DOCSLIB.ORG

CLIMATE CONTROL International Legal Mechanisms for Managing the Geopolitical Risks of Geoengineering

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
CLIMATE CONTROL International Legal Mechanisms for Managing the Geopolitical Risks of Geoengineering CLIMATE CONTROL International Legal Mechanisms for Managing the Geopolitical Risks of Geoengineering MICHELLE GRISÉ | EMMI YONEKURA | JONATHAN S. BLAKE | DAVID DESMET ANUSREE GARG | BENJAMIN LEE PRESTON Perspective EXPERT INSIGHTS ON A TIMELY POLICY ISSUE C O R P O R A T I O N Limited Print and Electronic Distribution Rights This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of this publication online is prohibited. Permission is given to duplicate this document for personal use only, as long as it is unaltered and complete. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of our research documents for commercial use. For information on reprint and linking permissions, please visit www.rand.org/pubs/permissions.html. RAND’s publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors. R® is a registered trademark. For more information on this publication, visit www.rand.org/t/PEA1133-1. © Copyright 2021 RAND Corporation n February 2009, a provincial weather bureau in As the impact of climate change on human and northeastern China fired 313 sticks of silver iodide natural systems has increased in recent years,3 many into the clouds over Beijing. Intended to alleviate the governments—including those of Canada, France, New longest drought in almost 40 years, the effort led to Zealand, and Japan—have recently declared climate I 1 massive snowfall and the closure of 12 highways. Over the emergencies and begun considering more-extreme risk- past decades, as weather modification technologies, such management strategies. China’s continued investment as cloud seeding, have matured and enlarged in terms of in weather-modification technologies4 and Switzerland’s their scope to intervene with global climate change, the leadership on a United Nations (UN) proposal for prospect of future man-made natural hazards has loomed geoengineering governance suggest that geoengineering is larger. As climate change poses ever greater threats to being considered.5 Although the scientific developments human and natural systems, scientists and policymak- related to geoengineering have garnered attention, these ers have explored novel ways to reduce greenhouse gas technologies also require the development of effective and (GHG) concentrations in the atmosphere and to mitigate comprehensive governance mechanisms to address the new their effects on the climate.2 Geoengineering—which we risks associated with them. define as the intentional, large-scale manipulation of an In this Perspective, we consider the geopolitical risks environmental process on Earth to counteract the effects of geoengineering and the role of international legal of climate change—represents a way to do both. But some mechanisms in managing these risks, bringing to bear forms of geoengineering have been extremely controversial insights from subject-matter experts on climate policy, in climate policy debates, because they involve diversion international relations, and international law provided of resources away from emissions-reduction efforts, where as part of a workshop,a as well as the relevant technical, there is clear scientific (if not political) consensus. This international relations, and international law literature. has limited the amount of research and policymaking on geoengineering. a Workshop participants included 24 academic research experts on solar radiation management, carbon dioxide removal (CDR), climate 1 What Is Geoengineering? Abbreviations The term geoengineering covers a broad range of CBD Convention on Biological Diversity technologies that can be grouped into two categories: CDR and solar radiation management (SRM).6 CDR technologies CCAMLR Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources aim to take carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere, creating CDR carbon dioxide removal essentially “negative emissions,” to lower atmospheric CO carbon dioxide greenhouse gas concentrations and reduce warming. 