Climate engineering

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Climate engineering or commonly geoengineering, is the deliberate and large-scale intervention in the Earth's climate system.[1] The main categories of climate engineering are solar geoengineering and carbon dioxide removal. Solar geoengineering, or solar radiation modification, would reflect some sunlight (solar radiation) back to space to limit or reverse human-caused climate change. Carbon dioxide removal refers to removing carbon dioxide gas from the atmosphere and sequestering it for long periods of time. The difference between the two is sometimes described as solar geoengineering modifying the planet's shortwave radiation budget and carbon dioxide removal modifying its longwave radiation budget.

Climate engineering approaches are sometimes viewed as potential complementary options for limiting climate change or its impacts, alongside reducing greenhouse gas emissions and adaptation.[1] There is substantial agreement among scientists that solar geoengineering and carbon dioxide removal cannot substitute for reducing emissions. Given that all types of measures for addressing climate change have economic, political, or physical limitations,[2][3] some climate engineering approaches might eventually be used as part of an ensemble of responses, which could have the objective of climate restoration.[4]

Although there are the large uncertainties over effectiveness and side effects and unforeseen consequences, most experts argue that the risks of such interventions must be seen in the context of risks of dangerous climate change.[5][6] Interventions at large scale may run a greater risk of disrupting natural systems resulting in a dilemma that those approaches that could prove highly cost-effective in addressing extreme climate risk, might themselves cause substantial risk.[5] Some have suggested that the concept of engineering the climate could reduce political and public pressure for emissions reduction, which could exacerbate overall climate risks; others assert that the threat of climate engineering could spur emissions cuts.[7][8][9]

Solar geoengineering[edit]

refer to caption and image description
Proposed solar geoengineering using a tethered balloon to inject sulfate aerosols into the stratosphere.

Solar geoengineering would deflect sunlight away from the Earth, or by increasing the reflectivity (albedo) of the atmosphere or the Earth's surface. These methods are not a substitute for climate change mitigation because they would not reduce greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere, and thus would not address ocean acidification caused by carbon dioxide.[10] In general, solar geoengineering projects presently appear able to take effect rapidly and reversible in their direct climatic effects. The US National Academy of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine states in a 2021 report: "The available research indicates that SG could reduce surface temperatures and potentially ameliorate some risks posed by climate change (e.g., to avoid crossing critical climate “tipping points”; to reduce harmful impacts of weather extremes)."[11]

Solar geoengineering methods[4] may include:

Solar geoengineering requires relatively large scale implementation in order to impact the Earth's climate. The least costly proposals are estimated at tens of billions of US dollars annually in direct deployment costs.[13] This is low enough that it might be in the interests of several single countries to implement them unilaterally.[citation needed] Solar geoengineering may pose novel significant risks such as regional climate disruptions.

Carbon dioxide removal[edit]

Planting trees is a means of carbon dioxide removal.

Carbon dioxide removal (sometimes known as negative emissions technologies or greenhouse gas removal) includes methods that directly remove such gases from the atmosphere and those promote natural processes that drawdown and sequester carbon dioxide.[14] Some methods overlap with carbon capture and storage. Carbon dioxide removal may not be considered to be climate engineering by all commentators because it is not necessarily large scale.[14] Techniques in this category include:

Many of the IPCC model projections to keep global mean temperature rise below 1.5 and 2 °C are based on assume large-scale deployment of carbon dioxide removal.[15] Most carbon dioxide removal methods are presently expensive. Carbon dioxide removal techniques are typically slow to act, expensive, and entail risks that are relatively familiar, such as the risk of carbon dioxide leakage from underground storage formations. Carbon dioxide removal, like greenhouse gas emissions reductions, have impacts proportional to their scale. In other words, these techniques would not be "implemented" in the same sense as solar geoengineering ones.


