Good to hear that "we can govern climate engineering". Next up - finding out if
we have any cost-effective, and socially and environmentally acceptable methods
to govern.
Greg
From: Andrew Lockley <[email protected]>
To: geoengineering <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, November 22, 2017 3:24 PM
Subject: [geo] We can and must govern climate engineering
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-017-07296-4
Nature
Close menuClose menuClose menuClose menuWORLD VIEW 21 NOVEMBER 2017
We can and must govern climate engineering
Use the Montreal Protocol to manage controversial work intended to limit global
warming, urges Stephen O. Andersen.
Stephen O. Andersen
PDF versionLast month, the World Meteorological Organization announced a
tragic milestone. Average atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations surpassed
400 parts per million in 2016. That level last occurred 3 million years ago,
when temperatures were 2–3 °C warmer and sea levels 10–20 metres higher.Unless
strategies of reduced emissions, cleaner energy and the increased use of carbon
capture, utilization and sequestration are taken up immediately, the last-ditch
strategy will be climate engineering: ambitious attempts to brighten clouds to
reflect more heat back into space or attempts to mimic the cooling caused by
large volcanic eruptions. Many fear that, when global leaders finally realize
the peril of climate change, they will jump at engineering projects without any
evidence base, risking side effects of unknown magnitude.At present, research
that would help predict the effects of mitigation is unfunded or prohibited. To
move forward, we need a way of governing climate-engineering projects that
includes oversight, regulation and enforcement. My view is that the Montreal
Protocol, which my global colleagues and I helped craft to preserve Earth’s
protective ozone layer, could be expanded to quell concerns and guide the
relevant research. Many scientists, policymakers and activists justifiably
worry that climate-engineering attempts could make matters worse. The idea of
‘climate rescue’ has often been spurned for fear that it might weaken the
ambition to reduce emissions. The experiments currently under discussion are
small-scale, or are funded by philanthropists without public accountability or
other checks and balances. One high-profile field trial — which proposed
injecting water into the atmosphere through a 1-kilometre-long hose suspended
by a balloon — was cancelled in 2012, in part for a lack of rules on how to
proceed. Academic institutions are not prepared to craft policies or evaluate
strategies, and none has the necessary status to convince world leaders to
follow its advice.By contrast, the infrastructure of the Montreal Protocol has
coordinated government actions and brought success: 99% of manufactured
ozone-depleting substances have now been phased out; chlorine and bromine are
decreasing in the stratosphere; scientists are reporting the first evidence of
healing in the ozone layer; and most scientific investigations estimate
recovery by mid-century.In the 1970s, chemists and atmospheric scientists
warned that industrial chemicals such as chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) were likely
to be endangering the ozone layer and acting as powerful greenhouse gases. The
ozone hole, unanticipated by scientists at the time, was reported in 1985, but
even when the protocol was signed in 1987, CFCs had not been definitively
linked to the depletion of ozone in the atmosphere. People feared that crucial
areas such as medicine, fire protection, aerospace and electronics would suffer
if these chemicals were banned. There was also concern that technologies
replacing CFCs would be less energy efficient and would use greenhouse gases,
and thus contribute to climate change. The Montreal Protocol applied the
‘precautionary principle’ to justify action before full scientific and
technical consensus had been reached — and it was not alone. The US Clean Air
Act of 1977 similarly took the stance that “no conclusive proof … but a
reasonable expectation” of harmful effects is sufficient to justify action.
Scientists do not yet know what the adverse consequences of climate engineering
could be, but they can agree that those of runaway climate change would be
catastrophic and possibly irreversible. In my 40 years engaged in ozone
protection, there were times when commercial concerns or fears of adverse
environmental impacts almost derailed the work. I learned to watch carefully
for signs of new objections or obstruction, and to proactively resolve
uncertainties to the satisfaction of the parties to the protocol (the 197
signatory countries and nations). Most often, that resolution was guided by a
trio of assessment panels — standing committees of technical experts who weigh
scientific evidence, forecast impacts, make recommendations and guide
negotiations.Over the past three decades, the panels have built up enough trust
for the ratifying countries to agree unanimously several times to add new
controlled substances or to accelerate the phasing out of a substance.The tasks
essential for governing climate-engineering experiments are well within the
panels’ expertise. The Scientific Assessment Panel could deepen understanding
of the atmospheric system, especially models of stratospheric modification;
could help to specify and validate climate-engineering methodologies such as
the use of non-sulfate aerosols; and could develop strategies to monitor for
unreported climate-engineering activity. In addition, it could report on
climate-mitigation experiments and analyse the atmospheric response. This could
provide a basis for evaluating specific proposals such as seeding clouds or
injecting sulfur dioxide and non-sulfate aerosols. Members of the assessment
panels could decide to expand their remit to include climate engineering or,
better, could be guided to do so by the member nations. In my view it would be
irresponsible not to investigate engineering projects that might be the only
solution fast enough to avert climate catastrophe. doi:
10.1038/d41586-017-07296-4 --
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
