Rogue Geoengineers on the Loose!

Over the past posts I have concentrated on different types of geoengineering schemes, their viability and public opinions on the matter. This has allowed me to form an opinion that geoengineering (both CDR and SRM) is an attractive management strategy and although portraying uncertainties, requires time and technology to develop before used in climate management. Currently, at the end of 2016, I believe that we still know too little about SRM schemes and fine-tuned trials should now be conducted to improve the deployment. I also believe that CDR schemes such as artificial trees show great potential but need more time to innovate to be both efficient and economically viable. Therefore, in my opinion we can expect a future where geoengineering provides us with more time to regulate our carbon levels.

However, this post aims to concentrate on the global implementation of geoengineering and the politics that arise when deciding who practices it and when. In previous posts, I have only slightly touched upon the threat that unilateral actors may have on the global climate, especially when acting without sufficient research.  The World Economic Forum (2013) highlighted that island states threatened by sea level rise may have nothing to lose, or even a well-funded individual may wish to take the climate issue into his own hands. Currently, both actors would be able to engage in geoengineering without international or scientific consent, providing they have the funds.  The approaches would most likely be high impact, low cost (e.g aerosol spraying and ocean fertilisation) which also contain the highest uncertainty.

Such was the case in 2012, when the American entrepreneur, Russ George (founder of Planktos Inc) attempted to restore salmon populations and reduce atmospheric CO2 by dumping 120 tonnes of iron sulphate (FeSO4) along Canada's West coast. What followed was a planktonic bloom spreading over 10,000 square kilometres. However, George made no investigation into potential side effects or ecological damages this large scale experiment could have, and simply acted of his own accord. Rightly so, Naomi Klein from the New York Times labelled George as a 'rogue geoengineer'.

Russ George dumping iron sulphate into Canadian waters without scientific or governmental approval (Source: http://newenergytimes.com)

What is of most concern, is that the example above took place during a period when climate change impacts were still not substantial. If we were to look into the future, say 50 years, it would not be wrong to say that rogue geoengineers such as George may be plentiful and have new and exciting technologies to test on our complex earth systems. Only a few years ago, Bill Gates set aside millions on geoengineering research, investing in Intellectual Ventures, who are currently developing the 'StratoShield', an 18-mile high hose supported by balloons, releasing aerosols into the stratosphere.

The 'StratoShield' aerosol pumper (Source: www.intellectualventureslab.com)

Although novel and innovative, issues of governance arise when understanding the deployment of such technologies. Will rogue actors such as George or Intellectual Ventures deploy these innovations or will it be down to a global decision. Furthermore, Millard-Ball, 2012 suggests that nations at risk may see these novel ideas as a final 'silver bullet' to end their climate change conundrum, without considering other nations that are likely to be affected. In some cases, private actors may deploy geoengineering to generate tradable carbon credits and in others, nations can use it as a quick fix.


Governance:

The growing interest in geoengineering schemes calls for the international community to bring to light the issues surrounding geoengineering governance in a global response to climate change (MacNaghten & Owen, 2011). Regulations should be set to prevent geoengineering techniques from being used in military, hostile or private gain purposes. A working group should be set up to investigate the specifics of individual geonengineering scheme deployments and must clearly evaluate the risks and reconsiderations to all global regions before implementation. What takes priority in the near-term is the development of a more general framework for understanding and managing geoengineering. Over time, this can be redesigned and restructured, but for now, this will give grounds for global governance of this strategy.

Answers to last week's quiz: 1-B, 2-D, 3-C, 4-C, 5-A, 6-A

Who Wants To Be A Geoengineer?

In the holiday spirit I decided to make a short quiz on geoengineering topics I discussed throughout the blog. Be sure to check the next post for answers!

Which of these is NOT an example of Geoengineering?

A) Iron Fertilisation
B) Chemtrails
C) Aerosol Spraying
D) Biochar

What does SRM stand for?

A) Solar Reduction Management
B) Sun Radiation Management
C) Solar Reduction Measures
D) Solar Radiation Management

What is SRM said to achieve?

A) Global reduction in Carbon Dioxide levels.
B) Reduced acidification of oceans.
C) Reduced incoming radiation.
D) Protection from incoming asteroids.

What is the MAIN current downside to the CDR idea of 'Artificial Trees'?

A) They justify further deforestation.
B) They are harmful to birds.
C) They are too expensive.
D) They are not aesthetically pleasing.

What did James Lovelock refer to the 'Earth System' as?