Moral hazard or risk compensation[edit]

The existence of such techniques may reduce the political and social impetus to reduce carbon emissions.[16] This has generally been called a potential moral hazard, although risk compensation may be a more accurate term. This concern causes many environmental groups and campaigners to be reluctant to advocate or discuss climate engineering for fear of reducing the imperative to cut greenhouse gas emissions.[17] However, several public opinion surveys and focus groups have found evidence of either assertions of a desire to increase emission cuts in the face of climate engineering, or of no effect.[4][18][19][20][21][22][23] Other modelling work suggests that the threat of climate engineering may in fact increase the likelihood of emissions reduction.[24][25][26][27]

In 2021 the IPCC said that emission pathways that limit globally averaged warming to 1.5°C or 2°C by the year 2100 assume the use of CDR (Carbon Dioxide Removal) approaches in combination with emission reductions.[28]


Some environmental organizations have been reluctant to endorse or oppose (such as Friends of the Earth[16] and Greenpeace[29]) solar geoengineering but are often more supportive of some nature-based carbon dioxide removal projects, such as afforestation and peatland restoration. Some commentators appear fundamentally opposed. The ETC Group[30] has called for a moratorium on climate engineering techniques.

It has been argued that regardless of the economic, scientific, and technical aspects, the difficulty of achieving concerted political action on global warming requires other approaches.[31] Those arguing political expediency say the difficulty of achieving meaningful emissions cuts[32] and the effective failure of the Kyoto Protocol demonstrate the practical difficulties of achieving carbon dioxide emissions reduction by the agreement of the international community.[16] However, others point to support for climate engineering proposals among think tanks with a history of opposition to emissions reductions as evidence that, rather than climate engineering being a solution to the difficulties of emissions reductions, the prospect of climate engineering is being used as part of an argument to stall emissions reductions in the first place.[33]

Ethics and responsibility[edit]

Climate engineering would represent a large-scale, intentional effort to modify the climate. It would differ from activities such as burning fossil fuels, as those change the climate inadvertently. Intentional climate change is often viewed differently from a moral standpoint.[34] It raises questions of whether humans have the right to change the climate deliberately, and under what conditions. For example, there may be an ethical distinction between climate engineering to minimize global warming and doing so to optimize the climate. Furthermore, ethical arguments often confront larger considerations of worldview, including individual and social-religious commitments. This may imply that discussions of climate engineering should reflect on how religious commitments might influence the discourse.[35] For many people, religious beliefs are pivotal in defining the role of human beings in the wider world. Some religious communities might claim that humans have no responsibility in managing the climate, instead of seeing such world systems as the exclusive domain of a Creator. In contrast, other religious communities might see the human role as one of "stewardship" or benevolent management of the world.[36] The question of ethics also relates to issues of policy decision-making. For example, the selection of a globally agreed target temperature is a significant problem in any climate engineering governance regime, as different countries or interest groups may seek different global temperatures.[37]

One of the lesser focused aspects of climate engineering is the role it can play in global inequality (Environmental Justice). Emissions are largely concentrated in a relatively few companies.[38] In not addressing the issue or changing practices to emit less, they directly receive benefit from the damage they cause to the climate. In a similar way, wealthier nations have far greater emissions than their poorer counterparts. However, it is poorer nations who will be unable to pay the costly fees for the adaptation and mitigation needed to meet the challenges of climate change. Simply put, wealthy nations have the most to give and poorer nations have the most to lose. Climate engineering has the potential to address inequality by putting the burden on those who benefit from the emissions rather than sharing the burden with those who have little responsibility and who are doomed to suffer the most.[39]


Climate engineering opens up various political and economic issues. The governance issues characterizing carbon dioxide removal compared to solar geoengineering are largely distinct. As a result of these differing characteristics, the key governance problem for carbon dioxide removal (as with emissions reductions) is making sure actors do enough of it (the so-called "free rider problem"), whereas the key governance issue for solar geoengineering is making sure actors do not do it too early or too much (sometimes called the "free driver" problem).[40]

Domestic and international governance vary by the proposed climate engineering method. There is presently a lack of a universally agreed framework for the regulation of climate engineering activity or research. Scholars at the Oxford Martin School at Oxford University proposed a set of voluntary principles, which may guide climate engineering research and use. The short version of the 'Oxford Principles'[41] is:

