Quantifying the effects of solar geoengineering on vegetation

Dagon, Katherine, and Daniel Schrag. “Quantifying the effects of solar geoengineering on vegetation.” Climatic Change 152, no. 1-2 (2019): 235–251. Publisher's Version Abstract

dagon-schrag2019_article_quantifyingtheeffectsofsolarge.pdf

Climate change will have significant impacts on vegetation and biodiversity. Solar geoengineering has potential to reduce the climate effects of greenhouse gas emissions through albedo modification, yet more research is needed to better understand how these techniques might impact terrestrial ecosystems. Here, we utilize the fully coupled version of the Community Earth System Model to run transient solar geoengineering simulations designed to stabilize radiative forcing starting mid-century, relative to the Representative Concentration Pathway 6 (RCP6) scenario. Using results from 100-year simulations, we analyze model output through the lens of ecosystem-relevant metrics. We find that solar geoengineering improves the conservation outlook under climate change, but there are still potential impacts on terrestrial vegetation. We show that rates of warming and the climate velocity of temperature are minimized globally under solar geoengineering by the end of the century, while trends persist over land in the Northern Hemisphere. Moisture is an additional constraint on vegetation, and in the tropics the climate velocity of precipitation dominates over that of temperature. Shifts in the amplitude of temperature and precipitation seasonal cycles have implications for vegetation phenology. Different metrics for vegetation productivity also show decreases under solar geoengineering relative to RCP6, but could be related to the model parameterization of nutrient cycling. The coupling of water and carbon cycles is found to be an important mechanism for understanding changes in ecosystems under solar geoengineering.

Belfer Technology Factsheet Series: Solar Geoengineering

Burns, Lizzie, David Keith, Peter Irvine, and Joshua Horton. “Belfer Technology Factsheet Series: Solar Geoengineering” (2019).Abstract

belfer_factsheet_on_solar_geoengineering.pdf

Solar geoengineering refers to a set of emerging technologies that could alter the Earth’s radiative balance— perhaps through injecting aerosols into the stratosphere, where they would reflect a small fraction of sunlight back into space—reducing the amount of climate change caused by greenhouse gases. It could not replace reducing emissions (mitigation), coping with a changing climate (adaptation), or carbon dioxide removal (CDR). Yet it does have the potential to supplement these efforts, and it might provide reductions in climate risk that are unachievable by other means.

Multilateral parametric climate risk insurance: a tool to facilitate agreement about deployment of solar geoengineering?

Keith, David, and Joshua Horton. “Multilateral parametric climate risk insurance: a tool to facilitate agreement about deployment of solar geoengineering?” Climate Policy (2019). Publisher's Version Abstract

horton_and_keith_climate_policy_2019.pdf

States will disagree about deployment of solar geoengineering, technologies that would reflect a small portion of incoming sunlight to reduce risks of climate change, and most disagreements will be grounded in conflicting interests. States that object to deployment will have many options to oppose it, so states favouring deployment will have a powerful incentive to meet their objections. Objections rooted in opposition to the anticipated unequal consequences of deployment may be met through compensation, yet climate policy is inhospitable to compensation via liability. We propose that multilateral parametric climate risk insurance might be a useful tool to facilitate agreement on solar geoengineering deployment. With parametric insurance, predetermined payouts are triggered when climate indices deviate from set ranges. We suggest that states favouring deployment could underwrite reduced-rate parametric climate insurance. This mechanism would be particularly suited to resolving disagreements based on divergent judgments about the outcomes of proposed implementation. This would be especially relevant in cases where disagreements are rooted in varying levels of trust in climate model predictions of solar geoengineering effectiveness and risks. Negotiations over the pricing and terms of a parametric risk pool would make divergent judgments explicit and quantitative. Reduced-rate insurance would provide a way for states that favour implementation to demonstrate their confidence in solar geoengineering by underwriting risk transfer and ensuring compensation without the need for attribution. This would offer a powerful incentive for states opposing implementation to moderate their opposition.

Exploring accumulation-mode H2SO4 versus SO2 stratospheric sulfate geoengineering in a sectional aerosol–chemistry–climate model

Vattioni, Sandro, Debra Weisenstein, David Keith, Aryeh Feinberg, Thomas Peter, and Andrea Stenke. “Exploring accumulation-mode H2SO4 versus SO2 stratospheric sulfate geoengineering in a sectional aerosol–chemistry–climate model.” Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics 19 (2019). Publisher's Version Abstract