A) Gaia
B) Giai
C) Gia
D) Pluto

Which of the following is a leading advocate of geoengineering?

A) Paul Crutzen.
B) Alan Robock
C) Raymond Pierrehumbert
D) Lynn Russell

Soaring fever? Take a dose of geoengineering.

In this blogpost I step away from the commonly debated arguments in geoengineering and review a different perspective through the eyes of James Lovelock. His work highlights the Earth as a self regulating entity providing the view of geoengineers as Earth doctors, altering the way the planet regulates itself.

The Gaia Hypothesis:

Lovelock formulated the Gaia Hypothesis. Although initially controversial, the hypothesis has been revised to recognise the earth as a single, self regulating system with physical, chemical, biological and anthropogenic components. Lovelock's Gaia view of the Earth System highlights humans as a fundamental part of Gaia, not as a disease but as it's nervous system - as the heart and mind of the Earth (Lovelock, 2008).

The Revenge of Gaia:

In Lovelock's 2006 book, The Revenge of Gaia, he represents Gaia as the Earth System and criticises humans for their lack of respect for it. The book argues that it is too late for human's to repair the damage they have now made and that the planet will begin to undergo a range of irreversible positive feedbacks leading to the demise of the human race. However, in A geophysiologist's thoughts on geoengineering Lovelock follows this same view but characterises geoengineering as a time buying strategy allowing us to adapt before extreme climate change. The interview below taken by Nature from 7:30 minutes onwards, provides a short summary of Lovelock's views on geoengineering and the future of the planet. Of particular note is his mention of how humans are capable of prolonging the life of the planet through intelligent innovation.

Is Lovelock right?

In his recent publications and the interview above, Lovelock has taken a fairly pessimistic stance point on our long term ability to manage climate change, suggesting geoengineering as simply a time saving strategy. Despite this, he remains optimistic that the Earth System itself will overcome such changes but mentions that the fate of humanity remains questionable, requiring intense adaptation.  In my opinion, Lovelock's mention of 'intense adaptation' is what I class as geoengineering. Rather than accepting our fate new strategies are being developed and therefore I disagree with Lovelock when he refers to the future of humanity as doomed. Geoengineering represents our adaptation.

What did stand out to me as meaningful in this debate was Lovelock's underlying view that all organisms are planetary geoengineers. He believes species work to provide the most favourable conditions for themselves and ultimately reproduce to become a dominating population (Morton, 2007). Similarly, humans became geoengineers soon after we began clearing land, using fire and cooking food. Only now however, have we become aware of our actions as we surround ourself within an engineered world. Lovelock went on to describe this as the final straw for humanity, with our downfall inevitable. However, I disagree. Humans managed to engineer the Earth to suit our needs, through discovery, innovations, working together and developing technology. As the planet begins to provide unfavourable needs, I am confident that the human race can once more engineer the Earth back to a desired state.

Medicine for a feverish Earth:

Lovelock made an interesting comparison between current geoengineering pioneers and physiologists before the 1940s. As discussed in Lewis Thomas' (1983) book The Youngest Science, before the second World War, there were only 5 medicines available, treating 5 illnesses. During this period, physiologists knew little about these medicines and remained ignorant about the human body. A similar ignorance can also be applied to the Earth System today. The few cures we are currently presented with (CDR and solar management) are surrounded with suspicion and uncertainty. However, with time, technology and greater attention to the Earth System we could be met with a plethora of cures for individual biomes, components or cells within the Earth System that we are such a key part of. Therefore, geoengineers should be celebrated as Earth doctors who must strive to find a cure to our feverish Earth.

James Lovelock posing with a statue of the greek god Gaia (Source: http://ecolo.org)

Justification for a fossil fuel nation?

Is Geoengineering simply a term to justify further descruction? (Source: http://www.stephaniemcmillan.org/codegreen/comics/2011-12-12-good-question.jpg)

I recently stumbled across this interesting cartoon following through with the theme of politics and geoengineering. An American bureaucrat is portrayed here as identifying Geoengineering as a worst case scenario, fall back management policy to solve all problems. His American top hat and flag coloured attire gives hide to his razor sharp teeth and hidden political agendas.

The cartoon gives air to key issues in climate policy through making clear the link between politics and power. Those financing and contributing to campaigns for key political figures are often those who have reaped the wealth from exploiting our environment.  Here, geoengineering is seen as a cover to justify further exploitation and damage to our environment. This leads me to question the viability of geoengineering - is it simply a concept spoken about publicly for political gains?