  • Principle 1: Geoengineering to be regulated as a public good.
  • Principle 2: Public participation in geoengineering decision-making
  • Principle 3: Disclosure of geoengineering research and open publication of results
  • Principle 4: Independent assessment of impacts
  • Principle 5: Governance before deployment

These principles have been endorsed by the House of Commons of the United Kingdom Science and Technology Select Committee on "The Regulation of Geoengineering",[42] and have been referred to by authors discussing the issue of governance.[43]

The Asilomar International Conference on Climate Intervention Technologies was convened to identify and develop risk reduction guidelines for climate intervention experimentation.[44]

The Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity have made three decisions on what they call "climate-related geo-engineering." That in 2010 called on countries to refrain from "climate-related geo-engineering activities that may affect biodiversity" until these are governed, they are scientifically justified, and associated risks have been considered.[45] Some critics of climate engineering call this a "de facto moratorium,"[46] but the Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity calls it a “non-binding normative framework.”[47] and many legal scholars reject this characterization.[48][49] The 2016 decision called for "more transdisciplinary research and sharing of knowledge among appropriate institutions is needed in order to better understand the impacts."[50]

Public perception[edit]

A large 2018 study investigated public perceptions of six climate engineering methods, with an online survey in the United States, United Kingdom, Australia, and New Zealand.[51] The findings were also compared against similar 2012 survey in Australia and New Zealand.[52] Public awareness of climate engineering was low with less than a fifth of respondents reporting prior knowledge. Perceptions of the six climate engineering methods were largely negative and frequently associated with attributes like 'risky', 'artificial' and 'unknown effects'. Carbon dioxide removal methods were preferred over solar geoengineering. Public perceptions were remarkably stable with only minor differences between the different countries in the 2018 and 2012 surveys.[51][52]

In a 2017 focus group study conducted by the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences (CIRES) in the United States, Japan, New Zealand, and Sweden, participants were asked about carbon sequestration options, reflection proposals such as with space mirrors, or brightening of clouds, and their majority responses could be summed up as follows:

  • What happens if the technologies backfire with unintended consequences?
  • Are these solutions treating the symptoms of climate change rather than the cause?
  • Shouldn't we just change our lifestyle and consumption patterns to fight climate change, making climate engineering a last resort?
  • Isn't there a greater need to address political solutions to reduce our emissions?

Moderators floated then the idea of a future "climate emergency" such as rapid environmental change. The participants felt that mitigation and adaptation to climate change were strongly preferred options in such a situation, and climate engineering was seen as a last resort.[53] Some extremists have proposed that there are secret government actions implementing geoengineering on a large scale, affecting weather to produce winter, or cooling, or large fires, or other detrimental effects. There is no evidence to substantiate these unorthodox claims.

Evaluations of climate engineering[edit]

Most of what is known about the suggested techniques are based on laboratory experiments, observations of natural phenomena, and computer modeling techniques. Some proposed climate engineering methods employ methods that have analogs in natural phenomena such as stratospheric sulfur aerosols and cloud condensation nuclei. As such, studies about the efficacy of these methods can draw on information already available from other research, such as that following the 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo. However, comparative evaluation of the relative merits of each technology is complicated, especially given modeling uncertainties and the early stage of engineering development of many proposed climate engineering methods.[54]

Several organizations have investigated climate engineering with a view to evaluating its potential, including the US Congress,[55] the US National Academy of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine,[56] the Royal Society,[57] the UK Parliament,[58] the Institution of Mechanical Engineers,[3] and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The IMechE report examined a small subset of proposed methods (air capture, urban albedo and algal-based CO
capture techniques), and its main conclusions were that climate engineering should be researched and trialed at the small scale alongside a wider decarbonization of the economy.[3]

The Royal Society review examined a wide range of proposed climate engineering methods and evaluated them in terms of effectiveness, affordability, timeliness and safety (assigning qualitative estimates in each assessment). The key recommendations report were that "Parties to the UNFCCC should make increased efforts towards mitigating and adapting to climate change, and in particular to agreeing to global emissions reductions", and that "[nothing] now known about geoengineering options gives any reason to diminish these efforts".[4] Nonetheless, the report also recommended that "research and development of climate engineering options should be undertaken to investigate whether low-risk methods can be made available if it becomes necessary to reduce the rate of warming this century".[4]

