| Subscribe to our newsletter to receive monthly updates on Solar Geoengineering:
RESEARCH PAPERSFotso-Nguemo, T. C., Chouto, S., Nghonda, J. P., Diedhiou, A., Kravitz, B., Yepdo, Z. D., ... & Abiodun, B. J. (2024). Projected impact of solar radiation modification geoengineering on water deficit risk over major Central African river basins. Environmental Research Letters. Abstract The economy of Central African countries strongly depends on rain-fed agriculture and hydropower generation. However, most countries in this subregion do not yet have the irrigation technologies that are already applied in many more advanced nations, which further exposes them to the serious risk of severe drought caused by global warming. This study investigates the potential impact of solar radiation modification (SRM) geoengineering on the water availability over the four major river basins that cross most of Central African countries (i.e., Niger Basin, Lake Chad Basin, Cameroon Atlantic Basin and Congo Basin). For this purpose a potential water availability index was computed based on an ensemble-mean simulations carried out in the framework of Phase 6 of the Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project (GeoMIP6), considering two SRM simulation experiments: the stratospheric sulphate aerosol injection (G6sulfur) and the global solar dimming (G6solar). The climate change simulation results in a robust decreases by up to 60% in water availability, most pronounced over the Cameroon Atlantic Basin under the hight radiative forcing scenario. Therefore, in a business-as-usual world, the reduction in water availability combined with the rapid population growth expected by 2050 in the studied region, could result in a significant water deficit over Central African countries towards the end of the 21st century. This water deficit can affect all activities that depend on water resources, such as water supply, agriculture and hydropower generation. Furthermore, the results also show that SRM methods have the potential to significantly reduce this deficit by increasing water availability (as compared to climate change) by up to 50% over the affected river basins, with a more accentuated increase found in the Cameroon Atlantic Basin when the global solar dimming is applied. These results suggest good possibilities of adaptation for populations living in the geographical areas of these river basins.
Sovacool, B. K., Baum, C. M., & Fritz, L. (2024). Minority groups, Indigenousness and Indigeneity, and place in social perceptions of future climate interventions. World Development, 183, 106719. Abstract Radical climate intervention technologies such as carbon dioxide removal and solar radiation management pose difficult questions as potential remedies for destructive climate change. The effect these technologies could have on Indigenous peoples and minority groups, and those living in rural areas, could be profound and potentially calamitous. Drawing on a large-scale, cross-country set of nationally representative surveys (n = 30,284 participants, with at least 1,000 in each country) in 30 countries and 19 languages, this article examines public preferences for climate intervention technologies through the three dimensions of minority groups, Indigenousness, and place. The survey explores 10 climate intervention or geoengineering technologies: stratospheric aerosol injection, marine cloud brightening, space-based geoengineering, afforestation and reforestation, soil carbon sequestration, blue carbon and marine biomass, direct air capture with carbon storage, bioenergy with carbon capture and storage, enhanced rock weathering, and biochar. Comparing the full sample of respondents with a subsample self-identifying as ethnic minorities or Indigenous peoples, it finds this latter category of respondents has greater familiarity with these technologies than non-members, are more positive about small-scale trials and have more positive attitudes towards engineered options (versus nature-based options). Those in cities also expressed stronger support for small-scale field trials. Moreover, members of Indigenous groups or ethnic minorities expressed significantly higher levels of support for small-scale trials for nearly all technologies, were more supportive of policy incentives, and, inter alia, less supportive of policy restrictions. Conversely, non-members of Indigenous or ethnic minority groups expressed small but significantly greater support for independent national restrictions being placed on solar radiation management and engineered forms of carbon removal.
Hu, A., Liu, X., Ke, Z., Wagman, B., Brown, H., Lu, Z., ... & Peterson, K. (2024). Size-resolved process understanding of stratospheric sulfate aerosol following the Pinatubo eruption. EGUsphere, 2024, 1-28. Abstract Stratospheric sulfate aerosol produced by volcanic eruptions plays important roles in atmospheric chemistry and the global radiative balance of the atmosphere. The simulation of stratospheric sulfate concentrations and optical properties is highly dependent on the chemistry scheme and microphysical treatment. In this work, we implemented a sophisticated gas-phase chemistry scheme (full chemistry, FC) and a 5-mode version of the Modal Aerosol Module (MAM5) for the treatment of stratospheric sulfate aerosol in the Department of Energy’s Energy Exascale Earth System Model version 2 (E3SMv2) model to better simulate the chemistry-aerosol feedback following the Pinatubo eruption, and to compare it against a simulation using simplified chemistry (SC) and the default 4-mode version of the Modal Aerosol Module (MAM4). MAM5 experiments were found to better capture the stratospheric sulfate burden from the eruption of the volcano to the end of 1992 as compared to the High-resolution Infra Red Sounder (HIRS) observations, and the formation of sulfate in MAM5FC was significantly faster than in MAM4FC due to the addition of a OH replenishment reaction. Analyses of microphysical processes indicate that more sulfate aerosol mass was generated in total in FC experiments than in SC experiments. MAM5 performs better than MAM4 in simulation of aerosol optical depth (AOD); AOD anomalies from the MAM5 experiment have better agreement with AVHRR. The simulated largest changes in global mean net radiative flux at the top of the atmosphere following the eruption were about -3 W/m2 in MAM5 experiments and roughly -1.5 W/m2 in MAM4 experiments.
