Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
Prepare for your exams
Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points to download
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
The need for regulation of geoengineering techniques to mitigate climate change, comparing the cost and environmental impact of solar radiation management (srm) methods. It emphasizes the importance of public participation in decision-making and international cooperation. The document also suggests principles to guide research and the potential creation of international norms and legislation.
Typology: Summaries
1 / 116
This page cannot be seen from the preview
Don't miss anything!
HC 221 Published on 18 March 2010 by authority of the House of Commons London: The Stationery Office Limited £0.
Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed 10 March 2010
The Science and Technology Committee
The Science and Technology Committee is appointed by the House of Commons to examine the expenditure, administration and policy of the Government Office for Science. Under arrangements agreed by the House on 25 June 2009 the Science and Technology Committee was established on 1 October 2009 with the same membership and Chairman as the former Innovation, Universities, Science and Skills Committee and its proceedings were deemed to have been in respect of the Science and Technology Committee.
Current membership
Mr Phil Willis (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)(Chair) Dr Roberta Blackman-Woods (Labour, City of Durham) Mr Tim Boswell (Conservative, Daventry) Mr Ian Cawsey (Labour, Brigg & Goole) Mrs Nadine Dorries (Conservative, Mid Bedfordshire) Dr Evan Harris (Liberal Democrat, Oxford West & Abingdon) Dr Brian Iddon (Labour, Bolton South East) Mr Gordon Marsden (Labour, Blackpool South) Dr Doug Naysmith (Labour, Bristol North West) Dr Bob Spink (Independent, Castle Point) Ian Stewart (Labour, Eccles) Graham Stringer (Labour, Manchester, Blackley) Dr Desmond Turner (Labour, Brighton Kemptown) Mr Rob Wilson (Conservative, Reading East)
Powers
The Committee is one of the departmental Select Committees, the powers of which are set out in House of Commons Standing Orders, principally in SO No.152. These are available on the Internet via www.parliament.uk
Publications
The Reports and evidence of the Committee are published by The Stationery Office by Order of the House. All publications of the Committee (including press notices) are on the Internet at http://www.parliament.uk/science A list of reports from the Committee in this Parliament is included at the back of this volume.
Committee staff
The current staff of the Committee are: Glenn McKee (Clerk); Richard Ward (Second Clerk); Dr Christopher Tyler (Committee Specialist); Xameerah Malik (Committee Specialist); Andy Boyd (Senior Committee Assistant); Camilla Brace (Committee Assistant); Dilys Tonge (Committee Assistant); Melanie Lee (Committee Assistant); Jim Hudson (Committee Support Assistant); and Becky Jones (Media Officer).
Contacts
All correspondence should be addressed to the Clerk of the Science and Technology Committee, Committee Office, 7 Millbank, London SW1P 3JA. The telephone number for general inquiries is: 020 7219 2793; the Committee’s e- mail address is: [email protected].
Summary
Geoengineering describes activities specifically and deliberately designed to effect a change in the global climate with the aim of minimising or reversing anthropogenic (that is human caused) climate change. Geoengineering covers many techniques and technologies but splits into two broad categories: those that remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere such as sequestering and locking carbon dioxide in geological formations; and those that reflect solar radiation. Techniques in this category include the injection of sulphate aerosols into the stratosphere to mimic the cooling effect caused by large volcanic eruptions.
The technologies and techniques vary so much that any regulatory framework for geoengineering cannot be uniform. Instead, those techniques, particularly carbon removal, that are closely related to familiar existing technologies, could be regulated by developing the international regulation of the existing regimes to encompass geoengineering. For other technologies, especially solar refection, new regulatory arrangements will have to be developed.
There are three reasons why, we believe, regulation is needed. First, in the future some geoengineering techniques may allow a single country unilaterally to affect the climate. Second, some—albeit very small scale—geoengineering testing is already underway. Third, we may need geoengineering as a “Plan B” if, in the event of the failure of “Plan A”—the reduction of greenhouse gases—we are faced with highly disruptive climate change. If we start work now it will provide the opportunity to explore fully the technological, environmental, political and regulatory issues.