In a 2009 review study, Lenton and Vaughan evaluated a range of proposed climate engineering techniques.[2] In order to permit a comparison of disparate techniques, they used a common evaluation for each technique based on its effect on net radiative forcing. As such, the review examined the scientific plausibility of proposed methods rather than the practical considerations such as engineering feasibility or economic cost. Lenton and Vaughan found that "[air] capture and storage shows the greatest potential, combined with afforestation, reforestation and bio-char production", and noted that "other suggestions that have received considerable media attention, in particular, "ocean pipes" appear to be ineffective".[2] They concluded that "[climate] geoengineering is best considered as a potential complement to the mitigation of CO
emissions, rather than as an alternative to it".[2]

In October 2011, a Bipartisan Policy Center panel issued a report urging immediate researching and testing in case "the climate system reaches a 'tipping point' and swift remedial action is required."[59]

The US National Academy of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine conducted a 21-month project to study the potential impacts, benefits, and costs of climate engineering. The differences between these two classes of climate engineering "led the committee to evaluate the two types of approaches separately in companion reports, a distinction it hopes carries over to future scientific and policy discussions."[60][13][61] The resulting study titled Climate Intervention was released in February 2015 and consists of two volumes: Reflecting Sunlight to Cool Earth[62] and Carbon Dioxide Removal and Reliable Sequestration.[63] According to their brief about the study:[64] · [65]

Climate intervention is no substitute for reductions in carbon dioxide emissions and adaptation efforts aimed at reducing the negative consequences of climate change. However, as our planet enters a period of changing climate never before experienced in recorded human history, interest is growing in the potential for deliberate intervention in the climate system to counter climate change... Carbon dioxide removal strategies address a key driver of climate change, but research is needed to fully assess if any of these technologies could be appropriate for large-scale deployment. Albedo modification strategies could rapidly cool the planet's surface but pose environmental and other risks that are not well understood and therefore should not be deployed at climate-altering scales; more research is needed to determine if albedo modification approaches could be viable in the future.

See also[edit]


