i

ED789023: Science of Climate Change & Co-Benefit

PROSPECTS OF CLIMATE
ENGINEERING




Instructor: Prof Nguyen Thi Kim Oanh


Submitted By
Mr. Visal Yoeung (115479)
Mr Naqib Ullah Kargar (115751)
Mr Hyat Ullah (116033)
Mr Bishal Bhari (115461)
ASIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
SCHOOL OF ENVIRONMENT, RESOURCES AND DEVELOPMENT
ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT


ii

Table of Contents

Chapter 1: Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 1
1.1 Background ................................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Objective ....................................................................................................................................... 1
1.3 Scope of the report ....................................................................................................................... 1
Chapter 2: Literature Review ........................................................................................................................ 2
2.1 Definition ...................................................................................................................................... 2
2.2 Climate Engineering Technology ................................................................................................... 2
2.2.1 Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) technology ................................................................................. 2
2.2.1 Solar Radiation Management/Methods (SRM)..................................................................... 3
Chapter 3: Discussion .................................................................................................................................... 4
3.1 Climate Change and Uncertainties ............................................................................................... 4
3.1.1 Insufficient Understanding.................................................................................................... 4
3.1.2 Uncertainties in Prediction ................................................................................................... 4
3.1.3 Uncertainties in the level of impact ...................................................................................... 4
3.1.4 Uncertainties in Policy .......................................................................................................... 4
3.1.5 Uncertainties in Mitigation ................................................................................................... 4
3.2 Challenges of Climate Engineering ............................................................................................... 4
3.2.1 Immaturity ............................................................................................................................ 4
3.2.2 Insufficient knowledge .......................................................................................................... 5
3.2.3 Climate Engineering Governance .......................................................................................... 5
3.2.4 Risk Management ................................................................................................................. 5
3.3 Need of Climate Engineering ........................................................................................................ 5
Chapter 4: Conclusion ................................................................................................................................... 6
Reference ...................................................................................................................................................... 7


iii


List of Abbreviation

CE Climate Engineering
CDR Carbon Dioxide Removal
SRM Solar Radiation Management
IPCC Inter-governmental Panel for Climate Change
CO2 Carbondioxide
GT Gigaton
GHG Green House Gas
SAI Stratospheric Aerosols Injection
GAO Government Accountability Office










1

Chapter 1
Introduction
1.1 Background
Climate Engineering is intended to incorporate actions taken to modify the Earth system by
intervening in the functioning of its atmosphere, oceans, land surface and cryosphere for the
benefit of humankind. CE is an innovative approach to fight climate change and unlike mitigation
and adaptation approach, it effect can be seen in very short time frame. It is more advance and
scientific method to prevent or reduce the impact of climate change and it involves the use of
sophisticated technology. CE approach and technology can further be divided into two branch:
Carbon-dioxide Removal (CDR) and Solar Radiation Management (SRM). CDR and SRM has
many methods whose cost, feasibility, reliability, time frame of effect differs accordingly.
Under the light of uncertainty that exist in both the approach of mitigation and adaptation,
discussions of climate engineering have grown considerably amongst scientists, policy-makers,
and civic environmental groups engaged in addressing climate change. CE is the process that
ensures to reduce the symptom of climate change rather than reducing the emission or adapting to
it. It is more cost effective approach to deal with climate change. However, CE is not agreeable to
all and there are some scientist who are very conservative and skeptical about the results and
impacts of it.
1.2 Objective
a) To study the prospects of the CE
b) To highlight the needs of the CE
c) To debate the need of the CE
1.3 Scope of the report
a) Introduce climate engineering in brief with the available technology
b) Provides brief information about the climate engineering techniques
c) Presents the prospect of the climate engineering
d) Highlights the need of the climate engineering with the focus on the climate uncertainty
under the light of lacking scientific understanding.




