Sara Goldstein Michaela Koke Examining the Climate Engineering “Solution”

1. What are the viable current technologies that are being considered for large-scale implementation in the geoengineering field? 
2. What scientific, political, and ethical barriers stand in the way of these technologies? 
3. How can we begin to address associated concerns and uncertainties as we move forward with the current climate mitigation debate? What larger implications follow, given the current and potential future scale of human involvement in climate manipulation?

• Chris Koski. Assistant Professor at Reed College.

Chris Koski is a professor of Political Science and Environmental Studies at Reed College. He focuses on policy design and implementation with specific interest in environmental policy, homeland security policy, and the politics of state budgeting.

• Ben Kravitz, Postdoctoral Research Associate at the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory.

Ben Kravitz is a Postdoctoral Research Associate at the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. His research interests include climate dynamics, climate modeling, climate effects of volcanic eruptions, anthropogenic climate change, geoengineering, aerosol radiative forcings, climate feedbacks, control of dynamical systems and marine carbonate chemistry.

• Sara Goldstein. Environmental Studies Major at Lewis & Clark College.

Sara Goldstein is a environmental studies major at Lewis & Clark College. She has a keen interest in Geology, which she plans to focus on as she pursues her degree.

• Blaustein, Richard. 2011. “Fertilizing the Seas with Iron.” BioScience 61 (10): 840. <http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1525/bio.2011.61.10.21> 

This article reveals specific arguments around a popular geoengineering strategy: iron fertilization. It touches on some of the most debated ecological impacts of this strategy. Blaustein discusses the London Protocol, established in 1996. This legally binding forum is dedicated to the discussion of the effects iron fertilization and sets limits to the artificial experiments in the attempt to acquire more knowledge before initiation. Gives great focused insight into risks and policy.

• Boehlert, George W. and Andrew B. Gill. 2010. “Environmental and Ecological Effects of Ocean Renewable Energy Development.” Oceanography 23 (2): 68-81.

This article is an extremely descriptive, informative article about effects and impacts of marine renewable energy on the marine ecosystem. Wind, tidal, current and geothermal power and often discussed as components to larger geoengineering plans. Boehlert et al. discuss interesting dimensions such as acoustic and electromagnetic impacts on marine life, but in all impact categories they find that more research needs to be done.

• Clark, Nigel. 2013. “Geoengineering and geologic politics.” Environment and Planning A 45 (12): 2825-2832. doi:10.1068/a45646.

Clark’s article argues that social scientists see geoengineering as a last resort, which enables an “atmosphere of crisis” that inhibits due democratic process in policy making. Clark also recognizes that coming to a political decision with climate engineering is difficult because of the global nature of climate change; international cooperation becomes necessary. He then goes on to say that social scientists need not view geoengineering as an “end of nature.” Rather, they should delve into the scientific debate and give geoengineering more thought.

• Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2011. IPCC Expert Meeting on Geoengineering: Meeting Report. Lima, Peru: IPCC. 1-99.

This compilation of expert articles is meant for the purpose of synthesizing information on geoengineering for the IPCC to review. These experts are highly qualified and give good, accessible summaries of many different aspects of various technologies. Criteria for evaluating risks and ethics are included as graphs and tables, which are extremely valuable to our presentation.

• Minteer, Ben A. 2012. “Geoengineering and Ecological Ethics in the Anthropocene.” BioScience 62 (10): 857-858. <http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1525/bio.2012.62.10.2> 

In the past, American environmentalism has focused on preserving the integrity of nature. Geoengineering has provoked heated debate because of extensive modification of nature inherent in these technologies. Minteer posits that the real challenge to adopting geoengineering strategies will be finding clear ethical boundaries with implementation. He argues that to move forward we must remember the implicit value of nature as well as retain a sense of humility in the Anthropocene.

• Preston, Christopher J. 2011. “Re-thinking the Unthinkable: Environmental Ethics and the Presumptive Argument Against Geoengineering.” Environmental Values 20: 457-479.

This article gives a more provocative look at geoengineering by focusing on the ethical implications of large-scale environmental manipulation including the “lesser of two evils argument”. Preston looks at how society perceives the moral debate that surrounds these planetary modifications and how environmental ethicists are approaching the problem. He imparts that environmental ethicists need to approach this issue without the presumption that society is firmly against climate engineering.

• Russell, Lynn M. et al. 2012. “Ecosystem Impacts of Geoengineering: A Review for Developing a Science Plan.” Ambio 41: 350-369. doi:10.1007/s13280-012-0258-5.

This synthesis presents prominent information on the effects and impacts of different Carbon Dioxide Removal and Solar Radiation Management technologies. The itemized tables categorize possible impacts to compile the different dimensions of a few key technologies. There is extensive exploration in the possible ecological impact of afforestation, carbon capture, ocean fertilization, aerosol injection and cloud albedo enhancement that will be a tremendous help in our research. The paper also identifies where there is an absence of knowledge and supplies research recommendations for future scientists.

• Victor, David G., M. Granger Morgan, Jay Apt, John Steinbruner, and Katharine Ricke. 2009. “The Geoengineering Option: A Last Resort Against Global Warming?” Foreign Affairs 88 (2): 64–76. <http://www.jstor.org/stable/20699494>

Victor et al.’s article posits that geoengineering, because international climate action has thus far been ineffective, offers an emergency solution to climate change. Several of the technologies offer an opportunity for quick and relatively inexpensive deployment. However, critics worry that relying too much on these strategies will discourage mitigation of greenhouse gases when mitigation will be necessary. This article brings together the political controversies surrounding geoengineering and ends by saying that more research needs to be done on these strategies before they are taken seriously politically. However, governments should be actively encouraging research of these climate changing technologies.