Climate engineering: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 15:31, 15 November 2022

Climate engineering, (geoengineering) is used in the literature as a term for both CDR (carbon dioxide removal) or SRM (Solar radiation management or solar geoengineering) when applied at a planetary scale.^[1]^: 6–11 However, they have very different geophysical characteristic which is why the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) no longer uses this term.^[1]^: 6–11^[2] Solar geoengineering involves reflecting some sunlight (solar radiation) back to space.^[3] An alternative approach to geoengineering is to increase the Earth's thermal emittance through passive radiative cooling.^[4]^[5]^[6] Carbon dioxide removal approaches are part of climate change mitigation. Carbon dioxide removal (CDR) is defined as "Anthropogenic activities removing carbon dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere and durably storing it in geological, terrestrial, or ocean reservoirs, or in products. It includes existing and potential anthropogenic enhancement of biological or geochemical CO2 sinks and direct air carbon dioxide capture and storage (DACCS), but excludes natural CO2 uptake not directly caused by human activities."^[2]

Climate engineering is highly controversial,^[7] limiting the amount of research into its potential. Large uncertainties afflict the understanding of its effectiveness, side effects and unforeseen consequences. The risks of such interventions must be seen in the context of the trajectory of climate change without them.^[8]^[9] Interventions at large scale run a greater risk of unintended disruptions of natural systems, resulting in a dilemma that they such disruptions might be more damaging than the climate damage that they offset.^[8] Opponents offer several objections:^[10] Climate engineering could reduce pressure for emissions reductions, which could exacerbate overall climate risks. Also, most efforts have only temporary effects, requiring ever-increasing interventions which imply rapid rebound if they are not sustained. Others assert that the threat of climate engineering could spur emissions cuts.^[10]^[11]^[12]

Carbon dioxide removal (CDR), the practice of deliberately reducing the amount of CO₂ in the atmosphere, is often classified as a form of climate engineering,^[13] although it directly reduces humanity's disturbance of climate instead of merely offsetting its impacts. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) no longer refers to CDR as a subgroup of climate engineering.^[14]

Definition

As of 2018 the terms "climate engineering" and "geoengineering" are not used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).^[15] Climate engineering (or geoengineering) is used in the literature as a term for both CDR (carbon dioxide removal) or SRM (Solar radiation management or solar geoengineering) when applied at a planetary scale.^[1]^: 6–11 However, they have very different geophysical characteristic which is why the IPCC no longer uses this term.^[1]^: 6–11^[2]

Solar geoengineering

Solar radiation modification (SRM), also known as solar radiation management, or solar geoengineering, refers to a range of approaches to limit global warming by increasing the amount of sunlight (solar radiation) that the atmosphere reflects back to space or by reducing the trapping of outgoing thermal radiation. Among the multiple potential approaches, stratospheric aerosol injection is the most-studied, followed by marine cloud brightening. SRM could be a temporary measure to limit climate-change impacts while greenhouse gas emissions are reduced and carbon dioxide is removed,^[16] but would not be a substitute for reducing emissions. SRM is a form of climate engineering.

Multiple authoritative international scientific assessments, based on evidence from climate models and natural analogues, have generally shown that some forms of SRM could reduce global warming and many adverse effects of climate change.^[17]^[18]^[19] Specifically, controlled stratospheric aerosol injection appears able to greatly moderate most environmental impacts—especially warming—and consequently most ecological, economic, and other impacts of climate change across most regions. However, because warming from greenhouse gases and cooling from SRM would operate differently across latitudes and seasons, a world where global warming would be offset by SRM would have a different climate from one where this warming did not occur in the first place. Furthermore, confidence in the current projections of how SRM would affect regional climate and ecosystems is low.^[16]

SRM would pose environmental risks. In addition to its imperfect reduction of climate-change impacts, stratospheric aerosol injection could, for example, slow the recovery of stratospheric ozone. If a significant SRM intervention were to suddenly stop and not be resumed, the cooling would end relatively rapidly, posing serious environmental risks. Some environmental risks remain unknown.

Radiative cooling

Passive daytime radiative cooling (PDRC) is another way to reduce the temperature effects of carbon emission.^[4]^[5] It involves the use of sky-facing thermally-emissive surfaces (e.g., ultra-white paint) to radiate heat back into space.^[6]^[20] A variation is to use materials that convert visible light into infrared which can pass back through Earth's infrared window.^[21] It is claimed to be "less intrusive" and more predictable than other SG methods. It does not reduce carbon emissions, and so inherits the other SG criticisms.^[4]

Jeremy Munday writes that although "unexpected effects will likely occur" with global PDRC implementation, that "these structures can be removed immediately if needed, unlike methods that involve dispersing particulate matter into the atmosphere, which can last for decades."^[22] Wang et al. state that stratospheric aerosol injection "might cause potentially dangerous threats to the Earth’s basic climate operations" that may not be reversible, preferring PDRC.^[21] Zevenhoven et al. state that "instead of stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI), cloud brightening or a large number of mirrors in the sky (“sunshade geoengineering”) to block out or reflect incoming (short-wave, SW) solar irradiation, long-wavelength (LW) thermal radiation can be selectively emitted and transferred through the atmosphere into space".^[4]

Enhancing the thermal emissivity of Earth through PDRC has been proposed as an alternative or "third approach" to geoengineering^[23]^[24] that is "less intrusive" and more predictable or reversible than stratospheric aerosol injection.^[25] Like other forms of geoengineering, PDRC is not proposed as a standalone solution to climate change, but to be coupled with a global reduction in CO2 emissions and transition off of fossil fuel energy.^[26]

Issues

According to climate economist Gernot Wagner the term "geoengineering" is "largely an artefact and a result of the terms frequent use in popular discourse" and "so vague and all-encompassing as to have lost much meaning".^[7]^: 14

Moral hazard

CE may reduce the urgency of reducing carbon emissions,^[27] a form of moral hazard. This concern causes many environmental groups and campaigners to oppose any research for fear of reducing the urgency of cutting greenhouse gas emissions.^[28] However, several public opinion surveys and focus groups reported either desire to increase emission cuts in the presence of climate engineering, or of no effect.^[29]^[30]^[31]^[32]^[33]^[34]^[35] Other modelling work suggests that the prospect of climate engineering may in fact increase the likelihood of emissions reduction.^[36]^[37]^[38]^[39]

Politics

Some environmental organizations (such as Friends of the Earth^[27] and Greenpeace^[40]) have been reluctant to endorse or oppose solar geoengineering, but are often more supportive of nature-based carbon dioxide removal projects, such as afforestation and peatland restoration. Some commentators appear fundamentally opposed. The ETC Group called for a moratorium on climate engineering techniques.^[41]

Appel claims that independent of the economic, scientific, and technical aspects, the difficulty of achieving concerted climate action requires other approaches.^[42] Adam claims that such difficulties,^[43] represented by the failure of the Kyoto Protocol, leave little choice.^[27] However, Steffen notes that CE is supported by think tanks with a history of opposition to emissions reductions showing that CE proposals are merely a means of stalling such reductions.^[44]

Ethics and responsibility

Climate engineering implies a large-scale, intentional effort to modify the climate. It differs from burning fossil fuels, which changes the climate inadvertently in pursuit of other benefits.^[45]^{[better source needed]} It questions whether humans have the right to deliberately change the climate, and under what conditions. For example, using climate engineering to stablize temperatures is not the same as doing so to optimize the climate for some other purpose. Some religious traditions express views on the relationship between humans and their surroundings that encourage (to conduct responsible stewardship) or discourage (to avoid hubris) explicit actions to affect climate.^[46]^[47] Because climate affects all parts of Earth, the views of all nations should reasonably be considered in making decisions about climate.^[48]^{[better source needed]}

CE can play a role in global inequality (environmental justice). Emissions are concentrated in a small number of countries.^[49] The largest emitters benefit directly from their emissions, while the climate impacts affect all countries. Wealthier nations have far greater per capita and cumulative emissions than their poorer counterparts. Poorer nations lack the resources to protect their people from climate change's negative impacts or to manage their own carbon footprints.^[50]

Governance

Governance issues relating to carbon dioxide removal are distinct from those surrounding CE. The key governance problem for carbon dioxide removal (as with emissions reductions) is making sure actors do enough of it (minimizing "free riders"), whereas the key governance issue for CE is making sure actors do not do it too much (managing "free drivers").^[51]