Seeing it as a last resort silver bullet solution is dangerous. Regardless of geoengineering's success, there is no sole solution to the climate change issue, integrated approaches are necessary and cannot be put off any longer.

SRM: Can It Help?

This post takes a more literature-based review of Solar Radiation Management (SRM).  I aim to assess the role SRM can play in managing future climate change and provide my personal opinion on the matter.

A Review of Methods:

A range of studies have resorted to SRM as a 'last resort' or an 'emergency geoengineering measure' due to the large amount of uncertainty surrounding the method. However, the option of SRM is fairly attractive when looking at the rapid cooling capabilities provided. The table below by Caldeira et al, 2013 highlights space-based schemes and stratospheric aerosols as the most effective proposed methods. When assessing all schemes, stratospheric aerosol pumping highlights the most potential due to its quick deployment, high potential, low cost and medium risk. Therefore, this post will concentrate predominantly on this method.

A summary of SRM strategies assessed by potential, deployment speed, cost and risk (Source: Caldeira et al, 2013)

It must also be noted that all SRM approaches have no effect on the carbon dioxide levels already present in the atmosphere. Their sole purpose is to reduce global temperatures. Therefore, if implementation of such management were to occur, it would have to be done with CDR schemes working to also reduce atmospheric CO2 levels.

Is SRM a viable management strategy?

A range of issues have been highlighted surrounding aerosol pumping but with these, scientists have produced counter arguments. I will attempt to review a few of these here.

It has been suggested that the sulphur particles ejected into the atmosphere can contribute to depletion of the stratospheric ozone layer, leading to further solar radiation. However, Calderia et al. (2013) highlight that this is only a short term issue. He highlighted how this effect will diminish over time as fewer chloroflourocarbons become capable of reaching the stratosphere. Other authors have suggested that SRM will have a negative effect on solar energy efficiency, due to decreased solar radiation (Robock, 2008). However, Calderia believes that SRM will in fact scatter incoming sunlight providing a greater fraction of diffuse light. This is expected to expose more parts of individual plants to light, leading to more global photosynthesis and greater CO2 absorbance. General arguments against SRM also raise concerns over the side effect of increased acid rain from sulphur additions. However, through simulation models Kravitz et al (2009) found that on a global scale, the additional acid rain caused is likely to be relatively small with modest consequences. In addition, managing incoming solar radiation has been linked to a global increase in biomass due to the CO2 fertilisation effect where plant photosynthesis increases with CO2 concentrations. If SRM successfully maintained the global temperatures we have today well into the future, Pongratz et al (2012) indicated that CO2 levels will continue rising and once reaching 800ppm (compared to 400ppm today), crop yields will be 8-21% greater than current yields, dependent on the crop. The reason for this is a reduced temperature stress on plants associated with higher CO2 concentrations with the continued effect of CO2 fertilisation. Thus allowing plants to photosynthesis more, without being affected by increased temperatures. Despite this, 800ppm CO2 concentrations will lead to extensive ocean acidification and a range of health issues, making this scenario not only unlikely, but dangerous too.

Importantly, it must also be noted that SRM schemes have no positive effect on ocean acidification (Matthews et al, 2009). Furthermore, this method of management is taken unilaterally across the globe, introducing issues surrounding governance and matters of who decides when and if such a scheme should take place (Barrett, 2014). Rather than acting as a means to prevent climate conflict, it could act a source to stimulate international conflict. However, the potential for SRM in reducing global temperatures to prolong the time required to reduce carbon dioxide levels through emission reductions looks attractive.

Thinking into the future:

Imagine yourself in 2100, living in rural India where climate change has led to an array of monsoons, flooding, vastly reduced crop yields and death and famine to a large number of friends and family. The country is beginning to slip into a dire situation and food insecurity is rapidly increasing. Agreed emissions reductions across the globe have been unsuccessful and future targets seem extremely unrealistic. However, in the midst of this crisis, there remains talk of one, potentially risky management strategy - Solar Radiation Management. You, as well as the general public see no other option and democracy begins to speak. Governments are pressured into implementing this emergency solution. Nationwide aerosol spraying begins despite countries across the globe strongly opposing the idea. Neighbouring countries begin to protest and before long, this will be an issue of global concern as the atmosphere is shared by all. Either a peaceful resolution is sought or conflict arises.

What should we do?

