alternative options for reducing climate change risk

8/7/2019 Alternative Options for Reducing Climate Change Risk

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/alternative-options-for-reducing-climate-change-risk 1/5

Hugh Sansom — hes2133 page 1 of 4Tuesday, 22 March 2011 word count = 787

FACT SHEET

Alternative Options for Reducing Climate Change Risk Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, especially from consumption of fossil fuels,is causing climate change (IPCC 2007a). The release rate for CO2 alone iscurrently about 8.5 gigatons/yr (Royal Society, 2009:9). Climate change will

continue for decades and centuries to come and will have effects varied inintensity over time and geography (IPCC 2007b). There is widespreadconcern over probable negative impacts like rising sea levels or harm tobiological systems. While concerns about negative outcomes have dominatedpublic discourse, some nations, like Russia, perceive possible benefits. Bothclimate science and economics are marked by uncertainty. Policy is marked bythe uncertainty attached to the science and economics on which decisions arebased and by differing circumstances and preferences of participants. Theseuncertainties and differences complicate collective action, particularly actionaimed at mitigating negative outcomes that have not yet been realized. As aresult, alternative, more certain options have some appeal.

Reduction in GHG Emissions Has Dominated Discussion

Most attention in recent years has focused on reducing the primary causalagent in climate change — GHG emissions, especially CO 2. Goals are typicallyspecified in terms of a target and a reference point or baseline:

• Global mean temperature rise of “3.5°C over 2007 levels by 2100”(Yohe 2008)

• Atmospheric CO2 concentration of 450 ppm, compared to pre-industrial levels of perhaps 300 ppm. (Morello 2009, Nordhaus,2008:69-70)

However, reducing or limiting GHG emissions and concentrations is unlikelyto be adequate for three reasons:

1. Nations havea. Repeatedly failed to reach agreement, and

b. Failed to meet commitments already agreed. (Morello 2009,Nordhaus 2005)

2. Agreement on targets for caps or reductions depend ona. Scientific predictions that are uncertain, andb. Nations resolving differences over the desirability of process and

outcomes.3. Agreed reductions or caps may be inadequate to mitigate harmful

outcomes (Victor, 2009:65).

Approaches to Climate Change Correlate with the Causal ChainPolicies to reduce GHG emissions address the issue at the start of the sequencecharted below. Alternatives to GHG reductions can be categorized accordingto where they approach the causal sequence:

Emission Impact

Prevent or reduce emissionsExamples• emissions caps• alternate fuels• conservation

1. Capture emissionsafter release• Oceanic uptake of CO2 • Technological/industrial solutions

2. Interrupt effectsof emissions• Geoengineering:

increase albedo

Adapt toimpactExamples• alter living

patterns• technologies

T I M E

Between 1970 and 2004, globalemissions of GHGs increased by 70%(24% between 1990 and 2004), from

28.7 to 49 Gigatonnes of carbon dioxidequivalents. CO2 emissions grewbetween 1970 and 2004 by about 80%and represented 77% of totalanthropogenic GHG emissions in 2004

— IPCC, 200

“The ultimate objective of this

Convention . . . is to achieve . . .stabilization of greenhouse gasconcentrations in the atmosphere at alevel that would prevent dangerousanthropogenic interference with theclimate system.

— UN, 199

A car that gets 28 miles per gallon,driven 10,000 miles in a year, wil emitabout 1 ton of carbon

— Nordhaus, 2008, p.




1. Capture and StorageGHGs can be removed from the atmosphere post-emission by artificial andnatural means. Ocean water naturally absorbs carbon dioxide. Other naturalcarbon sinks include growing plants and some naturally occurring minerals.

Artificial techniques already exist to collect and store CO2 (Lackner 2009):• Synthetic trees could mimic the natural photosynthetic processes of plants• In addition to ocean storage, CO2 could be injected underground , in the

deep sea, below the ocean floor, for example.

