More SPICE
Rau, Greg
Nature
485,
415
(24 May 2012)
doi:10.1038/485415a
Published online
23 May 2012
A controversial field trial of technology to mitigate climate change has been cancelled, but research continues. A robust governance framework is sorely needed to prevent further setbacks.
Geoengineering research has a problem. That much should be clear following last week's cancellation of a field trial for the Stratospheric Particle Injection for Climate Engineering (SPICE) project. The solutions to this problem are not so obvious, but they must be found — and fast.
The SPICE field trial was supposed to involve spraying water into the atmosphere at an altitude of 1 kilometre using a balloon and hosepipe, as part of a host of work exploring whether it is possible to mitigate global warming by introducing particles into the stratosphere to reflect some of the Sun's energy away from Earth.
But the field trial — which is only a small part of the overall SPICE project — became bogged down in protests and delays almost as soon as it was announced. Last week, as first reported by Nature, the project's lead investigator announced that it was being abandoned, citing concerns about intellectual-property rights, public engagement and the overall governance regime for such work.
Colleagues have leapt to the defence of the SPICE team, and praised its decision to continue with the theoretical strands of its work. Indeed, the researchers have acted with commendable honesty. But the SPICE issue is a perfect example of the problems that will persist until geoengineers grasp the nettle of regulation and oversight.
We have been here before. Work on 'fertilizing' the oceans to promote blooms of phytoplankton that would lock up carbon dioxide ran into similar protests and governance wrangles. In 2009, an experiment to test the idea by dumping tonnes of iron sulphate into the Southern Ocean caused huge public disquiet and went ahead only after further discussions.
“Problems will persist until geoengineers grasp the nettle of regulation and oversight.”
Researchers argue that 'geoengineering' is a falsely inclusive term. They say that SPICE-style 'solar-radiation management' is completely different from ocean fertilization, and different again from carbon capture. But these technologies have similar aims and, when it comes to rules and regulations, they probably need to be dealt with together.
The geoengineering community has tried to bring some discipline to the emerging field. The 'Oxford Principles' — developed in 2010 by researchers at the University of Oxford, UK — offer some useful ground rules. They say that geoengineering should be regulated as a public good; there should be public participation in decision-making; research should be disclosed and results published openly; impacts should be assessed independently; and decisions to deploy the technologies should be made within a robust governance framework.
These are excellent principles. But they are vague, and cannot serve as a guide to conducting specific experiments in such a broad field.
A meeting of geoengineers in Asilomar, California, in 2009 — influenced by a meeting at the same location in 1975, when researchers hashed out guidelines for genetic engineering — produced similarly vague recommendations, such as the need to conduct research openly and to consult the public when planning research. It also called for governments to “when necessary, create new mechanisms for the governance and oversight of large-scale climate engineering research activities”.
The SPICE fiasco starkly demonstrates the need for such mechanisms. For a project of such high profile to founder on problems of intellectual property, regulation or public protest would be bad enough. That it ran into difficulties in all three areas shows an underlying problem.
Of the issues raised, intellectual property may turn out to be the easiest to resolve (see page 429). Science has a long and generally happy relationship with patents, including those for technology with the ability to drive worldwide change. Likewise, lessons on public engagement and dealing with protests can be taken from earlier rows over genetic modification, stem cells, fertility work and animal research.
More troubling is the lack of an overarching governance framework. Although the SPICE trial has been cancelled, other tests of geoengineering technology will surely follow. Other work, such as fiddling with clouds to make them more reflective or to try to bring on rain, touches on both climate-change mitigation and weather modification.
Geoengineers should keep trying. They should come together and draft detailed, practical actions that need to be taken to advance governance in the field. Regulation in these cutting-edge and controversial areas needs to be working before the experiments begin, rather than racing to catch up.
Cancelled project spurs debate over geoengineering patents
SPICE research consortium decides not to field-test its technology to reflect the Sun’s rays.