  1. ^ a b Geoengineering the climate : science, governance and uncertainty. Royal Society. London: Royal Society. 2009. ISBN 9780854037735. OCLC 436232805.CS1 maint: others (link)
  2. ^ a b c d Lenton, T.M.; Vaughan, N.E. (2009). "The radiative forcing potential of different climate geoengineering options". Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics. 9 (15): 5539–5561. Bibcode:2009ACP.....9.5539L. doi:10.5194/acp-9-5539-2009.
  3. ^ a b c "Geo-engineering – Giving us the time to act?". I Mech E. Archived from the original on 2011-07-22. Retrieved 2011-03-12.
  4. ^ a b c d e Working group (2009). Geoengineering the Climate: Science, Governance and Uncertainty (PDF) (Report). London: The Royal Society. p. 1. ISBN 978-0-85403-773-5. RS1636. Retrieved 2011-12-01.
  5. ^ a b Matthias Honegger; Axel Michaelowa; Sonja Butzengeiger-Geyer (2012). Climate Engineering – Avoiding Pandora's Box through Research and Governance (PDF). FNI Climate Policy Perspectives. Fridtjof Nansen Institute (FNI), Perspectives. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2015-09-06. Retrieved 2018-10-09.
  6. ^ Zahra Hirji (October 6, 2016). "Removing CO2 From the Air Only Hope for Fixing Climate Change, New Study Says; Without 'negative emissions' to help return atmospheric CO2 to 350 ppm, future generations could face costs that 'may become too heavy to bear,' paper says". InsideClimate News. Retrieved October 7, 2016.
  7. ^ "Geoengineering". International Risk Governance Council. 2009. Archived from the original on 2009-12-03. Retrieved 2009-10-07.
  8. ^ Reynolds, Jesse (2015-08-01). "A critical examination of the climate engineering moral hazard and risk compensation concern". The Anthropocene Review. 2 (2): 174–191. doi:10.1177/2053019614554304. ISSN 2053-0196. S2CID 59407485.
  9. ^ Morrow, David R. (2014-12-28). "Ethical aspects of the mitigation obstruction argument against climate engineering research". Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences. 372 (2031): 20140062. Bibcode:2014RSPTA.37240062M. doi:10.1098/rsta.2014.0062. ISSN 1364-503X. PMID 25404676.
  10. ^ NASEM (2015). Climate Intervention: Reflecting Sunlight to Cool Earth. National Academies Press. doi:10.17226/18988. ISBN 978-0-309-31482-4.
  11. ^ National Academies of Sciences, Engineering (2021-03-25). Reflecting Sunlight: Recommendations for Solar Geoengineering Research and Research Governance. doi:10.17226/25762. ISBN 978-0-309-67605-2. S2CID 234327299.
  12. ^ Committee on Developing a Research Agenda and Research Governance Approaches for Climate Intervention Strategies that Reflect Sunlight to Cool Earth; Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate; Committee on Science, Technology, and Law; Division on Earth and Life Studies; Policy and Global Affairs; National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (2021-05-28). Reflecting Sunlight: Recommendations for Solar Geoengineering Research and Research Governance. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press. doi:10.17226/25762. ISBN 978-0-309-67605-2. S2CID 234327299.CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  13. ^ a b National Research Council (2017). Climate Intervention: Reflecting Sunlight to Cool Earth. The National Academies Press. doi:10.17226/18988. ISBN 978-0-309-31482-4. Ebook: ISBN 978-0-309-31485-5.
  14. ^ a b National Academies Of Sciences, Engineering (2019). Negative Emissions Technologies and Reliable Sequestration: A Research Agenda. Washington, DC: National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. p. 23. doi:10.17226/25259. ISBN 978-0-309-48452-7. PMID 31120708.
  15. ^ "In-depth: Experts assess the feasibility of 'negative emissions'". CarbonBrief. 2016.
  16. ^ a b c Adam, David (1 September 2008). "Extreme and risky action the only way to tackle global warming, say scientists". The Guardian. Retrieved 2009-05-23.
  17. ^ "Geo-Engineering – a Moral Hazard". 14 November 2007. Archived from the original on 14 January 2011. Retrieved 9 September 2010.
  18. ^ Ipsos MORI (August 2010). Experiment Earth? Report on a Public Dialogue on Geoengineering (PDF) (Report).
