Royal Society - David Keith

More documents

Recommendations

Info

8.2 Project terms of reference To consider, and so far as possible evaluate, proposed schemes for moderating climate change by means of geoengineering techniques. Specifically: 1) To consider what is known, and what is not known, about the expected effects, advantages and disadvantages of such schemes; 2) To assess their feasibility, efficacy, likely environmental impacts, and any possible unintended consequences; 3) To identify further research requirements, and any specific policy and legal implications. Scope The scope of the study includes all methods intended to moderate climate change by deliberate large-scale intervention in the working of the Earth’s natural climate system, but excludes (a) methods for reducing emissions of greenhouse gases such as carbon capture & storage (CCS) at the point of emission, and (b) conventional afforestation and avoided deforestation schemes. The methods under consideration will be grouped within the following broad technological categories: 1) Greenhouse gas reduction schemes: a) Removal of CO 2 (and other greenhouse gases (GHGs)) from the atmosphere or oceans i) Methods utilising terrestrial biological systems; ii) Methods utilising oceanic biological systems; iii) Methods using non-biological or engineered biological systems (chemical/biochemical engineering etc). b) Novel ways to prevent CO 2 (and other GHGs) from entering the atmosphere and oceans i) Methods involving engineered biological systems; ii) Methods using non-biological systems (chemical engineering approaches). 2) Albedo modification (shortwave reflection/deflection) schemes: Notes a) Surface-based schemes (land or ocean albedo modification); b) Troposphere-based schemes (cloud modification schemes, etc); c) Upper atmosphere schemes (tropopause and above, ie stratosphere, mesosphere); d) Space-based schemes. i) CCS at the point of emission, and the methods listed under 1(b) were considered by the IPCC (2005). ii) This study will concentrate on approaches that could potentially diminish radiative forcing by 1 W/m 2 or more, but may discuss things that could possibly provide a few tenths of W/m 2 . Schemes that could deliver no more than 0.1 W/m 2 will not be considered unless there are some compelling reasons to do so. For GHG absorption or emissions reduction, the corresponding upper and lower guidelines may be taken as 1 GtC/yr and 0.1 GtC/yr. 70 I September 2009 I Geoengineering the Climate The Royal Society
8.3 Ethics panel The Royal Society convened a small workshop on April 24 2009 that was aimed at gathering information about the ethical dimensions of the geoengineering issue. Three experts in environmental or climate change ethics and social science were invited to attend: Professor Martin Bunzl Professor John O’ Neill Professor Michael Northcott Eagleton Institute of Politics, Rutgers University, USA. School of Social Sciences, University of Manchester, UK. School of Divinity, University of Edinburgh, UK. The other participants of the workshop were as follows: Rachel Garthwaite Professor Gordon MacKerron Andy Parker Professor Steve Rayner Professor Catherine Redgwell Professor John Shepherd FRS (chair) Senior Policy Adviser, Environment, Energy & Climate Change. Science and Technology Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex. Science Policy Adviser. Saïd Business School, University of Oxford. Faculty of Laws, University College London. National Oceanography Centre, University of Southampton. The following questions formed the basis of the discussions throughout the day. • What are your general thoughts on deliberate climate modification? • Would deliberate geoengineering be unethical? (If so, why, and if not, why not?) • Would we need a higher standard of proof/confidence about the consequences of deliberate interventions (c.f. just abating accidental intervention)? • Are there ethical aspects of the ‘whose hand on the thermostat?’ problem? If so, what? Can they conceivably be overcome? If so, how? • Are some schemes more or less ethically acceptable than others? If so, which, and why? • What are the main ethical considerations that would have to be taken into account when designing a regulatory framework for geoengineering research or deployment? • How should future enquiry into the ethics of geoengineering proceed, and how can it contribute to policymaking? What are the immediate priorities for geoengineering ethics? The Royal Society Geoengineering the Climate I September 2009 I 71
Page 1 and 2:
Geoengineering the climate Science,
Page 3 and 4:
Geoengineering the climate: science
Page 5 and 6:
Geoengineering the climate: science
Page 7 and 8:
Foreword Lord Rees of Ludlow OM Pre
Page 9 and 10:
Membership of working group The mem
Page 11 and 12:
Summary Background Climate change i
Page 13 and 14:
climate and environmental effects a
Page 15 and 16:
1 Introduction 1.1 Background Geoen
Page 17 and 18:
Of this, more than 30% is reflected
Page 19 and 20:
Box 1.2 Assessment of geoengineerin
Page 21 and 22:
are provided for each method in Cha
Page 23 and 24:
2 Carbon dioxide removal techniques
Page 25 and 26:
Table 2.2. Land-use and afforestati
Page 27 and 28:
Table 2.4. Biochar summary evaluati
Page 29 and 30:
Table 2.5. Summary evaluation table
Page 31 and 32:
the carbon, converting it back into
Page 33 and 34: It might be argued that one easy wa
Page 35 and 36: e distributed effectively to avoid
Page 37 and 38: 3 Solar radiation management techni
Page 39 and 40: ightening, and the required change
Page 41 and 42: 3.3.2 Cloud-albedo enhancement It h
Page 43 and 44: eplacement vessels per year along w
Page 45 and 46: from Caldeira & Wood (2008) who hav
Page 47 and 48: These model experiments (also discu
Page 49 and 50: Table 3.6. Comparison of SRM techni
Page 51 and 52: 4 Governance 4.1 Introduction Clima
Page 53 and 54: ocean fertilisation, there may be a
Page 55 and 56: application, modification and exten
Page 57 and 58: • activities (and/or substances)
Page 59 and 60: Submission: Evans; Submission: IOP)
Page 61 and 62: 5 Discussion 5.1 Geoengineering met
Page 63 and 64: Figure 5.1. Preliminary overall eva
Page 65 and 66: egulated are needed. Public attitud
Page 67 and 68: Box 5.1 Research priorities 1. Cros
Page 69 and 70: The two major classes of geoenginee
Page 71 and 72: 6 Conclusions and recommendations D
Page 73 and 74: However SRM methods may provide a p
Page 75 and 76: 6.3 The UNFCCC should establish a w
Page 77 and 78: 7 References Aines R & Fiedmann J (
Page 79 and 80: Ding Y, Griggs DJ, Nouger M, van de
Page 81 and 82: Observations Compared to Projection
Page 83: 8 Annexes 8.1 Evaluation criteria P
Page 87 and 88: Dr Dan Lunt and Professor Paul Vald
Page 89 and 90: 9 Glossary AOGCMs Acid rain Aerosol
Page 91 and 92: DECC Defra Deontological Detritus D
Page 93 and 94: Peatlands Petagram Ppm Typically a
Page 95 and 96: 10 Acknowledgements We would like t
Page 97 and 98: Royal Society policy reports, state
show all

Royal Society - David Keith

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

Delete template?

Save as template?