23 May 2012
Technologies to keep Earth cool could one day provide a radical fix for climate change — and, in a world struggling to control its greenhouse-gas emissions, could also prove highly lucrative for inventors.
But should individual researchers, or companies, be allowed to own the intellectual property (IP) behind these world-changing techniques? The issue was thrust into the spotlight last week after a controversial geoengineering field trial was cancelled amid concerns about a patent application by some of those involved in the project, as first reported by Nature1.
The £1.6-million (US$2.5-million) Stratospheric Particle Injection for Climate Engineering (SPICE) project was funded by the UK government to investigate whether spurting reflective aerosols into the stratosphere could help to bounce some of the Sun’s warming rays back into space. As part of this project, SPICE had planned to test a possible delivery system: pumping water up a 1-kilometre-long hose to a balloon, where it would be sprayed into the sky.
The project had already sparked protests from environmentalists wary of geoengineering2. But “a potentially significant conflict of interest” over a patent application for SPICE’s technology, which some team members only recently became aware of, was a decisive factor in the cancellation, says project leader Matthew Watson, an Earth scientist at the University of Bristol, UK. The patent was submitted by Peter Davidson, a consultant based on the Isle of Man who was an adviser at the workshop that gave rise to SPICE, and Hugh Hunt, an engineer at the University of Cambridge, UK, who is one of the SPICE project investigators.
Related stories
- Geoengineering experiment cancelled amid patent row
- Geoengineering won't curb sea-level rise
- World view: Not by experts alone
UK funding bodies require anyone assessing or applying for grants to declare relevant potential conflicts of interest. Davidson and Hunt say that they were clear about their patent application before SPICE was awarded funding, and there is no suggestion that they acted inappropriately. But at least one of the funding councils is now investigating the circumstances surrounding the SPICE grant, and the patent in question, says Watson.
Hunt blames a culture clash for the confusion. “It is completely normal for engineering projects to be protected by IP,” he says. “The issue here is that in climate science there is mistrust of IP, and I understand that now.” He says he does not expect to earn any money from the patent.
SPICE’s climate modelling and other technology development work will continue, but the incident is another blow for a field already troubled by concerns over governance. In 2010, researchers and policy-makers gathered at the Asilomar Conference Center near Monterey, California, to agree a set of guiding principles for the field — an effort that largely failed3.
The following year, a smaller group produced the ‘Oxford Principles’, stating that geoengineering should be “regulated as a public good”. The lead authors of those principles later warned that patenting of geoengineering technologies could “have serious negative impacts”, by creating a culture of secrecy that could delay much-needed developments.
“The issue here is that in climate science there is mistrust of IP.”
Climate scientist David Keith of Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts, agrees, advocating legal restrictions on patents related to solar-radiation management. Any technologies that could be controlled by a small number of people, yet have the capacity to rapidly alter our planet’s climate, “are deeply troubling”, he says. But Keith is not against patenting in principle — he has applied for patents on techniques to remove carbon dioxide directly from the atmosphere.
Shobita Parthasarathy, a public-policy researcher at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, says that the field urgently needs to agree on detailed rules for IP. In 2010, she noted a “dramatically increasing” number of patent applications in the area, containing broad language that could allow a small number of patent holders to take control of a huge swathe of technologies4. One possible solution, she says, is to develop a unique system for handling geoengineering patents, akin to the way that atomic-energy patents are controlled in the United States. That system puts certain technologies off-limits, and allows the government to take control of some intellectual property. “I don’t think the solution is to get rid of IP,” she says.
Another option might be to allow patent-holders to receive royalties, but without the option to restrict the use of the patent, says Tim Kruger, a researcher at the Geoengineering Programme, University of Oxford, UK, who helped to develop the Oxford Principles. This would allow some research and development to proceed, while still providing a financial incentive to work in the area, he says.
