Memorandum 154
Submission from Research Councils UK (RCUK)
BULLETED SUMMARY
- Geo-engineering is seen by some as having
the potential to counteract global climate change; however, the
feasibility of different conceptual options has yet to be rigorously
examined, and it will be important to guard against unintended
effects on the environment.
- The further development of geo-engineering
ideas will require a combination of engineering, environmental
and socio-economic expertise.
- Whilst sophisticated model-based simulations
are essential for feasibility assessments, there may be important
differences between model climate behaviour and that of the real
world at both regional and Earth system scales.
- NERC and EPSRC support a wide range of
research that is relevant to geo-engineering, particularly in
the areas of climate dynamics and CCS (carbon capture and storage).
New activities will explicitly explore the potential for geo-engineering
development.
INTRODUCTION
1. Research Councils UK is a strategic partnership
set up to champion research supported by the seven UK Research
Councils. RCUK was established in 2002 to enable the Councils
to work together more effectively to enhance the overall impact
and effectiveness of their research, training and innovation activities,
contributing to the delivery of the Government's objectives for
science and innovation. Further details are available at .www.rcuk.ac.uk.
2. This evidence is submitted by Research
Councils UK (RCUK) on behalf of the Natural Environment Research
Council (NERC) and the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research
Council (EPSRC). It does not include or necessarily reflect the
views of the Science and Innovation Group in the Department for
Innovation, Universities and Skills. It was prepared in consultation
with the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council
(BBSRC) and the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC). Separate
written and oral evidence has been provided by RCUK and EPSRC
to the Committee's main inquiry into engineering, and in relation
to other case studies.
3. Both NERC and EPSRC fund and carry out
impartial research and training in environmental, physical and
engineering sciences within their own remits, through support
to universities and, in the case of NERC, also to its Research
and Collaborative Centres. Details are available at www.nerc.ac.uk
and .www.epsrc.ac.uk.
Additional material arising from NERC discussions with its research
community is provided at Annex A. A separate submission to this
Case Study is being made by the Tyndall Centre.
WHAT IS
GEO-ENGINEERING?
4. Geo-engineering is a term that has been
used in different ways. A relatively wide definition, consistent
with its etymological roots, is that geo-engineering involves
the large-scale manipulation of environmental systems in order
to make global changes for human benefit. Here we use geo-engineering
in the climate change context, as an intervention to mediate global
warming due to increasing atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse
gases. It is considered distinct from mitigation (emission reduction)
and is not intended to encompass all geological and soil-related
technologies, such as carbon capture and storage (CCS), where
capture is directly from a power station to prevent emission (ie
mitigation)-a research topic that is supported by NERC and EPSRC
(see Tables 1 & 2).
5. Many different ideas have been suggested
as to how geo-engineering might counteract undesirable climate
change, either in addition to, or as an alternative to, reductions
in fossil fuel combustion. The main intended outcomes are in two
groups:
(i) direct reduction in the radiant energy reaching
the Earth's surface; and
(ii) slowing (and potentially reversing) the
human-driven increase of greenhouse gases, principally carbon
dioxide, in the atmosphere.
6. The mechanisms to achieve these outcomes
may involve either physical, chemical or biological interventions,
and can be conceptually straightforward; for example, shading
or reflecting sunlight, stimulating plant growth in the ocean,
or removing carbon dioxide from the air. However, the large-scale
nature of the proposed interventions, involving up to 2% of the
Earth's solar energy budget, can result in complex and far-reaching
consequences, that may be unintended and unpredictable. That is
because of the close linkage between climate processes and other
dynamic components of the Earth's natural and managed environment,
including food and water resources.
THE CURRENT
AND POTENTIAL
ROLES OF
ENGINEERING AND
ENGINEERS IN
GEO-ENGINEERING
SOLUTIONS TO
CLIMATE CHANGE
7. The word engineering can itself be used
broadly ("to arrange or bring something about"; eg,
social engineering) or more specifically, as a physically-based
scientific discipline relating to the practical problems of design,
construction and maintenance of devices relating to materials
and energy. Engineering as a scientific activity is frequently
sub-categorised according to historical skill domains and training
(electrical, mechanical and chemical), or on a more functional
basis (eg aerospace, marine, civil), or in terms of applications
(eg control-, nano- and materials engineering).