2

Chapter 2
Literature Review
2.1 Definition
Geoengineering refers to a broad set of methods and technologies that aim to deliberately alter the
climate system in order to alleviate the impacts of climate change. Most, but not all, methods seek
to either (a) reduce the amount of absorbed solar energy in the climate system or (b) increase net
carbon sinks from the atmosphere at a scale sufficiently large to alter climate (IPCC Expert
meeting on Geoengineering, 2011)
2.2 Climate Engineering Technology
2.2.1 Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) technology
CDR methods attempt to absorb and store carbon from the atmosphere; either by technological
means, or by enhancing the ability of natural systems to do so. Some of the methods under CDR
as proposed by United State Government Accountability Office are as follow:
a) Direct air capture of CO2 with geologic sequestration:
This technology is designed to scrub CO2 directly from the atmosphere. In some conceptual
designs, air is brought into contact with a CO2-absorbing liquid solution containing sodium
hydroxide or with a solid sorbent in the form of a synthetic ion-exchange resin that selectively
absorbs CO2 gas and transportation of captured CO2 for sequestration in deep underground
geologic or saline formations. Direct air capture could theoretically remove total annual global
anthropogenic CO2 emissions, estimated at approximately 33 GT (GAO, 2011).

b) Bioenergy with CO2 capture and sequestration (BECS):
BECS targets to harvest a biomass crop capable of CO2 capture and sequestration during its
lifetime and plausible for the use as biofuel upon the end of its life. According to the Royal Society,
it can reduce the atmospheric CO2 concentration by at most 50150 ppm by the end of this century
compared to a projected CO2 concentration of 500 ppm by 2100 (Royal Society 2009).

c) Biochar and biomass:
Under this method, after the plants die it is converted to biochar and buried inside the soil or stored
in the soil, thus preventing the carbon from being released to the atmosphere. Its maximum
sustainable potential has been estimated to be 12 GT of CO2C (i.e. 10-50 ppm by 2100AD)
equivalent per year (Laird et al. 2009; Woolf et al. 2010). Moreover it can improve soil fertility.

d) Land-Use Management:
Land-use management techniques like afforestation, reforestation and reduction of deforestation
will increase the sequestration of carbon which will reduce the CO2 concentration. Bottom-up
regional studies and global top-down models yield estimates of the potential for CO2 uptake
through land-use management to be 1.313.8 GT of CO2 per year in 2030 (Nabuurs et al. 2007)


3

e) Enhanced weathering:
Natural weathering of silicate rock has served well to remove CO2 from the atmosphere. The CO2
has reacted chemically with silicate rocks to form solid carbonates. The reaction can be written
CaSiO3+ CO2CaCO3 + SiO2
This CE technique aims at enhancing the natural rate of weathering by chemically reacting the
silicate or carbonate rocks with CO2 in the presence of sea water to produce a carbonic acid
solution which could be spread in the ocean.

f) Ocean fertilization:
This technology releases iron to certain areas of the ocean surface to increase phytoplankton
growth and promote CO2 fixation. The capture CO2 by phytoplankton is then stored in the bed of
the ocean as dead organic matter. Ocean fertilization studies suggest that 30,000110,000 tons of
carbon could be sequestered per ton of iron added. (Buesseler et al. 2008).
2.2.1 Solar Radiation Management/Methods (SRM)
SRM aims to reduce the amount of heat trapped by GHG by reflecting sunlight back into space,
either by increasing the reflectivity of the earths surfaces, or by deploying a layer of reflective
particles in the atmosphere so that it does not warm the earth's surface. Offsetting the warming
caused by a doubling of CO2 would require reducing the amount of incoming solar radiation by
about 2%. (Royal Society 2009). This could be done in a variety of ways:
a) Cloud Whitening
Under this techniques, small particles of sea salt are injected into the marine atmosphere which
serves as cloud-condensation nuclei. This will make the cloud whiter hence increasing its albedo
or its reflectivity hence decreasing the earth surface temperature.