Carbon Dioxide Removal Methods

2. GeoengineeringWhen Lyndon Johnson received the first “presidential briefing on the dangersof climate change, the only remedy prescribed to counter the effects of globalwarming was geoengineering. That advice reflected the scientific culture of the time, which imagined that engineering could fix almost any problem”(Victor 2009).

Examples:• Space-based “shade” that would block sunlight from reaching Earth.• Albedo modification — increasing the tendency of the Earth’s

atmosphere to reflect sunlight back into space. Light-colored surfaces onthe Earth already tend to reflect light (e.g., the polar ice caps, which arewill decrease in size as mean global temperature increases). Airborneparticles, like those thrown into the high atmosphere in a volcaniceruption, also block light from reaching the Earth’s surface (Victor 2009:69)

Advantages• Can be tailored in response to observed fact and can be rapidly adjusted• The science supporting the feasibility of some geoengineering approaches

is well-developed.• Does not require broad consensus of international community.• Compatible with continued fossil fuel usage, particularly by heavily-

industrialized states like the U.S.

Disadvantages• Possible international political instability: Some states, particularly those

that see some advantage to climate change, could object, seeinggeoengineering states as “lone rangers” (Victor 2009:71).

• International law may bar some approaches (Bodansky 1996).• The science supporting the feasibility of some geoengineering approaches

is well-developed.

Land Ocean

Biological Afforestation and land useBiomass/fuels with carbon sequestration

Iron fertilizationPhosphorus/nitrogenFertilizationEnhanced upwelling

Physical Atmospheric CO2 scrubbers (‘air capture’)

Changing overturning circulation

Chemical (‘enhanced weathering’techniques)

In-situ carbonation of silicatesBasic minerals (incl. olivine) on soil

Alkalinity enhancement (grinding,dispersing and dissolving limestone,silicates, or calcium hydroxide)

— Royal Society, 2009, p. 9

Geoengineering

“[T]he deliberate modification of theclimate by means other than bychanging the atmospheric concentrationof greenhouse gases.”

— Barrett, 200

“[T]he intentional large-scalemanipulation of the environment,particularly manipulation that is intendeto reduce undesired anthropogenicclimate change.”

— Keith, 200

Trade-offs

Ocean water acts as a carbon sink,capturing atmospheric CO2. But thatincreases acidity of the oceans, .

— UN, 199




3. AdaptationAdaptation to climate change is the default course of action. If nationscontinue on a “business as usual” approach, then people will adapt (Newell2008:8). The question is whether some changes will defy adaptation or whether some costs will be prohibitively high. Humans have adapted to naturalclimate change continuously over history. The issue now is one of adapting tochange that is (1) caused by human activity and therefore (2) could beprevented by altering that activity or by mitigating the activities’ effects.

Examples:• Relocation of at-risk populations.• Alteration of architectural norms to allow for climate change (e.g., higher

temperatures, greater or less rainfall, etc.)

Advantages• Requires comparatively little, if anything, of current heavy fossil fuel users,

like the U.S.• Harnesses existing incentive and market systems already proven effective.

Disadvantages• Longer-term climate change impacts may defy adaptation.• Fails to take into account other environmental issues that are associated

with greenhouse gas emissions, like degradation of air quality.• Fails to address possible fundamental issues in the sustainability of human

development.

SummationEarly discussion of what is now called geoengineering is found in Americanand Soviet atmospheric science of the 1950s and 1960s (Keith 2000:250). Thatdiscussion ebbed with changes in the perception of science’s capacities. Policy-making can only benefit from considering a range of potential solutions. If

reductions in GHGs “achieve too little, too late, there will surely be pressureto consider a ‘plan B’ ” (Martin Rees in Royal Society 2009:v).




Resources

Barrett, Scott (2007). “The Incredible Economics of Geoengineering”

Bodansky, Daniel (1996). “May We Engineer the Climate?” Climatic Change 33:309–321.