8. Geo-engineering could involve all of
the above facets of engineering. It also potentially makes use
of a very wide range of natural sciences and other technologies-the
former including geology, geochemistry, soil science, atmospheric
science, terrestrial ecology, hydrology, oceanography, meteorology
and climatology; the latter including biotechnology, remote sensing
and modelling-in addition to political science and economics.
A partnership approach between engineers and others with relevant
expertise is therefore essential for the development of viable
geo-engineering options.
9. The engineering profession is collectively
well-experienced in addressing practical challenges through a
combination of theoretical advances, practical know-how and system-based
planning and analyses. After the basic feasibility of a novel
approach has been demonstrated, efficiency improvements can be
developed, usually in a competitive, commercially-driven framework.
In the climate change context, geo-engineering is a nascent industry
that is essentially hypothetical: whilst many ideas have been
raised, few (if any) have been subject to rigorous feasibility
analyses, cost-benefit calculations or proof-of-concept demonstrations.
10. A major role of engineering and engineers
is therefore to assist in the critical assessment of existing
and novel geo-engineering "solutions"[17]
to climate change. This exercise is already underway at various
levels (eg through discussion-based initiatives by the Royal Society
and the Institute of Mechanical Engineers) and will be further
promoted by EPSRC. Whilst such evaluations will necessarily need
to address the direct practicability of different options, they
will also need to consider their other environmental implications
and geo-political acceptability. The following criteria summarise
the current status of national and international thinking on such
issues:
- The proposed geo-engineering option must
provide a measurable benefit that unambiguously outweighs the
impacts arising from the full lifetime energy costs, carbon emissions
and other adverse environmental consequences involved in establishing,
maintaining and decommissioning the relevant technologies.
- The net benefit must be achieved relatively
rapidly, with careful phasing of scale-up; otherwise initial adverse
climate impacts-arising from large-scale device manufacture, new
infrastructure or other set-up energy costs-may significantly
increase the likelihood that natural thresholds between different
climatic states (tipping-points) will be reached.
- The magnitude of the manipulation should
be controllable, with the ability to switch off the effect relatively
easily in the event of significant unforeseen adverse consequences.
- There must be public trust, long-term political
commitment and international agreement on the acceptability of
geo-engineering activities that are i) rewarded through international
carbon-trading schemes, and/or ii) may have adverse, as well as
positive, effects on globally-shared resources.
11. Table 1 provides summary information
on key engineering, environmental and socio-economic issues for
an illustrative range of proposed geo-engineering options.
NATIONAL AND
INTERNATIONAL RESEARCH
ACTIVITY, AND
RESEARCH FUNDING,
RELATED TO
GEO-ENGINEERING,
AND THE
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN,
AND INTERFACE
WITH, THIS
FIELD AND
RESEARCH CONDUCTED
TO REDUCE
GREENHOUSE GAS
EMISSIONS
12. Information on relevant research currently
funded by NERC and EPSRC (and sometimes involving other Research
Councils) is summarised in Table 2. Known future projects and
programmes, currently in the planning stage, are also shown.
13. Relevance to geo-engineering is assessed
in Table 2 as either low, medium or high. Whilst no "high"
category is used for current work, EPSRC has planned activities
that are explicitly directed at geo-engineering development. Note
that research areas that are not here considered as geo-engineering
include re-forestation per se[18]
and emission reduction, the latter achieved through renewable
energy generation, biofuels and CCS.
14. The closest link between geo-engineering
and emission reduction (mitigation) is between the proposed air
capture of carbon dioxide (option 9, Table 1) and CCS. Both initially
involve energy-demanding techniques to remove the CO2, and subsequently
require its safe long-term storage. Whilst chemical removal processes
are currently favoured for CCS, biological processes may be possible
(eg involving oil-producing algae). Thus genetic engineering may
have a role to play at the interface between geo-engineering and
CCS.
