ADN Compilation: GeoEngineering and Its Affects on our World
By: Ami Tiel 9/4/17
What is GEOENGINEERING? How does it affect our world, our society, our way of life? This and so much more will be covered in multiple parts in this series. Follow us along as we discover and reveal what GEOENGINEERING and how many ways it is integrated into our everyday lives.
Geoengineering most commonly refers to climate engineering.
Climate engineering, commonly referred to as geoengineering, also known as climate intervention, is the deliberate and large-scale intervention in the Earth’s climatic system with the aim of affecting adverse global warming. Climate engineering is an umbrella term for measures that mainly fall into two types: carbon dioxide removal and solar radiation management. Carbon dioxide removal addresses the cause of global warming by removing one of the greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide) from the atmosphere. Solar radiation management attempts to offset effects of greenhouse gases by causing the Earth to absorb less solar radiation.
Climate engineering approaches are sometimes viewed as additional potential options for limiting global warming, alongside mitigation and adaptation. There is substantial agreement among scientists that climate engineering cannot substitute for climate change mitigation. Some approaches might be used as accompanying measures to sharp cuts in greenhouse gas emissions. Given that all types of measures for addressing climate change have economic, political, or physical limitations, some climate engineering approaches might eventually be used as part of an ensemble of measures. Research on costs, benefits, and various types of risks of most climate engineering approaches is at an early stage and their understanding needs to improve to judge their adequacy and feasibility.
Almost all research into solar radiation management has consisted of computer modelling or laboratory tests, and an attempt to move to outdoor experimentation was controversial. Some carbon dioxide removal practices, such as planting of trees and bio-energy with carbon capture and storage projects, are underway. Their scalability to effectively affect global climate is, however, debated. Ocean iron fertilization has been investigated in small-scale research trials. The World Wildlife Fund has criticized these activities.
Most experts and major reports advise against relying on climate engineering techniques as a simple solution to global warming, in part due to the large uncertainties over effectiveness and side effects. However, most experts also argue that the risks of such interventions must be seen in the context of risks of dangerous global warming. Interventions at large scale may run a greater risk of disrupting natural systems resulting in a dilemma that those approaches that could prove highly (cost-) effective in addressing extreme climate risk, might themselves cause substantial risk. Some have suggested that the concept of engineering the climate presents a so-called “moral hazard” because it could reduce political and public pressure for emissions reduction, which could exacerbate overall climate risks; others assert that the threat of climate engineering could spur emissions cuts. Some are in favour of a moratorium on out-of-doors testing and deployment of solar radiation management (SRM).
…geoengineering is defined by the Royal Society as “… the deliberate large-scale intervention in the Earth’s climate system, in order to moderate global warming.”
Scientists at the Oxford Martin School at Oxford University have proposed a set of voluntary principles, which may guide climate engineering research. The short version of the ‘Oxford Principles’ is:
Principle 1: Geoengineering to be regulated as a public good.
Principle 2: Public participation in geoengineering decision-making
Principle 3: Disclosure of geoengineering research and open publication of results
Principle 4: Independent assessment of impacts
Principle 5: Governance before deployment
There is general consensus that no climate engineering technique is currently sufficiently safe or effective to greatly reduce climate change risks,…
All proposed solar radiation management techniques require implementation on a relatively large scale, in order to impact the Earth’s climate. The least costly proposals are budgeted at tens of billions of US dollars annually.
Carnegie Climate Geoengineering Governance Initiative (C2G2)
The C2G2 initiative is not for or against the research, testing or potential use of climate geoengineering technologies. That is a choice for society to make.
We seek to catalyze the creation of effective governance for climate geoengineering technologies by shifting the conversation from the scientific and research community to the global policy-making arena, and by encouraging a broader, society-wide discussion about the risks, potential benefits, ethical and governance challenges raised by climate geoengineering.
For a brief presentation of what climate geoengineering technologies are and why we need to talk about them now, as well as of the list of key principles guiding the work and the objectives of the C2G2 initiative, see the PDF: The Carnegie Climate Geoengineering Governance Initiative (C2G2): Our Approach.
Geoengineering: Governance and Technology Policy
Kelsi Bracmort Specialist in Agricultural Conservation and Natural Resources Policy
Richard K. Lattanzio Analyst in Environmental Policy
November 26, 2013
Congressional Research Service 7-5700 www.crs.gov R41371
Climate change policies at both the national and international levels have traditionally focused on measures to mitigate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and to adapt to the actual or anticipated impacts of changes in the climate. As a participant in several international agreements on climate change, the United States has joined with other nations to express concern about climate change. Some recent technological advances and hypotheses, generally referred to as “geoengineering” technologies, have created alternatives to traditional approaches to mitigating climate change. If deployed, these new technologies could modify the Earth’s climate on a large scale. Moreover, these new technologies may become available to foreign governments and entities in the private sector to use unilaterally—without authorization from the United States government or an international treaty—as was done in the summer of 2012 when an American citizen conducted an ocean fertilization experiment off the coast of Canada.
The term “geoengineering” describes an array of technologies that aim, through large-scale and deliberate modifications of the Earth’s energy balance, to reduce temperatures and counteract anthropogenic climate change. Most of these technologies are at the conceptual and research stages, and their effectiveness at reducing global temperatures has yet to be proven. Moreover, very few studies have been published that document the cost, environmental effects, sociopolitical impacts, and legal implications of geoengineering. If geoengineering technologies were to be deployed, they are expected to have the potential to cause significant transboundary effects.
