We have performed a webinar series in 2020 and 2021, covering various different topics on this issue, with excellent speakers that provide details, especially for people that are new to this field. The 2020 webinar series covered the general aspects of climate intervention research including SRM, CDR, and also other topics like impacts and ethics: https://www2.acom.ucar.edu/workshop/ccis-2020-webinars Last year's webinars went more into the details like technical feasibility etc. https://www.ccis.ucar.edu/events/webinars/2021/ We are already planning the next webinar series for this here. Please visit our website and subscribe to our exchange forum for further discussions and questions: https://www.ccis.ucar.edu/
Cheers, Simone On Thu, Feb 3, 2022 at 1:38 PM Ernie Rogers <[email protected]> wrote: > I am a novice here, but it seems to me that it must be way too soon to be > seriously thinking about "moral" questions. Are we sure we even know what > "solar geoengineering" means? How many different forms have been > explored? Wouldn't prevention of Atlantic hurricanes be a suitable form > for SRM, and what would be the risks? Is there a better chemical approach > than SO2? > Sorry for the dumb questions--I am willing to learn. > > On Wed, Feb 2, 2022 at 4:12 PM Geoeng Info <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2022-02-01/a-ban-on-solar-geoengineering-would-limit-our-climate-options >> >> Solar Geoengineering Research Is a Risk Worth Taking >> >> In the fight against climate change, the world can’t afford to limit its >> options. >> >> >> Clara Ferreira Marques >> >> >> Apocalyptic scenes open “The Ministry for the Future,” >> <https://www.hachettebookgroup.com/titles/kim-stanley-robinson/the-ministry-for-the-future/9780316300162/> >> the >> latest novel by science fiction writer Kim Stanley Robinson. India is hit >> with a calamitous heatwave — one so sweltering, with humidity so high, that >> bodies struggle to sweat, and therefore to survive. Thousands die in the >> sun-heated waters of a lake where they had sought refuge. In the end, 20 >> million perish. >> >> Grappling with the upheaval and fury that follow, India breaks an >> international agreement governing climate engineering and injects vast >> quantities of sulfur particles into the atmosphere in a desperate attempt >> to cool the subcontinent. “Everyone knows, but no one acts,” an official >> says. “So we are taking matters into our own hands.” >> >> Robinson’s tale is fictional. But it is set only a few years into the >> future, and the climate disaster he describes, along with the technology >> and diplomatic conundrum, are not made up. Those are all too >> real. Insufficient understanding and the underdeveloped governance of such >> options means the world is no better prepared in reality than in fiction >> when it comes to radical interventions, in particular when it comes to the >> contentious question of solar geoengineering. >> >> But does that mean, as a group of scientists have argued in an article >> published last month >> <https://wires.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wcc.754>, that we >> should effectively ban the nascent technique now? >> >> Solar geoengineering covers a range of proposals to cool the earth by >> reflecting some sunlight back into space, including with stratospheric >> aerosol injection as in Robinson’s novel. It’s fast-acting, in climate >> terms, but does not tackle the underlying cause of the global warming >> problem and is high-risk if it goes awry. It’s an option no one wishes to >> see in action. >> >> We need to see the world as it is, not as it should be. As Jesse >> Reynolds, senior policy officer at the Global Commission on Governing Risks >> from Climate Overshoot at the Paris Peace Forum, put it to me, >> solar geoengineering is a risk-risk trade off, and must be understood in >> that context: There is no low-risk path forward. Still, the idea of a >> non-use agreement that effectively halts support for research and >> development, as advocated by this coalition of academics, should give >> us pause. Given the gravity of our climate predicament, and the likelihood >> the world will overshoot its global warming limit or hit tipping points, >> this option is simply not yet one we can discard — at least not before >> understanding it further. For now, it’s terrifying and terrible in the way >> that chemotherapy is: We don’t want it, but can we deny ourselves the >> possibility? It’s no substitute for dramatic carbon reduction, but do we >> know enough today to refuse it? >> >> The arguments against solar geoengineering are to some extent familiar. >> The most common posits that this sort of technology is at best wishful >> thinking and at worst a distraction, when the world should be concentrating >> on dramatic reductions of carbon emissions to limit global temperature rise >> to 1.5 degrees Celsius, the ambition laid out in the Paris Agreement >> <https://unfccc.int/process-and-meetings/the-paris-agreement/the-paris-agreement>. >> Certainly that climate goal is clear, and governments like Australia’s, >> hiding carbon inaction behind future technological miracles >> <https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/nov/19/a-farce-experts-dismiss-government-claims-a-controversial-and-unproven-technology-will-cut-emissions-by-15>, >> should be called out. >> >> The second, related, argument is that discussing and researching solar >> radiation management risks normalizing it, creating a technological >> slippery slope that locks humanity in. It’s not clear this would happen >> with a technology that is not in private hands, and it worryingly implies >> knowledge alone is toxic. Dismissing what we do not understand is an even >> bigger wager than a bet on limited and controlled research. What happens >> if, as in the novel, it is deployed unilaterally? Not to mention that, as >> Daniel Bodansky and Susan Biniaz point out in a 2020 article >> <https://www.ourenergypolicy.org/resources/climate-intervention-the-case-for-research/>, >> research into climate intervention can actually help bring governments’ >> “magical thinking” on technology down to earth. >> >> Then there’s the idea, raised by the scientists arguing for a ban, that >> the technology is impossible to govern in an inclusive and just manner. >> That, they argue, would require “effective and enforceable political >> control by the Global South.” The governance challenge is enormous, but >> does that make it impossible? Even research? Or is the standard here simply >> impossibly high? >> >> To be clear, solar radiation management in most of its forms — bar, >> perhaps, painting roofs white — does come with peril. Uneven >> application could cool one region but alter vital rain patterns elsewhere. >> Understanding >> the already changing planet >> <https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-02-09/we-won-t-know-if-solar-geoengineering-is-working> >> could >> become harder. A sudden stop to it for reasons of human error, >> financing, even politics or war would be devastating, an idea known as >> termination >> shock >> <https://www.researchgate.net/publication/323693605_The_Risk_of_Termination_Shock_From_Solar_Geoengineering>. >> If we ever get that far, the question of who deploys it, where and to what >> degree, is even more fraught. Because the engineering costs are relatively >> modest and the technology powerful, overkill is a possibility. >> >> But the debate is not yet at whether we should pull that lever. Indeed, >> the world can credibly put in place a moratorium on the deployment of >> solar geoengineering. But research, responsibly managed, is vital and not >> impossible to imagine. >> >> First, support research with public funds. Guide and regulate. Provide an >> agreed code of conduct that could be based on the existing Oxford >> Principles >> <http://www.geoengineering.ox.ac.uk/www.geoengineering.ox.ac.uk/oxford-principles/principles/> >> that >> includes local permitting, transparency requirements and a stakeholder >> process which puts in place public consultation. Full disclosure and >> information sharing in particular will be crucial. >> >> Then, begin to tackle the governance gap. Climate intervention is not >> without rules — a plethora of treaties already exist, covering air >> pollution, biological diversity, marine waste. The duty to do no harm is a >> widely recognized principle of customary international law. Yet troubling >> empty spaces still abound. >> >> Who would eventually authorize the technology or oversee it, should it >> ever be used? How would any cross-border disputes be regulated? Who decides >> what side effects are permissible, or not? How can all parties, even those >> must vulnerable, be included? The scientists are right to raise these >> issues, but a ban does not solve representation. As Janos >> Pasztor, executive director of the Carnegie Climate Governance Initiative, >> put it to me, it isn’t viable to shut down the conversation yet, or to >> allow a small group to do so. Indeed, a ban requires a truly inclusive >> discussion. >> >> Governance would be imperfect — so much of our governance is — but the >> United Nations provides structures that can and must be adapted to >> consider more complex climate decisions, giving a louder voice to the most >> vulnerable. That is already long overdue. We manage the global macroeconomy >> without an overarching body; this, too, can be done if interests are >> aligned. >> >> The world’s nations may yet decide to permanently ban solar >> geoengineering. In Robinson’s novel, naysayers will be glad to hear, a raft >> of other techniques come into play. But it’s too soon to veto what we >> barely understand — and may yet need. >> >> >> -- >> 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 [email protected]. >> To view this discussion on the web visit >> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAKSzgpZG4h4uk5sBLskTVopazOi7rVz3T7OviTGm14MYwmLO4Q%40mail.gmail.com >> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAKSzgpZG4h4uk5sBLskTVopazOi7rVz3T7OviTGm14MYwmLO4Q%40mail.gmail.com?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 [email protected]. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAKX06aouehRX%2BU2BNXgaU%3D-JxJmuCZyz_GiwHHTcmBCf2DAB2w%40mail.gmail.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAKX06aouehRX%2BU2BNXgaU%3D-JxJmuCZyz_GiwHHTcmBCf2DAB2w%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > -- *Simone Tilmes,* *Atmospheric Chemistry, Observations & Modeling LabNational Center for Atmospheric Research* * PO Box 3000* *Boulder, Colorado 80307-3000* *303-497-1445* *303-497-1400 (fax) * *[email protected] <[email protected]>* -- 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 [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CADe6QRiMbuaQFCeyRL18iDqPx8BN3i_xgsY3pfNsYszwOWBgEg%40mail.gmail.com.