Heyen, D., & Tavoni, A. (2024). Strategic dimensions of solar geoengineering: economic theory and experiments. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics, 102271. Abstract Solar geoengineering denotes a set of technologies that would enable a fast and relatively cheap global temperature reduction. Besides potential physical side-effects, a major concern is the strategic dimension: Who is going to use solar geoengineering and how would it affect others? How does the presence of solar geoengineering change the strategic incentives surrounding other climate policy instruments such as mitigation? We review the existing theoretical and experimental contributions to those questions and outline promising lines of future economic research.
Finus, M., & Furini, F. (2024). On the credibility of threats to avoid the deployment of solar geoengineering. Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, 1-21. Abstract We analyze how geoengineering in the form of solar radiation management (SRM), associated with the potential of high collateral damages, affects the governance architecture of climate agreements. We investigate under which conditions signatories to a climate agreement can avoid the deployment of SRM and implement a climate agreement on mitigation. We show that a climate agreement with all countries can be stable with the threat to deploy SRM in case a country free-rides. The threat is deterrent if collateral damages are perceived to be sufficiently high (lower threshold), but only credible if those damages are not too high (upper threshold). SRM deployment is the only threat available to signatories if they choose mitigation levels simultaneously with non-signatories (Nash–Cournot scenario). However, if signatories choose mitigation levels before non-signatories (Stackelberg scenario), an additional punishment option arises. Then if collateral damages are sufficiently large, signatories can reduce their mitigation levels and impose a heavier burden on non-signatories that would find it profitable to avoid the deployment of SRM. We show that our results are robust in two analytical frameworks frequently employed in the game-theoretic analysis of international environmental agreements.
WEB POSTS
JOB OPPORTUNITY"CMCC's Institute (European Institute on Economics and the Environment) is looking for bright researchers motivated to work on the defining issue of climate change. For this position we are encouraging applications by researchers interested in modelling and assessing the implications of climate engineering interventions, specifically either Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) or Solar Radiation Management (SRM), as possible additional strategies to conventional mitigation ones. We have a portfolio of international research projects on both removing CO2 and CH4 (e.g. UPTAKE, REPAIR), and on assessing solar radiation modification (e.g. CO-CREATE, RFF). We are looking from one to two candidates to work on either research strand, or possibly combine them. We are interested in the integration of all key aspects of climate engineering, from the technical side to its socio-economic repercussion and its governance."
UPCOMING EVENTSSolar Geoengineering Events Calendar
PODCASTSYouth advocates on exploratory research into Solar Geoengineering | UnLivable Cultures | Youth advocates on exploratory research into Solar Geoengineering UnLivable Cultures 1:06:59 |
"In this episode, Cody talks with Anton Keskinen (Head of Strategy at Operaatio Arktis, and part time Rebel with Extinction Rebellion in Helsinki) and Clara Botto (Director of Youth Engagement Director of Youth Outreach for The Alliance for Just Deliberation on Solar Geoengineering, UNFCC Fellow, Advisory Board Member, Centre for Climate Repair and American Geophysical Union, among other things) about geoengineering, what Solar geoengineering is, geoengineering advocacy, its controversial nature, youth, climate justice, and Indigenous rights."
YOUTUBE VIDEOSGeoengineering: Our Last Hope or a Risky Gamble? | Prime Time Topics “As the planet heats up, scientists are increasingly exploring geoengineering, a controversial set of technologies that could manipulate the climate to combat global warming. But is it a viable solution or a risky gamble with potentially unknown consequences? Join PrimeTime Topics as we delve into the world of geoengineering, examining the potential benefits and drawbacks of different approaches, from reflecting sunlight back into space to removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. We'll discuss the ethical, political, and environmental challenges surrounding this emerging field, and explore the potential impact on our planet and future.”
Climate Intervention with Climate Scientist David Keith | Climate Chat “In this Climate Chat episode, we interview climate scientist David Keith, Professor of Geophysical Science at the University of Chicago where he leads the Climate Systems Engineering program. David previously ran a similar program at Harvard. Dr. Keith founded Carbon Engineering, a company that captures CO2 from the atmosphere.”
Episode 618 Combined Ways of Cloud Cooling 1 | ToSaveTheWORLD “Franz Oeste keeps coming up with new discoveries about cooling the planet. Now he says that white clouds produce OH radicals, which destroy methane. Clive Elsworth works with him. We dscuss it with a financial manager, Sander Epema, Robin Collins, and David Price.”
DEADLINESSRM Sessions at AGU2024:
| |