b) Stratospheric aerosols injection (SAI)
Injection of sulfur radiation into the stratosphere by cannons or airplanes can mimic the cooling
effect. It is well known that sulfur aerosols produced by volcanoes and industrial activities reflect
sunlight from the earth and partially offset the greenhouse effect. The 1991 eruption of Mt.
Pinatubo alone is estimated to have injected 20 million tons of sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere
and cooled the earth by 0.5
0
C. Moreover sulfur dioxide that contributes to acid rain has offset a
significant amount of warming over decades. Reducing incoming solar radiation by 2% would
require injecting 1-5 million tons of sulfur per year at an altitude of about 20 miles. It could cost
$35 billion to $65 billion in the first year and $13 billion to $25 billion in each subsequent year to
inject sufficient sulfate aerosols into the stratosphere to counteract global warming caused by
doubling preindustrial CO2 concentration (GAO, 2011).

c) Space based mirror
This techniques aims at positioning a mirror in the atmosphere in the space to reflect incoming
sunlight. It can offer a cheaper and less risky approach to SRM than any of the stratospheric or
near-Earth techniques. (Royal Society 2009). It could cost $2.4 billion to $4.8 billion to brighten
enough marine clouds to compensate for a doubling of the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere
(GAO, 2011)

4

Chapter 3
Discussion

3.1 Climate Change and Uncertainties

3.1.1 Insufficient Understanding
The state of climate science compounds the uncertainties (IPCC, 2007). There lies insufficient
understanding about the effects of GHG in the future, interaction of anthropogenic GHG with the
earth system and the feedback loops that can come into the play.
3.1.2 Uncertainties in Prediction
It is hard to predict the climate change scenario in the future. Energy, environment and economy
models are more uncertain while the economic model are more complex than the climate model.
It is hard to predict the economy, demography and technology that is probable to change and affect
the climate change.
3.1.3 Uncertainties in the level of impact
Experts believe that the climate system includes tipping points at which temperature, or other
factors, may generate rapid and potentially very destructive changes (Copenhagen Consensus
Center). Climate variability is more serious problem than the climate change and its level is
uncertain.
3.1.4 Uncertainties in Policy
GHG reduction depends on the policy that is adopted in the global scale while the policy will
always lead by economic greed. Failure of the Kyoto Protocol signifies the uncertainty of the
climate policy.
3.1.5 Uncertainties in Mitigation
IPCC estimated that GE needed to be reduced by 50-85% from 2000 levels by 2050 in order to
limit GW to 2 C. (IPCC, 2007) This goal was adopted by states at the Copenhagen conference
and despite the agreement GE continues to rise and is 30% higher than in 2000 (Oliver 2011).
Thus, reduction of GE is hard as the famous paradox of Tragedy of Commons comes to the play
thus making the mitigation highly uncertain. An MIT study concluded that without emissions
controls, median surface warming by the end of the century would be 5.2
0
C (Sokolov, 2009)
3.2 Challenges of Climate Engineering
3.2.1 Immaturity
Climate Engineering is in its immature stage and a lot of research work is needed to understand
its long term impacts and benefits. Two decades or more of research will be needed to make

5

substantial progress toward developing and evaluating climate engineering technologies with the
potential to reduce emerging or future risks from climate change (GAO, 2011).
3.2.2 Insufficient knowledge
Gaps in collecting and modeling climate data, identified in government and scientific reports, are
likely to limit progress in future climate engineering research. (GAO, 2011)
3.2.3 Climate Engineering Governance
The formation of climate governance and its effectiveness is questionable. The authority over the
decision is a critical agreement to be made on a global scale.
3.2.4 Risk Management
The scientist are concerned about the misuse of the technology as the warfare. Thus a research
on its risk management considering all the stakeholders is necessary.
3.3 Need of Climate Engineering
CE is needed for the following reasons:
a) Considering the uncertainties that exists in the climate science and climate change, a high
leverage approach like CE is needed in case the mitigation and adaptation does not work
which will serve as an insurance policy
b) It can buy us time while we are developing technologies to fight against climate change
c) It can be used to slow down the rate of the climate change. Climate variability is particularly
dangerous and climate engineering can be used to slow down the rate of the climate variability.
d) CC is both delayed and uncertain. That is the GHG emitted today will be the cause of the
climate change in the future. Due to the long life time of the GHG, even though we cut the
emission to zero, the climate will not stop to warm. CC thus is uncertain and complex which
includes many variable that might be difficult to be modeled or out of our scientific
understanding. It could be worse than our prediction in the future. In case of tipping condition
it can help in recovery
e) Climate change is uncertain and we can only anticipate the change but not confirm it. The
emission we cut today might not be enough for tomorrow. It may or may not happen as
modelled as the failure of the Kyoto protocol is well evitable for us. High leverage technology
like SAI is therefore needed in case of extremities.
f) It is more cost-effective approach than mitigation and adaptation approach with high B/C ratio



