Memorandum 148
Submission from the Royal Academy of Engineering
SUMMARY
- Geo-engineering is taken to be any activity
designed to effect a change in the global climate.
- There are two general approaches: indirect
carbon sequestration and reducing solar insolation (the amount
of energy absorbed by an area of the earth from the sun).
- All the current proposals have inherent
environmental, technical and social risks and none will solve
all the problems associated with energy and climate change.
- Geo-engineering is multi-disciplinary in
nature, with all of the relevant issues already taught in standard
science and engineering courses.
- Current levels of academic research in
the UK are low with a similarly low level of interest in UK industry.
- Failure by the international community
to effectively tackle climate change has allowed geo-engineering
onto the agenda despite the inherent risks.
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Climate change is one of the defining
issues of our time and one that ultimately affects everyone on
the planet. To date, the efforts of scientists, engineers and
governments have been concentrated on three areas: understanding
the climate and how human behaviour influences it; mitigation
of global warming by reducing carbon emissions; and adapting to
the effects of climate change. Increasingly, scientists are warning
that concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere continue
to rise are approaching dangerous tipping points beyond which
serious and irreversible damage to the environment will occur.
This has led some to propose a fourth strand in our fight against
catastrophic climate change, namely geo-engineering.
1.2. "Geo-engineering" is a loosely
defined term relating to any engineering that is concerned with
large-scale alterations to the earth or its atmosphere. This could
include geological alterations, but for the purposes of this response
we shall take the term to mean any activity designed to effect
a change in the global climate. Alternatives terms such as "geo-environment
engineering", "planetary engineering" and "climate
engineering" have been coined and it will take some time
before the terms and definitions become more widely accepted.
2. PROPOSED GEO-ENGINEERING
SCHEMES
2.1 Thus far, there are two general approaches
to geo-engineering: indirect carbon sequestration and reducing
solar insolation. The body of scientific evidence suggests that
the climate is changing because of an increase in the levels of
greenhouse gases in the atmosphere so the first approach, indirect
carbon sequestration, attempts to reduce the levels of these greenhouse
gases. The advantage these schemes have is that, in essence, they
are simply reversing the problem man has created-namely taking
the carbon out that we have put in. There are a number of ways
of achieving this such as:
2.1.1 Air Capture: Scientists such
as Klaus Lackner[7]
and Frank Zeman[8]
of Columbia University have put forward a variety of proposals
that are designed to extract CO2 out of the atmosphere by absorbing
it in a chemical solvent.[9]
Once captured the carbon would then be stored underground in geological
depositories. This technology relates closely to the more mainstream
carbon capture and storage (CCS) proposals that are being developed
to capture CO2 from coal fired power plants. Capturing it from
the power plant where it is much more concentrated is more efficient
but a large proportion of CO2 emitted is from small scale or mobile
sources of emissions where direct sequestration is not applicable.
2.1.2 Ocean Fertilisation: By fertilizing
certain regions of the upper ocean it is possible to encourage
the growth of phytoplankton blooms that absorb CO2 from their
surroundings as they grow. A proportion of this plankton is made
up of carbonate skeletons which upon death, sink to the seabed,
thus potentially sequestering large amounts of carbon.[10]
Trials of this approach have been carried out with varying results.
The potential risks of these schemes, however, are great, interfering
as they inevitably do in a globally crucial ecosystem.
2.2 The second approach, reducing solar
insolation, tackles the problem from a different angle. Greenhouse
gases cause the global temperature to rise because they trap more
of the sun's energy within the atmosphere. If, however, the amount
of energy reaching the earth is reduced or more is reflected this
could reduce the global temperature. Again there are a variety
of methods such as:
2.2.1 Increasing the cloud albedo:
By reflecting the sun's energy away from the earth certain types
of cloud under certain conditions have the effect of cooling the
planet. The effect can be produced by either increasing the amount
of cloud, or their longevity, or their whiteness. For example,
scientists such as John Latham[11]
of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder Colorado
have proposed releasing tiny droplets of sea water in maritime
stratocumulus clouds in order to increase their reflectivity and
provide a cooling effect.