2 SRM technologies aim to reflect incoming sunlight away ENMOD Environmental Modification Treaty from the Earth with clouds or other reflective substances, GHG greenhouse gas thereby reducing the warming of the atmosphere. GtC gigaton of carbon Both types of geoengineering are perceived by many IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate climate scientists as a potential diversion of resources Change from emissions-reduction efforts.7 There are important LC/LP London Convention and London Protocol differences between the two categories, however, both in NOx nitrogen oxide their likely effects and how they are viewed by researchers SRM solar radiation management and policymakers. Crucially, most low-carbon climate UN United Nations scenarios assume significant use of CDR as a mitigation UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention measure. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change on Climate Change (IPCC) has already stated that it considers CDR to be a W/m2 watt per square meter necessary element in reducing emissions. The anticipated role of CDR in mitigating the effects of climate change has important implications for its regulation. The tables detail the following technical characteristics There are many geoengineering technologies currently of each technology: under investigation and development. Tables 1 and 2 list • Technical readiness: Measures the maturity of a some of the more commonly investigated CDR and SRM specific technology. For example, “high” indicates technologies, respectively, although this list is not meant to a technology that has been proven successful in be exhaustive. its mission operation, and “medium” indicates a component that has been validated in a relevant environment. policy, international relations, and international law. The workshop • Cost magnitude: Because rigorous cost estimates was conducted over two days and included focused discussions about of geoengineering technologies are generally future climate pathways, their associated geopolitical risks, and the role of international legal mechanisms in the resolution of those geopolitical unavailable, our ratings indicate the cost order of consequences. magnitude with assumptions noted for the amount 2 Table 1. Select Carbon Dioxide Removal Technologies Technical Cost Magnitude Geoengineering Technology Readiness (in U.S. dollars) Time Scale Secondary Effects Large-scale reforestation or afforestation High $100 billion (for 1 Decades Increased fertilization and irrigation risk water focuses on conserving forests and jungles, gigaton of carbon pollution, nutrient runoff, and depletion of as well as large-scale planting of non- [GtCa]) fresh water; microclimate alterations; unequal forested areas land-use burden on well-forested areas, likely developing countries Bioenergy with carbon capture and storage Medium Trillions About a decade Emit CO2 via bioenergy processes and CO2 captures CO2 released from bioenergy (for 100 GtC) capture; land-rights conflict from higher applications (e.g., biofuels, biomass burning) demand for agricultural land and fertilization; and stores it in geological formations microseismicity; disposal of captured CO2 is a underground concern8 Direct air capture pulls CO2 out of the air Medium Trillions About a decade Scaling up process requires large amounts of via chemical or electrochemical means (for 100 GtC) energy and water; threat of toxicity of chemicals; disposal of captured CO2 is a concern Ocean iron fertilization adds iron into Low/medium 10 billion 1–5 years Surface cooling and/or sea surface temperature the ocean to increase phytoplankton, (for 100 GtC) increase; ozone depletion; potentially produce which store CO2 from the atmosphere other GHGs, such as nitrogen oxides (NOx); ecosystem disruption with ocean acidification, algal blooms, and ocean oxygen depletion, causing loss of ocean life.9 SOURCE: RAND analysis with cost orders of magnitude based on review publications.10 a The forestation cost magnitude is shown only for 1 GtC because there is less capacity for this technology to scale up because of limitations on how much land can be made into forest. of CO2 removed for CDR and the solar radiation in • Secondary effects: These are the potential climate, W/m 2 reflected for SRM. These estimates are based weather, and land use impacts of each technology, on assessments in the existing literature, including based on existing scientific studies to the extent press releases, but given that many of these possible. technologies have yet to be implemented or tested at CDR technologies represent a range of opportunities scale, significant uncertainty remains. and costs. For