Further research on SRM is required through small, controlled experiments. Once better understood, any use of it should be restricted to fine-tuned injections to manage global issues such as melting of the Greenland ice sheets. Spraying should be at low concentrations and done following natural seasons. Over time, the side effects will be managed as all use is small scale. Furthermore, with time the strategy is very likely to improve in efficiency and become more controllable, a belief shared by (Morenzo-Cruz & Keith, 2013). In this scenario, countries that are hit by climate crisis in the future will be more aware of side effects and a global SRM organisation would have already been set up, providing them with the best course of action. By no means should SRM provide a justification for further CO2 emissions, it can simply be used to prevent overcoming tipping points, providing time for CRD technologies to become affordable and efficient and allow reduction targets to be implemented and met. Only when SRM is used in this context, will it be a justifiable management strategy.

The Big Cloudspiracy

In previous posts I explored the viability of CDR schemes and how they show potential in future management. This week I begin investigating into the solar radiation management (SRM) method and stumbled across a few interesting sources...

While researching, I came across a mysterious website labelled 'Geoengineering Watch' scattered with photos of planes and clouds and short reports. I wanted to know more, especially after seeing how large a reach this website had, with interaction from many members of the general public. After watching a few videos of plane trails and reading some speculatively written reports I came to the understanding that the authors and viewers of the website have reason to believe that despite public concerns, aerosol spraying (a form of SRM) is already being used by governments. In particular, the conspiracists believe that certain planes purposefully release aerosols in an attempt to manage solar radiation. The website suggests these 'chemicals' (chemtrails) released by the planes can encourage cloud formation and rainfall or contain biological agents. Are they right?

Supposed 'Chemtrails' released by aircrafts (Source: www.geoengineeringwatch.com)

Personally, I was not entirely convinced by these arguments and the majority of the scientific community agree with me. The trails are mistaken for contrails which dissipate over time and are yet known to be harmless. However, what I found most interesting was the way in which these authors understood and communicated ideas of geoengineering.

Upon further reading of similar websites, one comedically named 'Aircrap', I came across an apparent trend where authors encouraged readers to refer to 'chemtrails' as 'geoengineering' to avoid being labelled as conspiracy theorists:

'A world-wide program is underway to control the weather since the mid-90s. It is being done without your consent. It is called GEOENGINEERING or SRM (Solar Radiation Management) and originally: chemtrailing’ (Aircrap 2013).

And when searching through Geoengineering Watch, I found the following:

'First of all, semantics are extremely important in regard to the introduction of geoengineering. The geoengineering term is related to hard science, the ‘chemtrails’ term has no such verifiable basis but rather leads anyone that Googles the term straight to ‘conspiracy theory’ and ‘hoax’ definitions.'

In both cases, the term geoengineering is being used to legitimise their discourse surrounding chemtrails and as found by Cairns (2016) allows the phenomenon to be mainstreamed into academia.

Furthermore, across both sources, the authors use scientific jargon of 'tipping points' and 'thresholds' in an attempt to rally followers to take action. Through integrating scientific knowledge with speculation, they bring into question the real viability of what they term 'Geoengineering'. Dialogue of this type could be part of the reason why the public currently associate 'Geoengineering' with uncertainty and mystery. The term has been surrounded with negative connotations leading to a lack of authority in the public sphere. Therefore, a redefinition of the term should be introduced to prevent it from being deteriorated by more extreme understandings.

However, I do believe that this discourse highlights the potential dangers that geoengineering of this nature could pose in the future. The articles make reference to military use and biological hazards of injecting chemicals into our environment. The use of cloud seeding as a weapon could ignite flooding in regions and drought in others, all controlled by the human touch. Therefore, these websites do illustrate that if aerosol spraying is to be used as an approach, the politics of such an approach must be assessed thoroughly.

(Fe)rtilisation: Fantasy or Fear?

"Give me half a tanker of iron and I will give you an ice age' (Martin, 1988)

Stated John Martin at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution lecture in 1988. By this, he was referring to the proposed geoengineering method of iron fertilisation. Although previously touched upon, this post will concentrate on understanding how it works and assessing its future viability.

Between 1993-2009, 13 small iron fertilisation studies were carried out in a range of oceanic environments with the sole purpose to determine if phytoplankton growth in the surface ocean was limited by iron availability. Interestingly, none of these studies were designed as geoengineering trials. However, all projects concluded that biological production across a range of oceanic regions is limited by iron shortages (Williamson, 2012). In each case, the addition of iron increased phytoplankton biomass which led to reduction of CO2 levels in surface waters, thus promoting CO2 drawdown from the atmosphere (Watson et al, 2008). Although the magnitude of carbon sequestration varied amongst experiments, all indicated that levels were insignificant in achieving an offset for anthropogenic carbon production.

