The deployment of CDR techniques is limited by their cost, not by their riskiness or likely effectiveness (as is the case
for Albedo Modification approaches).
Not exact matches
When Douglas MacMartin of the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena approached the National Science Foundation
for support on a modeling effort on [
albedo modification], officials told him the work was too theoretical
for the engineering division and too applied
for the atmospheric science program.
«There is a potential risk that if you cool the planet by
albedo modification, it could provide less incentive to reduce reliance on fossil fuels,» says Marcia McNutt, a geophysicist, current editor - in - chief of Science and chair of a committee that evaluated climate intervention techniques
for the U.S. National Academy of Sciences.
To make up
for those shortcomings, the report called
for a research program, including smaller scale field trials, whose goal «should be to improve understanding of the range of climate and other environmental effects of
albedo modification, as well as understanding of unintended impacts.»
We talk through some of the most pressing issues in modern climate science: our chances of staying below 1.5 °C of warming without climate engineering, climate engineering with land - based
albedo modifications, and the kinds of societal transformations needed
for radical mitigation.
Although the authors caution that their results are approximations intended to guide future modeling efforts, this study provides fundamental information regarding the relative difficulty of achieving desired
albedo modification effects and is an important starting point
for understanding the limits of what is widely considered one of the most viable solar geoengineering techniques.
The report clearly states that the first - best option
for preventing climate change is stopping GHG emissions, and that neither the development of CDR approaches nor the development of
Albedo Modification approaches will change this finding.
Separating CDR from
Albedo Modification has been in the works
for a long time — and I am hopeful that this report will definitively end the discussion of whether CDR falls under the geoengineering umbrella.
The Forum
for Climate Engineering Assessment's Academic Working Group (AWG) on International Governance of Climate Engineering is an international group of senior academics that have been assembled to formulate perspectives on the international governance of climate engineering research and potential deployment, with a focus on proposed solar radiation management /
albedo modification technologies.
«All told, the report concludes that «there is significant potential
for unanticipated, unmanageable, and regrettable consequences in multiple human dimensions from
albedo modification at climate altering scales.»
With no talk of «climate emergencies» in the report, we look in vain
for any clear rationale
for the possible deployment of
albedo modification.
The
modification of all feedback parameters results in changes of the sum of all feedbacks (water vapour, cloud, lapse rate and
albedo), spanning a minimum — maximum range of 71 % (63 %) of the mean value
for the correlated (uncorrelated) ensemble.
I might even want to know if
albedo modification could be used to overcome those problems of hysteresis, and if so how much of it would be needed
for how long.
Something similar goes
for carbon dioxide removal and, perhaps most obviously,
for research into
albedo modification.
Again, carbon removal approaches need strict and thorough governance and ethical consideration, but the type of governance questions
for carbon removal are of a nature best addressed in conjunction with conventional climate mitigation approaches, not in conjunction with
albedo modification approaches.