanser >> <https://www.silverlining.ngo/executive-director>, the executive >> director of the non-profit Silver Lining <https://www.silverlining.ngo/>, >> argues that humanity is already interfering with nature on a global scale; >> that's what climate change is all about. She spoke with *IEEE Spectrum* >> about >> her work in encouraging basic scientific research on climate interventions. >> >> *IEEE Spectrum: What role does Silver Lining play in climate research or >> advocacy?* >> >> *Kelly Wanser: *Silver Lining's focus is on near-term climate risk: the >> exposure that we have to climate change between now and the middle of the >> century. The IPCC report <https://www.ipcc.ch/assessment-report/ar6/> >> released >> this past August said that in all of the realistic scenarios that they look >> at for climate change, warming continues to increase between now and 2050. >> And right now, we don't have enough ways to significantly reduce that >> warming. >> >> >> * Wanser:* It's partly a play on words. One approach to reducing warming >> has to do with brightening clouds with salt from seawater. But it's also a >> way of indicating that there is hope and possibility in navigating the >> dangerous part of the climate change situation.*Spectrum: Where does the >> name of the organization come from?* >> >> *Spectrum: I've been reporting on this topic recently, and I think I >> irritated a few researchers by using the term "geoengineering." Do you >> object to that term, and if so, what term do you prefer?* >> >> *Wanser: *We do object to it, because we don't think it's a good >> reflection of what is being proposed in these rapid responses to climate >> change. In 2015, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences published a report >> on these types of technological approaches to reducing warming or reducing >> greenhouse gases, and the term that they arrived at was "climate >> intervention >> <https://www.nationalacademies.org/news/2015/02/climate-intervention-is-not-a-replacement-for-reducing-carbon-emissions-proposed-intervention-techniques-not-ready-for-wide-scale-deployment>." >> >> It's a useful term because it speaks to the problem it's aimed at, climate, >> and expresses the uncertainty involved—we're trying to influence a system, >> but we don't have a high degree of control, like we would in an engineering >> context. >> >> We actually conducted a public poll on the terms "geoengineering" and >> "climate intervention" and found that people were better able to comprehend >> what was meant by climate intervention, and also were less fearful. >> >> *Spectrum: When you talk about climate interventions, are you including >> carbon removal and sequestration in that category?* >> >> *Wanser: *We do include that in the broad category. But we focus on it >> less, because we've opted to focus on approaches that are likely to be most >> rapid and most likely to help address near-term risks. We've also focused >> on the parts of the portfolio where there are fewer people and fewer >> investments that are moving things forward. So, we focus significant energy >> on solar climate intervention, or sunlight reflection. We do some work on >> carbon removal, but that's pretty big space with a lot of investment. Which >> is good. >> >> *Spectrum: When you talk about the rationale for research on climate >> interventions, do you start with moral arguments or economic arguments?* >> >> *Wanser: *We start from the point of view of public safety, which is a >> concept in international environmental law and environmental law in the >> United States. We're really focused on the fact that we have quite a >> serious safety problem—potentially a catastrophic safety problem—in terms >> of human life, displacement and suffering, and the natural systems that we >> rely on. >> >> The projections are that up to a billion people >> <https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/sep/09/climate-crisis-could-displace-12bn-people-by-2050-report-warns> >> could >> be displaced between now and 2050, meaning that many parts of the world >> will become uninhabitable by then. What do we have to offer these billion >> people? We see it as similar to the ozone hole problem, where we really >> needed a tight, science-based focus on the limits to human inputs to the >> system--and howthose inputs affected the ozone layer's ability to keep >> people safe. >> >> *Spectrum: You've spoken before about tipping points >> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tipping_points_in_the_climate_system>: the >> idea that we may exceed thresholds in natural systems and thus cause >> drastic and irreversible changes. Which ones do you worry about?* >> >> *Wanser: *I'll focus on the one for which there is the most robust >> information. The Amazon rainforest is called the lungs of the planet >> because it gives oxygen back to the system and takes in a lot of CO2. >> But a combination of deforestation and warming pressure have caused the >> Amazon to now release more greenhouse gas than it absorbs >> <https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/jul/14/amazon-rainforest-now-emitting-more-co2-than-it-absorbs>, >> >> which is considered to be a big accelerant of climate change. >> >> We are working with climate modelers to try to figure out how that >> changes the projections. But the IPCC report >> <https://www.ipcc.ch/assessment-report/ar6/> that came out in August >> does not include this newly discovered state of the rain forest. And, >> therefore, the curves in that report's [warming] pathways may not reflect >> the real amplification this might create. In almost all previous >> projections for climate, tipping events like these were far in the future. >> For the Amazon rain forest, the climate modelers that we talked to said >> there were almost no climate simulations where the rain forest tips in this >> century. >> >> *Spectrum: You're saying the situation is even more dire than we thought. >> And yet there's a lot of resistance to research on climate interventions >> that you say could help with near-term risks. I typically hear two >> critiques. The first is the moral hazard >> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_hazard> argument: If we embark on this >> research, it will undermine attempts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. >> People will think it's a get-out-of-jail-free card. How do you guys respond >> to that?* >> >> *Wanser: *Well, I usually respond with some sympathy for it. If we had >> started ratcheting back greenhouse gas emissions in the 1980s, that would >> have been the wisest and the safest thing to do. I like to use the analogy >> of medicine. It's not very smart to not take simple precautions and to let >> the patient get sick. But when the patient is very sick, then preventative >> measures like healthy diet and exercise don't help effectively enough or >> quickly enough. The treatment options aren't the same when a patient is >> sicker, and it appears we have quite a sick patient now. >> >> *Spectrum: The second critique I usually hear is that we will never >> understand enough about our complex climate systems to be able to intervene >> safely, and that we're guaranteed to mess things up and create massive side >> effects. How do respond to people who say the precautionary principle >> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle> applies here?