But geoengineering patents of any kind could give companies a vested interest in the continuation of climate change, argues Holly Buck, a social scientist who has studied the ethics of geoengineering. “It seems conceptually wrong to create conditions for an enterprise that would institutionally benefit from a stressed climate.”
Nature
485,
429
(24 May 2012)
doi:10.1038/485429a
Josh Horton
rongre...@comcast.net
1. As I have read this material, several things have stood out. First is that the word "Geoengineering" continues to be a replacement for the phrase; "Solar Radiation Management" (SRM) which is actually under discussion. I hate to keep pointing out that the term "Geoengineering" includes Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) , but I hope to make some progress through repetition..
2. The second standout "thing" is that there was considerable emphasis in this "SPICE" dialog on the five "Oxford Principles", which can be found at
http://www.geoengineering.ox.ac.uk/oxford-principles/principles/?
I don't recall much/enough discussion in this list on these. In their shortest form, they read:
1: Geoengineering to be regulated as a public good.
2: Public participation in geoengineering decision-making
3: Disclosure of geoengineering research and open publication of results
4: Independent assessment of impacts
5: Governance before deployment (Any decisions with respect to deployment should only be taken with robust governance structures already in place, using existing rules and institutions wherever possible).
3. I can endorse these for SRM and for most CDR. I include the explanatory sentence only for the last because I see a "problem" for the CDR approach called Biochar - which is already seeing hundreds of "zero-governance" Biochar tests this year and they are growing exponentially. These cumulatively are much larger than the SPICE test. As near as I can tell even the most anti-Biochar activists are calling for more tests - not few/none. So why is this? Is it possible that Biochar is not Geoengineering? I can't endorse this view - as Biochar clearly has an important CDR component.
4. I propose instead that the Oxford Principles should have an exemption for Principle #5 for any of its CDR subset technologies that has all of these three characteristics: 1) Has non-carbon out-year economic investment value roughly equivalent to its CDR value; 2) Has a lengthy history of use independent of its consideration as a Geoengineering technology, and 3) Has any immediate negative impact only to the user.
Can anyone associated with the Oxford (or any other) principles also endorse this exemption? If not, why has Biochar not had any expressed concern like that for the SPICE test?
5. I have endorsed the other 4 principles in large part because they are already being employed and supported within the Biochar world. The first is needed to keep the inevitable shyster companies in line; the regulatory concern is largely re soil degradation - outside the CDR aspect of Biochar. The second principle is happening widely already - with dozens of citizen support groups. Many of those members voted (favorably) on a Biochar characterization standard this past month. The third (disclosure/publication) seems to be largely and enthusiastically happening (dozens some months) - although I am sure there is considerable secrecy and IP concern on the char-production side of Biochar. Patent theory seems to be in support of any non-disclosure related to conversion of biomass to Biochar - and a lot of invention/patenting is happening (for example see www.coolplanetbiofuels.com). The fourth category (independent assessment) has already occurred in several institutions and is certainly not being discouraged. I personally am more concerned about Biochar being ignored - as is largely the case in the publications being discussed in this thread.
I should also note that the word "Geoengineering" almost never appears in Biochar literature - and most Biochar proponents would be delighted to not carry the baggage associated with the term. Few would argue with the term "CDR".
What disagreements are there with this (personal only) view?
Ron
From: "Greg Rau" <ra...@llnl.gov>
To: "geoengineering" <geoengi...@googlegroups.com>
Cc: "David Winickoff" <wini...@berkeley.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2012 12:26:11 PM
Subject: [geo] More SPICE
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group.