A simple explanation of how iron fertilisation works with the best and worst case scenario for its outcome (Source:http://bloggie-360.blogspot.co.uk/)

During these investigations a range of side-effects were noted and now form part of the argument against iron fertilisation as a viable geoengineering option.

The Fear:

1. Production of Climate-Relevant Gases:

Currently, there are uncertainties about unwanted production of nitrous oxide and methane gases as a spin-off effect of iron fertilisation. Although research on this matter remains sparse, studies by Jin & Gruber, 2003 show small increases in both gas levels following iron addition. These gases have warming potentials of 320 and 20 times greater than CO2 respectively. Therefore, if release occurs, this can completely offset any carbon sequestering occurring from the fertilisation itself.

2. Ocean Acidification:

Although a reduction of atmospheric CO2 levels will contribute to reduced acidification of the ocean surface, the issue is simply relocated rather than solved. Cao & Caldeira, 2010 found that further CO2 sequestration in the deep ocean can cause increased acidification of ocean interior waters, possibly degrading the habitat of benthic, shell building organisms due to a lack of bio-minerals.

3. 'Nutrient Robbing':

This term was first coined by the Royal Society in (2009) and refers to downstream changes occurring from ocean fertilisation. The Royal Society suggested that the iron additions in open oceanic waters can lead to reduced productivity around islands and nations that may not be partaking in the fertilisation activity. This leads to issues of governance and can result in conflict between countries. Furthermore, the biodiversity losses from this can be severe and result in the extinction of a large number of marine species.

4.  Anoxia:

Due to increased photosynthesis, there will be a decrease in oxygen availability. Where fertilisation is over large areas, there can be widespread oxygen depletion and even regions with anoxic waters. Chan et al, 2008 suggests that the rate of mortality of marine organisms following this could be catastrophic.

5. Toxin Production:

Trick et al (2010) discovered, through a range of shipboard experiments, that phytoplankton producing the toxin domoic acid can increase in abundance following iron fertilisation. In addition to this it was found that their rate of toxin production increases in fertilised conditions. This toxin is said to accumulate in shellfish and when eaten can be fatal to all predators, including humans.

A natural phytoplankton boom off the coast of Argentina. Will this be a more common sight in the future? (Source: http://www.whoi.edu/oceanus)

Conclusion:

In my opinion, iron fertilisation is a fantasy with too many uncertainties to be implemented as a carbon management method.  Where field experiments have been conducted, it has shown potential in reducing atmospheric levels but the magnitude at which it works is too small to make a significant difference. The side effects are severe and under-researched to justify large scale study of this method. Therefore, although an interesting idea on paper, iron fertilisation should not be considered when designing a geoengineering approach to manage climate change.

Public Sceptacism Gets Us Nowhere

Public scepticism surrounding the CDR scheme of artificial trees (Source: http://www.cartoonmovement.com/cartoon/3058)

The cartoon above portrays an irony around the artificial tree concept where we justify further deforestation through the invention of carbon removal mechanisms. However, as highlighted in the previous post, there is great potential in the carbon air removal market and innovations are already appearing. This scepticism is unnecessary and achieves little. Instead, the public should increase demand for carbon removal products to further drive innovators to compete to invent breakthrough carbon sequestering products at viable prices.

CDR: Negative Emissions For A Positive Future

Since the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in 1992, there has been a growing urgency in the scientific community for stabilising atmospheric greenhouse gas levels. However, stabilising greenhouse gas levels, as shown by modelling (Matthews, 2006) is not enough to stabilise the global climate. His model (as well as others) illustrated that despite stabilisation, we have committed ourself to future warming. Management should not simply focus on stabilising current emission levels but should work to reduce them, cutting anthropogenic emissions to an all time low. It is here where Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) methods of geoengineering are most valuable.

Mathews & Calledeira (2007) suggested a need for 0 carbon emissions from anthropogenic sources to reduce further future warming. However, cutting emissions to nothing overnight is next to impossible. The same could be said for the next decade or even next few decades. However, if we invest in some of the carbon capture schemes mentioned in the second blog post, we can attempt to offset our emissions through finding a balance between carbon emissions and carbon capture. Such a strategy will prolong the use of fossil fuels in sectors where decarbonisation will require more time and technology (e.g the transport sector).