UK PROVISION OF
UNIVERSITY COURSES
AND OTHER
FORMS OF
TRAINING RELEVANT
TO GEO-ENGINEERING
15. We are unaware of any UK university
courses or other forms of training that exclusively focus on geo-engineering.
There are, however, several engineering and environmental science
courses (eg the NERC-funded Earth System Science summer school)
that consider the topic within a wider context, and hence provide
relevant training.
16. EPSRC's wider approach to training is
described in the RCUK's main submission to the Engineering inquiry.
Current Engineeering Doctorate Centres of relevance to environmental
engineering (and thus geo-engineering) include:
- EngD in Environmental Technology, Universities
of Surrey and Brunel; and
- EngD in Environmental Engineering Science,
University College London.
THE STATUS
OF GEO-ENGINEERING
TECHNOLOGIES IN
GOVERNMENT, INDUSTRY
AND ACADEMIA
17. The status and importance of geo-engineering
is undoubtedly increasing-but from a low base, due to the relatively
small number of groups directly engaged.
GEO-ENGINEERING
AND ENGAGING
YOUNG PEOPLE
IN THE
ENGINEERING PROFESSION
18. EPSRC's public engagement approach is
described in the RCUK's main submission to the Engineering inquiry.
19. NERC uses a wide variety of public events
(eg Royal Society summer science exhibition) and other means of
communication (website and publications) to introduce environmental
science, including its technological and engineering aspects,
to young people. NERC's research and collaborative centres do
much science in society work in this area. For example, the National
Oceanography Centre, Southampton (NOCS) is able to demonstrate
the contribution of engineering to some very exciting science
such as Autosub Under Ice (see http://www.noc.soton.ac.uk/aui/aui.html).
Information technology, equipment development and model-based
testing are all of fundamental importance to NERC, with Technologies
being one of NERC's seven strategic science themes (see http://www.nerc.ac.uk/about/strategy/contents.asp).
20. We are aware of other initiatives (eg
by the Institution of Mechanical Engineers) to use climate change
as a topic to increase secondary school interest in science, technology,
engineering and mathematics, and engage with these on a partnership
basis where appropriate.
THE ROLE
OF ENGINEERS
IN INFORMING
POLICY-MAKERS
AND THE
PUBLIC REGARDING
THE POTENTIAL
COSTS, BENEFITS
AND RESEARCH
STATUS OF
DIFFERENT GEO-ENGINEERING
SCHEMES
21. Both NERC and EPSRC give high importance
to knowledge exchange, encouraging their communities to engage
with a wide audience. On the policy side, bilateral meetings and
other information-sharing exercises are regularly held between
the Research Councils and government departments, including Defra.
EPSRC and NERC both attend the Defra Scientific Advisory Committee.
The EPSRC submission to the IUSSC's Engineering in Government
case study specifically addresses the need to engage engineers
(of all kinds) with policy-makers.
22. The Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)[19]
is likely to provide an opportunity for the UK research community
to assist in establishing international consensus on the viability
of geo-engineering options.
Table 1
Summary information on key issues for some Geo-engineering
options that have been proposed to counteract climate change.
Options 1-5 involve decrease in received radiant energy; 6-9,
removal of CO2 from the atmosphere. additional detail in Launder
and Thompson[20]
and Vaughan and Lenton.[21]
| Geo-engineering option
| Engineering issues | Environmental issues
| Socio-economic issues |
| 1.Global shading in space (using mirrors, discs or reflective mesh)
| Need for novel materials; design of delivery vehicles; problem of energy-intensive start-up; opportunity for energy to be collected in space?