In general, geoengineering technologies are categorized as either a carbon dioxide removal (CDR) method or a solar radiation management (SRM) method. CDR methods address the warming effects of greenhouse gases by removing carbon dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere. CDR methods include ocean fertilization, and carbon capture and sequestration. SRM methods address climate change by increasing the reflectivity of the Earth’s atmosphere or surface. Aerosol injection and space-based reflectors are examples of SRM methods. SRM methods do not remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere, but can be deployed faster with relatively immediate global cooling results compared to CDR methods. To date, there is limited federal involvement in, or oversight of, geoengineering.
However, some states as well as some federal agencies, notably the Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Energy, Department of Agriculture, and the Department of Defense, have taken actions related to geoengineering research or projects. At the international level, there is no international agreement or organization governing the full spectrum of possible geoengineering activities. Nevertheless, provisions of many international agreements, including those relating to climate change, maritime pollution, and air pollution, would likely inform the types of geoengineering activities that state parties to these agreements might choose to pursue. In 2010, the Convention on Biological Diversity adopted provisions calling for member parties to abstain from geoengineering unless the parties have fully considered the risks and impacts of those activities on biodiversity.
With the possibility that geoengineering technologies may be developed and that climate change will remain an issue of global concern, policymakers may determine whether geoengineering warrants attention at either the federal or international level. If so, policymakers will also need to consider whether geoengineering can be effectively addressed by amendments to existing laws and international agreements or, alternatively, whether new laws and international treaties would need to be developed.
Michael Nunnally writes: This is the proof they are changing the PH in the World’s Oceans:
Physiological responses of coccolithophores to abrupt exposure of naturally low pH deep seawater
Multiple Contributing Authors Published online 2017 Jul 27
Upwelling is the process by which deep, cold, relatively high-CO2, nutrient-rich seawater rises to the sunlit surface of the ocean. This seasonal process has fueled geoengineering initiatives to fertilize the surface ocean with deep seawater to enhance productivity and thus promote the drawdown of CO2. Coccolithophores, which inhabit many upwelling regions naturally ‘fertilized’ by deep seawater, have been investigated in the laboratory in the context of ocean acidification to determine the extent to which nutrients and CO2 impact their physiology, but few data exist in the field except from mesocosms. Here, we used the Porcupine Abyssal Plain (north Atlantic Ocean) Observatory to retrieve seawater from depths with elevated CO2 and nutrients, mimicking geoengineering approaches. We tested the effects of abrupt natural deep seawater fertilization on the physiology and biogeochemistry of two strains of Emiliania huxleyi of known physiology. None of the strains tested underwent cell divisions when incubated in waters obtained from <1,000 m (pH = 7.99–8.08; CO2 = 373–485 p.p.m; 1.5–12 μM nitrate). However, growth was promoted in both strains when cells were incubated in seawater from ~1,000 m (pH = 7.9; CO2 ~560 p.p.m.; 14–17 μM nitrate) and ~4,800 m (pH = 7.9; CO2 ~600 p.p.m.; 21 μM nitrate). Emiliania huxleyi strain CCMP 88E showed no differences in growth rate or in cellular content or production rates of particulate organic (POC) and inorganic (PIC) carbon and cellular particulate organic nitrogen (PON) between treatments using water from 1,000 m and 4,800 m. However, despite the N:P ratio of seawater being comparable in water from ~1,000 and ~4,800 m, the PON production rates were three times lower in one incubation using water from ~1,000 m compared to values observed in water from ~4,800 m. Thus, the POC:PON ratios were threefold higher in cells that were incubated in ~1,000 m seawater. The heavily calcified strain NZEH exhibited lower growth rates and PIC production rates when incubated in water from ~4,800 m compared to ~1,000 m, while cellular PIC, POC and PON were higher in water from 4,800 m. Calcite Sr/Ca ratios increased with depth despite constant seawater Sr/Ca, indicating that upwelling changes coccolith geochemistry. Our study provides the first experimental and field trial of a geoengineering approach to test how deep seawater impacts coccolithophore physiological and biogeochemical properties. Given that coccolithophore growth was only stimulated using waters obtained from >1,000 m, artificial upwelling using shallower waters may not be a suitable approach for promoting carbon sequestration for some locations and assemblages, and should therefore be investigated on a site-by-site basis.
Michael Nunnally writes: Craig J Venter and DOE Current Projects:
Geo-Engineering Scientist ‘Terrified’ of Projects He Helped Create
An excuse for weather modification programs?
by Christina Sarich Posted on January 2, 2015
Dr. Matthew Watson from Bristol University in the UK told the media recently that he’s “terrified” by many of the geoengineering projects started to thwart man-made climate change, a phenomenon being hawked as an excuse for weather modification programs by many in mainstream science as a ‘threat to humanity.’
Dr. Watson recently told Daily Mail UK online that he is:
“. . . terrified, because the potential for misstep is considerable.”
He worked on a $2.8 million weather manipulation project of the exact type that he says he is so afraid of. The project will inject sulfur particles into the Earth’s atmosphere with the stated goal of blocking the sun’s rays from reaching Earth, ostensibly to keep the earth from getting too warm. The project is called SPICE, and Dr. Watson leads the study.
Continue reading at…
Stratospheric Particle Injection for Climate Engineering
SPICE – Solar Radiation Management
Stratospheric Particle Injection for Climate Engineering (SPICE) was a United Kingdom government-funded climate engineering (geoengineering) research project that aimed to assess the feasibility of injecting particles into the stratosphere from a tethered balloon for the purposes of solar radiation management.
Part 2 in Geoengineering Series will be released shortly.