08.02.2016

# New Publications

0 Comments

Pereira, J. C. (2016): Geoengineering, Scientific Community, and Policymakers. A New Proposal for the Categorization of Responses to Anthropogenic Climate Change

Pereira, J. C. (2016): Geoengineering, Scientific Community, and Policymakers. A New Proposal for the Categorization of Responses to Anthropogenic Climate Change. In SAGE Open 6 (1). DOI 10.1177/2158244016628591.

"This proposal removes the term geoengineering, pointing out the advantages of a debate specifically oriented toward each method in particular. It is also explained how each category should be envisaged, rethinking the importance of international cooperation and stressing the decisive impact that public awareness could play in dealing with this challenge."

Link


Read more »

01.02.2016

# New Publications

0 Comments

Preston, Christopher J. (2016): Climate Engineering and the Cessation Requirement. The Ethics of a Life-Cycle

Preston, Christopher J. (2016): Climate Engineering and the Cessation Requirement. The Ethics of a Life-Cycle. In environ values 25 (1), pp. 91–107. DOI 10.3197/096327115X14497392134964.

"While this work is clearly important, the current paper considers what insights can be gleaned from considering the tail-end, that is, by using the requirement for future cessation as a criterion for any acceptable climate engineering strategy. After showing that time-limited interventions are a key part of the rhetoric of leading climate engineering advocates, the paper examines the implications of imposing a ‘cessation requirement’ on solar radiation management and carbon dioxide removal strategies."

Link


Read more »

01.02.2016

# New Publications

0 Comments

Crook, Julia A.; et al. (2016): Can increasing albedo of existing ship wakes reduce climate change?

Crook, Julia A.; Jackson, Lawrence S.; Forster, Piers M. (2016): Can increasing albedo of existing ship wakes reduce climate change? In J. Geophys. Res. Atmos., pp. n/a-n/a. DOI 10.1002/2015JD024201.

"One such scheme could be to brighten the surface of the ocean by increasing the albedo and areal extent of bubbles in the wakes of existing shipping. Here we show that ship wake bubble lifetimes would need to be extended from minutes to days, requiring the addition of surfactant, for ship wake area to be increased enough to have a significant forcing."

Link


Read more »

31.01.2016

# Media

0 Comments

Design Indaba: Engineering Solar Shade: Should we manipulate the climate?

"Researchers believe that the large-scale manipulation of the climate could be our best hope."

Link


Read more »

27.01.2016

# New Publications

0 Comments

Merk, Christine; Pönitzsch, Gert (2016): The role of affect in attitude formation toward new technologies: The case of stratospheric aerosol injection

Merk, Christine; Pönitzsch, Gert (2016): The role of affect in attitude formation toward new technologies: The case of stratospheric aerosol injection. Kiel Institute for the World Economy (Kiel Working Paper, 2024).

"This paper analyzes determinants of technology acceptance and their interdependence. [...] We test this framework
using survey data on the acceptance of stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI), a technology that could
be used to counteract global warming."

Link


Read more »

21.01.2016

# New Publications

0 Comments

Effiong, Utibe; Neitzel, Richard L. (2016): Assessing the direct occupational and public health impacts of solar radiation management with stratospheric aerosols

Effiong, Utibe; Neitzel, Richard L. (2016): Assessing the direct occupational and public health impacts of solar radiation management with stratospheric aerosols. In Environmental health : a global access science source 15 (1), p. 7–7. DOI 10.1186/s12940-016-0089-0.

"We speculate on possible health impacts of exposure to one promising SRM material, barium titanate, using knowledge of similar nanomaterials. We also explore current regulatory efforts to minimize exposure to these toxicants. Our analysis suggests that adverse public health impacts may reasonably be expected from SRM via deployment of stratospheric aerosols."

Link


Read more »

12.01.2016

# Media

0 Comments

Slate: What Experiments to Block Out the Sun Can’t Tell Us

"Using technology to fix climate change requires careful research—but that’s easier said than done."

Link


Read more »

12.01.2016

# New Publications

0 Comments

Tjiputra, J. F.; et al. (2016): Impact of idealized future stratospheric aerosol injection on the large scale ocean and land carbon cycles

Tjiputra, J. F.; Grini, A.; Lee, H. (2016): Impact of idealized future stratospheric aerosol injection on the large scale ocean and land carbon cycles. In J. Geophys. Res. Biogeosci., pp. n/a-n/a. DOI 10.1002/2015JG003045.

"Using an Earth system model, we simulate stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI) on top of the Representative Concentration Pathways 8.5 future scenario. Our idealized method prescribes aerosol concentration, linearly increasing from 2020 to 2100, and thereafter remaining constant until 2200. In the aggressive scenario, the model projects a cooling trend toward 2100 despite warming that persists in the high latitudes."

Link


Read more »

23.12.2015

# Media

0 Comments

FCEA Blog: Building Better Concepts in Climate Engineering: why bother with CDR and SRM?

By Patrick Taylor Smith. "I want to take a step back from the particulars of the conversation between Horton and McLaren and ask the following question: what is the point of drawing—or of failing to draw—a distinction between SRM and CDR? The very question, “Should we treat SRM and CDR the same or different?” presumes that there are useful categories—‘SRM’ and ‘CDR’—that ought to serve as the foundation of our analysis of geoengineering."

Link


Read more »

18.12.2015

# Media

0 Comments

FCEA Blog: Why We Should Treat SRM and CDR Separately

By Josh Horton. "In his post “Why We Shouldn’t Be In a Hurry to Redefine ‘Climate Engineering,’” Duncan McLaren presents a thoughtful argument against the view that the two main families of potential climate engineering technologies—solar radiation management (SRM) and carbon dioxide removal (CDR)—should be treated as separate and distinct groups of climate response strategies.  In this brief comment, I will argue that McLaren’s presentation of the case for disaggregation is lacking in significant respects, and that a more thorough consideration of the arguments leads to the conclusion that, as a general rule, SRM and CDR should indeed be treated as fundamentally different forms of potential climate intervention."

Link


Read more »