On a global scale...

Just an impromptu post!

I found this map on the Guardian website indicating where Geoengineering projects were taking place in 2012, and what type of activity!

The map clearly illustrates that a large proportion of the world is involved in the development of geoengineering projects, but it is most prevalent in the 'hotspots' of westernised countries including the US, Canada and those of Europe.

This map helps to illuminate the proliferation of geoengineering across the globe, and just how strong a candidate geoengineering is in the world's attempt to mitigate climate change.

Source: ETCGROUP.ORG

Enjoy!

S xx

Iron's the answer!

So we have now set the processes of Geoengineering in motion....

But what actually is Geoengineering?

I reiterate my previously brief introduction on what composes the term 'Geoengineering' by first defining the process as 'as an intentional large scale manipulation of the environment...' (Keith, 2000).  The action of geoengineering must be primarily for inducing environmental change, and on a large scale (continental or global). The currently credible methods of Geoengineering can be divided into Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) and Solar Radiation Methods (SRM).

This post will focus on all processes CDR related. So what are they?

They have one aim. 

Carbon dioxide removal methods resolve to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide within the atmosphere through extraction for long term storage in a sink such as land, vegetation or sequestration in the deep ocean (Hamilton, 2013). This process manipulates the mighty global carbon cycle, shifting the current equilibrium balance away from its present state of an increasingly enlarging atmospheric carbon sink. The removal of atmospheric carbon dioxide should slow then begin to diminish the increasing warming effects that excess carbon dioxide has already caused. 

Ocean Iron Fertilisation is one of the CDR approaches and will be the focus of today's post.

The world's oceans are crucial within the global carbon cycle, as the largest sink of carbon. More than 38,000 billion tonnes of carbon are stored in the ocean,compared to 800 billion tonnes in the atmosphere (Hamilton, 2013). Carbon dioxide initially dissolves into the ocean surface layer where great mixing occurs. This surface layer becomes saturated quickly, and carbon is then drawn down into the deep ocean. Little mixing occurs in the deep ocean so carbon storage is greater. Ocean temperature is an important variable in the uptake of carbon, as colder waters are able to absorb greater quantities of carbon, therefore deep oceans at high latitudes are optimum for carbon storage.

Ocean iron fertilisation has been proposed to increase biological productivity through increased iron content within the waters. The increased productivity would induce an increase in carbon uptake within the deep oceans through photosynthesis. Iron is an important trace element for all living organisms, but increasingly so for cellular functions including chlorophyll synthesis in phytoplankton to undertake photosynthesis processes.

Phytoplankton growth is more prolific in areas of high nutrients and low chlorophyll, such as the Southern Ocean and sub-Arctic Pacific (Allsop et al. 2007) due to the lack of availability of iron. Phytoplankton blooms are stimulated by increased iron content, and iron fertilisation is idealised as a geoengineering preposition to enhance the biological pump through phytoplankton population growth, to draw more carbon dioxide into the oceans. When these micro-organisms perish, the carbon is stored for a very prolonged period within the deep ocean. (The video below describes the iron fertilisation process with the bonus of visual aids). One tonne (metric ton) of iron could promote the removal of 30,000 to 110,000 tonnes of carbon from the atmosphere, and the process of iron fertilisation is estimated to cost only approximately $30-300 per tonne of carbon sequestered (White & Mitchell, 2012). 

Sounds great, right?

Surely this process could mitigate climate change? 

(Source: www.youtube.com/watch?v=sPRKLpDdM0s) 

As easy as this all sounds there are limitations.

