<![CDATA[
<body bgcolor="ffffff">
<h1 align="center">Climate Engineering</h1>
<h3 align="center">A critical review of proposals, their
scientific and political context, and possible impacts.</h3>
<h4 align="center">compiled for <a
href="http://www.gn.apc.org/sgr/"><i>Scientists For Global
Responsibility</i></a>, November 1996</h4>
<p align="center"><a href="http://http://www.chooseclimate.org/about.html">Ben
Matthews</a> </p>
<p align="center">School of Environmental Sciences, UEA, Norwich
NR47TJ <br>
Fax 01603 507719, Tel (wk) 01603 593733, <br>
email <a href="mailto:ben@chooseclimate.org">ben@chooseclimate.org</a>
</p>
<hr>
<p align="center"><a name="abs"></a> </p>
<h2 align="center">Abstract:</h2>
<p>This review of climate engineering proposals aims to provide a
comprehensive resource of up to date information and ideas for
people concerned about the development of large-scale technical
fixes to counter the problem of global warming. The proposals
fall into three main categories: increasing the reflection of
solar radiation back to space, enhancing natural sinks of carbon
dioxide, and direct disposal of carbon dioxide captured at
source. In addition, proposals involving weather modification,
ozone chemistry and terraforming Mars are mentioned briefly.
Direct disposal of carbon dioxide is included because it involves
exploitation of "global commons" such as the deep
ocean, and because it is often compared with schemes to increase
natural sinks. Some of these proposals are realistic and thus a
real cause for concern, whilst the reader may find amusement in
reading some of the crazier schemes! All of these technical fixes
are intended to tackle the symptom of the problem of fossil fuel
consumption. The development of technology to encourage energy
efficiency or renewable energy, on the other hand, which is
intended to reduce that consumption, is much less controversial,
and is not considered here. </p>
<p>Some academic research projects which may lead to climate
engineering, such as fertilisation of the Southern Ocean with
added Iron, have recently received much media attention. However,
the media seems to be less aware of the much larger community of
researchers who are employed by the fossil fuel and power
industries to investigate similar proposals for enhancing CO2
sinks. This review aims to clarify not only how each proposal
might work or fail, but also who is promoting each idea.
Sponsorship by the fossil fuel industry is closely linked to the
bluffing game of international greenhouse politics, where excuses
for doing nothing are always welcome. Hidden political values are
concealed in cost-benefit analyses, in which a trade off can be
made between climate engineering or climate warming damages,
implying that consumption is already non-negotiable. The
"just in case" argument for backing climate engineering
research may become a self-fulfilling prophesy in this political
context, but in the real world the choice might then be between
two potential catastrophes, for positive feedback processes make
the climate system inherently surprising. I conclude by asking
whether such research should continue, and how we might check its
momentum in the future. </p>
<hr>
<a href="part1.html">Since you don't have frames, click here to continue to the main contents page</a>
<hr>
</body>
]]>