China
Africa
Explore chapters and articles related to this topic
Ethics and geoengineering: reviewing the moral issues raised by solar radiation management and carbon dioxide removal
Published in Andrew Maynard, Jack Stilgoe, The Ethics of Nanotechnology, Geoengineering and Clean Energy, 2020
A common contemporary definition of geoengineering is ‘the deliberate large-scale manipulation of the planetary environment to counteract anthropogenic climate change’ (Ref 1, p. 1). The 2009 Royal Society Report established what has become a canonical distinction between those techniques that attempt to address the global warming problem by reducing atmospheric carbon dioxide (carbon dioxide removal, CDR) and those that simply address warming symptoms by reflecting back sunlight (solar radiation mamagement, SRM). Examples of CDR include afforestation, enhanced weathering of rocks, liming the oceans, large-scale production of synthetic algae, direct air capture of carbon dioxide, and ocean fertilization. Examples of SRM include increasing the albedo of terrestrial or marine surfaces (e.g., whiteroofs, bioengineered crops, or ocean microbubbles), enhancing tropospheric clouds, reducing cirrus clouds, projecting sulfate particles in the stratosphere, and deploying reflective mirrors in space. Overviews of many of these techniques can be found in a 2008 special issue of Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A,6 in numerous reports,1,7,8 and in books by Jeff Goodell9 and Eli Kintisch.10
What if we fail to achieve ecological living?
Published in John Gusdorf, Ecological Living, 2019
Geoengineering is “deliberate, large-scale intervention in the climate system designed to counter global warming or offset some of its effects” (Hamilton, 2013, p. 1). There are two main types of geoengineering, which is also called climate engineering. One type is carbon dioxide removal, and the other is solar radiation management. Carbon dioxide removal includes fertilizing parts of the oceans with iron to make algae grow, absorb CO2, and take the carbon to the ocean floor. CO2 can also be removed by chemical reactions and then perhaps combined with hydrogen from water to make renewable liquid fuels. The leading candidate for solar radiation management is spraying sulfate particles into the stratosphere to reflect sunlight back into space. This was proven to work when Mt Pinatubo erupted, blowing millions of tonnes of sulfates into the stratosphere. All indications are that this is the lowest-cost way to lower Earth’s temperature.
Introduction
Published in Eduardo Rincón-Mejía, Alejandro de las Heras, Sustainable Energy Technologies, 2017
Eduardo Rincón-Mejía, Alejandro de las Heras, Marina Islas-Espinoza
Generally speaking, geoengineering technologies are categorized as either carbon dioxide removal (CDR) methods or albedo-modification or solar radiation management (SRM) methods. CDR methods include potentially perilous ocean “fertilization” and “carbon capture and sequestration” in big caverns. The only reasonable option among the “bioenergy with carbon capture and storage” proposals is, again, those consisting of afforestation and massive reforestation. In turn, SRM methods try to address climate change by increasing the reflectivity of the Earth’s atmosphere or surface, the way ice covers do. Aerosol injection and space-based reflectors are unfounded examples of SRM methods. SRM methods do not remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere, but they could be deployed more quickly with relatively immediate global cooling results compared to CDR methods. SRM methods run counter to improving our capacity to harvest solar energy, our most abundant, available, and clean source of energy.
Updated assessment of occupational safety and health hazards of climate change
Published in Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene, 2023
P. A. Schulte, B. L. Jacklitsch, A. Bhattacharya, H. Chun, N. Edwards, K. C. Elliott, M. A. Flynn, R. Guerin, L. Hodson, J. M. Lincoln, K. L. MacMahon, S. Pendergrass, J. Siven, J. Vietas
Geoengineering, also known as “climate intervention” or “climate engineering,” is defined as the intentional, large-scale human manipulation or alteration of the environment (Effiong and Neitzel 2016; Jones et al. 2017; Abatayo et al. 2020). Potential geoengineering interventions to address the changing climate are diverse and could include such approaches as the following: the chemical capture of carbon from the atmosphere; the facilitation of the growth and use of carbon-eating plankton; and using large mirrors to reflect sunlight into space and/or creating and injecting a reflective haze (usually chemicals such as carbon black [soot], various sulfate compounds, fine aluminum particles, aluminum oxides, and nanoparticles like barium titanate) to reflect sunlight into space. To date, the use of geoengineering to mitigate climate change is based on predictive models and, as such, remains highly controversial because it carries a strong possibility of unintended consequences (Ocean Studies Board 2015a, 2015b).
Anticipating risks, governance needs, and public perceptions of de-extinction
Published in Journal of Responsible Innovation, 2019
Rene X. Valdez, Jennifer Kuzma, Christopher L. Cummings, M. Nils Peterson
Experts affirmed the importance of social and political contexts to the development and success of biotechnology (Nightingale and Martin 2004). At the broader societal level, concern regarding ownership, moral hazards and opportunity costs contributed to expert’s pessimism. Some experts cited issues of power and control over technology; similar issues influenced public reactions to genetically engineered food crops (Finucane and Holup 2005). An opportunity cost is the loss of potential benefits when one alternative is chosen over others (Naidoo et al. 2006). When experts worried that attention or funds for traditional conservation efforts might be re-directed towards de-extinction projects, they were describing the opportunity costs that de-extinction might impose. As suggested by experts, this issue may be partially resolved if de-extinction projects undergo cost–benefit or decision analysis during early planning stages. A challenge for these types of analyses will be incorporating cultural and ethical concerns (Satterfield et al. 2013). Moral hazards are more commonly associated with financial and insurance risks-reckless behavior may become more likely if consequences fall to others. Geoengineering technologies to mitigate climate change may present a moral risk if these technologies convince people to abandon other climate change mitigation efforts because they believe geoengineering will resolve climate change impacts (Lin 2013). The moral hazard for de-extinction is that risky behaviors for increasing the likelihood of a species extinction may seem less problematic today because the responsibility for reviving them through de-extinction can now be given to people in the future (Delord 2014). Our respondents believed this undesirable outcome could be catastrophic when combined with de-extinction, which fails to address the causes of extinction and applies to few species. De-extinction fails to address the major cause of wildlife extinctions, habitat degradation and destruction (Pimm and Raven 2000). To minimize potential moral hazards, de-extinction advocates may consider lobbying for stronger conservation policies, such as enhancing the Endangered Species Act in the United States.