To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
Doug MacMartin
Hi Ron – I’ve made this comment before, and I’ll make it again, but I don’t follow why you and others are so keen to keep CDR associated with the word geoengineering and hence with SRM, rather than quietly allowing geoengineering to become associated only with “risky” SRM. Seems to me (and almost everyone else, including your own comments on the Oxford principles) that (i) aside from OIR, nothing in CDR has anything in common with SRM from either technical or governance or ethics perspectives, and (ii) SRM justly raises concern, which most CDR doesn’t, so it would seem like a huge downside to CDR folk from lumping these together.
doug
Doug MacMartin
Hi Albert – You completely misinterpreted what I typed; I didn’t consider them in competition at all, indeed precisely the opposite. I completely agree with you that they address different risks, and BECAUSE of that, I don’t see any point in lumping them together in the same category (ok, both that, and because they don’t actually share any characteristics whatsoever, other than historically they’ve been categorized together as “geoengineering”). Lumping them together is, to me, as useful as also including “mitigation” or “adaptation” in the same category too, as different possible responses to climate change.
When I used the word risk, I only mean that implementing SRM entails more risk than implementing most forms of CDR would entail, which is hardly a controversial statement, I was not referring to what risks they might offset.
doug
From: Veli Albert Kallio [mailto:albert...@hotmail.com]
Sent: Friday, May 25, 2012 11:30 AM
To: macm...@cds.caltech.edu; rongre...@comcast.net
Cc: Geoengineering FIPC
Subject: RE: [geo] More SPICE
Hi Doug,
I would repudiate your differentiation between risky SRM and non-risky CDR. These branches of geoengineering address different risks althoghether and it is wisest to see them complementary rather than antagonistic.
Solar Radiation Management (SRM) is likely to be deployed if there is sudden runaway event such as sudden methane escape from the melting permafrost. As methane ice is in large amounts in the Arctic Ocean its sudden releases can rapidly raise regional and global temperatures.
This would necessitate by ameliorating increases in hydroxyl radical availability over the East Siberian Sea to keep up with the escalating methane emissions that self-prolong their atmospheric half life as the regional climate warms up (and eventually the global climate).
Due to the potential rapid temperature rise, the methane ice melting could be best inhibited by sulphur dioxide induced SRM to slow or stop sea bed warming. The combination therapy to raise hydroxyl radicals and provide SRM cover by stratospheric sulphur could be used to slow methane.
Whilst the manipulation of hydroxyl to keep up methane and SRM based sulphur dioxide spreading would contain the temperature rises, time would be bought for more harmless fleet of cloud whitening and cloud nucleating vessels that could spray sea water to cool air down.
On the background then CDR operations would be geared up to remove carbon dioxide by various available means until safe levels are reached and the use of SRM can be curtailed and phased out. There is no point keeping SRM running indefinitely to justify CO2 emissions.
SRM dies when the CDR operations pick up the mopping up of carbon dioxide and methane.
So you are wrong in your positioning to antagonise the two and see them diametrically opposed and in competition with each other.
Regards,
Albert
rongre...@comcast.net
Thanks for your thoughts, relating the four terms: Geoengineering, SRM, CDR and Biochar. Below I try to clarify my position.
From: "Doug MacMartin" <macm...@cds.caltech.edu>
To: rongre...@comcast.net
Cc: "geoengineering" <geoengi...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Friday, May 25, 2012 11:43:02 AM
Subject: RE: [geo] More SPICE
Hi Ron – I’ve made this comment before, and I’ll make it again, but I don’t follow why you and others are so keen to keep CDR associated with the word geoengineering and hence with SRM, rather than quietly allowing geoengineering to become associated only with “risky” SRM.
[RWL1: a) I am not at all "keen" to keep CDR as part of Geoengineering I would support anything to equate SRM with Geoengineering. I wish they had never been combined (done maybe for the first time by the small (only/mainly SRM?) group advising the British Academy??)
b) I have seen only a small indication that we could ever see "Geoengineering" defined to mean only "SRM". The die seems to have been cast - even though about 80-90% of Geoengineering dialog related only to SRM and never or only superficially mentions CDR.
c) I am hopeful that attention will slowly turn to CDR as THE preferred form of Geoengineering. I then want Biochar to receive a fair comparative analysis within the CDR technology domain. So far, I think that has not been the case - because Biochar is much more than supplying carbon negativity and because Biochar is a late-comer (2007) to the CDR dialog.