We are not calling for an international treaty but for the groundwork for regulatory arrangements to begin. Geoengineering techniques should be graded with consideration to factors such as trans-boundary effect, the dispersal of potentially hazardous materials in the environment and the direct effect on ecosystems. The regulatory regimes for geoengineering should then be tailored accordingly. The controls should be based on a set of principles that command widespread agreement—for example, the disclosure of geoengineering research and open publication of results and the development of governance arrangements before the deployment of geoengineering techniques.
The UN is the route by which, eventually, we envisage the regulatory framework operating but first the UK and other governments need to push geoengineering up the international agenda and get processes moving.
This inquiry was innovative in that we worked collaboratively with the US House of Representatives Science and Technology Committee, the first international joint working of this kind for a House of Commons select committee. We found the experience constructive and rewarding and, we hope, successful. We are enthusiastic supporters of collaborative working between national legislatures on topics such as geoengineering with international reach. Our Report covering the regulation of geoengineering will now dovetail into a wider inquiry that the House of Representatives Committee is carrying out on geoengineering. Science, technology and engineering are key to solving global challenges and we commend to our successor committee international collaboration as an innovative way to meet these challenges.
1 Introduction
1 Innovation, Universities, Science and Skills Committee, Fourth Report of Session 2008–09, Engineering: turning ideas into reality , HC 50–I, chapter 4 2 HC (2008-09) 50–I, para 160 3 DW Keith, “Geoengineering the climate: history and prospect”, Annual Review of Energy and the Environment , (2000) 25:245– 4 HC (2008–09) 50–I, para 159 5 Insolation is the offsetting of greenhouse warming by reducing the incidence and absorption of incoming solar (short-wave) radiation. 6 HC (2008–09) 50–I, para 182
7 HC (2008–09) 50–I, para 185 8 HC (2008–09) 50–I, para 187 9 HC (2008–09) 50–I, para 197 10 HC (2008–09) 50–I, para 203 11 HC (2008–09) 50–I, para 217 12 HC (2008–09) 50–I, para 226 13 HC (2008–09) 50–I, para 229
offered “no quick and easy solutions that should distract policy-makers from working toward a reduction of at least 50 percent in global carbon dioxide [...] emissions by 2050”.^21
The governance challenges posed by geoengineering should be explored in more detail, and policy processes established to resolve them.^22
The report explained:
A review of existing international and regional mechanisms relevant to the activities and impacts of [geoengineering] methods proposed to date would be helpful for identifying where mechanisms already exist that could be used to regulate geoengineering (either directly or with some modification), and where there are gaps.^23
We considered that the national and international regulation of geoengineering was an issue we could examine in more detail by means of a short inquiry.
21 Ev 51, para 2 22 The Royal Society, Geoengineering the climate Science, governance and uncertainty , September 2009, rec 6. 23 The Royal Society, Geoengineering the climate Science, governance and uncertainty , September 2009, para 5.
expert witnesses that included Professor John Shepherd, who chaired the working group that produced the Royal Society’s report, and leading US climate scientist Professor Ken Caldeira, Carnegie Institution, from whom we took evidence in our earlier inquiry. That session assessed the implications of large-scale climate intervention. On 4 February 2010 the House Committee took evidence on the scientific basis and engineering challenges from Professor Klaus Lackner, Columbia University, from whom we took evidence for our earlier inquiry, and from Professor David Keith, who gave evidence to this inquiry. The third hearing is planned for 18 March 2010 and will cover issues of governance.^24 It is planned that our Chairman will give testimony to that session. Ultimately, the hearings may lead to the formation of legislation authorising US government agencies to undertake certain geoengineering research activities and establish intergovernmental research agreements with other nations.