No universally agreed framework for the regulation of CE activity or research has been established. Scholars at the Oxford Martin School at Oxford University proposed a set of principles to guide climate engineering research and use. The short version is:^[52]

Regulate as a public good.
Public participation in decision-making
Disclose research and open publication of results
Independent assessment of impacts
Governance before deployment

These principles were endorsed by the House of Commons of the United Kingdom Science and Technology Select Committee on "The Regulation of Geoengineering".^[53]^[54]

The Asilomar International Conference on Climate Intervention Technologies was convened to identify and develop risk reduction guidelines for climate intervention experimentation.^[55]

The Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity made three decisions on what they termed "climate-related geo-engineering." A decision in 2010 called on countries to refrain from "climate-related geo-engineering activities that may affect biodiversity" until they are governed, are scientifically justified, and associated risks have been considered.^[56] Some critics describe this as a "de facto moratorium,"^[57] but the Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity calls it a “non-binding normative framework.”^[58] Legal scholars Scott and Reynolds separately reject this characterization.^[59]^[60] The 2016 decision called for "more transdisciplinary research and sharing of knowledge among appropriate institutions is needed in order to better understand the impacts."^[61]

Public perception

A large 2018 study used an online survey to investigate public perceptions of six climate engineering methods in the United States, United Kingdom, Australia, and New Zealand.^[62] Compared to a similar 2012 survey in Australia and New Zealand^[63] public awareness of climate engineering was low; less than a fifth of respondents reported prior knowledge. Perceptions of the six CE methods were largely negative and frequently associated with attributes like 'risky', 'artificial' and 'unknown effects'. Carbon dioxide removal methods were preferred over solar geoengineering. Public perceptions were remarkably stable with only minor differences between the different countries in the surveys.^[62]^[63]

In a 2017 focus group study conducted by the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences (CIRES) in the United States, Japan, New Zealand, and Sweden, participants were asked about carbon sequestration options, reflection proposals such as with space mirrors, or brightening of clouds. Their majority responses could be summed up as follows:

What happens if the technologies backfire?
Are these solutions treating the symptoms of climate change rather than the cause?
Shouldn't we change our lifestyle and consumption patterns to fight climate change, making climate engineering the last resort?
Isn't there a greater need to address political solutions to reduce our emissions?

Moderators floated the idea of a future "climate emergency" such as rapid environmental change. The participants felt that mitigation and adaptation were strongly preferred options, while CE was seen as a last resort.^[64]

Evaluations

Most of what is known about the suggested techniques are based on laboratory experiments, observations of natural phenomena, and computer modeling techniques. Some proposed climate engineering methods employ methods that have analogs in natural phenomena such as stratospheric sulfur aerosols and cloud condensation nuclei. As such, studies about the efficacy of these methods can draw on information already available from other research, such as that following the 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo. However, comparative evaluation of the relative merits of each technology is complicated, especially given modeling uncertainties and the early stage of engineering development of many proposed climate engineering methods.^[65]

Several organizations have investigated climate engineering with a view to evaluating its potential, including the US Congress,^[66] the US National Academy of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine,^[67] the Royal Society,^[68] the UK Parliament,^[69] the Institution of Mechanical Engineers,^[70] and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The IMechE report examined a small subset of proposed methods (air capture, urban albedo and algal-based CO₂ capture techniques), and its main conclusions were that climate engineering should be researched and trialed at the small scale alongside a wider decarbonization of the economy.^[70]

The Royal Society review examined a wide range of proposed climate engineering methods and evaluated them in terms of effectiveness, affordability, timeliness, and safety (assigning qualitative estimates in each assessment). The key recommendations reports were that "Parties to the UNFCCC should make increased efforts towards mitigating and adapting to climate change, and in particular to agreeing to global emissions reductions", and that "[nothing] now known about geoengineering options gives any reason to diminish these efforts".^[29] Nonetheless, the report also recommended that "research and development of climate engineering options should be undertaken to investigate whether low-risk methods can be made available if it becomes necessary to reduce the rate of warming this century".^[29]

In a 2009 review study, Lenton and Vaughan evaluated a range of proposed climate engineering techniques.^[71] In order to permit a comparison of disparate techniques, they used a common evaluation for each technique based on its effect on net radiative forcing. As such, the review examined the scientific plausibility of proposed methods rather than the practical considerations such as engineering feasibility or economic cost. Lenton and Vaughan found that "[air] capture and storage shows the greatest potential, combined with afforestation, reforestation and bio-char production", and noted that "other suggestions that have received considerable media attention, in particular, "ocean pipes" appear to be ineffective".^[71] They concluded that "[climate] geoengineering is best considered as a potential complement to the mitigation of CO₂ emissions, rather than as an alternative to it".^[71]

In October 2011, a Bipartisan Policy Center panel issued a report urging immediate researching and testing in case "the climate system reaches a 'tipping point' and swift remedial action is required."^[72]

The US National Academy of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine conducted a 21-month project to study the potential impacts, benefits, and costs of climate engineering. The differences between these two classes of climate engineering "led the committee to evaluate the two types of approaches separately in companion reports, a distinction it hopes carries over to future scientific and policy discussions."^[73]^[74]^[75] The resulting study titled Climate Intervention was released in February 2015 and consists of two volumes: Reflecting Sunlight to Cool Earth^[76] and Carbon Dioxide Removal and Reliable Sequestration.^[77] According to their brief about the study:^[78]^[76]

Climate intervention is no substitute for reductions in carbon dioxide emissions and adaptation efforts aimed at reducing the negative consequences of climate change. However, as our planet enters a period of changing climate never before experienced in recorded human history, interest is growing in the potential for deliberate intervention in the climate system to counter climate change... Carbon dioxide removal strategies address a key driver of climate change, but research is needed to fully assess if any of these technologies could be appropriate for large-scale deployment. Albedo modification strategies could rapidly cool the planet's surface but pose environmental and other risks that are not well understood and therefore should not be deployed at climate-altering scales; more research is needed to determine if albedo modification approaches could be viable in the future.

