IPCC Expert Meeting on Geoengineering

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Annex 4: Poster Abstracts Categorization of policy responses to climate change with a focus on geoengineering Olivier Boucher 1 * and Piers Forster 2 1 Laboratoire de Météorologie Dynamique, IPSL / CNRS / Université P. et M. Curie, Paris, France 2 University of Leeds, United Kingdom Potential policy responses to anthropogenic climate change can be broadly classified into four categories: additional research into climate sciences and carbon-free or carbon-neutral sources of energy, mitigation (i.e. reduction in anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases), adaptation (i.e. reduction of the impacts of climate change on natural and societal systems), and geoengineering. Geoengineering is usually defined as the intentional large-scale manipulation of some element of the Earth system, in an attempt to counteract the effects of anthropogenic climate change. It is sometimes also referred to as climate intervention, climate engineering or planetary engineering. To qualify as geoengineering, an intervention into the Earth system has to deliberately attempt to tackle climate change by a method that does not seek to reduce anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases or other warming agents. For instance, the emission of anthropogenic aerosols from burning fossil fuels, although responsible for a cooling effect, is not considered to be geoengineering because it is a by-product of our industrial and transportation systems rather than a deliberate action. The intervention, although it can be localized, also has to have a large-scale effect on the climate system. This clearly distinguishes geoengineering from, e.g., weather modification or other sorts of environmental engineering which attempt to modify the atmosphere or the land surface on a much smaller scale. A number of geoengineering schemes have been proposed in the scientific literature. Their technological maturity, effectiveness, scalability, residual impacts, unintended consequences and cost vary a great deal and remain uncertain. The Royal Society report (2009) on geoengineering categorized geoengineering schemes into solar radiation management (SRM) and carbon dioxide removal (CDR) techniques. SRM schemes seek to artificially modify the solar radiation budget to cool the planet. CDR schemes seek to artificially remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and store it in some form. While the distinction between SRM and CDR is useful, it does not cover all potential geoengineering schemes one can think of. For instance, it has been suggested that the terrestrial radiation budget could also be artificially modified through changes in cirrus clouds and/or atmospheric water vapor in order to decrease the greenhouse effect. Carbon dioxide is not the only long-lived greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, and air removal can also be envisaged for methane (Boucher and Folberth, 2009) or other gases. Figure A.4.2 lists a large number of approaches to climate change and attempts to refine their groupings into distinct categories. It appears that there is not always a clear division between geoengineering and adaptation or between geoengineering and conventional mitigation. For instance, it has been suggested that the Earth’s albedo could be artificially increased over land by increasing the reflectivity of human dwellings (Akbari et al., 1999) or cropland (Ridgwell et al., 2009). These modifications may actually be more relevant to local and regional adaptation to climate change than geoengineering. Furthermore the frontier between geoengineering and mitigation is not very clear when it comes to biofuels. The large-scale exploitation of biofuels associated with carbon capture and storage (CCS) has the potential to remove CO 2 from the atmosphere and qualifies as a CDR scheme, even though biofuels and CCS on their own are usually considered as conventional mitigation tools. In conclusion we argue that it is important to develop a clear terminology on policy responses to climate change, while recognizing that the frontier between these responses is not always clear-cut. We will provide in this presentation a first attempt at developing such a terminology. This will help to decide how geoengineering should fit (or not) in the portfolio of existing climate change policies. Multiple factors have to be considered when comparing these policy responses, including their technological maturity, effectiveness, scalability, timescale for implementation, risk, residual climate change, unintended consequences, degree of interference with the climate system, the policy and governance challenges they pose, and their cost. References Akbari H., S. Konopacki, and M. Pomerantz, 1999: Cooling energy savings potential of reflective roofs for residential and commercial buildings in the United States. Energy 24, 391–407. <strong>IPCC</strong> <strong>Expert</strong> <strong>Meeting</strong> on Geoengineering - 45
Annex 4: Poster Abstracts Boucher O., and G.A. Folberth, 2009: New Directions: Atmospheric methane removal as a way to mitigate climate change? Atmospheric Environment 44, 3343–3345. Ridgwell A., J.S. Singarayer, A.M. Hetherington, and P.J. Valdes, 2009: Tackling regional climate change by leaf albedo biogeoengineering. Current Biology 19, 146–150. The Royal Society, 2009: Geoengineering the climate: Science, governance and uncertainty. Royal Society, London, UK. 82 pp., (ISBN: 9780854037735). Figure A.4.2: Categorization of existing and proposed policy responses to climate change with a focus on geoengineering techniques. <strong>IPCC</strong> <strong>Expert</strong> <strong>Meeting</strong> on Geoengineering - 46
Page 1 and 2:
IPCC Exper
Page 3 and 4: Cover photo courtesy of Edgar Asenc
Page 5 and 6: This Meeting Repor
Page 8: Table of Contents Preface .........
Page 11 and 12: Summary of the Synthesis Report 1.
Page 13 and 14: Summary of the Synthesis Report
Page 15 and 16: Summary of the Synthesis Report met
Page 18 and 19: Annex 1: Meeting P
Page 20: Annex1: Meeting Pr
Page 23 and 24: Annex 2: Agenda 14:25-14:45 Keynote
Page 26 and 27: Annex 3: Keynote Abstracts FRAMING
Page 28 and 29: Annex 3: Keynote Abstracts Keynote
Page 30 and 31: Annex 3: Keynote Abstracts Kravitz
Page 32 and 33: Annex 3: Keynote Abstracts Since th
Page 34 and 35: Annex 3: Keynote Abstracts Referenc
Page 36 and 37: Annex 3: Keynote Abstracts Nordhaus
Page 38 and 39: Annex 3: Keynote Abstracts Figure A
Page 40 and 41: Annex 3: Keynote Abstracts DAC syst
Page 42 and 43: Annex 3: Keynote Abstracts The Roya
Page 44 and 45: Annex 3: Keynote Abstracts One step
Page 50 and 51: Annex 3: Keynote Abstracts be termi
Page 52 and 53: Annex 4: Poster Abstracts Albedo en
Page 56 and 57: Annex 4: Poster Abstracts Climate c
Page 58 and 59: Annex 4: Poster Abstracts Aerosols
Page 60 and 61: Annex 4: Poster Abstracts Reference
Page 62 and 63: Annex 4: Poster Abstracts Krull E.,
Page 64 and 65: Annex 4: Poster Abstracts Potential
Page 66 and 67: Annex 4: Poster Abstracts Cloud-res
Page 68 and 69: Annex 4: Poster Abstracts Groundwat
Page 70 and 71: Annex 4: Poster Abstracts Public pe
Page 72 and 73: Annex 4: Poster Abstracts Reference
Page 74 and 75: Annex 4: Poster Abstracts Understan
Page 76: Annex 4: Poster Abstracts Sarmiento
Page 79 and 80: Annex 5: Breakout Group Reports Bre
Page 85 and 86: Annex 5: Breakout Group Reports Rel
Page 89 and 90: Annex 5: Breakout Group Reports 3.
Page 91 and 92: Annex 5: Breakout Group Reports The
Page 93 and 94: Annex 5: Breakout Group Reports The
Page 95 and 96: Annex 5: Breakout Group Reports Tab
Page 99 and 100: Annex 5: Breakout Group Reports Loc
Page 101 and 102: Annex 5: Breakout Group Reports In
Page 103 and 104: Annex 5: Breakout Group Reports Au
Page 105 and 106:
IPCC Exper
Page 107 and 108:
Annex 6: List of Participants Thoma
show all

IPCC Expert Meeting on Geoengineering

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?