* >> >> *Wanser: *This is one of the reasons that we don't like term >> geoengineering. If you think of it as something wholly new and different, >> then there's this understandable thought: Why would we do something totally >> new and different than we don't understand? But a dirty, unmanaged >> variation of this is happening already. >> [image: Two graphs labelled Contributions to warming based on two >> complementary approaches showing red and blue bars based on contributions >> to warming] >> Humanity is already reducing global warming... by spewing pollution >> into the air. IPCC REPORT: CLIMATE CHANGE 2021 >> >> The 2021 IPCC report >> <https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_SPM_final.pdf> >> includes >> a chart where they show the human influences on the climate system, with >> pink bars for warming effects and blue bars for cooling. The largest blue >> bar is the effect of pollution particles on clouds. [[The particles attract >> water to increase the number of droplets in clouds, and those clouds >> reflect more sunlight away from the Earth.]] It's a cooling effect and it's >> happening all over the world as a result of pollution from factories, >> ships, and cars. We're planning to remove that pollution, so it would be >> wise for us to understand that effect. And it would be interesting for us >> to think about whether there's a clean variation that we might want to >> replace it with. For example, some scientists are proposing to use a salt >> particles from seawater to brighten clouds over the ocean and send more >> sunlight back to space. >> >> If you think about it that way, then this isn't a question of should we >> do something totally new or not, but how do we manage this situation that >> we already have, which includes these existing dynamics, these variations >> of things that are happening now. >> >> *Spectrum: In September, Spectrum published an article >> <https://spectrum.ieee.org/climate-change> by the researchers working on >> that marine cloud brightening project. But do you want to sum up what >> they're doing?* >> >> *Wanser: *It's one of the few research efforts in the world that is >> looking at the process-level science around these climate intervention >> techniques for reflecting sunlight from the atmosphere: How would it >> actually work? How would you disperse the particles? How would they move in >> the atmosphere and affect the reflection of sunlight? For years, they have >> been developing technology for local dispersal and figuring out how to make >> the size and quantity of particles they think will work best. Now they have >> a large scientific collaboration to do [atmospheric and climate] modeling >> from very local to regional to global scales and to maybe step out and >> spray at very small scales to study those dynamics and inform the models. >> >> It's exciting because they have the potential to do really important >> science about how pollution is impacting clouds and climate and also >> because they can likely determine, in a fairly reasonable amount of time, >> whether or not marine cloud brightening might be an option to significantly >> reduce warming. >> >> *Spectrum: Imagine that the researchers find that marine cloud >> brightening is effective at reflecting sunlight and doesn't have negative >> impacts. How would it be implemented?* >> >> *Wanser: *There are three parts of the world that have large banks of >> marine stratocumulus <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratocumulus_cloud> >> clouds >> that are very susceptible to this effect. Scientists propose having ships >> or autonomous vessels that would cruise around and spray particles in these >> regions, maybe be in the low-digit thousands of ships. Their goal would be >> to brighten these clouds by something like five to seven percent, so >> probably not in a way that's visible from the ground, and maybe not even >> visible from space. >> >> *Spectrum: Where are these three parts of the world?* >> >> *Wanser:* One of them is in the Pacific off the west coast of North >> America, another is off the west coast of South America, the third is off >> the coast of southern Africa. >> >> *Spectrum: The marine cloud project deals with adding particles to >> low-level clouds, but I also wanted to get your perspective on the SCoPEx >> project <https://www.keutschgroup.com/scopex> from Harvard, which wants to >> test the effect of stratospheric particles. They'd hoped this past year to >> simply test the technology platform, not to actually do any kind of >> experiments with spraying reflective particles. And yet the research >> group's advisory board stopped them and said they had to postpone it and >> think it through more. What's your perspective on both that project and >> that decision?* >> >> *Wanser:* We think that this early science is really important to inform >> decision-making. This was meant to be a test of a research apparatus, it >> wasn't even a test of something that would release any material. This was a >> balloon for research—like the balloons that go up every day to do >> atmospheric science. >> >> The problem is, this valuable early science was positioned as a moment >> for a societal decision about research in this category. The testing they >> proposed wouldn't have had any environmental impact or impact on people. So >> the basis for the decision was not scientific; it was really about a small >> set of people's opinions about whether or not this kind of research should >> go forward. While the intentions were good, they inadvertently set up an >> undemocratic situation where a very tiny group of people are deciding >> whether scientific information would be available for everybody else. >> >> We think that scientific independence and integrity is really important, >> especially in this research. We need scientists doing independent science, >> and when they have generated a lot of information for people around the >> world to review, we then need the societal moment where everybody can weigh >> in. >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "geoengineering" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com. >> To view this discussion on the web visit >> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAKSzgpaAhV8h3iAusgv%2BEetBCGDss-FEkMCK%2B1WNxgnfpGC7aw%40mail.gmail.com >> >> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAKSzgpaAhV8h3iAusgv%2BEetBCGDss-FEkMCK%2B1WNxgnfpGC7aw%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >> . >> >> -- >> ****** >> Dr. Maiken Winter >> Bahnhofstr. 12 >> 82399 Raisting >> 08807 9280544 >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "geoengineering" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com. >> > To view this discussion on the web visit >> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/ae49a1e9-f27f-1678-e908-bd0473707886%40maikenwinter.de >> >> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/ae49a1e9-f27f-1678-e908-bd0473707886%40maikenwinter.de?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >> . >> > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/de54a104-f807-4ead-a049-6976b7dbe3f0n%40googlegroups.com.