References

^ ^a ^b ^c ^d IPCC (2022) Chapter 1: Introduction and Framing in Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA
^ ^a ^b ^c IPCC, 2021: Annex VII: Glossary [Matthews, J.B.R., V. Möller, R. van Diemen, J.S. Fuglestvedt, V. Masson-Delmotte, C. Méndez, S. Semenov, A. Reisinger (eds.)]. In Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Masson-Delmotte, V., P. Zhai, A. Pirani, S.L. Connors, C. Péan, S. Berger, N. Caud, Y. Chen, L. Goldfarb, M.I. Gomis, M. Huang, K. Leitzell, E. Lonnoy, J.B.R. Matthews, T.K. Maycock, T. Waterfield, O. Yelekçi, R. Yu, and B. Zhou (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, pp. 2215–2256, doi:10.1017/9781009157896.022.
^ National Academies of Sciences, Engineering (2021-03-25). Reflecting Sunlight: Recommendations for Solar Geoengineering Research and Research Governance. doi:10.17226/25762. ISBN 978-0-309-67605-2. S2CID 234327299. Archived from the original on 2021-04-17. Retrieved 2021-04-17.
^ ^a ^b ^c ^d Zevenhovena, Ron; Fält, Martin (June 2018). "Radiative cooling through the atmospheric window: A third, less intrusive geoengineering approach". Energy. 152 – via Elsevier Science Direct. An alternative, third geoengineering approach would be enhanced cooling by thermal radiation from the Earth's surface into space.
^ ^a ^b Wang, Tong; Wu, Yi; Shi, Lan; Hu, Xinhua; Chen, Min; Wu, Limin (2021). "A structural polymer for highly efficient all-day passive radiative cooling". Nature Communications. 12 (365): 365. doi:10.1038/s41467-020-20646-7. PMC 7809060. PMID 33446648. One possibly alternative approach is passive radiative cooling—a sky-facing surface on the Earth spontaneously cools by radiating heat to the ultracold outer space through the atmosphere's longwave infrared (LWIR) transparency window (λ ~ 8–13 μm).
^ ^a ^b Chen, Meijie; Pang, Dan; Chen, Xingyu; Yan, Hongjie; Yang, Yuan (2022). "Passive daytime radiative cooling: Fundamentals, material designs, and applications". EcoMat. 4. doi:10.1002/eom2.12153. S2CID 240331557 – via Wiley. Passive daytime radiative cooling (PDRC) dissipates terrestrial heat to the extremely cold outer space without using any energy input or producing pollution. It has the potential to simultaneously alleviate the two major problems of energy crisis and global warming.
^ ^a ^b Gernot Wagner (2021). Geoengineering: the Gamble.
^ ^a ^b Matthias Honegger; Axel Michaelowa; Sonja Butzengeiger-Geyer (2012). Climate Engineering – Avoiding Pandora's Box through Research and Governance (PDF). FNI Climate Policy Perspectives. Fridtjof Nansen Institute (FNI), Perspectives. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2015-09-06. Retrieved 2018-10-09.
^ Zahra Hirji (October 6, 2016). "Removing CO2 From the Air Only Hope for Fixing Climate Change, New Study Says; Without 'negative emissions' to help return atmospheric CO₂ to 350 ppm, future generations could face costs that 'may become too heavy to bear,' paper says". insideclimatenews.org. InsideClimate News. Archived from the original on November 17, 2019. Retrieved October 7, 2016.
^ ^a ^b "Geoengineering". International Risk Governance Council. 2009. Archived from the original on 2009-12-03. Retrieved 2009-10-07.
^ Reynolds, Jesse (2015-08-01). "A critical examination of the climate engineering moral hazard and risk compensation concern". The Anthropocene Review. 2 (2): 174–191. doi:10.1177/2053019614554304. ISSN 2053-0196. S2CID 59407485.
^ Morrow, David R. (2014-12-28). "Ethical aspects of the mitigation obstruction argument against climate engineering research". Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences. 372 (2031): 20140062. Bibcode:2014RSPTA.37240062M. doi:10.1098/rsta.2014.0062. ISSN 1364-503X. PMID 25404676.
^ Negative emissions technologies and reliable sequestration : a research agenda. Engineering, and Medicine. Committee on Developing a Research Agenda for Carbon Dioxide Removal and Reliable Sequestration National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Division on Earth and Life Studies. Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Board on Energy and Environmental Systems National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Board on Agriculture and Natural Resources National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Board on Earth Sciences and Resources National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Board on Chemical Sciences and Technology National Academies of Sciences. Washington, DC. 2019. ISBN 978-0-309-48453-4. OCLC 1090146918.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link) CS1 maint: others (link)
^ IPCC SR15 Glossary 2018, p. 549
^ IPCC SR15 Glossary 2018, p. 549
^ ^a ^b Trisos, Christopher H.; Geden, Oliver; Seneviratne, Sonia I.; Sugiyama, Masahiro; van Aalst, Maarten; Bala, Govindasamy; Mach, Katharine J.; Ginzburg, Veronika; de Coninck, Heleen; Patt, Anthony. "Cross-Working Group Box SRM: Solar Radiation Modification" (PDF). Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA: Cambridge University Press. pp. 221–222. doi:10.1017/9781009325844.004. In Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability [H.-O. Pörtner, D.C. Roberts, M. Tignor, E.S. Poloczanska, K. Mintenbeck, A. Alegría, M. Craig, S. Langsdorf, S. Löschke,V. Möller, A. Okem, B. Rama (eds.)].
^ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (2023-07-06). Climate Change 2021 – The Physical Science Basis: Working Group I Contribution to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (1 ed.). Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/9781009157896.006. ISBN 978-1-009-15789-6.
^ Environment, U. N. (2023-02-28). "One Atmosphere: An Independent Expert Review on Solar Radiation Modification Research and Deployment". UNEP - UN Environment Programme. Retrieved 2024-03-09.
^ World Meteorological Organization (WMO) (2022). Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion: 2022. Geneva: WMO. ISBN 978-9914-733-99-0.
^ Munday, Jeremy (2019). "Tackling Climate Change through Radiative Cooling". Joule. 3 (9): 2057–2060. doi:10.1016/j.joule.2019.07.010. S2CID 201590290. Archived from the original on 2022-02-22. Retrieved 2022-09-27 – via ScienceDirect. By covering the Earth with a small fraction of thermally emitting materials, the heat flow away from the Earth can be increased, and the net radiative flux can be reduced to zero (or even made negative), thus stabilizing (or cooling) the Earth.
^ ^a ^b Wang, Tong; Wu, Yi; Shi, Lan; Hu, Xinhua; Chen, Min; Wu, Limin (2021). "A structural polymer for highly efficient all-day passive radiative cooling". Nature Communications. 12 (365): 365. doi:10.1038/s41467-020-20646-7. PMC 7809060. PMID 33446648. Accordingly, designing and fabricating efficient PDRC with sufficiently high solar reflectance (𝜌¯solar) (λ ~ 0.3–2.5 μm) to minimize solar heat gain and simultaneously strong LWIR thermal emittance (ε¯LWIR) to maximize radiative heat loss is highly desirable. When the incoming radiative heat from the Sun is balanced by the outgoing radiative heat emission, the temperature of the Earth can reach its steady state.
^ Munday, Jeremy (2019). "Tackling Climate Change through Radiative Cooling". Joule. 3 (9): 2057–2060. doi:10.1016/j.joule.2019.07.010. S2CID 201590290. Archived from the original on 2022-02-22. Retrieved 2022-09-27 – via ScienceDirect.
^ Zevenhovena, Ron; Fält, Martin (June 2018). "Radiative cooling through the atmospheric window: A third, less intrusive geoengineering approach". Energy. 152 – via Elsevier Science Direct. An alternative, third geoengineering approach would be enhanced cooling by thermal radiation from the Earth's surface into space.
^ Wang, Tong; Wu, Yi; Shi, Lan; Hu, Xinhua; Chen, Min; Wu, Limin (2021). "A structural polymer for highly efficient all-day passive radiative cooling". Nature Communications. 12 (365). Archived from the original on 2022-07-25. Retrieved 2022-09-27 – via nature.com. One possibly alternative approach is passive radiative cooling—a sky-facing surface on the Earth spontaneously cools by radiating heat to the ultracold outer space through the atmosphere's longwave infrared (LWIR) transparency window (λ ~ 8–13 μm).
^ Munday, Jeremy (2019). "Tackling Climate Change through Radiative Cooling". Joule. 3 (9): 2057–2060. doi:10.1016/j.joule.2019.07.010. S2CID 201590290. Archived from the original on 2022-02-22. Retrieved 2022-09-27 – via ScienceDirect. A reduction in solar absorption is usually proposed through the injection of reflective aerosols into the atmosphere; however, serious concerns have been raised regarding side effects of these forms of geoengineering and our ability to undo any of the climatic changes we create.
^ Munday, Jeremy (2019). "Tackling Climate Change through Radiative Cooling". Joule. 3 (9). Archived from the original on 2022-02-22. Retrieved 2022-09-27 – via ScienceDirect. Further, radiative cooling cannot be a complete, standalone solution, but rather is part of a more comprehensive approach that must include CO2 reduction. Otherwise, the radiative balance will not last long, and the potential financial benefits of mitigation will not fully be realized because of continued ocean acidification, air pollution, and redistribution of biomass.
^ ^a ^b ^c Adam, David (1 September 2008). "Extreme and risky action the only way to tackle global warming, say scientists". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 2019-08-06. Retrieved 2009-05-23.
^ "Geo-Engineering – a Moral Hazard". celsias.com. 14 November 2007. Archived from the original on 14 January 2011. Retrieved 9 September 2010.
^ ^a ^b ^c Cite error: The named reference Royal Society Policy Document2 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ Ipsos MORI (August 2010). Experiment Earth? Report on a Public Dialogue on Geoengineering (PDF) (Report). Archived (PDF) from the original on 2019-02-15. Retrieved 2019-02-14.
^ Mercer, A M; Keith, D W; Sharp, J D (2011-12-01). "Public understanding of solar radiation management – IOPscience" (PDF). Environmental Research Letters. 6 (4): 044006. Bibcode:2011ERL.....6d4006M. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/6/4/044006. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2019-03-31. Retrieved 2019-09-04.