example, forestation is readily deployable • Time scale: This estimate, based on existing based on small-scale demonstrations. In contrast, scientific studies to the extent possible, indicates the scientists are still developing and testing in controlled time from implementation to reaching an applicable research settings various approaches to pull CO2 out of climate goal. It refers to technical efficacy without the atmosphere and store it—technology used by both additional time to account for political feasibility. bioenergy (with carbon capture and storage) and direct air capture. Significant investment would still be needed 3 Table 2. Solar Radiation Management Technologies Cost Magnitude (in U.S. Technical dollars) for Watt per Geoengineering Technology Readiness Square Meter (W/m2) Time Scale
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Marine Cloud Brightening
    MARINE CLOUD BRIGHTENING Alan Gadian , John Latham, Mirek Andrejczuk, Keith Bower, Tom Choularton, Hugh Coe, Paul Connolly, Ben Parkes, Phillip Rasch, Stephen Salter, Hailong Wang and Rob Wood . Contents:- • Background to the philosophical approach • Some L.E.M . and climate model results • Technological issues. • Future plans and publications. Science Objectives:- • To explain the science of how stratocumulus clouds can have a significant effect on the earth’s radiation balance • To present some modelling results from Latham et al 2011 Marine Cloud Brightening, WRCP October 2011 1 Stratocumulus clouds cover more than 30% of ocean surface Stratocumulus clouds have a high reflectance, which depends on droplet number and mean droplet size. Twomey Effect .:- Smaller drops produce whiter clouds . Proposal :- To advertently to enhance the droplet concentration N in low-level maritime stratocumulus clouds, so increasing cloud albedo (Twomey, JAS, 1977 ) and longevity ( Albrecht, Science, 1989 ) Technique:- To disseminate sea-water droplets of diameter about 1um at the ocean surface. Some of these ascend via turbulence to cloud-base where they are activated to form cloud droplets, thereby enhancing cloud droplet number concentration, N (Latham, Nature 1990 ; Phil Trans Roy Soc 2008 and 2011, under review ) 2 Above:- Computed spherical albedo for increasing pollution in THIN, MEDIUM and THICK clouds. ( Twomey, JAS, 1977 ) Right:- Frequency distributions of the reflectances at 1,535 nm versus reflectances at 754 nm. From ACE-2. Isolines of geometrical thickness (H) and droplet number concentration (N): higher reflectance in polluted cloud, normalised by a similar geometrical thickness (Brenguier et al. 2000 ). 3 Figure 1. Panel (a): Map of MODIS-derived annual mean cloud droplet concentration N 0 for stratiform marine warm clouds.
    [Show full text]
  • Solar Geoengineering Reduces Atmospheric Carbon Burden David W
    opinion & comment COMMENTARY: Solar geoengineering reduces atmospheric carbon burden David W. Keith, Gernot Wagner and Claire L. Zabel Solar geoengineering is no substitute for cutting emissions, but could nevertheless help reduce the atmospheric carbon burden. In the extreme, if solar geoengineering were used to hold radiative forcing constant under RCP8.5, the carbon burden may be reduced by ~100 GTC, equivalent to 12–26% of twenty-first-century emissions at a cost of under US$0.5 per tCO2. ailure to address the accumulation of between a Representative Concentration carbon cycle feedback under assumptions atmospheric carbon is among the most Pathway (RCP) 8.5 scenario and one in that are similar — though not equal — to frequently noted disadvantages of solar which solar geoengineering is used to hold those that would be used to simulate solar F 1–3 geoengineering , an attempt to reflect a radiative forcing at current levels. This is geoengineering to stabilize radiative forcing small fraction of radiation back into space not a complete analysis, but rather a call for under an RCP8.5 scenario. We then combine to cool the planet. The latest US National further research. It is also a call for assessing the two ranges using equal weights and Academy of Science solar geoengineering solar geoengineering scenarios that go well uncorrelated error propagation to yield report1 states it “does nothing to reduce the beyond oft-modelled extreme scenarios that an overall estimate of the contribution 10 build-up of atmospheric CO2”. offset total anthropogenic radiative forcing . of the terrestrial biosphere and ocean of This is not so.