The main challenge currently faced is the need to make CDR technologies universally economically viable. Authors such as David Keith (2009) argue that the cost of large scale air capture schemes will decrease and enter competitive markets in the near future. However, this has recently been fiercely opposed by authors suggesting previous cost suggestions for CDR are gross underestimates.

I personally take a more optimistic view on this topic. When faced with the issue of carbon emissions from vehicles it was not long until electric cars were introduced, with pioneering designs such as the Tesla Model S making their way into markets at a competitive $30,000 price. Such innovations make me hopeful about future technology at economically viable prices. We are already seeing new start ups (e.g Climeworks, Global Engineering & Global Thermostat) entering the markets, attempting to provide innovative and affordable methods of CDR, with more research this could be an upcoming field. For example, the company Carbon Engineering has already produced an effective mechanism for air capture of carbon. Summed up in the cutting-edge video below (give it a watch!), the air capture system filters CO2 from the air and stores it as a liquid form. Most interesting, however, is where the video discusses the potential for a globally sustainable carbon supply. Here carbon is absorbed from the atmosphere, converted into hydrocarbons and placed back into the atmosphere in a self-sustaining system (Figure 1).

Furthermore, with greater environmental governance such as the recent COP21 negotiations, nations will be inclined to invest in CDR strategies to meet agreed targets. Where targets are unrealistic, wide scale CDR schemes will provide effective assurance.

Figure 1: Potential for a global self sustaining system of carbon capture, conversion, use and capture again (Source: http://carbonengineering.com).

However, the environmental viability of CDR schemes is also a matter which is commonly contested. A recent article in Nature by Williamson (2016) it was suggested 600 gigatonnes of CO2 must be removed from the atmosphere to limit global temperature rise to 2°C. Using Bio-Energy with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS), this would require the equivalent of half the land area of the United States to be planted with crops solely for the purpose of carbon removal. Therefore, he indicated that the land requirements required for BECCS to work would accelerate the loss of grasslands and primary forests. The biodiversity losses of this would be catastrophic, potentially even worse than a business as usual scenario. The paper then highlights issues with other CDR methods such as iron fertilisation, biochar application and enhanced weathering. However, the author gave appraisal to the direct air capture (DAC) method of carbon removal but highlights similar concerns for land space and potential carbon leakages.

In conclusion, I still believe CDR remains a valid potential mitigation strategy. Williamson's study does not make reference to BECCS being used alongside innovative CDR schemes which together can offset carbon. I follow Keith's argument and take example from our ability to develop solutions when a problem is pertinent. Despite concerns, CDR shows innovative potential and although it is not going to be the silver bullet, stand alone cure to our climate conundrum, it is a bullet in itself and a strong one nonetheless.

Make Atmospheric Carbon Levels Great Again

'Climate change is a hoax' said the newly elected President of the United States.

The President-Elect's views on climate change and global warming (Source: www.twitter.com)

The polls are set and Donald Trump is to steer America through the next four years. However, it could not have come at a worse time. In the climate agenda the next four years are key to future policies, with the potential to shape the global climate effort as we begin moving into murky waters. In this blog post I move slightly off track and explore the relationship between climate and politics and attempt to understand what this political breakthrough will have on geoengineering as a future management strategy. 

Worst Case Scenarios:

1. Trump takes a firm stand on increasing US oil drilling and coal mining, strongly opposing Obama's 'Clean Power Plan' aiming to reduce US carbon emissions by 32% from 2005 - 2030. Under his lead the USA is likely to increase fossil fuel consumption.

2. In a recent interview, Trump pledged to 'cancel the Paris climate agreement' and cancel all payments to the UN climate change programmes. Although other countries are likely to remain pro-environment, the loss of the US from these global efforts will come as a set back to achieving global targets. In some cases countries may be less motivated to reach emissions targets as the USA offset any reductions made.

3. With such a leading figure making these bold sceptical statements, it is a possibility that supporters will take a similar view. An extreme outcome of this could be reduced discourse about climate change in the public sphere in the US. The result of such is reduced public backing and a general lack of care about reducing GHGs.

4. Trump is keen on ensuring 'energy independence' in the US through bringing back coal mining in an attempt to 'save the coal industry'. However, at a time when fracking is expanding and natural gas becomes more globally available, it is unlikely that coal will make a return.

If such worst case scenarios were to happen, a study by Lux Research indicates projected emissions over the next 8 years highlighting differences between Trump's and Clinton's run. However, this should be taken with a pinch of salt, as political motives could be behind its production.