Firstly there is a huge lack of understanding within this area of research, and the concepts are highly simplified (Allsop et al. 2007).  There have been only 12 small scale experiments between 1993 and 2008 to see the impact that increased iron concentration has on phytoplankton growth, with successful results (Lampitt et al. 2008), but none of these experiments were designed to measure sequestration. Since then, there have been 2 more, including a  release of 100 tonnes of iron sulfate into the North Pacific Ocean, just off Canada in 2012 (Tollefson, 2012), but this sparked conflict and experimentation ceased (Bellamy, 2014). No project has yet been applied on a large scale, which could have great hindering effects or hitherto unforeseen consequences. Therefore whilst the potential is there to enhance ocean carbon sequestration by this technique, modelling and observation attempts have not yet provided a foundation stable enough for this method to develop further (Lampitt et al. 2008) due to lack of verification. All methods have to be verified in front of policy-makers and the scientific community for success, (this can be illustrated by the advent of carbon credits within policy) yet such certainty of outcomes is not yet demonstrable for iron fertilisation. 

Source: Translating Science

Similarly a large envelope of uncertainty surrounds the methodology due to unknown global carbon cycle processes and interactions with the upper ocean. Side effects of iron fertilisation could be ocean acidification, due to increased carbon dioxide absorption into ocean surface layers. Such a decrease in ocean pH is likely to have implications and alternative effects on the ability for calcification and a shift in phytoplankton populations (Lampitt et al. 2008). 

The process could similarly cause a redistribution of minerals within the ocean, causing nutrient deficits elsewhere. Similarly increased phytoplankton populations could absorb more heat from the sun, and produce warmer ocean surface layers (Powell, 2008). 

There are big ethical problems - such as who owns the oceans? Whose piece of ocean shall we try this out on first? What about impacts on fish stocks and harvest from the sea? There are many interdependent and delicate ecological systems in the oceans? How do we assess the environmental impact of such complexity? Are adverse impacts on some species OK but not others? Who will decide?

The examples above are uncertainties to name a few. But the list goes on. There are too many uncertainties associated with ocean iron fertilisation, which are preventing it from becoming, in the near future, any more than a geoengineering application or proposal. 


However, which other carbon dioxide removal methods have been proposed - and with what likelihoods of future success?

Let's check these out next time!   


S xx

After you, no after you...

So how did Climate Engineering become shortlisted as a climate change solution?

We established in my first post that it had not been acknowledged within policy until the IPCC Summary for Policy Makers Report in 2013, so what were the solutions that preceded it?

The first and foremost approach was initiated as an attempt by the governments of the major industrialised countries to attempt to incorporate climate within policy making, setting targets and initiatives to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide emissions polluting our increasingly warmer atmosphere. This globalised mitigation strategy, an attempt to limit the enhanced effects of carbon dioxide by diminishing current consumption behaviours, has been developed by global summits to create a universal sustainable power against climate change and targets and goals have been proposed.

Maybe international targets of a worldwide reduction in carbon dioxide emissions per capita by 50% could be applied?

Seems rather unlikely.

Could the most highly developed countries really (and hypocritically) inform the newly industrialised countries (NICS) and underdeveloped countries of the world, that they can no longer develop as rapidly, and potentially as successfully, as they did so long ago?



Source: Rweb

Developing countries have refuted any full participation in climate mitigation methods, claiming that, compared to industrialised countries, developing countries have much more to lose from climate change due to agricultural dependence, and that a growing economy was the only way to mitigate any climate change effects (Schelling, 2002).

In fact it was agreed at the Kyoto Protocol in 1997 that a heavier burden of responsibility would be applied to the developed countries worldwide, as they had a greater impact on increasing anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions and that the global north and south should have 'differentiated responsibilities' (UNFCCC, 1992). In 2010 alone, the US emitted 17.6 metric tons of Carbon Dioxide per capita, compared to 0.1 metric tons per capita in Guinea (www.data.worldbank.org/indicator/).

The G8+5 Climate Change Dialogue in 2006 convened the world's 16 highest polluting countries, recognising that 20 countries are responsible for more than 80% of global carbon dioxide emissions (Prins & Rayner, 2007).

How effective then have carbon trading methods been at reducing our climate change problems?

The idea behind carbon trading is that any country who underuses their assigned limit of carbon dioxide emissions can sell its remaining quota to other countries and the buyer gains an increase in allowance of carbon dioxide emissions.

Simple.

