Memorandum 157
Submission from Dr Ken Caldeira, Department
of Global Ecology, Carnegie Institution
THE CURRENT
AND POTENTIAL
ROLES OF
ENGINEERING AND
ENGINEERS IN
GEO-ENGINEERING
SLUTIONS TO
CLIMATE CHANGE
1. We need a climate engineering research
and development plan. The widespread desire for the "good
life" afforded by economic growth and development places
us increasingly at risk of profound and widespread climate damage.
Much of the developing world seeks to emulate the coal-powered
development of China and India, while those of us in the developed
world seek ways to kick-start our relatively moribund, fossil-fueled
economies. We may hope or even expect that we will collectively
agree to delay some of this economic growth and development and
invest instead in costlier energy systems that don't threaten
Earth's climate. Nevertheless, prudence demands that we consider
what we might do if cuts in carbon dioxide emissions prove too
little or too late to avoid unacceptable climate damage.
2. Only fools find joy in the prospect of
climate engineering. It's also foolish to think that risk of significant
climate damage can be denied or wished away. Perhaps we can depend
on the transcendent human capacity for self-sacrifice when faced
with unprecedented, shared, long-term risk, and therefore can
depend on future reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. But just
in case, we'd better have a plan.
3. Existing studies of climate engineering
demonstrate that some geo-engineering schemes may have the potential
to diminish climate risk. Research into science, technology, and
socio-political systems is needed to determine whether such risk
reduction could be realized. If so, research will be needed to
develop these risk reduction strategies.
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
4. A climate engineering research plan should
be built around important questions rather than preconceived answers.
It should anticipate and embrace innovation and recognize that
a portfolio of divergent but defensible paths is most likely to
reveal a successful path forward; we should be wary of assuming
that we've already thought of the most promising approaches or
the most important unintended consequences.
5. A climate engineering research plan must
include both scientific and engineering components.
6. Science is needed to address critical
questions, among them: How effective would various climate engineering
proposals be at achieving their climate goals? What unintended
outcomes might result? How might these unintended outcomes affect
both human and natural systems?
7. Engineering is needed both to build deployable
systems and to keep the science focused on what's technically
feasible.
8. Initially, emphasis should be placed
on science over engineering. But if the science continues to indicate
that climate engineering has the potential to diminish climate
risk, increasing emphasis should be placed on building the systems
and field-testing them so they'll be ready as an option.
9. Because there are important societal
decisions to be made regarding climate engineering, open public
communication is necessary at all stages of research-closed scientific
meetings on climate engineering must become a thing of the past.
10. Climate engineering research programs
should be internationalized and scientific discussion and results
shared openly by all.
11. Climate engineering (ie, geoengineering)
research should be centred in the university environment. Initially,
until options are better evaluated and clarified, it is better
to have many small projects rather than a small number of large
projects.
12. Much of the fundamental climate and
chemical science associated with geo-engineering (ie, climate
engineering) is intertwined with the science of environmental
consequences of greenhouse gases. Thus, many of the same institutions
and researchers engage in science related to greenhouse gases
could be engaged in climate engineering research.
13. Policy related studies (ie, issues of
governance, social acceptance, etc) are closely intertwined with
policies related to greenhouse gas reduction. Thus, many of the
same institutions and researchers engage in policy-related studies
related to greenhouse gas emissions reduction could be engaged
in policy-relevant human dimensions studies related to climate
engineering.
THE PROVISION
OF UNIVERSITY
COURSES AND
OTHER FORMS
OF TRAINING
RELEVANT TO
GEO-ENGINEERING
IN THE
UK
14. Climate engineering (ie, geoengineering)
research should be centered in the university environment because
this way research dollars will provide the maximum educational
benefit.
15. Climate engineering research and training
involves both the science of global change (ie, atmospheric physics
and chemistry, carbon-cycle science, marine sciences) and the
engineering of possible deployment systems. Thus, it would make
sense to spread research and training funds across a wide array
of academic disciplines. Much of the research and training would
likely be interdisciplinary in character.
THE STATUS
OF GEO-ENGINEERING
TECHNOLOGIES IN
GOVERNMENT, INDUSTRY
AND ACADEMIA
16. Geoengineering technologies are largely
in the conceptual stage across all sectors.
GEO-ENGINEERING
AND ENGAGING
YOUNG PEOPLE
IN THE
ENGINEERING PROFESSION
17. Climate engineering represents a new
way to attract young people to address our climate challenges.
18. Climate engineering research, in many
cases, could be conducted by the same institutions and researchers
focusing on approaches to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. This
will give students the opportunity to examine and evaluate a broad
range of approaches to addressing the climate challenge.
THE ROLE
OF ENGINEERS
IN INFORMING
POLICY-MAKERS
AND THE
PUBLIC REGARDING
THE POTENTIAL
COSTS, BENEFITS
AND RESEARCH
STATUS OF
DIFFERENT GEO-ENGINEERING
SCHEMES
19. Scientific research and engineering
development should be divorced from moral posturing and policy
prescription. As scientists and engineers, we can say what is
and what can be.
20. Armed with this information, scientists
and engineers can join, as citizens, with their fellow citizens
and policy makers to discuss what ought to be done.
October 2008
| 