a) Dr Jason J Blackstock, Centre for International Governance Innovation, Canada, Professor David Keith, Director, ISEEE Energy and Environmental Systems Group,
24 “Subcommittee Examines Geoengineering Strategies and Hazards”, US House of Representatives Science and Technology Committee, Press Release, 4 February 2010 25 “The regulation of geoengineering”, Science and Technology Committee press release 2008–09 no. 10, 5 November 2009
2 Categories of geoengineering
Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR)
a) techniques for enhancing natural carbon sinks (the oceans, the forests, rocks and soils); and
b) sequestration of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere (“atmospheric scrubbing”) by chemical means, with the captured carbon deposited in the deep ocean or in geological structures.
Examples of CDR techniques Bioenergy with carbon dioxide capture and sequestration (BECS) Biomass may be harvested and used as fuel, with capture and sequestration of the resulting carbon dioxide; for example, the use of biomass to make hydrogen or electricity and sequester the resulting carbon dioxide in geological formations.^32 Biomass and biochar As vegetation grows it removes large quantities of carbon from the atmosphere during photosynthesis. When the organisms die and decompose, most of the carbon
27 HC (2008–09) 50–I, para 160 28 HC (2008–09) 50–I, paras 163– 29 The Royal Society, Geoengineering the climate Science, governance and uncertainty , September 2009, para 1. 30 Q 8 [Dr Blackstock] 31 The Royal Society, Geoengineering the climate Science, governance and uncertainty , September 2009, para 1. 32 The Royal Society, Geoengineering the climate Science, governance and uncertainty , September 2009, para 2.2.
they stored is returned to the atmosphere. There are several ways in which the growth of biomass may be harnessed to slow the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide—for instance, Biomass may be harvested and sequestered as organic material, for example, by burying trees or crop wastes, or as charcoal (“biochar”).^33 Enhanced weathering (land and ocean-based methods) Carbon dioxide is naturally removed from the atmosphere over many thousands of years by processes involving the weathering (dissolution) of carbonate and silicate rocks. Silicate minerals form the most common rocks on Earth, and they react with carbon dioxide to form carbonates (thereby consuming carbon dioxide).^34 Ocean fertilisation Phytoplankton take up carbon dioxide and fix it as biomass. When the organisms die, a small fraction of this “captured” carbon sinks into the deep ocean. Proponents of ocean fertilisation schemes have argued that by fertilising the ocean it may be possible to increase phytoplankton growth and associated carbon “removal”. Ocean fertilisation schemes involve the addition of nutrients to the ocean (soluble iron, for example), or the redistribution of nutrients extant in the deeper ocean to increase productivity (such as through ocean pipes).^35 Ocean N and P fertilisation Over the majority of the open oceans the “limiting nutrient” is thought to be nitrogen. One suggestion therefore has been to add a source of fixed nitrogen (N) such as urea as an ocean fertiliser. Phosphate (P) is also close to limiting over much of the ocean.^36
Technique Cost Impact of anticipated environmental effects
Risk of unanticipated environmental effects
Land use and afforestation Low Low Low Biomass with carbon sequestration (BECS)
Medium Medium Medium
Biomass and biochar Medium Medium Medium
Enhanced weathering on land Medium Medium Low Enhanced weathering—increasing ocean alkalinity
Medium Medium Medium
Chemical air capture and carbon sequestration
High Low Low
Ocean fertilisation Low Medium High Ocean N and P fertilisation Medium Medium High
33 The Royal Society, Geoengineering the climate Science, governance and uncertainty , September 2009, para 2.2. 34 The Royal Society, Geoengineering the climate Science, governance and uncertainty , September 2009, para 2.2. 35 HC (2008–09) 50–I, para 174 36 The Royal Society, Geoengineering the climate Science, governance and uncertainty , September 2009, para 2.3. 37 The Royal Society, Geoengineering the climate Science, governance and uncertainty , September 2009, table 2.