Carlin, Alan (2007). “Global Climate Change Control: Is There a Better Strategy than ReducingGreenhouse Gas Emissions?” University of Pennsylvania Law Review , Vol. 155, No. 6. Symposium:Responses to Global Warming: The Law, Economics, and Science of Climate Change (Jun. 2007), pp.1401–1497.

Clarke, Leon et al. (2009) “International Climate Policy Architectures: Overview of EMF 22International Scenarios.” Energy Economics, Volume 31, Supplement 2, December 2009, Pages S64-S81

IPCC, 2007a: Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change 2007: Mitigation. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [B. Metz, O.R.Davidson, P.R. Bosch, R. Dave, L.A. Meyer (eds)], Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UnitedKingdom and New York, NY, USA.

IPCC, 2007b: Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, M.L. Parry, O.F. Canziani, J.P. Palutikof, P.J. van der Linden and C.E. Hanson,Eds., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 7-22.

Keith, David W. (2000). “Geoengineering the Climate: History and Prospect.” Annu. Rev. EnergyEnviron. 25:245–84.

Lackner, Klaus and Sarah Brennan (2008). “Envisioning Carbon Capture and Storage: ExpandedPossibilities due to Air Capture, Leakage Insurance, and C-14 Monitoring.” Climatic Change 96:357– 378

Morello, Lauren (2009). “Is 350 the New 450 When It Comes to Capping Carbon Emissions?” NewYork Times, September 28, 2009. http://www.nytimes.com/cwire/2009/09/28/28climatewire-is-350-the-new-450-when-it-comes-to-capping-c-6627.html

Newell, Richard G. (2008). “A U.S. Innovation Strategy for Climate Change Mitigation.” TheBrookings Institution: The Hamilton Project Discussion Paper 2008-15, December 2008.

Nordhaus, William D. (2005). “The Impact of Treaty Non-Participation on the Costs of SlowingGlobal Warming.”

——— (2008). A Question of Balance: Weighing the Options on Global Warming Policies. New Haven,CT: Yale University Press.

The Royal Society (2009). Geoengineering the Climate. Royal Society Policy Document, September 2009.

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (1992).

Victor, David et al. (2009). “The Geoengineering Option: A Last Resort Against Global Warming?”Foreign Affairs 88(2) March/April, 2009. p 64–76.

Yohe, Gary, et al. (2008). “Climate Change.” Copenhagen Consensus 2008: Global Warming Executive Summary. Copenhagen Consensus Center.




Broder, John M (2010). “Degrees of Separation from Climate Goal,” The New York Times, 23 Nov.2010. http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/23/degrees-of-separation-from-climate-goals/

Arrow, Kenneth J. (2007). "Global Climate Change: A Challenge to Policy." The Economists' Voice ,4(3) http://www.bepress.com/ev/vol4/iss3/art2

Nordhaus, William D. (2009). “An Analysis of the Dismal Theorem” mimeo Yale University.

——— (2008). A Question of Balance: Weighing the Options of Global Warming Policies. New Haven, CT:Yale University Press. Chapter 5.

——— (2007). "A Review of the Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change." Journal of Economic Literature 45

Schelling, Thomas C. (2002). “What Makes Greenhouse Sense?” Foreign Affairs, May/June.

Heal, Geoffrey. “Climate Economics: A Meta-Review and Some Suggestions for Future Research.”Review of Environmental Economics and Policy. 3: 4-21. –

Stern, Nicholas (2007). “The Stern Review on the Economic Effects of Climate Change.” Populationand Development Review , Vol. 32, No. 4 (Dec., 2006), pp. 793-798 (esp. Executive Summary, Ch. 2and Ch. 2a).

Weitzman, Martin (2009). “On Modeling and Interpreting the Economics of Catastrophic ClimateChange” Review of Economics and Statistics 91(1): 1–19

——— (2007). “A Review of the Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change” 45: 703–724.

alternative options for reducing climate change risk

Documents