acp-19-4877-2019.pdf

Stratospheric sulfate geoengineering (SSG) could contribute to avoiding some of the adverse impacts of climate change. We used the SOCOL-AER global aerosol–chemistry–climate model to investigate 21 different SSG scenarios, each with 1.83 Mt S yr⁻¹ injected either in the form of accumulation-mode H₂SO₄ droplets (AM H₂SO₄), gas-phase SO₂ or as combinations of both. For most scenarios, the sulfur was continuously emitted at an altitude of 50 hPa (≈20 km) in the tropics and subtropics. We assumed emissions to be zonally and latitudinally symmetric around the Equator. The spread of emissions ranged from 3.75^∘ S–3.75^∘ N to 30^∘ S–30^∘ N. In the SO₂ emission scenarios, continuous production of tiny nucleation-mode particles results in increased coagulation, which together with gaseous H₂SO₄ condensation, produces coarse-mode particles. These large particles are less effective for backscattering solar radiation and have a shorter stratospheric residence time than AM H₂SO₄ particles. On average, the stratospheric aerosol burden and corresponding all-sky shortwave radiative forcing for the AM H₂SO₄ scenarios are about 37 % larger than for the SO₂ scenarios. The simulated stratospheric aerosol burdens show a weak dependence on the latitudinal spread of emissions. Emitting at 30^∘ N–30^∘ S instead of 10^∘ N–10^∘ S only decreases stratospheric burdens by about 10 %. This is because a decrease in coagulation and the resulting smaller particle size is roughly balanced by faster removal through stratosphere-to-troposphere transport via tropopause folds. Increasing the injection altitude is also ineffective, although it generates a larger stratospheric burden, because enhanced condensation and/or coagulation leads to larger particles, which are less effective scatterers. In the case of gaseous SO₂ emissions, limiting the sulfur injections spatially and temporally in the form of point and pulsed emissions reduces the total global annual nucleation, leading to less coagulation and thus smaller particles with increased stratospheric residence times. Pulse or point emissions of AM H₂SO₄ have the opposite effect: they decrease the stratospheric aerosol burden by increasing coagulation and only slightly decrease clear-sky radiative forcing. This study shows that direct emission of AM H₂SO₄ results in higher radiative forcing for the same sulfur equivalent mass injection strength than SO₂ emissions, and that the sensitivity to different injection strategies varies for different forms of injected sulfur.

Strategic implications of counter-geoengineering: Clash or cooperation?

Heyen, Daniel, Joshua Horton, and Juan Moreno-Cruz. “Strategic implications of counter-geoengineering: Clash or cooperation?” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 95 (2019): 153-177. Publisher's Version Abstract

heyen_et_al._-_2019_-_strategic_implications_of_counter-geoengineering_.pdf

Solar geoengineering has received increasing attention as an option to temporarily stabilize global temperatures. A key concern is that heterogeneous preferences over the optimal amount of cooling combined with low deployment costs may allow the country with the strongest incentive for cooling, the so-called free-driver, to impose a substantial externality on the rest of the world. We analyze whether the threat of counter-geoengineering technologies capable of negating the climatic effects of solar geoengineering can overcome the free-driver problemand tilt the game in favour of international cooperation. Our game-theoreticalmodel of countries with asymmetric preferences allows for a rigorous analysis of the strategic interaction surrounding solar geoengineering and counter-geoengineering.We find that countergeoengineering prevents the free-driver outcome, but not always with benign effects. The presence of counter-geoengineering leads to either a climate clash where countries engage in a non-cooperative escalation of opposing climate interventions (negative welfare effect), a moratorium treaty where countries commit to abstain from either type of climate intervention (indeterminate welfare effect), or cooperative deployment of solar geoengineering (positivewelfare effect).We show that the outcome depends crucially on the degree of asymmetry in temperature preferences between countries.

The potential for climate engineering with stratospheric sulfate aerosol injections to reduce climate injustice

Svoboda, Toby, Peter Irvine, Daniel Callies, and Masahiro Sugiyama. “The potential for climate engineering with stratospheric sulfate aerosol injections to reduce climate injustice.” Journal of Global Ethics (2019). Publisher's Version Abstract

svoboda_et_al_2019.pdf

Climate engineering with stratospheric sulfate aerosol injections (SSAI) has the potential to reduce risks of injustice related to anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases. Relying on evidence from modeling studies, this paper makes the case that SSAI could have the potential to reduce many of the key physical risks of climate change identified by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Such risks carry potential injustice because they are often imposed on low-emitters who do not benefit from climate change. Because SSAI has the potential to reduce those risks, it thereby has the potential to reduce the injustice associated with anthropogenic emissions. While acknowledging important caveats, including uncertainty in modeling studies and the potential for SSAI to carry its own risks of injustice, the paper argues that there is a strong case for continued research into SSAI, especially if attention is paid to how it might be used to reduce emissions-driven injustice.

3893515846be674a0211a368ce789704

Stay in touch

What is Geoengineering?

Geoengineering refers to a set of emerging technologies that could manipulate the environment and partially offset some of the impacts of climate change.

Geoengineering Video SEAS

Projects

Frank Keutsch — Heterogeneous chemistry and ageing of designer aerosol particles to assess the risk of solar geoengineering

Robert Stavins — Governance of Solar Geoengineering: Advancing Understanding and Action