2.2.2 Sulphate aerosols in the stratosphere:
The eruption of certain volcanoes such as Mount Pinatubo in 1991
release large amounts of aerosols into the stratosphere. These
have a shading effect leading to a cooling of the planet. Attempts
to mimic this effect have been put forward by a number of scientists.[12]
The appeal of this scheme is its potential to have an almost immediate
effect on global temperatures although, again, the risks are potentially
great and irreversible.
2.3 The examples given above represent only
a few of the geo-engineering schemes currently proposed. They
are not necessarily the only possible technologies and as research
into this field continues, more possible methods will be developed.
It should, however, be pointed out that, thus far, no geo-engineering
technique has been tested to any significant degree and some of
them would be best described as purely speculative.
2.4 It must also be remembered that none
of these proposals will solve all of our energy and climate change
issues. For instance, the schemes designed to reduce the amount
of solar insolation would have no effect on the levels of greenhouse
gases which are the root cause of the problem. They would not,
therefore, stop the acidification of the oceans which may well
prove to be as serious a problem as rising temperatures or sea-levels.
Furthermore, none of the proposed schemes would have any effect
on security of energy supply issues which are likely to become
ever more serious as the population increases, countries develop
and resources are strained.
3. THE ROLE
OF ENGINEERING
3.1 Engineering will clearly play an essential
role in developing any of the potential technologies and, more
importantly, assessing the risks and impacts associated with their
deployment. In reality, the skills required to implement most
of the technologies proposed are not unique and could be readily
learned in standard engineering courses. Ultimately, engineers
are extremely good at solving problems in a wide range of disciplines
and the technical difficulties presented by most geo-engineering
technologies would not present any particular problems requiring
specific engineering based skills sets.
3.2 The question is therefore not whether
these technologies could be implemented but whether or not they
should be. In order to answer this question a number of other
issues must be addressed; issues such as cost, environmental impact,
sustainability and risk as well as the broader social and moral
considerations.
3.3 Engineering has much to add in these
areas, both independently and in conjunction with other disciplines
such as climate science and environmental policy. Risk in particular
is paramount when considering any attempt to deliberately alter
the earth's climate. The potential consequences could be disastrous
and a great deal of research, modelling and testing would need
to be carried out before moving forward with any geo-engineering
scheme. A good understanding of how geo-engineering would affect
the complex systems it would inevitably be a part of is also something
that engineers have a wealth of experience in dealing with.
4. EDUCATION
AND RESEARCH
4.1 In educational terms, geo-engineering
is very multi disciplinary in nature. The skills needed cover
a wide range of topics from the basic science of climate change
to technical, economic and environmental issues. All these subjects
are already part of standard university courses, and engineering
courses in particular, and graduates coming out of these programmes
will already be equipped to move into geo-engineering research
should they so wish. Thus, at present, it is not deemed necessary
for geo-engineering to be introduced into the curriculum as a
topic in its own right.
4.2 On a related matter, it has been suggested
that geo-engineering might be a good subject with which to engage
with young people and encourage them into the engineering profession.
As was noted earlier, climate change is a hugely important issue
and one that garners a large amount of media attention. Young
people appear particularly concerned about what mankind is doing
to the planet and keen to work towards finding solutions. Highlighting
the crucial role all engineering disciplines have in working out
what those solutions might be and, more importantly, actually
making them happen, is the key issue and should be more than enough
to attract the younger generation. Focusing solely on geo-engineering
would be a distraction for what would only ever be a narrow branch
of engineering.
4.3 Currently, levels of research into geo-engineering
are very low, even in global terms. The Academy itself does not
fund any research in this field despite a strong interest in energy
and climate change. That is not to say that we would not be open
to the possibility of funding research into geo-engineering. Indeed,
the Academy recently established a Research Chair in Emerging
Technologies, aimed at research into technologies at a pre-competitive
stage. This would have been eminently suitable for geo-engineering
technologies and in fact, an application focusing on artificial
photosynthesis was received, but in this instance it was not successful.
5. INDUSTRY AND
GOVERNMENT
5.1 The next stage after education and research
would be actual field testing. This could be carried out either
by universities-perhaps with support from Government-or by industry.
At present, geo-engineering is barely visible to industry in the
UK. Given this low level of interest and the inherent high financial
risks involved it is likely that Government funding would be needed
in the early stages of testing. However, depending on the particular
technology chosen and the relative costs, it is possible that
some forward thinking industries might take an interest, although
this seems more likely to happen at this stage in the US where
geo-engineering has a higher profile.