| Actions not easily reversible, hence high reliance on models to predict climate impacts-these suggest regional changes and overall decrease in precipitation; problem of space debris
| Assessment of cost-effectiveness; public/political acceptability likely to be low (losers as well as winners)
|
| 2.Increased aerosols in upper atmosphere (using sulphur compounds)
| Design of delivery vehicles and dispersion mechanisms; supply of sulphate; energy costs
| Uncertainty in climatic effects-models suggest regional changes and overall decrease in precipitation; risk of ozone depletion and acid rain
| Assessment of cost-effectiveness; public/political acceptability likely to be low (losers as well as winners)
|
| 3.Increased cloud albedo in lower atmosphere (eg using seawater spray)
| Design and auto-operation of spraying devices; satellite-based verification of effect
| Would effect be large enough? Need to model and monitor chemical impacts
| Changes likely in regional weather patterns, with reduced rainfall downwind
|
| 4.Increasing land surface albedo by physical means (paint in urban areas, plastic surface on deserts)
| Production, deployment and maintenance of surface covering-large area required for global effect
| Potential for urban areas; less feasible for natural surfaces. Loss of desert dust would affect ocean productivity
| Public acceptability of changes to visual landscape; assessment of cost-effectiveness
|
| 5.Increasing land surface albedo by biological means (changing vegetation)
| Changing crop and/or grassland albedo, without affecting yield (via GM?)
| Impacts on biodiversity, productivity, hydrological cycle and regional weather; scale of change needed for global effect
| Public acceptability of changes; assessment of cost-effectiveness; regional losers
|
| 6.Enhanced carbon sequestration on land through charcoal burial in soil
| Obtaining bulk charcoal; scale of (re-)forestation required to achieve globally-significant effect
| Uncertain timescale and magnitude of soil storage capacity;
need for major land use/land cover changes; soil fertility effects
| Limited duration of effect (<50 yr?); impacts on food production; once started has to be maintained
|
| 7.Increasing open ocean productivity through micro- or macro-nutrient addition
| Obtaining and delivering nutrients, such as iron or urea
| Uncertain timescale and magnitude of carbon sequestration; ecosystem effects; possible release of climate-reactive gases
| UN moratorium on such work (by Convention on Biodiversity); once started has to be maintained
|
| 8.Increasing ocean productivity and surface cooling through increased mixing (ocean pipes)
| Design, deployment and maintenance of mixing devices
| Likely to be small or zero net effect on carbon budget (CO2 from deep water released); cooling trivial on global scale?
| Assessment of cost-effectiveness; interference of mixing devices with shipping and fishing
|
| 9.Air capture of carbon dioxide | Development of efficient devices to remove CO2 from (ambient) air; long term storage; links to CCS
| Ensuring safe long term storage of captured carbon; assessment of energetic cost-effectiveness
| Assessment of economic cost-effectiveness |
Table 2
Summary of current and planned research by NERC, EPSRC and
other Research Councils considered relevant to Geo-engineering.
Relevance rating: X, low; XX, medium; XXX, high. Annual cost estimates
(where given) are averaged over programme lifetime and may not
accurately represent current spend. Note that figures are for
the entire activity, not just the component relevant to Geo-engineering.
Again, source-based carbon capture and storage (CCS) is not here
regarded as Geo-engineering (see paragraphs 4, 13 and 14, and
option 9, Table 1).
CURRENT WORK
(SEPTEMBER 2008)
|
| Activity | Relevance
| Duration; annual cost
| Main links to geo-engineering | Support arrangements
| RC(s) providing support |
| Research Councils Energy Programme:
| | | |
| www.epsrc.ac.uk/ResearchFunding/Programmes/Energy/Funding/default.htm
|
|
| - UK Energy Research Centre | X
| 2004-09 £2.6m pa |
Energy systems and modelling | Consortium (10 institutions) led by Imperial College
| EPSRC, NERC, ESRC |
| - Carbon management and renewables: carbon capture and storage
| XX | 2005-10 3.0m pa
| CCS including potential for carbon sequestration by soils
| Current CCS grants include consortia, smaller projects and capacity building activities
| NERC, EPSRC BBSRC |
| Other programmes and projects |
| | |
Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research
Themes include constructing energy futures; integrated modelling; engineering cities; informing international climate change policy
| XX | 2006-09 (Phase 2) £2.0m pa (total)
| Overview; policy implications | Consortium of 6 core partners, led by UEA
| NERC, EPSRC ESRC |
Living with Environmental Change (LWEC)
Details in development
| X | 2008-18
| Mitigation and adaptation; socio-economics
| Networking and enhanced collaborations
| NERC, ESRC, EPSRC, BBSRC, MRC & AHRC
|
British Geological Survey (BGS)
Themes include climate change, energy, land use and development, marine geoscience
| XX | Ongoing
| CCS, land use, element cycling | NERC Centre
| NERC |
Oceans 2025
Themes include marine biogeochemical cycling; next generation ocean prediction
| 2007-12 £24.0m pa (total)
| Ocean carbon uptake/release; acidification risks from CCS
| Coordinated programme at 7 NERC-supported marine centres, including NOCS, PML and POL
| NERC | |
National Centre for Atmospheric Science (NCAS)
Themes include climate science and climate change; weather, atmospheric composition, and technologies
| XX | Ongoing £9m pa
| Regional and global atmospheric behaviour; climate predictions using state-of-the-art high resolution models; cloud physics; aerosol behaviour and properties
| NERC Collaborative Centre involving 7 centres and facilities
| NERC |
Centre for Ecology and Hydrology (CEH)
Themes include land/climate feedbacks and biogeochemical cycling
XX
| Ongoing £2-3m pa |
Land surface modelling and linkage to Earth System Models to predict impacts.