^ Kahan, Dan M.; Jenkins-Smith, Hank; Tarantola, Tor; Silva, Carol L.; Braman, Donald (2015-03-01). "Geoengineering and Climate Change Polarization Testing a Two-Channel Model of Science Communication". The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science. 658 (1): 192–222. doi:10.1177/0002716214559002. ISSN 0002-7162. S2CID 149147565.
^ Views about geoengineering: Key findings from public discussion groups (PDF) (Report). Integrated Assessment of Geoengineering Proposals. 2014-07-31. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2016-12-23. Retrieved 2018-08-20.
^ Wibeck, Victoria; Hansson, Anders; Anshelm, Jonas (2015-05-01). "Questioning the technological fix to climate change – Lay sense-making of geoengineering in Sweden". Energy Research & Social Science. 7: 23–30. doi:10.1016/j.erss.2015.03.001.
^ Merk, Christine; Pönitzsch, Gert; Kniebes, Carola; Rehdanz, Katrin; Schmidt, Ulrich (2015-02-10). "Exploring public perceptions of stratospheric sulfate injection". Climatic Change. 130 (2): 299–312. Bibcode:2015ClCh..130..299M. doi:10.1007/s10584-014-1317-7. ISSN 0165-0009. S2CID 154196324.
^ Millard-Ball, A. (2011). "The Tuvalu Syndrome". Climatic Change. 110 (3–4): 1047–1066. doi:10.1007/s10584-011-0102-0. S2CID 153990911.
^ Urpelainen, Johannes (2012-02-10). "Geoengineering and global warming: a strategic perspective". International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics. 12 (4): 375–389. doi:10.1007/s10784-012-9167-0. ISSN 1567-9764. S2CID 154422202.
^ Goeschl, Timo; Heyen, Daniel; Moreno-Cruz, Juan (2013-03-20). "The Intergenerational Transfer of Solar Radiation Management Capabilities and Atmospheric Carbon Stocks" (PDF). Environmental and Resource Economics. 56 (1): 85–104. doi:10.1007/s10640-013-9647-x. hdl:10419/127358. ISSN 0924-6460. S2CID 52213135. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2020-12-04. Retrieved 2019-08-16.
^ Moreno-Cruz, Juan B. (2015-08-01). "Mitigation and the geoengineering threat". Resource and Energy Economics. 41: 248–263. doi:10.1016/j.reseneeco.2015.06.001. hdl:1853/44254.
^ Parr, Doug (1 September 2008). "Geo-engineering is no solution to climate change". Guardian Newspaper. London. Archived from the original on 2018-08-20. Retrieved 2009-05-23.
^ "Climate & Geoengineering". ETC Group. Archived from the original on 2018-08-21. Retrieved 2018-08-20.
^ Appell, David (2008-12-12). "Let's get real on the environment". The Guardian. London. Archived from the original on 2013-09-05. Retrieved 2010-03-30.
^ Caldeira, Ken (2007-10-24). "How to Cool the Globe". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2013-06-02. Retrieved 2010-03-30.
^ "Evaluation + Tools + Best Practices: Geoengineering and the New Climate Denialism". Worldchanging. Archived from the original on 2012-08-28. Retrieved 2012-09-06.
^ Bodansky, D (1996). "May we engineer the climate?". Climatic Change. 33 (3): 309–321. Bibcode:1996ClCh...33..309B. doi:10.1007/bf00142579. S2CID 156701681.
^ Clingerman, F.; O'Brien, K. (2014). "Playing God: why religion belongs in the climate engineering debate". Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. 70 (3): 27–37. Bibcode:2014BuAtS..70c..27C. doi:10.1177/0096340214531181. S2CID 143742343.
^ Clingerman, F. (2012) "Between Babel and Pelagius: Religion, Theology and Geoengineering," in Preston, C. (ed.), Engineering the Climate: The Ethics of Solar Radiation Management. Lantham, MD: Lexington, pp. 201–219.
^ Victor, D. G., M. G. Morgan, J. Apt, J. Steinbruner, K. Ricke (2009) "The Geoengineering Option: A last resort against global warming?" Foreign Affairs, March/April 2009
^ Riley, Tess (2017-07-10). "Just 100 companies responsible for 71% of global emissions, study says". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Archived from the original on 2021-01-18. Retrieved 2021-02-12.
^ Harding, Anthony R.; Ricke, Katharine; Heyen, Daniel; MacMartin, Douglas G.; Moreno-Cruz, Juan (2020-01-13). "Climate econometric models indicate solar geoengineering would reduce inter-country income inequality". Nature Communications. 11 (1): 227. Bibcode:2020NatCo..11..227H. doi:10.1038/s41467-019-13957-x. ISSN 2041-1723. PMC 6957473. PMID 31932612.
^ Weitzman, Martin L. (2015). "A Voting Architecture for the Governance of Free-Driver Externalities, with Application to Geoengineering". The Scandinavian Journal of Economics. 117 (4): 1049–1068. doi:10.1111/sjoe.12120. S2CID 2991157. Archived from the original on 2020-06-09. Retrieved 2019-01-30.
^ Rayner, S.; Heyward, C.; Kruger, T.; Pidgeon, N.; Redgwell, C.; Savulescu, J. (2013). "The Oxford Principles". Climatic Change. 121 (3): 499–512. Bibcode:2013ClCh..121..499R. doi:10.1007/s10584-012-0675-2. S2CID 55553948.
^ Oxford Geoengineering Programme. "Oxford Geoengineering Programme // History of the Oxford Principles". www.geoengineering.ox.ac.uk. Archived from the original on 2016-03-04. Retrieved 2016-02-03.
^ "We all want to change the world". The Economist. March 31, 2010. Archived from the original on October 19, 2019. Retrieved October 19, 2019.
^ "Conference Home". Climateresponsefund.org. Archived from the original on 2012-10-16. Retrieved 2012-09-06.
^ Unit, Biosafety. "COP Decision". www.cbd.int. Archived from the original on 2021-06-07. Retrieved 2021-06-07.
^ Herkenrath, Peter; Harrison, Jeremy (January 2011). "The 10th meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity – a breakthrough for biodiversity?". Oryx. 45 (1): 1–2. doi:10.1017/S0030605310001663. ISSN 0030-6053.
^ Geoengineering in relation to the Convention on biological diversity : technical and regulatory matters. Phillip Williamson, Ralph Bodle, Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity. Montréal, Québec. 2012. ISBN 978-9292254292. OCLC 889257942.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link) CS1 maint: others (link)
^ Scott, Karen (2013-01-01). "International Law in the Anthropocene: Responding to the Geoengineering Challenge". Michigan Journal of International Law. 34 (2): 309–358. ISSN 1052-2867. Archived from the original on 2021-06-11. Retrieved 2021-06-11.
^ Reynolds, Jesse L.; Parker, Andy; Irvine, Peter (December 2016). "Five solar geoengineering tropes that have outstayed their welcome: Five solar geoengineering tropes". Earth's Future. 4 (12): 562–568. doi:10.1002/2016EF000416. S2CID 36263104.
^ "Convention on Biological Diversity". Convention on Biological Diversity. Archived from the original on 2021-02-25. Retrieved 2021-06-07.
^ ^a ^b Carlisle, Daniel P.; Feetham, Pamela M.; Wright, Malcolm J.; Teagle, Damon A. H. (2020-04-12). "The public remain uninformed and wary of climate engineering" (PDF). Climatic Change. 160 (2): 303–322. Bibcode:2020ClCh..160..303C. doi:10.1007/s10584-020-02706-5. ISSN 1573-1480. S2CID 215731777. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2021-06-14. Retrieved 2021-05-18.
^ ^a ^b Wright, Malcolm J.; Teagle, Damon A. H.; Feetham, Pamela M. (February 2014). "A quantitative evaluation of the public response to climate engineering". Nature Climate Change. 4 (2): 106–110. Bibcode:2014NatCC...4..106W. doi:10.1038/nclimate2087. ISSN 1758-6798. Archived from the original on 2020-07-28. Retrieved 2020-05-22.
^ "Study Illuminates Public Perceptions of Climate Engineering". CIRES. October 9, 2017. Archived from the original on August 21, 2018. Retrieved August 20, 2018.
^ "Geo-Engineering Inquiry". Institution of Mechanical Engineers. November 17, 2008. Archived from the original on 2008-12-20.
^ Bullis, Kevin. "U.S. Congress Considers Geoengineering". MIT Technology Review. Archived from the original on 26 January 2013. Retrieved 26 December 2012.
^ "Climate Intervention Reports » Climate Change at the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine". nas-sites.org. Archived from the original on 2016-07-29. Retrieved 2015-11-02.
^ "Stop emitting CO2 or geoengineering could be our only hope" (Press release). The Royal Society. 28 August 2009. Archived from the original on 24 June 2011. Retrieved 14 June 2011.
^ "Geo-engineering research" (PDF). Postnote. Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology. March 2009. Retrieved 2022-09-11.
^ ^a ^b "Geo-engineering – Giving us the time to act?". I Mech E. Archived from the original on 2011-07-22. Retrieved 2011-03-12.
^ ^a ^b ^c Lenton, T.M.; Vaughan, N.E. (2009). "The radiative forcing potential of different climate geoengineering options". Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics. 9 (15): 5539–5561. Bibcode:2009ACP.....9.5539L. doi:10.5194/acp-9-5539-2009. Archived from the original on 2019-12-14. Retrieved 2009-09-04.
^ Dean, Cornelia (2011-10-04). "Group Urges Research Into Aggressive Efforts to Fight Climate Change". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Archived from the original on 2021-06-14. Retrieved 2021-08-14.
^ "Climate Intervention Is Not a Replacement for Reducing Carbon Emissions; Proposed Intervention Techniques Not Ready for Wide-Scale Deployment". NEWS from the national academies (Press release). Feb 10, 2015. Archived from the original on 2015-11-17. Retrieved 2015-11-24.
^ Cite error: The named reference Climate Intervention2 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ Council, National Research (2015). Climate Intervention: Carbon Dioxide Removal and Reliable Sequestration. doi:10.17226/18805. ISBN 978-0-309-30529-7. Archived from the original on 2018-08-21. Retrieved 2018-08-20.
^ ^a ^b Council, National Research (2015). Climate Intervention: Reflecting Sunlight to Cool Earth. ISBN 978-0-309-31482-4. Archived from the original on 2019-12-14. Retrieved 2018-08-20.
^ Council, National Research (2015). Climate Intervention: Carbon Dioxide Removal and Reliable Sequestration. ISBN 978-0-309-30529-7. Archived from the original on 2018-08-21. Retrieved 2018-08-20.
^ "Climate Intervention Reports » Climate Change at the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine". nas-sites.org. Archived from the original on 2016-07-29. Retrieved 2015-09-02.

