21.11.2014

# Media

0 Comments

Design&Trend: Will Reflecting The Sun's Energy Into Space Reverse Global Warming?

"A group of researchers at the Harvard School of Engineering and Applied Sciences (SEAS) has proposed developing a small-scale experiment in the atmosphere to better inform scientists and policymakers on the merits of this method, reports Science Daily."

Link


Read more »

21.11.2014

# Media

0 Comments

South China Morning Post: UN body warns that 2070 is the deadline for ending CO2 emissions

"Unep is "extremely interested" in the subject [of CE] and is planning a report."

Link


Read more »

18.11.2014

# Media

0 Comments

Alternatives Journal: Academic Evolution: Innovation Knows No Boundaries

Amongst others on Oxford Geoengineering Program. "The third instalment in our "Skills for the New Economy" series looks at interdisciplinary approaches to big problems."

Link


Read more »

18.11.2014

# Media

0 Comments

ClickGreen: Real-life tests needed to find true viability of climate engineering

"Now, a team of researchers from the Harvard School of Engineering and Applied Sciences (SEAS) has outlined how a small-scale “stratospheric perturbation experiment” could work. By proposing, in detail, a way to take the science of geoengineering to the skies, they hope to stimulate serious discussion of the practice by policymakers and scientists."

Link


Read more »

18.11.2014

# Media

0 Comments

Harvard News: Adjusting Earth’s thermostat, with caution

"Harvard scientists say aspects of solar geoengineering can—and should—be tested without need for full-scale deployment"

Link


Read more »

18.11.2014

# Media

0 Comments

International Business Times: Controversial Plans to Slow Global Warming by Manipulating Atmosphere Reconsidered by Scientists

"Scientists are revisiting controversial propositions to manipulate the atmosphere and slow down the increase in temperatures on Earth by reflecting more of the sun's energy back into space. Researchers from Harvard School of Engineering and Applied Sciences (SEAS) are proposing a stratospheric perturbation experiment using small amounts of sulphuric acid to block sunlight."

Link


Read more »

17.11.2014

# Calls & events

0 Comments

News Review of Week 47

The news review of calendar week 47 in 2014 is now available here.


Read more »

17.11.2014

# Media

0 Comments

WGC Blog: ‘Uncertainties’ is an understatement, when it comes to BECCS

Guest Post – Rachel Smolker, Biofuelwatch. "While a remarkeable number of people, including IPCC scientists and even some environmentalists even appear easily fooled, the atmosphere and earth systems certainly will not be!"

Link


Read more »

17.11.2014

# New Publications

0 Comments

Schäfer, Stefan; Low, Sean (2014): Asilomar moments: formative framings in recombinant DNA and solar climate engineering research

Schäfer, Stefan; Low, Sean (2014): Asilomar moments: formative framings in recombinant DNA and solar climate engineering research. In Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society 372 (2031). DOI 10.1098/rsta.2014.0064.

"We examine the claim that in governance for solar climate engineering research, and especially field tests, there is no need for external governance beyond existing mechanisms such as peer review and environmental impact assessments that aim to assess technically defined risks to the physical environment. By drawing on the historical debate on recombinant DNA research, we show that defining risks is not a technical question but a complex process of narrative formation."

Link


Read more »

17.11.2014

# New Publications

0 Comments

Corner, Adam; Pidgeon, Nick (2014): Geoengineering, climate change scepticism and the ‘moral hazard’ argument: an experimental study of UK public perceptions

Corner, Adam; Pidgeon, Nick (2014): Geoengineering, climate change scepticism and the ‘moral hazard’ argument: an experimental study of UK public perceptions. In Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society 372 (2031). DOI 10.1098/rsta.2014.0063.

"In this paper, we describe an online experiment with a representative sample of the UK public, in which participants read one of two arguments (either endorsing or rejecting the idea that geoengineering poses a moral hazard). The argument endorsing the idea of geoengineering as a moral hazard was perceived as more convincing overall."

Link


Read more »