    [Show full text]
  • Ken Caldeira
    Curriculum Vitae for Ken Caldeira PRESENT POSITION Senior Scientist Professor (by courtesy) Department of Global Ecology Department of Environmental Earth System Sciences Carnegie Institution Stanford University 260 Panama Street 450 Serra Mall Stanford, CA 94305 USA Stanford, California 94305 USA [email protected] [email protected] (650) 704-7212; fax: (650) 462-5968 EDUCATION Ph.D.,1991, New York University, Atmospheric Sciences, Department of Applied Science M.S.,1988, New York University, Atmospheric Sciences, Department of Applied Science B.A.,1978 Rutgers College, Philosophy PRIOR RESEARCH EXPERIENCE Physicist/Environmental Scientist (Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, 1995 to 2005) Research ocean carbon cycle, atmospheric CO2, ocean/sea-ice physics, climate, and energy systems Post-Doctoral Researcher (Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory; 1993 to 1995) Research the ocean carbon cycle, atmospheric CO2 and climate NSF Earth Sciences Postdoctoral Fellow (Earth Systems Science Center & Dept. of Geosciences, The Pennsylvania State University; 1991 to 1993) Role of the carbonate-silicate cycle in long-term atmospheric CO2 content and climate GENERAL RESEARCH INTERESTS Ocean acidification; climate/carbon-cycle interactions; numerical simulation of climate and biogeochemistry; marine biogeochemical cycles; global carbon cycle; long-term evolution of climate and geochemical cycles; intentional intervention in the climate system; energy technology and policy ADVISORY PANELS / DISSERTATION COMMITTEES National Academy of Sciences,
    [Show full text]
  • Ken Caldeira
    Curriculum Vitae for Ken Caldeira PRESENT POSITION Senior Scientist Professor (by courtesy) Department of Global Ecology Department of Earth System Science Carnegie Institution Stanford University 260 Panama Street 450 Serra Mall Stanford, CA 94305 USA Stanford, California 94305 USA [email protected] [email protected] (650) 704-7212; fax: (650) 462-5968 EDUCATION Ph.D.,1991, New York University, Atmospheric Sciences, Department of Applied Science M.S.,1988, New York University, Atmospheric Sciences, Department of Applied Science B.A.,1978, Rutgers College, Philosophy PRIOR RESEARCH EXPERIENCE Physicist/Environmental Scientist (Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, 1995 to 2005) Research ocean carbon cycle, atmospheric CO2, ocean/sea-ice physics, climate, and energy systems Post-Doctoral Researcher (Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory; 1993 to 1995) Research the ocean carbon cycle, atmospheric CO2 and climate NSF Earth Sciences Postdoctoral Fellow (Earth Systems Science Center & Dept. of Geosciences, The Pennsylvania State University; 1991 to 1993) Role of the carbonate-silicate cycle in long-term atmospheric CO2 content and climate GENERAL RESEARCH INTERESTS Ocean acidification; climate/carbon-cycle interactions; numerical simulation of climate and biogeochemistry; marine biogeochemical cycles; global carbon cycle; long-term evolution of climate and geochemical cycles; intentional intervention in the climate system; energy technology and policy ADVISORY PANELS / DISSERTATION COMMITTEES / ETC National Academy of Sciences, Geoengineering Climate Panel Member (2014) IPCC AR5 Report Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis, Contributing Author (2013) Fellow of the American Geophysical Union (2010) National Academy of Sciences, America's Climate Choices Panel Member (2009) UK Royal Society Geoengineering Report Panel Member (2009) Global Carbon Project, Scientific Steering Committee Member (2009-2013) European Project on Ocean Acidification (EPOCA), Advisory Board Member (2008-2012) Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission, Rep.
    [Show full text]
  • Carbon Budgetbudget 20092009 GCP-Carbon Budget2009 Contributors
    Budget09 released on 21 November 2010 ppt version 20 January 2011 CarbonCarbon BudgetBudget 20092009 GCP-Carbon Budget2009 Contributors Karen Assmann Peter E. Levy University of Bergen, Norway Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, Bush Estate, Penicuik, UK Thomas A. Boden Sam Levis Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak National Centre for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, Co, USA Ridge, Tennessee USA Mark R. Lomas Gordon Bonan Department of Animal and Plant Sciences, University of Sheffield, U National Centre for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, CO, USA Joseph Majkut Laurent Bopp AOS Program, Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey, USA Laboratoire des Sciences du Climat et de l’Environnement, UMR, CEA-CNRS- Nicolas Metzl UVSQ, France LOCEAN-IPSL, CNRS, Institut Pierre Simon Laplace, Université Pierre et Marie Erik Buitenhuis Curie, Paris, France School of Environment Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK Corinne Le Quéré Ken Caldeira School of Environment Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK Depart. of Global Ecology, Carnegie Institution of Washington, Stanford, USA British Antarctic Survey, Cambridge, UK Josep G. Canadell Andrew Lenton Global Carbon Project, CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research, Canberra, CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research, Tasmania, Australia Australia Ivan Lima Philippe Ciais Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Woods Hole, Massachusetts, USA Laboratoire des Sciences du Climat et de l’Environnement, UMR CEA-CNRS- Gregg Marland UVSQ, France Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Thomas J. Conway Ridge, Tennessee, USA NOAA Earth System Research Laboratory, Boulder, Colorado, USA Glen P. Peters Steve Davis Center for International Climate and Environmental Research, Oslo, Norway Depart. of Global Ecology, Carnegie Institution of Washington, Stanford, USA Michael R.
