Memorandum 149
Submission from the Tyndall Centre for
Climate Change Research
THE POTENTIAL
OF GEO-ENGINEERING
SOLUTIONS TO
CLIMATE CHANGE
1. Background
1.1 In January 2004 the Tyndall Centre for
Climate Change Research (www.tyndall.ac.uk)
and the Cambridge-MIT Institute (www.cambridge-mit.org)
convened a special joint Symposium on "Macro-Engineering
Options for Climate Change Management and Mitigation" in
Cambridge, England. The purpose of the Symposium was to identify,
debate, and evaluate possible macro-engineering responses to the
climate change problem, including proposals for what is usually
termed geo-engineering. The web-site for information on the Symposium
is at .www.tyndall.ac.uk/events/past_events/cmi.shtml.
1.2 This submission is based largely on
the discussions and outcome of that meeting, updated with some
more recent information. A copy of the summary report is available
at http://www.tyndall.ac.uk/events/past_events/summary_cmi.pdf
and also attached hereto (not printed).
2. Summary of general issues
2.1 Few (if any) of the proposals for potential
geo-engineering solutions to climate change have so far advanced
beyond the outline/concept stage.
2.2 Much more research on their feasibility,
effectiveness, cost, and potential unintended consequences is
required before they can be adequately evaluated.
2.3 In many cases it is new modelling and
pilot-project scale engineering studies which are needed to make
further progress, at quite modest cost.
2.4 Current schemes aim to adjust the Earth's
radiation balance either by (a) modifying the planetary reflectivity
(albedo) to reduce incoming radiation, or (b) to enhance removal
of GHGs (especially CO2) from the atmosphere to reduce the greenhouse
effect.
2.5 Albedo modification schemes do nothing
to reduce atmospheric CO2 levels and hence (a) do nothing to ameliorate
the problem of ocean acidification, and (b) create a risk of severe
and rapid greenhouse warming if and when they ever cease operation.
2.6 Some CO2 removal schemes involve major
interference with natural ecosystems, or (like Carbon Capture
and Storage) may require the secure disposal of large quantities
of CO2.
2.7 The environmental impacts of these schemes
have not yet been adequately evaluated, but are likely to vary
considerably in their nature and magnitude.
2.8 Too little is known about any of the
schemes at present for them to provide any justification for reducing
present and future efforts to drastically reduce CO2 emissions.
2.9 A sufficiently high price of carbon
will stimulate a host of entrepreneurial entrants into the geo-engineering
market. This is probably essential in order to mobilize necessary
capital and to stimulate a lively competition of technologies.
However, it will brings with it difficult problems of regulation
and certification.
2.10 The large uncertainties associated
with geo-engineering schemes should not be regarded as reason
to dismiss them. They need to be evaluated as part of a wider
portfolio of responses, alongside mainstream mitigation and adaptation
efforts. This should lead to a portfolio approach, in which a
range of different options can be pursued, and adaptively matched
to emerging conditions.
2.11 More attention however therefore also
needs to be paid to the timescales (lead-times and potential durations)
of geo-engineering schemes, so that they could be effectively
phased, under different scenarios of climate change and alongside
other abatement strategies.
2.12 The governance issues associated with
geo-engineering are probably unprecedented. Who could and should
control the technologies upon which the well-being of humanity
may depend?
2.13 The equity issues are also likely to
be substantial. There will be winners and losers associated with
geo-engineering (as there will be with climate change itself).
Should the losers be compensated, and if so how? Where the losses
include non-market goods, which may be irreplaceable, how are
they to be valued?
2.14 Geo-engineering is sometimes presented
as an "insurance policy", but this analogy may be somewhat
misleading. An insurance policy pays specified benefits under
specific conditions, whose probability can be estimated. In the
case of geo-engineering both the probability of it being required,
and the benefits that it might yield are very uncertain.
3. Observations on the role of engineering
3.1 The principal requirement in the short
term is for engineering research on the feasibility, costs, environmental
impacts and potential unintended consequences of geo-engineering
proposals.
3.2 In the longer term it is possible that
engineers may be widely involved in the implementation and management
of any schemes which come to fruition.
3.3 The range of skills involved covers
the full spectrum of engineering, and there is no clear need for
any particular specialisation.
3.4 Improved awareness and understanding
by engineers of Earth System Science (and specifically of the
the functioning of Earth's climate and ecological systems) would
greatly assist the development and evaluation of potential schemes.
3.5 Most research at present is very small
scale (concept development) and is mostly being undertaken in
the USA.
3.6 There is no clear need for specialised
university courses or training in this field: the clear requirement
is rather for the provision of more supplementary interdisciplinary
courses for students of conventional engineering disciplines (see
item 3.4 above).
3.7 The awareness and status of geo-engineering
technologies in government, industry and academia is low (often
at the level of blissful ignorance) but is improving slowly.
3.8 It is possible that geo-engineering
ideas may attract young people to the profession, but not very
likely unless and until clear employment opportunities emerge.
3.9 Engineers have an important role to
play in informing policy-makers and the public, especially about
the feasibility, efficacy and likely costs of geo-engineering
schemes.
September 2008
| 