Figure 1: Emissions based on previous presidential policies and future projections (Source: http://www.luxresearchinc.com/news-and-events/press-releases/read/trump-presidency-could-mean-34-billion-tons-more-us-carbon/).

Implications on Geoengineering:

In the next four years, if geoengineering was feasible and had strong scientific backing, it would require a truly global effort to work effectively. All the methods outlined in last weeks post are both extremely expensive and require large scale projects. Therefore, global leaders will have to really believe in climate change and be willing to invest financially in the global environment. With such strong views against climate policy, Trump is the least favourable leader to be making these key decisions.

However, there's no need to worry. Trump's four year (or even eight year) term is unlikely to place him in control of potential large geoengineering decisions as it still remains fairly novel in the scientific world and even more so in policy making. Furthermore, the worst case scenarios stated above are unlikely as his single view as a leader will not dictate all policy made over the course of the next four years, congressional approval will be very difficult for many of his extreme decisions. If anything, scientists should be more inclined to further research the viability of geoengineering to compensate for what is likely to be an increase in climate change scepticism and potential increased emissions in America. At the same time, scientists should not see Trump's scepticism as a reason to lose hope, rather as a motivation to take matters into their own hands and care for the future of our planet. 

A Summary of Geoengineering Methods

Before I explore and assess the viability of geoengineering I thought it would be best to review the different types of geoengineering and the science behind them. In general, proposed geoengineering schemes can be classified under two categories: Solar Radiation Management (SRM) and Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) (Kosugi, 2010).

Figure 1: Visual representations of proposed geoengineering schemes under the two broad management categories (Source: http://rethinkingprosperity.org/tag/global-warming/).

Solar Radiation Management:

1. Space Reflectors:

Also Known As: Solar Shields, Solar Radiation Management, Sunshades

Suggestions have been made to place large reflectors high in the statosphere or even in outer space which reflect incoming solar radiation back out into space. The idea was first introduced by Roger Angel first presented the idea of sunshades in 2006, winning NASA grants for further research in 2008 (EurekAlert, 2006). What was a novel idea is now gaining scientific traction but such aims remain unachievable with current existing technology. Furthermore, the project is expected to be extremely expensive regardless of how successful the outcome.

Figure 2: The graphic highlights proposed plans for these solar shields. The shades are transparent but work to spread out incoming sunlight to prevent to divert it from reaching Earth (Source:http://thefutureofthings.com).

2. Reflective Aerosols:

Also Known As: Aersosol Cooling

Aerosols are fine solid particles or liquid droplets suspended in the air, with both natural and anthropogenic source (Colbeck, 2009). Following large scale volcanic eruptions, scientists notice a short period (months to years) of cooled temperatures. This occurs as the eruption releases aerosols into the atmosphere and stratosphere where they scatter sunlight, reducing the solar energy reaching the earth. For example, following the eruption of Mount Pinatubo in 1991 the ejection of sulphur dioxide led to the production of sulphate aerosols. Following this eruption, global temperatures dropped by approximately 0.6°C for 2 years. Geoengineers see this as an opportunity for reducing global temperatures for a longer time span, through injecting reflective aerosols into the atmosphere. However, there are a wide range of aerosols with some reflecting and others absorbing heat. In the case of black carbon, this aerosol absorbs the suns heat further warming the climate whilst also depositing on white snow surfaces reducing surface albedo and shading the earth's surface. Therefore, a critical understanding of different aerosols is first required before utilising them in geoengineering. Ultimately, reflective aerosols also represent a short term solution which will have little impact on global carbon dioxide levels and dealing with the real issue at hand.

Figure 3: The relationship between large volcanic eruptions and global temperature anomalies indicating the impact of aerosol's on the climate (Source: http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov) 

Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR):

1. Iron Fertilisation:

Also Known As: Ocean Seeding, Carbon Sinking

Companies such as Planktos and Climos suggest mitigating the global rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide through 'seeding' the world's oceans with Iron. The concept was initially theorised by the renowned biogeochemist John Martin who suggested that adding iron dust to oceans can trigger large scale planktonic booms reducing global atmospheric carbon dioxide levels as the plankton absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere in photosynthesis (Martin et al. 1987). Arguments against the method suggest that the granulated iron will act as a pollutant, further deteriorating the oceans. It has also been acknowledged that plankton booms along shorelines can lead to oxygen depletion and ocean acidification, proving devastating for marine biodiversity.

