https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364032122003288
The dynamics of global public research funding on climate change, energy, transport, and industrial decarbonisation Abbas Abdul Rafiu, Benjamin K.Sovacool, Chux Daniels Abstract This paper explores the funding trends, topical themes, and notable gaps in global public research funding across the areas of energy, climate change, transport, and industrial decarbonisation from 1990 to 2020. The paper organizes its analysis along the themes of financial and spatial patterns of funding, patterns of disciplinary funding, and the temporality (and shifting research priorities) within funding patterns. It finds that funding for energy and climate research remains concentrated within the European Commission, United Kingdom and United States. Climate change adaptation research is the most funded general area, and the specific topics of energy efficiency, climate resilience, and climate information systems, managing climate risks, energy storage, carbon dioxide removal and solar energy are the most funded technologies. There is significant diversity in the disciplines funded, with the social sciences supported almost as much as the engineering and physical sciences and meaningful amounts of funding disbursed to the arts and humanities and the life sciences. A large majority of projects identify themselves as transdisciplinary. The paper, lastly, discusses research gaps and future research questions. [...] 7.2. Underfunded topics, technologies, and geographical regions Similar to underfunded disciplines, our data also demonstrates underfunded technologies. These, revealingly, all fall into the category of solar radiation management or solar geoengineering. Also known as “sunlight reflection methods” or “solar radiation modification”, these efforts all seek to control how much solar energy reaches the surface by manipulating the planet's radiation budget to ameliorate the main effects of greenhouse gases (i.e., warming) [72 <https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364032122003288?via%3Dihub#bib72> ]. Stratospheric aerosol <https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/stratospheric-aerosols> injection (SAI) received only 0.2% of all funding, followed (in descending order) by marine cloud brightening (0.15%), ocean mirrors (0.15%), high-albedo crops and buildings (0.1%), space sun-shades (0.1%), and cloud-thinning (0%). Although they may sound like science fiction, SAI techniques are actually technically feasible today and could enable near-term reduction of global warming. They have been openly discussed in major recent reports (e.g., Ref. [73 <https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364032122003288?via%3Dihub#bib73>] Committee on Geoengineering Climate 2015; National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine 2021) and the scientific literature (e.g., Refs. [ [74] <https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364032122003288?via%3Dihub#bib74> , [75] <https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364032122003288?via%3Dihub#bib75> , [76] <https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364032122003288?via%3Dihub#bib76>] as a climate intervention strategy that deserves more careful consideration within the community. Marine cloud brightening and cloud-thinning are also seen as technically feasible ways to reduce global warming by altering clouds to reflect more solar radiation (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine 2021). Marine cloud brightening in particular could be deployed relatively quickly (using fleets of ships to spray sea water into the air below marine clouds, thereby increasing the clouds' reflectivity and longevity) in a way that could counter-balance the warming caused by up to a doubling of atmospheric carbon <https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/atmospheric-carbon> dioxide [77 <https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364032122003288?via%3Dihub#bib77> ]. Ocean mirrors and space-based sunshades work using the same principle, of placing scatterers <https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/scatterer>, reflectors, or mirrors either across the ocean (terrestrially based) or into the high atmosphere or outer space (above the atmosphere) to reduce the amount of sunlight entering the Earth, thereby reducing warming. The Committee on Geoengineering Climate (2015) noted that technologically feasible options include opaque disks, transparent prisms, solar sails, diaphanous scattering screens, or even trillions of small spacecrafts placed in orbit or a large ring of space dust. Several of these ideas would enhance humanity's ability to manufacture in space, and assist in the development of enhanced robotics, artificial intelligence, and microwave energy transmission [78 <https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364032122003288?via%3Dihub#bib78> ]. Several studies have looked at the promise of albedo <https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/albedo> modification, which advocates claim that if less energy is absorbed by the Earth system, the surface of the Earth will cool on average. However, the potential to rapidly offset some of the consequences of global warming at non-significant cost requires such modification. This history is clearly demonstrated by the of past volcanic eruptions. For instance, the June 1991 eruption of the Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines, injected 20 million tons of sulphur dioxide <https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/sulfur-dioxide> into the stratosphere that increased Earth's reflectivity (albedo) and decreased the amount of sunlight absorbed, causing globally averaged surface air temperatures to cool an estimated 0.3 °C for a period of three years. The idea is that technology can replicate such as task, and undertake cooling rapidly, within a year of deployment. Strategies discussed include albedo modification either via buildings (painting them white) or landscapes (managing cropland or marginal land) to better reflect sunlight, particularly in the Arctic but also in areas of high latitude, where sea ice and ice sheets can be protected [78 <https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364032122003288?via%3Dihub#bib78> ,79 <https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364032122003288?via%3Dihub#bib79> ]. Finally, in our preceding analysis, the study reveals the top 10 largest funders (countries) between 1990 and 2020 with Rwanda as the only African country in this category. Our findings show that no research institution from Africa made it to the top 10 most funded institutions, including the top 10 projects in terms of technological and topical diversity in our data, showing that most of the R&D funding were highly concentrated in the global north. This finding confirms the argument by Overland et al. (2021) that “there has also been little funding for research on major states like Egypt and Nigeria relative to their large population sizes. Overall, relatively little funding targets North and Central Africa compared to Southern and East Africa and most former British colonies and Anglophone countries” [80 <https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364032122003288?via%3Dihub#bib80>]. This also raise important questions around issues of justice and equity in funding for R&D especially on technology and innovation that could help address climate-related challenges, which are expected to adversely affect low-income countries disproportionately in achieving just-transitions. [...] -- 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/CAKSzgpaE-iGfXVkMPEp8D2soK6GF-q2CRJ83zvDvsffoAFHs3w%40mail.gmail.com.