6

Chapter 4
Conclusion
Prospect of the CE is often argued and criticized emphasizing its effects and consequences. CE is
not a complete solution to CO2 emission neither. It consists of side effects and is unreliable
according to some scientist. Its sudden stoppage in use can bring terminal shock and there lies
possibility of its usage as weapon. Moreover it consist the risk of moral hazards and the biggest
issue lies in its implementation and governance.
However, it must be considered that we are living in the world of uncertainty. Until and unless a
prominent and promising technology is not discovered, CO2 will continue to rise as prosperity is
the requirement of all nation. Approach like mitigation and adaptation has to consider all the three
critical aspects i.e. environment, energy and economy, which is extremely hard thus these
approaches cannot be trusted upon. Earth system is a fragile system and Tipping point can cause
a system to tip from one stable state to another stable state which can initiate positive feedback
loop causing further warming. Bigger issue lies in the emission control as life time of the CO2 is
for hundred year and moreover there lies a probability that what we reduce today might not be
enough for tomorrow.
With global emissions continuing to rise, and little prospect of reversing that trend anytime soon,
we are not living in a world where we can assume the best. We are living in a world where we
must prepare for the worst. What if scenario must always be apprehended and there must always
be a Plan B in case of the unpredictable scenario. Thus the prospect of the CE is immense and it
is strongly recommended to the international community: if CC cannot be denied CE must be
considered in case of worst events.

7

Reference

United State Government Accountability Office (2011): Technological Assessment, Climate
Engineering
Royal Society (2009). Geoengineering the Climate: Science, Governance and Uncertainty. London:
Royal Society.
Barrett, Scott (2008). "The Incredible Economics of Geoengineering, Environmental and
Resource Economics.
Bodansky, Daniel. Governing Climate Engineering: Scenarios for Analysis Discussion Paper
2011-47, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Project on Climate Agreements, November 2011.
IPCC (2007). Climate Change 2007: Mitigation of Climate Change: Summary for Policy-
Makers (Contribution of Working III to the Fourth Assessment Report). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Laird, David A., Robert C. Brown, James E. Amonette, and Johannes Lehmann. 2009. Review
of the Pyrolysis Platform for Coproducing Bio-Oil and Biochar. Biofuels, Bioproducts and
Biorefining 3 (5): 547562
Woolf, Dominic, James E. Amonette, F. Alayne Street-Perrott, Johannes Lehmann, and Stephen
Joseph. 2010. Sustainable Biochar to Mitigate Global Climate Change. Nature
Communications 1 (56): 19
Nabuurs, Gert Jan, Omar Masera, Kenneth Andrasko, Pablo Benitez-Ponce, Rizaldi Boer, Michael
Dutschke, Elnour Elsiddig, Justin Ford-Robertson, Peter Frumhoff, Timo Karjalainen, Olga
Krankina, Werner A. Kurz, Mitsuo Matsumoto, Walter Oyhantcabal, N. H. Ravindranath,
Maria Jos Sanz Sanchez, Xiaquan Zhang. 2007. Forestry, pp. 54384, in Climate Change
2007: Mitigation,B. Metz, O. R. Davidson, P. R. Bosch, R. Dave, and L. A. Meyer, eds.
Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change. New York and Cambridge, Eng.: Cambridge University Press.
Buesseler, Ken, Scott Doney, and Hauke Kite-Powell, eds. 2008b. Should We Fertilize the Ocean
to Reduce Greenhouse Gases? Oceanus 46 (1).
Sokolov, A.P. et al. (2009). "Probabilistic Forecast for 21
st
Century Climate Based on
Uncertainties in Emissions (without Policy) and Climate Parameters, Journal of Climate
22(19), 5175-5204