The iron fertilisation process summarised in 4 main steps (Source: http://marinefoodchainsmn.tumblr.com)

2. Artificial Trees:

Also Known As: Carbon Capture, Synthetic Trees

A report by the Institute of Mechanical Engineers led by Dr. Tim Fox suggested the use of large, fly-swat shaped constructions as a viable geoengineering option (Fox et al, 2009). These structures act as artificial trees through capturing passing air and separating and storing CO₂ present through possessing 'sorbent' materials such as sodium hydroxide. This stored CO₂ is later removed and buried deep in the ground where it remains naturally stored in the Earth.  The structures (Figure 3) were estimated in the report to cost approximately $20,000 each whilst requiring land to be built on. However, 100,000 of these 'trees' in the UK was calculated to remove the same amount of carbon dioxide released from the UKs household and transport emissions each year. However, other studies such as that by Lackner, 2009 suggests a total of 10 million units of these structures are required worldwide to mitigate against humanity's total carbon output. Therefore, it is clear that the science behind this scheme remains relatively untested with global estimates remaining rare.

Figure 5: Proposed design for 'artificial carbon absorbing trees'  (Source: http://www.theresilientearth.com).

3. Enhanced Weathering:

Also Known As: Dissolution & Carbonation

Scientists have suggested that exposure of new rocks to weathering can act as a means of sequestering atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. When surface rock is weathered away, new rock is exposed and this absorbs carbon dioxide from the atmosphere as it has not previously been in contact with CO₂ before. This highlights an attractive opportunity in geoengineering where crushing and spreading the magnesium rich rock olivine across land surfaces could speed up the natural carbon sequestering processes. Under natural conditions, olivine absorb atmospheric CO₂ to form magnesium carbonate and silicic acid and in turn removing and storing carbon. The olivine particles can also be deposited on sea beds to deal with issues of ocean acidification.  However, these processes would require large scale projects to have a meaningful impact. Hangx & Spiers (2009) carried out a kinetics study indicating the need for an approximate annual spread of 5 gigatonnes of olivine across beaches to reach a 30% offset of yearly global emissions based on 1990 levels. Despite this, it still remains unknown as to how long it will take for the olivine to sequester the carbon dioxide and whether such a technique will be cost efficient or not.

Figure 6: Olivine broken into small pieces (Source: http://www.nature.com)

Conclusions:

The explored geoengineering schemes represent key projects of interest but it must be noted that other schemes such as cloud seeding, deep sea carbon capture, biochar and forestation to mention a few, are all gaining traction with pros and cons being highlighted for each. Through exploring these options I am beginning to form an opinion of geoengineering as a hopeful yet futuristic concept. If anything, each method requires global efforts and intensive technological and scientific research before implementation. At this stage, I have a positive outlook on geoengineering but yet question its global governance if used in the future. Let me know what you think on last week's poll!

Geoengineering: a destructive strategy or a technological solution?

As I begin writing this blog post, I question which stance I will take on this truly controversial management strategy. Geoengineering has so many signs of being a potential contender to solving (or at least aiding) our global climate change conundrum but at the same time, I wonder if further anthropogenic alterations can really benefit our fragile earth.

The simple truth is that at this very moment, I do not know. However, that alone is what makes this topic so interesting to me. Over 4 years ago, I stumbled across an article which spurred my interest in geoengineering. An article which for me, highlighted the true power of the human race, a species who can manipulate mother nature herself. It made reference to how China dispersed a total of 1,100 rockets around the olympic stadium to prevent it raining during the opening ceremony of the 2008 olympic games. Although expensive, the ceremony was without rain and the method was celebrated by Chinese officials as a successful management of small scale meteorological systems.

China's cloud seeding rocket launcher (Source: http://usatoday30.usatoday.com)

At the time of reading, as a young, naive, geography student I saw this to be a novel and technological answer to our climate change issue. Excited about this new stance, I blogged about geoengineering as a marvel invention in 2013- using examples from Abu Dhabi and how they managed to manipulate rainfall for a 52 day period over a desert. I wrote a blog post highlighting what topics will be of interest to geographers 100 years from now, with geoengineering being at the forefront of my argument.

Ionisers in Abu Dhabi inducing rain (Source: http://www.esquireme.com)

One small article spurred so much interest - yet my questions remained unanswered and my knowledge unsatisfied. Over the coming weeks, I hope to delve into the unknown, dig deep and find some real concrete evidence to build an opinion on. Through reviewing sources, peer reviewed articles and other blogposts I hope to explore the controversies of geoengineering and conclude it's viability in long term climate strategy.