SRM technique Possible side-effects Risk (at max likely level) Human Settlement Albedo Regional Climate Change L Grassland and Crop Albedo Regional Climate Change Reduction in Crop Yields
M L
Desert Surface Albedo Regional Climate Change Ecosystem impacts
H H Cloud Albedo^46 Termination effect^47 Regional Climate Change
H H Stratospheric Aerosols Termination effect Regional Climate Change Changes in Stratosphere Chemistry
H M M
Space-based Reflectors Termination effect Regional Climate Change Reduction in Crop Yields
H M L
Differences between CDR and SRM
46 See Ev 37 [Alan Gadian], which challenged the assessment of risk in the Royal Society’s report. 47 “Termination effect” refers here to the consequences of a sudden halt or failure of the geoengineering system. For SRM approaches, which aim to offset increases in greenhouse gases by reductions in absorbed solar radiation, failure could lead to a relatively rapid warming which would be more difficult to adapt to than the climate change that would have occurred in the absence of geoengineering. SRM methods that produce the largest negative changes, and which rely on advanced technology, are considered higher risks in this respect. 48 Ev 45 49 As above 50 Ev 2 [Dr Blackstock], para 10
regional climatic change, and may generate serious unintended consequences. For example, SRM could produce droughts with severe implications for regional and global food production, and delay the recovery of the ozone layer by decades, while doing almost nothing to address ocean acidification.”^51
Weather modification techniques
cloud seeding program is the largest in the world, using it to make rain, prevent hailstorms, contribute to firefighting, and to counteract dust storms. On New Year’s Day in 1997, cloud seeding made snow in Beijing, for probably no other reason than popular enjoyment. During the 2008 Olympics, China extensively used cloud seeding to improve air quality. China sees cloud seeding as part of a larger strategy to lower summer temperatures and save energy.^57
since cloud seeding is more likely to affect the latter. Weather is a state of the atmosphere over the short-term and more likely at specific points and places. Climate is a long-term phenomenon expressed as average weather patterns over a long period. Cloud seeding could affect climate when carried out over a long period. Key measures of weather and climate are precipitation and temperature.^58
51 Ev 2 [Dr Blackstock], para 10 52 Ev 50, para 4 53 Ev 33, section 3 54 As above 55 As above 56 Ev 32, summary para 1; and see also Ev 33, section 3 57 Ev 34, section 3 58 Ev 32, section 1
When we think of developing regulatory structures for what we class as geoengineering, our primary concern should be about how large is the transboundary impact and how soon will that transboundary impact manifest.^69
In more detail the Royal Society suggested that the fundamental criterion in relation to governance of geoengineering was whether, and to what extent, the techniques involved:
a) trans-boundary effects—other than the removal of greenhouse gases from the atmosphere;
b) dispersal of potentially hazardous materials in the environment; and
c) direct intervention in (or major direct side-effects on) ecosystems.^70
66 Ev 52, para 5 67 Q 39 68 Ev 21, para 6 69 Q 18 70 Ev 52, para 7 71 Q 20 72 Q 21
regulatory regime. In our view the criteria suggested by the Royal Society provide a sound basis for building a grading system for geoengineering techniques for the purposes of regulation. They are intelligible and likely to command support. Other criteria such as leverage and risk could be included, though we would be concerned if the criteria proliferated or were drawn so widely as to bring techniques unnecessarily within tight regulatory control. We conclude that geoengineering techniques should be graded according to factors such as trans-boundary effect, the dispersal of potentially hazardous materials in the environment and the direct effect on ecosystems. The regulatory regimes for geoengineering should then be tailored accordingly. Those techniques scoring low against the criteria should be subject to no additional regulation to that already in place, while those scoring high would be subject to additional controls. So for example, at the low end of the scale are artificial trees and at the high end is the release of large quantities of aerosols into the atmosphere.