Or is it?

In theory, it is potentially possible that by capping maximum carbon dioxide emissions this would, over time, gradually reduce our carbon consumption, and contribute to a decline in pollution emissions. However, in practice, the terms of trade are continually under renegotiation, and countries with an 'excess' of allowable quota, can ask for greater sums of money upon each occasion, due to increased demand for the allowance (Schelling, 2002).

Similarly, no nation has the power to monitor these trading process on a worldwide scale, nor be able to impose sanctions against those who do not comply. Despite this being a global problem, carbon trading would have greater success on a local scale (Hilsenrath, 2009). Prins & Rayner (2007; p975) stated that 'rather than the top-down universalism embodied in Kyoto, countries would choose policies that suit their particular circumstances'. Yet post-Kyoto, this approach has largely been ignored.

Maybe we should wait? But for how long? The Climate Clock ticks on...



Source: Homosapiensaveyourearth

The main outcome of recent international governance attempts has been the acknowledgement of the existence of climate change and its impacts. There has been no achievement at all so far in reducing carbon dioxide emissions, nor has there been any real implementation of potentially effective measures to achieve this aim, and this same problem has recurred every four years at each international climate congress. Economic growth and development has always been highly desirable and a political necessity, and no country is willing to sacrifice rapid economic development for a compromise in environmentally friendly but low capital boosting alternatives, or are likely at least to volunteer to be first to take this economic cold plunge... 

That's where the Geoengineers need to step in and take centre stage to 'Save the World'! Possible climatic devastation could be imminent, policy agreements are not yet in place to tackle rapid climate change effects and should any carbon emission reduction method be enforced it would take years to notice a significant decline to emission levels.

Geoengineering, on the other hand, can make prompt changes, it can be unilaterally forced - no international agreement necessary, and it could ultimately become our most effective shield against climate change... Right?

Time to get started??


 S xx

Make way, Climate Engineering is here to stay!

The advent of Climate Engineering

Today marks my first contribution to the renowned blogosphere and world of science. My blog aims to explore Global Environmental Change through the controversial topic of Climate Engineering.

Climate change is an indisputable problem. Our awareness has soared globally yet the issue remains, persistent, looming, unsolved.

Political efforts have reached international status, with global climate congress attempting to draw any solution to the problems climate change has caused and threatens to present. Global powers have met to discuss our options, climate agreements have been successfully made, yet occasion upon occasion, very little outcome has resulted from these significant events.

Trouble similarly arises from a lack of economical compromise. Alternative methods of renewable energy appeal for their environmental benefits, but are never prioritised due to their lack of ability to produce energy as efficiently as fossil fuel methods. These mitigation and adaption hindrances have caused considerable concern towards our responses to imminent, extreme climate disruptions.

So what is a possible solution?

Climate Engineering (also known as Geoengineering) is defined as ''...the intentional large scale manipulation of the environment...' to counteract anthropogenic climate change' (Keith, 2000). It is a scientific, technological approach to contest climate change, and is a combination of two dominant methods:



Source: Washington University Political Review

The first is Carbon Reduction Methods (CRM). This is the removal of carbon dioxide through extraction from the atmosphere for storage in a sink such as land or the deep ocean, and the second approach is Solar Radiation Methods (SRM) which seek to reduce the amount of solar radiation reaching the Earth, thus reducing the amount of greenhouse gases trapped in the Earth's atmosphere (Hamilton, 2013).

The advent of Climate Engineering was finally brought to serious global attention in its first mention in the most recent IPCC Summary for Policy Makers Report in 2013:

"Methods that aim to deliberately alter the climate system to counter climate change, termed geoengineering, have been proposed..."

Ergo, Climate Engineering is becoming an increasingly stronger candidate as the solution towards climate change, but could it really solve the world's thermostat problem?

This blog will progress to determine what climate engineering really is and whether it is necessary, its successes and failures, and ultimately if it can be combined with government and market initiatives as a collaborative force to combat the effects of climate change!


Stay tuned!

S xx