Last week I focused on one of the main SRM processes, the
input of artificial aerosols in the atmosphere and its impacts. This blog post aims to assess people’s
concerns and the uncertainty of artificial aerosols through a case study, the
SPICE project.
The SPICE project investigates the building difficulties of raising
aerosols through a 20km pipe (Figure 1),
held in the air by a giant helium-filled balloon (Pidgeon et al 2013). However, before this project takes place,
SPICE aims to test this SRM method in the real world and wanted to know
people’s response on the matter through a public dialogue.
 |
| Figure 1: The SPICE Project planned test proposal Source: Pidgeon et al 2013 |
Pidgeon et al 2013 suggest the public is relatively unaware
about geoengineering. However, when
given basic knowledge people have high levels of uncertainty and concerns and relate
the SPICE project to the Hinderburg disaster and the Chernobyl explosion. Furthermore many people feel that
geoengineering is unnatural, and will ‘push nature beyond its limits’, as it is
a manmade response to solve atmospheric irregularities which may lead to health
issues, such as respiratory problems (Corner et al. 2013). Additionally the artificial input of aerosols
may not help reduce carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere. It may be perceived as a ‘quick fix’, where temperatures
are reduced but the initial carbon dioxide problem remains unresolved (Davies2011). Moreover, artificial aerosols will need to be constantly inputted in the
atmosphere and long-term management would be required. If neglected this may cause dramatic climatic
changes causing great concerns (Pidgeon et al 2013).
Oppositely, some people may argue that the inputs of
aerosols may be beneficial. The input of
aerosols is relatively a cheap method, hence being a cost effective solution for
governments to resolve climate change issues (Pidgeon et al 2013). After the
first day of debating in the SPICE public dialogue many people became less
reluctant to the SPICE project. It is
evident that under the precondition that the artificial input of aerosols are
safe, and will be managed correctly people are less reluctant to use them.
Artificial aerosols may be highly effective, yet with many
negative consequences. I am not sure
that anthropogenic interference such as aerosols is the solution. However, other geongineering processes may be
more effective and with less environmental impacts. What do you think?
Stop GeoEngineering Message from J. Marvin Herndon Ph.D.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MVs3myr4A3w
Thank you for your thoughts, they are much appreciated!
DeleteHi Maria - this is a really interesting article! I'd never heard of the SPICE project before but will definitely have to look more into it. I agree with you though, I'm not really sure that putting aerosols into the atmosphere is a viable solution. Although maybe I'm just being naive as I know very little on geoengineering ! :)
ReplyDeleteHey Celia! Thanks for your comment. I don't think you are being naive :) It is risky putting aerosols in the atmosphere and I think many people are the most reluctant about this geoengineering process compared to any other!
DeleteI totally agree with the argument made in this post that the SPICE does not really reduce atmospheric CO2 concentration. One of the problems is that reducing the surface temperature through the project actually suppresses evaporation and therefore precipitation. It's apparently because of the property of CO2 called precipitation-suppression relationship (warmer air in the middle of the atmosphere induced by increased CO2 prevents upward movement of the air = low pressure restricted. So, if surface temperature drops, it further decreases the ability of the air to evaporate to create clouds). Given that reduced rainfall can cause droughts and crop failure together with potential ecological impacts, I suppose we also need to look into various feedbacks that contribute to current climate change. It's on this week's seminar reading on engineering (Caldeira et al, 2013), and I think they make a lot of points regarding to geoengineering schemes. My apologies for lasting a bit too long but your blog really triggered my interest in this topic! :)
ReplyDeleteHi Satomi! Thank you for your comment! I totally agree with your thoughts, I am looking into including this idea in following blogs! I am glad I have triggered your interest! made me smile :)
ReplyDeleteHi Maria!
ReplyDeleteI've really enjoyed reading your blog posts so far. My thoughts on the ideas you've discussed regarding SRM are pretty negative - pumping aerosols into the atmosphere may stop/reduce temperature rise in the short-term, but just exacerbate other environmental problems such as acid rain...
My question is - what sort of scale would SRM have to take place on to counteract rising temperatures? As in - how many tonnes of sulphur, and also would it have to be a worldwide project or just targeted at certain parts of the atmosphere likely to undergo the greatest warming? I'm just a bit confused about the practicalities of the whole process.
I look forward to further posts!
Shruti
Hey Shruti, sorry for the late reply! I wasn't notified for the comments :(!
DeleteTo answer your question, according to my readings and also to some extent my last blog, it may be that large amounts of sulphur (many tonnes) would be inputed in the atmosphere without a significant impact of counteracting rising temperatures. However, this is highly variable depending on various models and current temperatures.
Furthermore for your second question, even if the process was not worldwide, it would affect many neighbouring countries. In the case of adding aerosols in the atmosphere, due to wind movement, I suspect this would likely have impacts worldwide.
I hope I answered your questions :)
Hi Maria - great post and very topical for our recent seminar ;) One thing that grinds my gears, as Shruti mentioned, is how none of the papers which discuss this seem to give much thought, if any, to the potential for freshwater acidification if large scale aerosol spraying went ahead...
ReplyDeleteIt's like everyone has forgotten that only 20 years ago we all agreed this was a terrible thing and had several international conventions in place to stop it??????
Arghh!!
Ben - I completely agree. Considering how much work went into reducing sulphur emissions and freshwater acidification in the 20th century, it seems ludicrous to even consider such projects to the point where test projects such as SPICE are being designed and (although this one didn't go through) implemented.
DeleteMaria I'd be interested to know where conservation and environmental organisations sit on the matter - surely they agree with Ben and I and think that pumping sulphur aerosols into the atmosphere is just going to create more environmental problems than it's going to solve? What are your thoughts on the matter?
Yes it would be definitely interesting to hear about some views from environmental organisations, if you're needing inspiration for new blog posts Maria!
DeleteIt would also be interesting to hear the views of those academics that were involved in proving the link between fossil fuel emissions and FW Acidification and the campaign to get the emission reducing policies in place. Has Battarbee or similar given their opinions on this or on Geo-Engineering more broadly?
Hey guys! Ben thanks for your post and Shruti for continuing the conversation :) To be honest, many conservation and environmental organisations I am sure are reluctant to geoengineering (although I haven't encountered any papers).
DeleteIn my opinion, we have been trying other ways to avoid geoengineering for a very long time now without a huge success. This is also (I believe) the reason why in the last IPCC report geoengineering was proposed as a measure to reduce climate change impacts. Nonetheless, I am quite intimidated and reluctant by large scale schemes, as there are many negative environmental connotations that may occur due to geoengineering. However, there are small scale geoengineering schemes (which I have still not mentioned in blogs) which may be beneficial to reducing climate change impacts without as many negative impacts.
Do I believe its the solution? Absolutely not! Yet, I believe geoengineering with a combination of renewable resources and a reduction in fossil fuels could help substantially.
Also Ben, to answer your question about reading about opinions of Battarbee or similar, I have not yet encountered but will research further if they have any work on the matter and hopefully let you know!
Thanks Maria :) Looking forward to your posts about the more small scale types of GeoEngineering. I'm not opposed to it in all forms, I think that there are plenty of methods of implementing it without causing further environmental damage. Completely agree with you though, it's not the solution on its own and we need fossil fuel emission reductions alongside.
DeleteI totally agree Ben. I feel that if it were completely on its own and even somewhat effective, people would stop caring about their fossil fuel emissions and become less environmentally sensitive!
Delete