    [Show full text]
  • B-100063 Cloud-Seeding Activities Carried out in the United States
    WASHINGXJN. O.C. 205.48 13-100063 Schweikcr: LM096545 This is in response to your request of September 22, .2-o 1971, for certain background informatio-n on cloud-seeding activities carried out -...-in _-..T---*the .Unitc.b_S~.~-~,.under programs supported-by the Federal agencies. Pursuant to the specific xz2- questions contained in your request, we directed our:review toward developing information-----a-=v-~ .,- , L-..-”on- .-cloud-seeding ,__ ._ programs sup- ported by Federal agencies, on the cost- ‘and purposes of such progrys, on the impact of cloud seeding on precipitation and severe storms, and on the types of chemicals used for seeding and their effect on the--environment. We also ob- tained dafa cdncerning the extent of cloud seeding conducted over Pennsylvania. Our review was conducted at various Federal departments ’ and agencies headquartered in Washington, D.C., and at cer- tain of their field offices in Colorado and Montana. We in- terviewed cognizant agency officials and reviewed appropriate records and files of the agencies. In addition, we reviewed pertinent reports and documentation of the Federal Council for Science and Technology, the National Academy of Sciences, and the National Water Commission. BACKGROUND AND COST DATA Several Federal agencies support weather modification programs which involve cloud-seeding activities. Major re- search programs include precipitation modification, fog and cloud modification, hail suppression, and lightning and hur- ricane modification. Statistics compiled by the Interdepartmental Committee for Atmospheric Sciences showed that costs for federally spon- sored weather modification rograms during fiscal years 1959 through 1970 totaled about %‘74 million; estimated costs for fiscal years 1971 and 1972 totaled about $35 million.
    [Show full text]
  • Climate Intervention (July 2021)
    State of the Science FACT SHEET Climate Intervention Climate Intervention (CI), also called climate engineering or geoengineering, refers to deliberate, large‐scale actions intended to counteract aspects of climate change. This Fact Sheet explains some of the fundamental principles and issues associated with CI (1). Why Might Climate Intervention Be Considered? The main driver of climate change over the past century has been anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2), a greenhouse gas (GHG). Increasing emission rates have caused present‐day atmospheric CO2 to reach the highest value in over a million years based on studies of emissions of atmospheric CO2 and its accumulation in the atmosphere, ocean, and terrestrial biosphere. The increased emissions of other GHGs, such as methane, nitrous oxide and ozone, also contribute to anthropogenic climate change. The increased accumulation of GHGs has led to warming over much of the globe, to acidification of ocean surface waters (from CO2) (2), and to many other well‐documented climate impacts (3). As climate change continues, if the world does not make the desired greenhouse gas emissions reductions (4) such as those initiated by the Paris agreement (5), governments and other entities might turn to CI to counteract increasing climate change impacts. CI could potentially be implemented by consensus or unilaterally; either way, a thorough understanding of CI methods, and their associated uncertainties and unintended side effects is essential. Principal CI methods are divided into two How might CDR be accomplished? general categories (6) (see figure): Oceanic sequestration: Adding nutrients, such as iron, to “ferti‐ lize” the ocean enhances biological growth (e.g., phytoplank‐ Carbon dioxide removal (CDR): CDR is a process to remove ton), which removes CO2 from surface waters and leads to lower CO2 from the atmosphere for long‐term storage on land or atmospheric levels.
