Burns» research primarily focuses on
climate geoengineering governance — or, the deliberate and large - scale intervention of our climate system with the goal of counteracting climate change, and the policies needed to achieve that goal.
The profound implications of research and potential deployment of
climate geoengineering approaches compel urgent attention to public participation at all stages of decision - making, from framing issues to evaluating options and scenarios, setting priorities, codifying decisions, and implementing policies and programs.
The paper is a «welcome input into the overall debate» on SRM, adds Janos Pasztor, executive director of the
Carnegie Climate Geoengineering Governance Initiative (C2G2) and former assistant UN secretary - general.
Such sobering scenarios have intensified interest
in climate geoengineering options, including one focused on in the IPCC's Fifth Assessment Report's discussion of geoengineering, bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS).
Experts and decision makers are getting desperate, which may be why they have begun discussing drastic efforts such
as climate geoengineering.
There may come a moment when the situation becomes «so dire that
doing climate geoengineering of this sort is better than the alternative — doing nothing,» he says.
If the U.S. is in a battle with the U.N. and is not bound by the 2010 convention banning large -
scale climate geoengineering, it raises the question of what an unpredictable and impulsive administration might do.
The new report is probably the most substantial and authoritative since Nobel Prize winner Paul Crutzen made at least the discussion of
climate geoengineering respectable again (Science, 20 October 2006, p. 401).
From what I know, theoretically it should be possible, as the
various climate geoengineering options proposed would have impacts precisely on the temperatures that drive hurricane intensity;
It is yet another warning that the mainstream media's exuberance
about climate geoengineering options as a silver bullet may be belied by evidence on the ground.
Pertinent to
climate geoengineering observers, Zubrin also argued that the experiment helped to demonstrate the merits of ocean iron fertilization (OIF), concluding that «since those diatoms that were not eaten went to the bottom, a large amount of carbon dioxide was sequestered in their calcium carbonate shells.»
A more grounded reading suggests that — like fossil fuel exploitation — human activities to fix nitrogen (for explosives and fertilizers) are — at most — «unintentional» geoengineering, and the responses Morton praises in the management of nitrogen have much more in common with carbon mitigation than they do
with climate geoengineering.
It is generally placed under the rubric of
climate geoengineering strategies termed «carbon dioxide removal» options, in contrast to strategies that seek to reduce incoming solar radiation to reduce total radiative forcing.
Until then, research on
global climate geoengineering will continue while countries, states, and counties buy the local weather and we anxiously watch a new administration eager to assert its power.
A 2014 study by Malcolm Wright, Damon Teagle, and Pamela Feetham, titled «A Quantitative Evaluation of the Public Response to Climate Engineering,» provides an important step in the development of our understanding of the public's reaction to six
climate geoengineering alternatives.
The Carnegie
Climate Geoengineering Governance Initiative aims» to encourage the development of governance for research on climate geo - engineering that is balanced between enabling and regulatory aspects.»
While cloud - seeding geoengineering of local weather is common, developments in the technology have extended the possibility for geoengineering use on a larger scale
for climate geoengineering, or global climate control.
Climate geoengineering has been defined as «the intentional large - scale manipulation» of the climate system with the intent to counteract the global warming effects of anthropogenic CO2 emissions.
The article, which ran on the front page, is one among a number of signs that talk of
climate geoengineering is moving from the fringes of the climate change conversation toward the mainstream.
Hamilton explains why he believes the idea of
climate geoengineering can not be ignored, and what forces he sees pushing the world towards eventual deployment of such technologies.
His current areas of research focus are:
climate geoengineering; international climate change litigation; adaptation strategies to address climate change, with a focus on the potential role of micro-insurance; and the effectiveness of the European Union's Emissions Trading System.
[2] Despite its challenges and downsides,
climate geoengineering may be the best chance we have for maintaining a planet that is habitable for humans and the other creatures who are our neighbors.
First, modification of individual hurricanes would fall under the topic of weather modification, rather than
climate geoengineering; and second, there is not nearly as much research on [hurricane modification] as on the possible effects of climate geoengineering on slowing the melting of ice sheets.
Climate Geoengineering Governance: Expanding the Conversation — Guest Post — Mihir Shah, Council on Energy, Environment & Water, India
Climate Geoengineering: «Scary» Idea Should Be Tried Out — NBC News.
In addition, the Carnegie
Climate Geoengineering Governance Initiative (C2G2) has been established to «encourage a broader, society - wide discussion about the risks, potential benefits, ethical and governance challenges raised by climate geoengineering».
«The Politics of
Climate Geoengineering.»