Books and reports

IPCC (2018). Masson-Delmotte, V.; Zhai, P.; Pörtner, H.-O.; Roberts, D.; et al. (eds.). Global Warming of 1.5°C. An IPCC Special Report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty (PDF). Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
- IPCC (2018). "Annex I: Glossary" (PDF). IPCC SR15 2018. pp. 541–562.

External links

Geoengineering May Be the Answer to Climate Change on YouTube published December 14, 2019 Vice News

[AR6_WGIII_Ch_1-1] IPCC (2022) Chapter 1: Introduction and Framing in Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA

[IPCC_AR6_WGI_Glossary-2] IPCC, 2021: Annex VII: Glossary [Matthews, J.B.R., V. Möller, R. van Diemen, J.S. Fuglestvedt, V. Masson-Delmotte, C. Méndez, S. Semenov, A. Reisinger (eds.)]. In Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Masson-Delmotte, V., P. Zhai, A. Pirani, S.L. Connors, C. Péan, S. Berger, N. Caud, Y. Chen, L. Goldfarb, M.I. Gomis, M. Huang, K. Leitzell, E. Lonnoy, J.B.R. Matthews, T.K. Maycock, T. Waterfield, O. Yelekçi, R. Yu, and B. Zhou (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, pp. 2215–2256, doi:10.1017/9781009157896.022.

[:022-3] National Academies of Sciences, Engineering (2021-03-25). Reflecting Sunlight: Recommendations for Solar Geoengineering Research and Research Governance. doi:10.17226/25762. ISBN 978-0-309-67605-2. S2CID 234327299. Archived from the original on 2021-04-17. Retrieved 2021-04-17.

[:442-4] Zevenhovena, Ron; Fält, Martin (June 2018). "Radiative cooling through the atmospheric window: A third, less intrusive geoengineering approach". Energy. 152 – via Elsevier Science Direct. An alternative, third geoengineering approach would be enhanced cooling by thermal radiation from the Earth's surface into space.

[:122222-5] Wang, Tong; Wu, Yi; Shi, Lan; Hu, Xinhua; Chen, Min; Wu, Limin (2021). "A structural polymer for highly efficient all-day passive radiative cooling". Nature Communications. 12 (365): 365. doi:10.1038/s41467-020-20646-7. PMC 7809060. PMID 33446648. One possibly alternative approach is passive radiative cooling—a sky-facing surface on the Earth spontaneously cools by radiating heat to the ultracold outer space through the atmosphere's longwave infrared (LWIR) transparency window (λ ~ 8–13 μm).

[:52-6] Chen, Meijie; Pang, Dan; Chen, Xingyu; Yan, Hongjie; Yang, Yuan (2022). "Passive daytime radiative cooling: Fundamentals, material designs, and applications". EcoMat. 4. doi:10.1002/eom2.12153. S2CID 240331557 – via Wiley. Passive daytime radiative cooling (PDRC) dissipates terrestrial heat to the extremely cold outer space without using any energy input or producing pollution. It has the potential to simultaneously alleviate the two major problems of energy crisis and global warming.

[:04-7] Gernot Wagner (2021). Geoengineering: the Gamble.

[perspectives2-8] Matthias Honegger; Axel Michaelowa; Sonja Butzengeiger-Geyer (2012). Climate Engineering – Avoiding Pandora's Box through Research and Governance (PDF). FNI Climate Policy Perspectives. Fridtjof Nansen Institute (FNI), Perspectives. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2015-09-06. Retrieved 2018-10-09.

[9] Zahra Hirji (October 6, 2016). "Removing CO2 From the Air Only Hope for Fixing Climate Change, New Study Says; Without 'negative emissions' to help return atmospheric CO₂ to 350 ppm, future generations could face costs that 'may become too heavy to bear,' paper says". insideclimatenews.org. InsideClimate News. Archived from the original on November 17, 2019. Retrieved October 7, 2016.

[:4-10] "Geoengineering". International Risk Governance Council. 2009. Archived from the original on 2009-12-03. Retrieved 2009-10-07.

[11] Reynolds, Jesse (2015-08-01). "A critical examination of the climate engineering moral hazard and risk compensation concern". The Anthropocene Review. 2 (2): 174–191. doi:10.1177/2053019614554304. ISSN 2053-0196. S2CID 59407485.

[12] Morrow, David R. (2014-12-28). "Ethical aspects of the mitigation obstruction argument against climate engineering research". Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences. 372 (2031): 20140062. Bibcode:2014RSPTA.37240062M. doi:10.1098/rsta.2014.0062. ISSN 1364-503X. PMID 25404676.

[13] Negative emissions technologies and reliable sequestration : a research agenda. Engineering, and Medicine. Committee on Developing a Research Agenda for Carbon Dioxide Removal and Reliable Sequestration National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Division on Earth and Life Studies. Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Board on Energy and Environmental Systems National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Board on Agriculture and Natural Resources National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Board on Earth Sciences and Resources National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Board on Chemical Sciences and Technology National Academies of Sciences. Washington, DC. 2019. ISBN 978-0-309-48453-4. OCLC 1090146918.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link) CS1 maint: others (link)

[14] IPCC SR15 Glossary 2018, p. 549

[15] IPCC SR15 Glossary 2018, p. 549

[Solar_radiation_modification_IPCC_WGI_SRM-16] Trisos, Christopher H.; Geden, Oliver; Seneviratne, Sonia I.; Sugiyama, Masahiro; van Aalst, Maarten; Bala, Govindasamy; Mach, Katharine J.; Ginzburg, Veronika; de Coninck, Heleen; Patt, Anthony. "Cross-Working Group Box SRM: Solar Radiation Modification" (PDF). Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA: Cambridge University Press. pp. 221–222. doi:10.1017/9781009325844.004. In Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability [H.-O. Pörtner, D.C. Roberts, M. Tignor, E.S. Poloczanska, K. Mintenbeck, A. Alegría, M. Craig, S. Langsdorf, S. Löschke,V. Möller, A. Okem, B. Rama (eds.)].

[17] Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (2023-07-06). Climate Change 2021 – The Physical Science Basis: Working Group I Contribution to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (1 ed.). Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/9781009157896.006. ISBN 978-1-009-15789-6.

[Solar_radiation_modification_:0-18] Environment, U. N. (2023-02-28). "One Atmosphere: An Independent Expert Review on Solar Radiation Modification Research and Deployment". UNEP - UN Environment Programme. Retrieved 2024-03-09.

[Solar_radiation_modification_:1-19] World Meteorological Organization (WMO) (2022). Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion: 2022. Geneva: WMO. ISBN 978-9914-733-99-0.