| Core programme of NERC Research Centre |
NERC | |
| Quantifying and Understanding the Earth System (QUEST)
| XX | 2003-09 £3.8m pa
| Modelling climate impacts | 70 grant and fellowship awards; Core Team at Bristol
| NERC |
| Aerosol properties, processes and influences on the Earth's climate (APPRAISE)
| XX | 2005-11 £1.1m pa
| Atmospheric dynamics and albedo | Directed programme: 7 awards at 5 institutions
| NERC |
| Surface ocean-lower atmosphere study (UK SOLAS)
| X | 2003-10 £1.5m pa
| Ocean carbon uptake/release; atmospheric chemistry
| Directed programme: 28 awards at 14 institutions
| NERC |
| Sustainable agriculture and land use | X
| Ongoing | Land-based carbon sequestration
| Support via Rothamsted Research, other Centres and HEI awards
| BBSRC |
|
PLANS FOR
FUTURE WORK
(SEPTEMBER 2008)
|
| Activity | Relevance
| Duration; annual cost
| Main links to geo-engineering | Support arrangements
| RC(s) providing support |
|
| National strategy for Earth system modelling
| XX | tba
| Modelling climate impacts | Capacity building/start-up initiative
| NERC |
| CCS: capture, transport, storage, whole systems and sustainability of carbon capture and storage
| XX | tba
| CCS | Wide ranging activities including consortia support, capacity building and start-up initiatives. Some E.ON co-support
| EPSRC, NERC, ESRC |
| Ocean acidification | X
| tba | Ocean carbon uptake/release; CCS
| Large-scale research programme | NERC
|
| UK contribution to VOCALS (VAMOS Ocean-Cloud-Atmosphere-Land Study)
| XX | -£2m pa
| Cloud seeding; cloud formation (via sulphate aerosol) and their albedo effect
| Consortium | NERC |
| Geo-engineering IDEAS Factory | XXX
| -£3m total | Focus on geo-engineering
| tbc | EPSRC |
| Doctoral training in CCS | XX
| -£5m total | CCS
| 10 students pa for 5 yr | EPSRC
|
|
| September 2008 |
17
The quotation marks indicate that geo-engineering cannot be assumed
to provide a solution. Back
18
Re-forestation has previously been regarded as a geo-engineering
option (egby US National Academy of Sciences, 1992 Policy implications
of greenhouse warming: mitigation, adaptation and the science
base) and would be needed for some carbon sequestration schemes. Back
19
IPCC's 4th Assessment Report (2007) considered that "geo-engineering
options... remain largely speculative and unproven, with the risk
of unknown side effects". Back
20
B Launder and M Thompson (eds) Geoscale engineering to avert
dangerous climate change Phil Trans Roy Soc A (2008) http://publishing.royalsociety.org/index.cfm?page=1814 Back
21
N E Vaughan and T M Lenton. A review of geoengineering
(in prep). Back
|
