IPCC Expert Meeting on Geoengineering

Annex 5: Breakout Group Reports
Breakout Group III.3 and 4: Carbon Dioxide Removal in the Working Group
Contributions to the <strong>IPCC</strong> AR5
Chair: Peter Cox
Rapporteur: Masahiro Sugiyama
The summary that follows, written by the Chair and Rapporteur, characterizes the main points of the BOG III.3/4 discussion.
It may not reflect the personal views of the BOG’s Chair and Rapporteur. The summary is intended for consideration by
<strong>IPCC</strong> authors of the Fifth Assessment Report (AR5), but is neither endorsed nor approved by the <strong>IPCC</strong> or its Working
Groups. Participants in the BOG considered a series of questions related to geoengineering research, developed by the
meeting’s Scientific Steering Group.
Questions suggested for discussion:
Where might each of the most important Carbon Dioxide Removal approaches and issues be evaluated within the
<strong>IPCC</strong> Fifth Assessment Report (i.e., in which Working Group contribution and in which chapters)?
Where might it be best to cover cross-cutting issues that do not neatly fall within one chapter or one Working Group’s
contribution?
Are there some aspects of Carbon Dioxide Removal that require expertise that is missing from the author teams of
Working Group I, II and III? Are there other things the author teams can do to improve their ability to develop a high
quality assessment?
What geoengineering-related glossary terms might the AR5 include? For those terms, what might the corresponding
entries be?
Introduction
This BOG first discussed issues surrounding terminology and the definition of “geoengineering”, and spent most of the
remaining time addressing the first two questions above, that is, where and how Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR)
geoengineering approaches should be covered in the <strong>IPCC</strong> AR5. The group did not have sufficient time to address expertise
missing from the <strong>IPCC</strong> lead-author teams.
Terminology and definition of geoengineering
There was a good deal of discussion concerning the use of the term “geoengineering” for CDR techniques. Some members
of the group felt that relabeling existing climate mitigation techniques, such as reforestation, as “geoengineering” could
create confusion. Others felt suggested small-scale local actions (e.g., biochar) may be less relevant in the context of the
<strong>IPCC</strong>. The group made the following suggestions for consideration by AR5 authors:
Authors could mention geoengineering early in the AR5 Working Group contributions in order to guide
policymakers, but then avoid the term “geoengineering” as much as possible afterwards, instead referring to
specific techniques or “Solar Radiation Management” (SRM) and “Carbon Dioxide Removal” where necessary.
It would be beneficial for authors to aim to use consistent terminology across the <strong>IPCC</strong> AR5. The group realized
that some of the Working Group chapters have geoengineering in their section titles, and could use terminology
that is consistent across the <strong>IPCC</strong> AR5.
Authors may wish to avoid over-generalizations such as “SRM is cheap, fast, and imperfect”, and instead refer to
the characteristics of specific proposals, as these differ markedly even within the broad SRM and CDR categories.
<strong>IPCC</strong> <strong>Expert</strong> <strong>Meeting</strong> on Geoengineering - 93