[:0232-20] Munday, Jeremy (2019). "Tackling Climate Change through Radiative Cooling". Joule. 3 (9): 2057–2060. doi:10.1016/j.joule.2019.07.010. S2CID 201590290. Archived from the original on 2022-02-22. Retrieved 2022-09-27 – via ScienceDirect. By covering the Earth with a small fraction of thermally emitting materials, the heat flow away from the Earth can be increased, and the net radiative flux can be reduced to zero (or even made negative), thus stabilizing (or cooling) the Earth.

[:122-21] Wang, Tong; Wu, Yi; Shi, Lan; Hu, Xinhua; Chen, Min; Wu, Limin (2021). "A structural polymer for highly efficient all-day passive radiative cooling". Nature Communications. 12 (365): 365. doi:10.1038/s41467-020-20646-7. PMC 7809060. PMID 33446648. Accordingly, designing and fabricating efficient PDRC with sufficiently high solar reflectance (𝜌¯solar) (λ ~ 0.3–2.5 μm) to minimize solar heat gain and simultaneously strong LWIR thermal emittance (ε¯LWIR) to maximize radiative heat loss is highly desirable. When the incoming radiative heat from the Sun is balanced by the outgoing radiative heat emission, the temperature of the Earth can reach its steady state.

[:032-22] Munday, Jeremy (2019). "Tackling Climate Change through Radiative Cooling". Joule. 3 (9): 2057–2060. doi:10.1016/j.joule.2019.07.010. S2CID 201590290. Archived from the original on 2022-02-22. Retrieved 2022-09-27 – via ScienceDirect.

[:44-23] Zevenhovena, Ron; Fält, Martin (June 2018). "Radiative cooling through the atmospheric window: A third, less intrusive geoengineering approach". Energy. 152 – via Elsevier Science Direct. An alternative, third geoengineering approach would be enhanced cooling by thermal radiation from the Earth's surface into space.

[:12222-24] Wang, Tong; Wu, Yi; Shi, Lan; Hu, Xinhua; Chen, Min; Wu, Limin (2021). "A structural polymer for highly efficient all-day passive radiative cooling". Nature Communications. 12 (365). Archived from the original on 2022-07-25. Retrieved 2022-09-27 – via nature.com. One possibly alternative approach is passive radiative cooling—a sky-facing surface on the Earth spontaneously cools by radiating heat to the ultracold outer space through the atmosphere's longwave infrared (LWIR) transparency window (λ ~ 8–13 μm).

[:042-25] Munday, Jeremy (2019). "Tackling Climate Change through Radiative Cooling". Joule. 3 (9): 2057–2060. doi:10.1016/j.joule.2019.07.010. S2CID 201590290. Archived from the original on 2022-02-22. Retrieved 2022-09-27 – via ScienceDirect. A reduction in solar absorption is usually proposed through the injection of reflective aerosols into the atmosphere; however, serious concerns have been raised regarding side effects of these forms of geoengineering and our ability to undo any of the climatic changes we create.

[:023-26] Munday, Jeremy (2019). "Tackling Climate Change through Radiative Cooling". Joule. 3 (9). Archived from the original on 2022-02-22. Retrieved 2022-09-27 – via ScienceDirect. Further, radiative cooling cannot be a complete, standalone solution, but rather is part of a more comprehensive approach that must include CO2 reduction. Otherwise, the radiative balance will not last long, and the potential financial benefits of mitigation will not fully be realized because of continued ocean acidification, air pollution, and redistribution of biomass.

[Extreme_action_guardian2-27] Adam, David (1 September 2008). "Extreme and risky action the only way to tackle global warming, say scientists". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 2019-08-06. Retrieved 2009-05-23.

[Moral_hazard2-28] "Geo-Engineering – a Moral Hazard". celsias.com. 14 November 2007. Archived from the original on 14 January 2011. Retrieved 9 September 2010.

[Royal_Society_Policy_Document2-29] Cite error: The named reference Royal Society Policy Document2 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[30] Ipsos MORI (August 2010). Experiment Earth? Report on a Public Dialogue on Geoengineering (PDF) (Report). Archived (PDF) from the original on 2019-02-15. Retrieved 2019-02-14.

[31] Mercer, A M; Keith, D W; Sharp, J D (2011-12-01). "Public understanding of solar radiation management – IOPscience" (PDF). Environmental Research Letters. 6 (4): 044006. Bibcode:2011ERL.....6d4006M. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/6/4/044006. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2019-03-31. Retrieved 2019-09-04.

[32] Kahan, Dan M.; Jenkins-Smith, Hank; Tarantola, Tor; Silva, Carol L.; Braman, Donald (2015-03-01). "Geoengineering and Climate Change Polarization Testing a Two-Channel Model of Science Communication". The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science. 658 (1): 192–222. doi:10.1177/0002716214559002. ISSN 0002-7162. S2CID 149147565.

[33] Views about geoengineering: Key findings from public discussion groups (PDF) (Report). Integrated Assessment of Geoengineering Proposals. 2014-07-31. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2016-12-23. Retrieved 2018-08-20.

[34] Wibeck, Victoria; Hansson, Anders; Anshelm, Jonas (2015-05-01). "Questioning the technological fix to climate change – Lay sense-making of geoengineering in Sweden". Energy Research & Social Science. 7: 23–30. doi:10.1016/j.erss.2015.03.001.

[35] Merk, Christine; Pönitzsch, Gert; Kniebes, Carola; Rehdanz, Katrin; Schmidt, Ulrich (2015-02-10). "Exploring public perceptions of stratospheric sulfate injection". Climatic Change. 130 (2): 299–312. Bibcode:2015ClCh..130..299M. doi:10.1007/s10584-014-1317-7. ISSN 0165-0009. S2CID 154196324.

[doi10.1007/s10584-011-0102-02-36] Millard-Ball, A. (2011). "The Tuvalu Syndrome". Climatic Change. 110 (3–4): 1047–1066. doi:10.1007/s10584-011-0102-0. S2CID 153990911.

[37] Urpelainen, Johannes (2012-02-10). "Geoengineering and global warming: a strategic perspective". International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics. 12 (4): 375–389. doi:10.1007/s10784-012-9167-0. ISSN 1567-9764. S2CID 154422202.

[38] Goeschl, Timo; Heyen, Daniel; Moreno-Cruz, Juan (2013-03-20). "The Intergenerational Transfer of Solar Radiation Management Capabilities and Atmospheric Carbon Stocks" (PDF). Environmental and Resource Economics. 56 (1): 85–104. doi:10.1007/s10640-013-9647-x. hdl:10419/127358. ISSN 0924-6460. S2CID 52213135. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2020-12-04. Retrieved 2019-08-16.

[39] Moreno-Cruz, Juan B. (2015-08-01). "Mitigation and the geoengineering threat". Resource and Energy Economics. 41: 248–263. doi:10.1016/j.reseneeco.2015.06.001. hdl:1853/44254.

[Geoengineering_no_solution2-40] Parr, Doug (1 September 2008). "Geo-engineering is no solution to climate change". Guardian Newspaper. London. Archived from the original on 2018-08-20. Retrieved 2009-05-23.

[ETC2-41] "Climate & Geoengineering". ETC Group. Archived from the original on 2018-08-21. Retrieved 2018-08-20.

[42] Appell, David (2008-12-12). "Let's get real on the environment". The Guardian. London. Archived from the original on 2013-09-05. Retrieved 2010-03-30.

[43] Caldeira, Ken (2007-10-24). "How to Cool the Globe". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2013-06-02. Retrieved 2010-03-30.

[44] "Evaluation + Tools + Best Practices: Geoengineering and the New Climate Denialism". Worldchanging. Archived from the original on 2012-08-28. Retrieved 2012-09-06.

[45] Bodansky, D (1996). "May we engineer the climate?". Climatic Change. 33 (3): 309–321. Bibcode:1996ClCh...33..309B. doi:10.1007/bf00142579. S2CID 156701681.

[46] Clingerman, F.; O'Brien, K. (2014). "Playing God: why religion belongs in the climate engineering debate". Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. 70 (3): 27–37. Bibcode:2014BuAtS..70c..27C. doi:10.1177/0096340214531181. S2CID 143742343.

[47] Clingerman, F. (2012) "Between Babel and Pelagius: Religion, Theology and Geoengineering," in Preston, C. (ed.), Engineering the Climate: The Ethics of Solar Radiation Management. Lantham, MD: Lexington, pp. 201–219.

[geoengineering_option2-48] Victor, D. G., M. G. Morgan, J. Apt, J. Steinbruner, K. Ricke (2009) "The Geoengineering Option: A last resort against global warming?" Foreign Affairs, March/April 2009

[49] Riley, Tess (2017-07-10). "Just 100 companies responsible for 71% of global emissions, study says". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Archived from the original on 2021-01-18. Retrieved 2021-02-12.