  19. ^ Mercer, A M; Keith, D W; Sharp, J D (2011-12-01). "Public understanding of solar radiation management – IOPscience" (PDF). Environmental Research Letters. 6 (4): 044006. Bibcode:2011ERL.....6d4006M. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/6/4/044006.
  20. ^ Kahan, Dan M.; Jenkins-Smith, Hank; Tarantola, Tor; Silva, Carol L.; Braman, Donald (2015-03-01). "Geoengineering and Climate Change Polarization Testing a Two-Channel Model of Science Communication". The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science. 658 (1): 192–222. doi:10.1177/0002716214559002. ISSN 0002-7162. S2CID 149147565.
  21. ^ Views about geoengineering: Key findings from public discussion groups (PDF) (Report). Integrated Assessment of Geoengineering Proposals. 2014-07-31.
  22. ^ Wibeck, Victoria; Hansson, Anders; Anshelm, Jonas (2015-05-01). "Questioning the technological fix to climate change – Lay sense-making of geoengineering in Sweden". Energy Research & Social Science. 7: 23–30. doi:10.1016/j.erss.2015.03.001.
  23. ^ Merk, Christine; Pönitzsch, Gert; Kniebes, Carola; Rehdanz, Katrin; Schmidt, Ulrich (2015-02-10). "Exploring public perceptions of stratospheric sulfate injection". Climatic Change. 130 (2): 299–312. Bibcode:2015ClCh..130..299M. doi:10.1007/s10584-014-1317-7. ISSN 0165-0009. S2CID 154196324.
  24. ^ Millard-Ball, A. (2011). "The Tuvalu Syndrome". Climatic Change. 110 (3–4): 1047–1066. doi:10.1007/s10584-011-0102-0. S2CID 153990911.
  25. ^ Urpelainen, Johannes (2012-02-10). "Geoengineering and global warming: a strategic perspective". International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics. 12 (4): 375–389. doi:10.1007/s10784-012-9167-0. ISSN 1567-9764. S2CID 154422202.
  26. ^ Goeschl, Timo; Heyen, Daniel; Moreno-Cruz, Juan (2013-03-20). "The Intergenerational Transfer of Solar Radiation Management Capabilities and Atmospheric Carbon Stocks" (PDF). Environmental and Resource Economics. 56 (1): 85–104. doi:10.1007/s10640-013-9647-x. hdl:10419/127358. ISSN 0924-6460. S2CID 52213135.
  27. ^ Moreno-Cruz, Juan B. (2015-08-01). "Mitigation and the geoengineering threat". Resource and Energy Economics. 41: 248–263. doi:10.1016/j.reseneeco.2015.06.001.
  28. ^ Page 4-81, IPCC_Sixth_Assessment_Report Working Group 1, 9/8/21,
  29. ^ Parr, Doug (1 September 2008). "Geo-engineering is no solution to climate change". Guardian Newspaper. London. Retrieved 2009-05-23.
  30. ^ "Climate & Geoengineering". ETC Group.
  31. ^ Appell, David (2008-12-12). "Let's get real on the environment". The Guardian. London. Retrieved 2010-03-30.
  32. ^ Caldeira, Ken (2007-10-24). "How to Cool the Globe". The New York Times. Retrieved 2010-03-30.
  33. ^ "Evaluation + Tools + Best Practices: Geoengineering and the New Climate Denialism". Worldchanging. Archived from the original on 2012-08-28. Retrieved 2012-09-06.
  34. ^ Bodansky, D (1996). "May we engineer the climate?". Climatic Change. 33 (3): 309–321. Bibcode:1996ClCh...33..309B. doi:10.1007/bf00142579. S2CID 156701681.
  35. ^ Clingerman, F.; O'Brien, K. (2014). "Playing God: why religion belongs in the climate engineering debate". Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. 70 (3): 27–37. Bibcode:2014BuAtS..70c..27C. doi:10.1177/0096340214531181. S2CID 143742343.
  36. ^ Clingerman, F. (2012) "Between Babel and Pelagius: Religion, Theology and Geoengineering," in Preston, C. (ed.), Engineering the Climate: The Ethics of Solar Radiation Management. Lantham, MD: Lexington, pp. 201–219.
  37. ^ Victor, D. G., M. G. Morgan, J. Apt, J. Steinbruner, K. Ricke (2009) "The Geoengineering Option: A last resort against global warming?" Foreign Affairs, March/April 2009
  38. ^ Riley, Tess (2017-07-10). "Just 100 companies responsible for 71% of global emissions, study says". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 2021-02-12.
  39. ^ Harding, Anthony R.; Ricke, Katharine; Heyen, Daniel; MacMartin, Douglas G.; Moreno-Cruz, Juan (2020-01-13). "Climate econometric models indicate solar geoengineering would reduce inter-country income inequality". Nature Communications. 11 (1): 227. doi:10.1038/s41467-019-13957-x. ISSN 2041-1723. PMC 6957473. PMID 31932612.
  40. ^ Weitzman, Martin L. (2015). "A Voting Architecture for the Governance of Free-Driver Externalities, with Application to Geoengineering". The Scandinavian Journal of Economics. 117 (4): 1049–1068. doi:10.1111/sjoe.12120. S2CID 2991157.