    [Show full text]
  • B-133202 Need for a National Weather Modification Reseach Program
    B-i33202 Multiagency UN1 STA rUG.23~976 I .a COMPTROLLER GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES WASHINGTON. D.C. 20546 B-133202 To the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate This is our rep,ort entitled “Need for a National Weather Modification Research Program. Weather modification research activities are ad- ministered by the Departments of Commerce and the Interior, the National Science Foundation, and other agencies. Our review was made pursuant to the Budget and Accounting Act, 1921 (31 u. s. c. 53), and the Accounting and Auditing Act of 1950 (31 U. S. C. 67). We are sending copies of this report to the Director, Office of Management and Budget; the Secretary of Agriculture; the Secretary of Commerce; the Secretary of Defense; the Secretary of the Interior; the Secretary of Transportation; the Director, National Science Founda- tion; and the Administrator, National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Comptroller General of the United States APPENDIX Page VII Letter dated‘september 12, 1973, from the Associate Director, Office of Management and Budget 54 VIII Letter dated September 27, 1973, from the As- sistant Secretary for Administration, Department of Transportation 60 Ii Principal officials of the departments and agen- cies responsible for administering activities discussed in this report 61 ABBREVIATIONS GAO General Accounting Office ICAS Interdepartmental Committee for Atmospheric Sciences NACOA National Advisory Committee on Oceans and Atmosphere NAS National Academy of Sciences NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NSF National Science Foundation OMB Office of Management and Budget Contents Page DIGEST i CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION .1 Scope 2.
    [Show full text]
  • An Economic Anatomy of Optimal Climate Policy Faculty Research Working Paper Series
    An Economic Anatomy of Optimal Climate Policy Faculty Research Working Paper Series Juan B. Moreno-Cruz Georgia Institute of Technology Gernot Wagner Harvard John A. Paulson School of Engineering and Applied Sciences David W. Keith Harvard Kennedy School July 2017 Updated May 2018 RWP17-028 Visit the HKS Faculty Research Working Paper Series at: https://research.hks.harvard.edu/publications/workingpapers/Index.aspx The views expressed in the HKS Faculty Research Working Paper Series are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect those of the John F. Kennedy School of Government or of Harvard University. Faculty Research Working Papers have not undergone formal review and approval. Such papers are included in this series to elicit feedback and to encourage debate on important public policy challenges. Copyright belongs to the author(s). Papers may be downloaded for personal use only. www.hks.harvard.edu An Economic Anatomy of Optimal Climate Policy By Juan B. Moreno-Cruz, Gernot Wagner and David W. Keith∗ Draft: 8 May 2018 This paper introduces geoengineering into an optimal control model of climate change economics. Together with mitigation and adaptation, carbon and solar geoengineering span the universe of possible climate policies. Their wildly different characteristics have important implications for climate policy. We show in the context of our model that: (i) the optimal carbon tax equals the marginal cost of carbon geoengineering; (ii) the introduction of either form of geoengineering leads to higher emissions yet lower temperatures; (iii) in a world with above-optimal cumulative emissions, only a complete set of instruments can minimize climate damages.