5.2 A major consideration for industry would
be the potential for profit if the technology were to be successful,
and indeed, how success could be measured. A globally recognised
price for carbon might provide a financial incentive for some
of the sequestration technologies and if this was sufficiently
high or the technology sufficiently low cost the profits could
be considerable. These technologies might also be eligible for
the Virgin Earth Challenge prize of $25 million for "...a
viable technology which will result in the net removal of anthropogenic,
atmospheric greenhouse gases each year for at least 10 years without
countervailing harmful effects."[13]
This prize, announced by Sir Richard Branson and Al Gore in February
2007, could also serve as a driver to industry although the terms
and conditions do limit the number of potential winners.
5.3 Neither the price of carbon nor the
Virgin Earth Challenge prize is applicable to the technologies
designed to reflect solar energy away from the earth. Here, the
only measurable effect would be change in temperature either locally
or globally. It is possible that a local effect could be measured
in a reasonably short time frame and hence provide the potential
for a private company to charge for such a service. But, in terms
of global changes in temperature, it would be almost impossible
to attribute such changes to one specific technology and it is
hard to see why any private company would consider such an option
without the direct involvement of a government.
5.4 This does, however, highlight one of
the main differences between geo-engineering and other methods
of dealing with climate change. Mitigation and adaptation require
coordinated global action and, as the Kyoto agreement has shown,
this requires long and difficult negotiations between the world's
governments. Progress is being made politically but it is slow
and the effects of climate change are already with us. Mitigation
and adaptation can also be expensive (although as the Stern Review
pointed out the cost of action now is likely to be a great deal
lower than doing nothing and having to pay later). Also, regardless
of the efforts being made on reducing greenhouse gas emissions,
the inertia of the earth's climate means that we are already tied
into decades of warming. With geo-engineering, the effects could
be much more immediate and low cost in comparison with current
approaches.
5.5 Individual governments could see geo-engineering
as an excuse to continue with a business-as-usual approach and
would be able to act independently, thus bypassing the sometimes
tortuous path to international agreement. A number of international
treaties covering the oceans, atmosphere and space would, in theory,
prevent such action. However, these are not always adhered to
hence the risk, albeit small, of a state acting unilaterally cannot
be ignored. It is therefore incumbent on the Government to stay
well informed on this issue, particularly in its international
relations on climate change and the environment.
6. CONCLUSION
6.1 It might seem imprudent to even consider
geo-engineering given the potentially enormous risks associated
with it. However, despite stark warnings from climate scientists
over the past decade or more about the dangers of greenhouse gas
emissions and concerted government action to curb these emissions
very little has actually been achieved. Atmospheric concentrations
of carbon dioxide continue to rise and the predictions of climate
scientists become ever more pessimistic. Geo-engineering should
never been seen as an ultimate solution in any sense. Even if
it could help to alleviate the effects of climate change it has
nothing to add in terms of security or sustainability of energy
supplies. Mitigation and adaptation are still the best long term
policies but if time really is running out and geo-engineering
was able to provide some breathing space it would be morally remiss
of us not to at least consider this option.
6.2 Engineering would play a central role
in developing any of these technologies and assessing their potential
impact. It would also be crucial in addressing the enormous inherent
risks. Even though geo-engineering is still very much in its infancy,
a number of scientists and engineers around the globe are working
seriously on such technologies and as such, it cannot be ignored.
A great deal of research is required before any of the possible
geo-engineering schemes should ever be contemplated on a global
scale. And even then, they must not be seen as an excuse to continue
on a business-as-usual path. That said, it is possible that any
research carried out could help further our knowledge of the earth's
climate and mankind's effect on it. Taking on board all these
points, geo-engineering is a subject the Government should stay
well informed on and treat with caution, being mindful of potential
consequences.
September 2008
7 http://www.seas.columbia.edu/earth/lacknerCV.html Back
8
http://www.seas.columbia.edu/earth/faculty/zemanCV.html Back
9
http://www.physorg.com/news96732819.html Back
10
http://journals.royalsociety.org/content/t6x58746951336m1/ Back
11
http://www.mmm.ucar.edu/people/latham/ Back
12
http://journals.royalsociety.org/content/y98775q452737551/ Back
13
http://www.virginearth.com/ Back
| 