  41. ^ Rayner, S.; Heyward, C.; Kruger, T.; Pidgeon, N.; Redgwell, C.; Savulescu, J. (2013). "The Oxford Principles". Climatic Change. 121 (3): 499–512. Bibcode:2013ClCh..121..499R. doi:10.1007/s10584-012-0675-2. S2CID 55553948.
  42. ^ Oxford Geoengineering Programme. "Oxford Geoengineering Programme // History of the Oxford Principles". Retrieved 2016-02-03.
  43. ^ "We all want to change the world". The Economist. March 31, 2010.
  44. ^ "Conference Home". Archived from the original on 2012-10-16. Retrieved 2012-09-06.
  45. ^ Unit, Biosafety. "COP Decision". Retrieved 2021-06-07.
  46. ^ Herkenrath, Peter; Harrison, Jeremy (January 2011). "The 10th meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity—a breakthrough for biodiversity?". Oryx. 45 (1): 1–2. doi:10.1017/S0030605310001663. ISSN 0030-6053.
  47. ^ Geoengineering in relation to the Convention on biological diversity : technical and regulatory matters. Phillip Williamson, Ralph Bodle, Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity. Montréal, Québec. 2012. ISBN 978-9292254292. OCLC 889257942.CS1 maint: others (link)
  48. ^ Scott, Karen (2013-01-01). "International Law in the Anthropocene: Responding to the Geoengineering Challenge". Michigan Journal of International Law. 34 (2): 309–358. ISSN 1052-2867.
  49. ^ Reynolds, Jesse L.; Parker, Andy; Irvine, Peter (December 2016). "Five solar geoengineering tropes that have outstayed their welcome: Five solar geoengineering tropes". Earth's Future. 4 (12): 562–568. doi:10.1002/2016EF000416.
  50. ^ "Convention on Biological Diversity". Convention on Biological Diversity. Retrieved 2021-06-07.
  51. ^ a b Carlisle, Daniel P.; Feetham, Pamela M.; Wright, Malcolm J.; Teagle, Damon A. H. (2020-04-12). "The public remain uninformed and wary of climate engineering" (PDF). Climatic Change. 160 (2): 303–322. Bibcode:2020ClCh..160..303C. doi:10.1007/s10584-020-02706-5. ISSN 1573-1480. S2CID 215731777.
  52. ^ a b Wright, Malcolm J.; Teagle, Damon A. H.; Feetham, Pamela M. (February 2014). "A quantitative evaluation of the public response to climate engineering". Nature Climate Change. 4 (2): 106–110. Bibcode:2014NatCC...4..106W. doi:10.1038/nclimate2087. ISSN 1758-6798.
  53. ^ "Study Illuminates Public Perceptions of Climate Engineering". CIRES. October 9, 2017.
  54. ^ "Geo-Engineering Inquiry". Institution of Mechanical Engineers. November 17, 2008. Archived from the original on 2008-12-20.
  55. ^ Bullis, Kevin. "U.S. Congress Considers Geoengineering". MIT Technology Review. Retrieved 26 December 2012.
  56. ^ "Climate Intervention Reports » Climate Change at the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine". Retrieved 2015-11-02.
  57. ^ "Stop emitting CO2 or geoengineering could be our only hope" (Press release). The Royal Society. 28 August 2009. Retrieved 14 June 2011.
  58. ^ "Geo-engineering research" (PDF). Postnote. Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology. March 2009. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2009-06-18. Retrieved 2009-05-23.
  59. ^ Dean, Cornelia (2011-10-04). "Group Urges Research Into Aggressive Efforts to Fight Climate Change". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2021-08-14.
  60. ^ "Climate Intervention Is Not a Replacement for Reducing Carbon Emissions; Proposed Intervention Techniques Not Ready for Wide-Scale Deployment". NEWS from the national academies (Press release). Feb 10, 2015. Retrieved 2015-11-24.
  61. ^ Council, National Research (2015). Climate Intervention: Carbon Dioxide Removal and Reliable Sequestration. doi:10.17226/18805. ISBN 978-0-309-30529-7.
  62. ^ Council, National Research (2015-02-10). Climate Intervention: Reflecting Sunlight to Cool Earth. ISBN 978-0-309-31482-4.
  63. ^ Council, National Research (2015-02-10). Climate Intervention: Carbon Dioxide Removal and Reliable Sequestration. ISBN 978-0-309-30529-7.
  64. ^ "Climate Intervention Reports » Climate Change at the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine". Retrieved 2015-09-02.
  65. ^ Council, National Research (2015-02-10). Climate Intervention: Reflecting Sunlight to Cool Earth. ISBN 978-0-309-31482-4.

External links[edit]

Further reading[edit]