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.