Geoengineering - The report includes a short critique of climate engineering, specifically proposals that would artificially add aerosols to the atmosphere to reflect some sunlight back to space, offsetting some warming. There's been a rising tide of opposition to "solar radiation management," most notably a recent call by hundreds of scientists for an international "non-use agreement."
I'm not sure why this form of geoengineering made it into the adaptation report. Blocking sunlight is a form of warming mitigation and any assessment really belongs in next month's report on policies for slowing warming. Here are points the adaptation-report authors describe as having high confidence:
Solar radiation modification approaches, if they were to be implemented, introduce a widespread range of new risks to people and ecosystems, which are not well understood. Solar radiation modification approaches have potential to offset warming and ameliorate some climate hazards, but substantial residual climate change or overcompensating change would occur at regional scales and seasonal timescales. Large uncertainties and knowledge gaps are associated with the potential of solar radiation modification approaches to reduce climate change risks. Solar radiation modification would not stop atmospheric CO2 concentrations from increasing or reduce resulting ocean acidification under continued anthropogenic emissions.
For what it's worth, I predict a non-use agreement on solar radiation management will never happen. But if it did it would indirectly chill important research on aerosols' climate impacts in the atmosphere, just as a push to stop rogue iron-seeding tests in the ocean killed support for more careful scientific research on the matter. A decade was lost, although new efforts are planned.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAHodn982odrbvYsxqhvZjzHySfouEa1wbu6DyuyV3jXwLeW7nw%40mail.gmail.com.
“According to sources monitoring the talks, the US stood alone in seeking to keep a draft paragraph referencing solar radiation modification (SRM), carbon dioxide removals (CDR) and carbon capture and storage (CCS) as a single block.
Other countries pushed to separate SRM, which could cool the planet but does not address the underlying cause of heating – that is, levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
‘Nature-based solutions’ prove divisive at Glasgow climate talks
Sources said the US “aggressively fought” for a “balanced” statement that took five hours of side huddles at the virtual talks to resolve. When it became clear that SRM would be separated from emission reduction and carbon sequestration options, the US sought to drop the mention of SRM altogether due to the focus on its risks.
The final SPM states that SRM would “introduce a widespread range of new risks to people and ecosystems, which are not well understood”.
On Feb 28, 2022, at 11:11 AM, Andrew Revkin <rev...@gmail.com> wrote:
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CA%2Bakwtb%3DnU0YmYcBJ%3DLcg%2B6thjDby7_1WweCuqCADHb-sfKE9Q%40mail.gmail.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CA%2Bakwtb%3DnU0YmYcBJ%3DLcg%2B6thjDby7_1WweCuqCADHb-sfKE9Q%40mail.gmail.com.