    [Show full text]
  • Steering the Climate System: Using Inertia to Lower the Cost of Policy: Comment
    Steering the Climate System: Using Inertia to Lower the Cost of Policy: Comment The MIT Faculty has made this article openly available. Please share how this access benefits you. Your story matters. Citation Mattauch, Linus, et al. "Steering the Climate System: Using Inertia to Lower the Cost of Policy: Comment." American Economic Review, 110, 4 (April 2020): 1231-37. As Published http://dx.doi.org/10.1257/aer.20190089 Publisher American Economic Association Version Final published version Citable link https://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/125321 Terms of Use Article is made available in accordance with the publisher's policy and may be subject to US copyright law. Please refer to the publisher's site for terms of use. American Economic Review 2020, 110(4): 1231–1237 https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.20190089 Steering the Climate System: Using Inertia to Lower the Cost of Policy: Comment† By Linus Mattauch, H. Damon Matthews, Richard Millar, Armon Rezai, Susan Solomon, and Frank Venmans* Lemoine and Rudik 2017 argues that it is efficient to delay reduc- ing carbon emissions(, due )to supposed inertia in the climate system’s response to emissions. This conclusion rests upon misunderstand- ing the relevant earth system modeling: there is no substantial lag between CO2 emissions and warming. Applying a representation of the earth system that captures the range of responses seen in complex earth system models invalidates the original article’s implications for climate policy. The least-cost policy path that limits warming to 2°C implies that the carbon price starts high and increases at the interest rate.
    [Show full text]
  • Marine Cloud Brightening
    MARINE CLOUD BRIGHTENING Authors:- John Latham1,4 , Keith Bower4 , Tom Choularton4 , Hugh Coe4, Paul Connelly4 , Gary Cooper7 ,Tim Craft4, Jack Foster7, Alan Gadian5, Lee Galbraith7 Hector Iacovides4 , David Johnston7 , Brian Launder4, Brian Leslie7 , John Meyer7, Armand Neukermans7, Bob Ormond7, Ben Parkes5 , Phillip Rasch3, John Rush7, Stephen Salter6, Tom Stevenson6, Hailong Wang3, Qin Wang7 & Rob Wood2 . Affiliations:- 1 National Centre for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, CO. 2 U Washington, Seattle, 3 PNNL, Richland, WA., 4 U Manchester, 5 U of Leeds, 6 U of Edinburgh, 7 Silver Lining, CA. Abstract The idea behind the marine cloud brightening (MCB) geoengineering technique is that seeding marine stratocumulus clouds with copious quantities of roughly monodisperse sub-micrometre seawater particles could significantly enhance the cloud droplet number concentration thus increasing the cloud albedo and longevity – thereby producing a cooling, which computations suggest could be adequate to balance the warming associated with a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide. We review herein recent research on a number of critical issues associated with MCB: (1) general circulation model (GCM) studies, which are our primary tools to evaluate globally the effectiveness of marine cloud brightening and to assess its climate impacts on rainfall amounts and distribution, as well as on polar sea-ice cover and thickness: (2) high resolution modeling of the effects of seeding on marine stratocumulus, which are required to understand the complex array
    [Show full text]
  • Optimal Climate Strategy with Mitigation, Carbon Removal, and Solar Geoengineering
    Optimal Climate Strategy with Mitigation, Carbon Removal, and Solar Geoengineering Mariia Belaia Harvard John A. Paulson School of Engineering and Applied Sciences The John F. Kennedy School of Government Harvard University, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA Abstract Until recently, analysis of optimal global climate policy has focused on mitigation. Exploration of policies to meet the 1.5°C target have brought carbon dioxide removal (CDR), a second instrument, into the climate policy mainstream. Far less agreement exists regarding the role of solar geoengineering (SG), a third instrument to limit global climate risk. Integrated assessment modelling (IAM) studies offer little guidance on trade-offs between these three instruments because they have dealt with CDR and SG in isolation. Here, I extend the Dynamic Integrated model of Climate and Economy (DICE) to include both CDR and SG to explore the temporal ordering of the three instruments. Contrary to implicit assumptions that SG would be employed only after mitigation and CDR are exhausted, I find that SG is introduced parallel to mitigation temporary reducing climate risks during the era of peak CO2 concentrations. CDR reduces concentrations after mitigation is exhausted, enabling SG phasing out. Keywords: Integrated Assessment Modelling, climate policy, DICE, solar geoengineering, carbon dioxide removal 1 Introduction We need to understand our full potential to limit global climate risk. A wide range of climate policy instruments exists that, combined, equip us with the tools necessary to safeguard the global public good that is a stable climate. These instruments span across different economic sectors and can be market or non-market, private or public, international or regional.
    [Show full text]