[50] Harding, Anthony R.; Ricke, Katharine; Heyen, Daniel; MacMartin, Douglas G.; Moreno-Cruz, Juan (2020-01-13). "Climate econometric models indicate solar geoengineering would reduce inter-country income inequality". Nature Communications. 11 (1): 227. Bibcode:2020NatCo..11..227H. doi:10.1038/s41467-019-13957-x. ISSN 2041-1723. PMC 6957473. PMID 31932612.

[51] Weitzman, Martin L. (2015). "A Voting Architecture for the Governance of Free-Driver Externalities, with Application to Geoengineering". The Scandinavian Journal of Economics. 117 (4): 1049–1068. doi:10.1111/sjoe.12120. S2CID 2991157. Archived from the original on 2020-06-09. Retrieved 2019-01-30.

[52] Rayner, S.; Heyward, C.; Kruger, T.; Pidgeon, N.; Redgwell, C.; Savulescu, J. (2013). "The Oxford Principles". Climatic Change. 121 (3): 499–512. Bibcode:2013ClCh..121..499R. doi:10.1007/s10584-012-0675-2. S2CID 55553948.

[53] Oxford Geoengineering Programme. "Oxford Geoengineering Programme // History of the Oxford Principles". www.geoengineering.ox.ac.uk. Archived from the original on 2016-03-04. Retrieved 2016-02-03.

[economist.com2-54] "We all want to change the world". The Economist. March 31, 2010. Archived from the original on October 19, 2019. Retrieved October 19, 2019.

[55] "Conference Home". Climateresponsefund.org. Archived from the original on 2012-10-16. Retrieved 2012-09-06.

[56] Unit, Biosafety. "COP Decision". www.cbd.int. Archived from the original on 2021-06-07. Retrieved 2021-06-07.

[57] Herkenrath, Peter; Harrison, Jeremy (January 2011). "The 10th meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity – a breakthrough for biodiversity?". Oryx. 45 (1): 1–2. doi:10.1017/S0030605310001663. ISSN 0030-6053.

[58] Geoengineering in relation to the Convention on biological diversity : technical and regulatory matters. Phillip Williamson, Ralph Bodle, Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity. Montréal, Québec. 2012. ISBN 978-9292254292. OCLC 889257942.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link) CS1 maint: others (link)

[59] Scott, Karen (2013-01-01). "International Law in the Anthropocene: Responding to the Geoengineering Challenge". Michigan Journal of International Law. 34 (2): 309–358. ISSN 1052-2867. Archived from the original on 2021-06-11. Retrieved 2021-06-11.

[60] Reynolds, Jesse L.; Parker, Andy; Irvine, Peter (December 2016). "Five solar geoengineering tropes that have outstayed their welcome: Five solar geoengineering tropes". Earth's Future. 4 (12): 562–568. doi:10.1002/2016EF000416. S2CID 36263104.

[61] "Convention on Biological Diversity". Convention on Biological Diversity. Archived from the original on 2021-02-25. Retrieved 2021-06-07.

[:13-62] Carlisle, Daniel P.; Feetham, Pamela M.; Wright, Malcolm J.; Teagle, Damon A. H. (2020-04-12). "The public remain uninformed and wary of climate engineering" (PDF). Climatic Change. 160 (2): 303–322. Bibcode:2020ClCh..160..303C. doi:10.1007/s10584-020-02706-5. ISSN 1573-1480. S2CID 215731777. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2021-06-14. Retrieved 2021-05-18.

[:22-63] Wright, Malcolm J.; Teagle, Damon A. H.; Feetham, Pamela M. (February 2014). "A quantitative evaluation of the public response to climate engineering". Nature Climate Change. 4 (2): 106–110. Bibcode:2014NatCC...4..106W. doi:10.1038/nclimate2087. ISSN 1758-6798. Archived from the original on 2020-07-28. Retrieved 2020-05-22.

[64] "Study Illuminates Public Perceptions of Climate Engineering". CIRES. October 9, 2017. Archived from the original on August 21, 2018. Retrieved August 20, 2018.

[65] "Geo-Engineering Inquiry". Institution of Mechanical Engineers. November 17, 2008. Archived from the original on 2008-12-20.

[Bullis2-66] Bullis, Kevin. "U.S. Congress Considers Geoengineering". MIT Technology Review. Archived from the original on 26 January 2013. Retrieved 26 December 2012.

[67] "Climate Intervention Reports » Climate Change at the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine". nas-sites.org. Archived from the original on 2016-07-29. Retrieved 2015-11-02.

[68] "Stop emitting CO2 or geoengineering could be our only hope" (Press release). The Royal Society. 28 August 2009. Archived from the original on 24 June 2011. Retrieved 14 June 2011.

[69] "Geo-engineering research" (PDF). Postnote. Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology. March 2009. Retrieved 2022-09-11.

[imeche092-70] "Geo-engineering – Giving us the time to act?". I Mech E. Archived from the original on 2011-07-22. Retrieved 2011-03-12.

[lenton092-71] Lenton, T.M.; Vaughan, N.E. (2009). "The radiative forcing potential of different climate geoengineering options". Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics. 9 (15): 5539–5561. Bibcode:2009ACP.....9.5539L. doi:10.5194/acp-9-5539-2009. Archived from the original on 2019-12-14. Retrieved 2009-09-04.

[72] Dean, Cornelia (2011-10-04). "Group Urges Research Into Aggressive Efforts to Fight Climate Change". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Archived from the original on 2021-06-14. Retrieved 2021-08-14.

[www8.nationalacademies.org2-73] "Climate Intervention Is Not a Replacement for Reducing Carbon Emissions; Proposed Intervention Techniques Not Ready for Wide-Scale Deployment". NEWS from the national academies (Press release). Feb 10, 2015. Archived from the original on 2015-11-17. Retrieved 2015-11-24.

[Climate_Intervention2-74] Cite error: The named reference Climate Intervention2 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[75] Council, National Research (2015). Climate Intervention: Carbon Dioxide Removal and Reliable Sequestration. doi:10.17226/18805. ISBN 978-0-309-30529-7. Archived from the original on 2018-08-21. Retrieved 2018-08-20.

[Council2-76] Council, National Research (2015). Climate Intervention: Reflecting Sunlight to Cool Earth. ISBN 978-0-309-31482-4. Archived from the original on 2019-12-14. Retrieved 2018-08-20.

[77] Council, National Research (2015). Climate Intervention: Carbon Dioxide Removal and Reliable Sequestration. ISBN 978-0-309-30529-7. Archived from the original on 2018-08-21. Retrieved 2018-08-20.

[nas-sites.org2-78] "Climate Intervention Reports » Climate Change at the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine". nas-sites.org. Archived from the original on 2016-07-29. Retrieved 2015-09-02.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

[17]

[18]

[19]

[20]

[21]

[22]

[23]

[24]

[25]

[26]

[27]

[28]

[29]

[30]

[31]

[32]

[33]

[34]

[35]

[36]

[37]

[38]

[39]

[40]

[41]

[42]

[43]

[44]

[45]

[46]

[47]

[48]

[49]

[50]

[51]

[52]

[53]

[54]

[55]

[56]

[57]

[58]

[59]

[60]

[61]

[62]

[63]

[64]

[65]

[66]

[67]

[68]

[69]

[70]

[71]

[72]

[73]

[74]

[75]

[76]

[77]

[78]