Seems to me (and almost everyone else, including your own comments on the Oxford principles) that (i) aside from OIR, nothing in CDR has anything in common with SRM from either technical or governance or ethics perspectives, and (ii) SRM justly raises concern, which most CDR doesn’t, so it would seem like a huge downside to CDR folk from lumping these together.
[RWL2: a) I presume OIR relates to "Ocean Iron Rxxxxx", and you are saying that OIR should be lumped with SRM? For lack of knowledge on OIR, I won't comment further on this thought.
b) I can't agree with you that CDR has nothing in common with SRM. The technical commonality is that both are large-scale attempts to minimize negative effects of excess atmospheric CO2. The governance/ethics commonality is that many (but Biochar [and maybe some others] excepted) can have large scale negative impacts impacting other than the persons applying the CDR approach.
c) Much like "b)" - I also can't agree with this: "....raise concerns.....most CDR doesn't ..... ". Even Biochar applications can conceivably "raise concerns"; but to me the advantages strongly outweigh the (mainly hypothetical) disadvantages. I can't see how the Oxford Principal #5 pertains - especially because #5 is widely ignored now and will almost certainly be ignored in the future. My emphasis here is in clarifying the 5th Principal - for at least the CDR technology going by the name Biochar. I do not know enough of the others to be credible in comments on them. The three differences I see for biochar from any other CDR approach are given in my yesterday message below. Perhaps proponents of other CDR approaches can similarly show that the 5 Oxford Principals are not absolute - as they stand.
d) Re your final "downside" clause - I think the main downside occurs when the term "Geoengineering" is meant to include ONLY SRM , shortly after saying that Geoengineering has two parts. I have no idea how to prevent this, other than to keep pleading for using the term SRM when only SRM is under discussion. I agree with you that it is a shame that we have this "lumping these together".
e). As an analogy, if I were an orange grower, I would be upset if every discussion about apples only used the term "fruit".
f). In sum, I feel we need to keep both CDR and SRM under discussion - especially when some CDR (especially Biochar) may be the only approach that can get past all five (after being modified) Oxford Principles.
Again, thanks for your comments and giving me the chance to clarify.
Ron
Veli Albert Kallio
I would repudiate your differentiation between risky SRM and non-risky CDR. These branches of geoengineering address different risks althoghether and it is wisest to see them complementary rather than antagonistic.
Solar Radiation Management (SRM) is likely to be deployed if there is sudden runaway event such as sudden methane escape from the melting permafrost. As methane ice is in large amounts in the Arctic Ocean its sudden releases can rapidly raise regional and global temperatures.
This would necessitate by ameliorating increases in hydroxyl radical availability over the East Siberian Sea to keep up with the escalating methane emissions that self-prolong their atmospheric half life as the regional climate warms up (and eventually the global climate).
Due to the potential rapid temperature rise, the methane ice melting could be best inhibited by sulphur dioxide induced SRM to slow or stop sea bed warming. The combination therapy to raise hydroxyl radicals and provide SRM cover by stratospheric sulphur could be used to slow methane.
Whilst the manipulation of hydroxyl to keep up methane and SRM based sulphur dioxide spreading would contain the temperature rises, time would be bought for more harmless fleet of cloud whitening and cloud nucleating vessels that could spray sea water to cool air down.
On the background then CDR operations would be geared up to remove carbon dioxide by various available means until safe levels are reached and the use of SRM can be curtailed and phased out. There is no point keeping SRM running indefinitely to justify CO2 emissions.
SRM dies when the CDR operations pick up the mopping up of carbon dioxide and methane.
So you are wrong in your positioning to antagonise the two and see them diametrically opposed and in competition with each other.
Regards,
Albert