@@ Line 8: / Line 8: @@
 == Definition ==
-As of 2018 the terms "climate engineering" and "geoengineering" are not used by the [[Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change]].<ref>{{Harvnb|IPCC SR15 Glossary|2018|p=549}}</ref> According to climate economist Gernot Wagner the term "geoengineering" is  "largely an artefact and a result of the terms frequent use in popular discourse" and "so vague and all-encompassing as to have lost much meaning".<ref name=":04" />{{Rp|page=14}}
+As of 2018 the terms "climate engineering" and "geoengineering" are not used by the [[Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change]] (IPCC).<ref>{{Harvnb|IPCC SR15 Glossary|2018|p=549}}</ref> Climate engineering (or geoengineering) is used in the literature as a term for both CDR ([[carbon dioxide removal]]) or SRM (Solar radiation management or [[solar geoengineering]]) when applied at a planetary scale.<ref name="AR6 WGIII Ch 1" />{{rp|6-11}} However, they have very different geophysical characteristic which is why the IPCC no longer uses this term.<ref name="AR6 WGIII Ch 1" />{{rp|6-11}}<ref name="IPCC AR6 WGI Glossary" />
 ==Solar geoengineering==
@@ Line 22: / Line 22: @@
 ==Issues==
+According to climate economist Gernot Wagner the term "geoengineering" is  "largely an artefact and a result of the terms frequent use in popular discourse" and "so vague and all-encompassing as to have lost much meaning".<ref name=":04" />{{Rp|page=14}}
 === Moral hazard ===
 CE  may reduce the urgency of reducing carbon emissions,<ref name="Extreme action guardian2">{{cite news |last=Adam |first=David |date=1 September 2008 |title=Extreme and risky action the only way to tackle global warming, say scientists |work=The Guardian |url=https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2008/sep/01/climatechange.scienceofclimatechange2 |url-status=live |access-date=2009-05-23 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190806230902/https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2008/sep/01/climatechange.scienceofclimatechange2 |archive-date=2019-08-06}}</ref> a form of [[moral hazard]]. This concern causes many environmental groups and campaigners to oppose any research for fear of reducing the urgency of cutting [[greenhouse gas emissions]].<ref name="Moral hazard2">{{cite web |date=14 November 2007 |title=Geo-Engineering{{Snd}} a Moral Hazard |url=http://www.celsias.com/article/geo-engineering-a-moral-hazard/ |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110114085045/http://www.celsias.com/article/geo-engineering-a-moral-hazard/ |archive-date=14 January 2011 |access-date=9 September 2010 |publisher=celsias.com |df=dmy-all}}</ref> However, several public opinion surveys and focus groups reported either desire to increase emission cuts in the presence of climate engineering, or of no effect.<ref name="Royal Society Policy Document2" /><ref>{{cite report |url=https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/publication/1970-01/sri_experiment-earth-report-on-a--public-dialogue-on-geoengineering_sept2010.pdf |title=Experiment Earth? Report on a Public Dialogue on Geoengineering |author=[[Ipsos MORI]] |date=August 2010 |access-date=2019-02-14 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190215050427/https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/publication/1970-01/sri_experiment-earth-report-on-a--public-dialogue-on-geoengineering_sept2010.pdf |archive-date=2019-02-15 |url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Mercer |first1=A M |last2=Keith |first2=D W |last3=Sharp |first3=J D |date=2011-12-01 |title=Public understanding of solar radiation management{{Snd}} IOPscience |url=https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/12763597/53098873.pdf?sequence=1 |url-status=live |journal=Environmental Research Letters |volume=6 |issue=4 |pages=044006 |bibcode=2011ERL.....6d4006M |doi=10.1088/1748-9326/6/4/044006 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190331144301/https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/12763597/53098873.pdf?sequence=1 |archive-date=2019-03-31 |access-date=2019-09-04 |doi-access=free}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Kahan |first1=Dan M. |last2=Jenkins-Smith |first2=Hank |last3=Tarantola |first3=Tor |last4=Silva |first4=Carol L. |last5=Braman |first5=Donald |date=2015-03-01 |title=Geoengineering and Climate Change Polarization Testing a Two-Channel Model of Science Communication |journal=The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science |volume=658 |issue=1 |pages=192–222 |doi=10.1177/0002716214559002 |issn=0002-7162 |s2cid=149147565}}</ref><ref>{{Cite report |url=http://iagp.ac.uk/sites/default/files/Views%20about%20geoengineering%20IAGP.pdf |title=Views about geoengineering: Key findings from public discussion groups |date=2014-07-31 |publisher=Integrated Assessment of Geoengineering Proposals |access-date=2018-08-20 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161223100051/http://iagp.ac.uk/sites/default/files/Views%20about%20geoengineering%20IAGP.pdf |archive-date=2016-12-23 |url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Wibeck |first1=Victoria |last2=Hansson |first2=Anders |last3=Anshelm |first3=Jonas |date=2015-05-01 |title=Questioning the technological fix to climate change{{Snd}} Lay sense-making of geoengineering in Sweden |url=http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:liu:diva-119732 |journal=Energy Research & Social Science |volume=7 |pages=23–30 |doi=10.1016/j.erss.2015.03.001}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Merk |first1=Christine |last2=Pönitzsch |first2=Gert |last3=Kniebes |first3=Carola |last4=Rehdanz |first4=Katrin |last5=Schmidt |first5=Ulrich |date=2015-02-10 |title=Exploring public perceptions of stratospheric sulfate injection |journal=Climatic Change |volume=130 |issue=2 |pages=299–312 |bibcode=2015ClCh..130..299M |doi=10.1007/s10584-014-1317-7 |issn=0165-0009 |s2cid=154196324}}</ref> Other modelling work suggests that the prospect of climate engineering may in fact increase the likelihood of emissions reduction.<ref name="doi10.1007/s10584-011-0102-02">{{Cite journal |last1=Millard-Ball |first1=A. |year=2011 |title=The Tuvalu Syndrome |journal=Climatic Change |volume=110 |issue=3–4 |pages=1047–1066 |doi=10.1007/s10584-011-0102-0 |s2cid=153990911}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last=Urpelainen |first=Johannes |date=2012-02-10 |title=Geoengineering and global warming: a strategic perspective |journal=International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics |volume=12 |issue=4 |pages=375–389 |doi=10.1007/s10784-012-9167-0 |issn=1567-9764 |s2cid=154422202}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Goeschl |first1=Timo |last2=Heyen |first2=Daniel |last3=Moreno-Cruz |first3=Juan |date=2013-03-20 |title=The Intergenerational Transfer of Solar Radiation Management Capabilities and Atmospheric Carbon Stocks |url=http://archiv.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/volltextserver/14373/1/goeschl_heyen_moreno_cruz__2013_dp540.pdf |url-status=live |journal=Environmental and Resource Economics |volume=56 |issue=1 |pages=85–104 |doi=10.1007/s10640-013-9647-x |issn=0924-6460 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201204163528/http://archiv.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/volltextserver/14373/1/goeschl_heyen_moreno_cruz__2013_dp540.pdf |archive-date=2020-12-04 |access-date=2019-08-16 |hdl=10419/127358 |s2cid=52213135}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last=Moreno-Cruz |first=Juan B. |date=2015-08-01 |title=Mitigation and the geoengineering threat |journal=Resource and Energy Economics |volume=41 |pages=248–263 |doi=10.1016/j.reseneeco.2015.06.001|hdl=1853/44254 }}</ref>

v t e Human impact on the environment
Allgemein	Anthropocene Ecological footprint Environmental impact assessment Environmental issues list of issues Human impact on marine life List of global issues Impact assessment Planetary boundaries Social ecology (ethics)
Causes	Agriculture animal agriculture cannabis cultivation irrigation meat production cocoa production palm oil (US) Bitcoin Corporate behavior Deforestation and climate change Energy industry biofuels biodiesel coal electricity energy fashion fracking (US) nuclear power oil shale petroleum reservoirs transport Genetic pollution Environmental crime Explosives Industrialisation Land use Fertigungsindustrie cleaning agents concrete fashion plastics nanotechnology paint paper pesticides pharmaceuticals and personal care Marine life fishing fishing down the food web marine pollution overfishing Mining Overconsumption Overdrafting Overexploitation Overgrazing Particulates Pollution Quarrying Reservoirs Tourism Transport aviation rail roads shipping Urbanization urban sprawl War
Effects	Biodiversity threats biodiversity loss decline in amphibian populations decline in insect populations Climate change runaway climate change in the United States Deforestation Defaunation Desertification Ecocide Ecological crisis Effects of climate change on agriculture Effects of climate change on livestock Environmental insecurity Environmental issues in the United States Coral reefs Externality Forest dieback Environmental degradation Erosion Freshwater cycle Greenhouse gas emissions Habitat destruction Holocene extinction Nitrogen cycle Land degradation Land consumption Land surface effects on climate Loss and damage Loss of green belts Phosphorus cycle Ocean acidification Ozone depletion Resource depletion Tropical cyclones and climate change Water degradation Water pollution Water scarcity
Mitigation	Alternative fuel vehicle propulsion Birth control Cleaner production Climate engineering Community resilience Cultured meat Decoupling Ecological engineering Environmental engineering Environmental mitigation Industrial ecology Mitigation banking Organic farming Recycling Reforestation urban Restoration ecology Nachhaltigkeit Sustainable consumption Waste minimization
Commons Kategorie by country assessment mitigation