Bill Clinton Champions White Roofs

Former President Bill Clinton has declared white roofs "the single best idea to jumpstart job creation." Interestingly, he frames the issue solely in terms of job creation and energy savings, with no mention (or awareness?) of its potential for albedo modification. This is smart politics, since appealing to economic self-interest in a time of sclerotic growth is a much surer way to garner support for white roofs than trumpeting their global climate benefits. Recall that Energy Secretary Steven Chu tried this latter tack in 2009, and was rewarded with ridicule for his efforts.

Climate Change, Security, and Small Island States

On July 20, the UN Security Council held an open debate on the subject of climate change and risks to international security. The topic was introduced by Germany, which currently holds the rotating presidency of the Security Council. Following on from earlier efforts to raise the issue of climate security within the Council, Germany sought to begin an ongoing dialogue on the security risks posed by climate change, in particular the threat of sea-level rise and dangers to food supplies. Discussion also focused on the possible future need for UN "green helmets" for deployment to violent conflicts around the world caused or exacerbated ("threat-multiplied") by climate change.

Germany was strongly supported by the Pacific Small Island Developing States grouping. The chairman of this organization, President Marcus Stephen of Nauru, urged in a July 18 op-ed in the New York Times that "the Security Council should join the General Assembly in recognizing climate change as a threat to international peace and security. It is a threat as great as nuclear proliferation or global terrorism." Yet he went on to write that "Negotiations to reduce emissions should remain the primary forum for reaching an international agreement." Climate engineering was not mentioned as a potential strategy.

The existential threat faced by small island states as a result of global warming and rising seas is more than sufficient reason to explore geoengineering as an additional climate policy option. Emissions mitigation, even if deep cuts were somehow achieved over the next decades, will not be enough to prevent the demise of low-lying island states such as Nauru, the Marshall Islands, and the Maldives. In the absence of climate intervention, such countries will cease to exist in any meaningful sense. When rising sea levels are treated as a matter of war and peace before the UN Security Council, national leaders compare their climate predicaments to nuclear proliferation and terrorism, and the future existence of entire nation-states is in doubt, surely it is appropriate to consider all possible solutions. Small island developing states, and representative organizations such as the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS), ought to be at the forefront of diplomatic efforts to jump-start research into geoengineering.

Russian Government Sponsoring Scientific Conference on Geoengineering

This year's Problems of Adaptation to Climate Change (PACC-2011) conference, scheduled for November in Moscow, will focus heavily on geoengineering as a response to the climate crisis. One of its main sections is titled "Research of Opportunities for Climate Stabilization Using New Technologies," and is co-chaired by Yuri Izrael (SRM researcher and associate of Prime Minister Vladimir Putin). PACC-2011 is being organized by the Russian government through its Federal Service for Hydrometeorology and Environmental Monitoring. Official support for this scientific conference runs counter to recent economic (see BP Expands in Russian Arctic, 1/16) and military moves to exploit the warming Russian Arctic, and thus represents a continuation of Russia's de facto policy of ambivalence toward geoengineering (see Where Do the Major Powers Stand?, 12/5/10).

Research Moving Ahead in the UK

The Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC), a British government funding agency, has released initial funding for two geoengineering research projects. The first is a stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI) project known as SPICE, or Stratospheric Particle Injection for Climate Engineering. EPSRC has provided £1.6m to support particle research, construction of a 1 km pipe-balloon testbed delivery system, climate intervention computer modeling, and design of a deployable 20-25 km pipe-balloon system. SPICE is managed jointly by scientists at Bristol, Cambridge, and Reading Universities. The second project is the Integrated Assessment of Geoengineering Proposals (IAGP), a public education and outreach effort overseen by researchers from Leeds University. EPSRC has provided £1.7m to the IAGP project, results of which will inform the testbed component of SPICE. Once again, the British government is leading the way in public funding of geoengineering research.

Carbon Farming Moves Through Australian Parliament

The Carbon Farming Initiative (CFI), a scheme designed to generate carbon credits for offset projects undertaken in forestry and agriculture, has been passed by the Australian House of Representatives and is now headed for the Senate. The CFI is notable for the fact that it would grant credits for both reforestation and biochar projects, two key CDR strategies. The CFI is tied to carbon price (tax) legislation currently under development (not to be confused with the failed Emissions Trading Scheme which helped bring down the previous Labor government of Kevin Rudd). The current Labor government, led by Julia Gillard, intends to hold a Senate vote on the CFI by the end of this month, although a national carbon tax is not proposed until 2012. In the absence of an effective price on carbon, it is difficult to see how a market in agroforestry offset credits will take off.

Bright Spots for Direct Air Capture

Proponents of direct air capture (DAC) technology have been back on their heels in the wake of a recent report by the American Physical Society (APS), which estimated the cost of DAC at approximately $600 per metric ton of CO2 (compared to $80/tCO2 for conventional CCS). Two new developments offer glimmers of hope. First, the prestigious Institution of Mechanical Engineers (IMechE), based in the UK, has released a policy statement in support of air capture. In contrast to the APS, IMechE considers that, "In the context of the margins of uncertainty of both, the costs of air capture and CCS emissions capture appear to be potentially of broadly similar magnitude." IMechE calls for more research on DAC and the development of facilitative policy mechanisms.

Second, in the US, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has signed off on the Barrasso bill, which would set up federal prizes to reward breakthroughs in DAC technology (see Additional Information on Barrasso Direct Air Capture Bill, 4/15). The CBO determined that, if enacted, the Barrasso bill would have no net budget impact. This is an important step as the bill moves forward through the Senate. To be sure, DAC faces serious obstacles in becoming an effective tool for achieving negative emissions, with high cost arguably its biggest hurdle. But support from governments and scientific establishments would help make the challenge a bit less daunting.

Ocean Scientists Warn of Mass Extinction, Call for CDR

The International Program on the State of the Ocean (IPSO), a group of marine scientists and other ocean experts, has released a report warning that climate change and other stressors are driving the oceans to the brink of disaster. Echoing another recent study (see Hurtling Toward the Sixth Mass Extinction, 3/6), the IPSO authors conclude that "Unless action is taken now, the consequences of our activities are at a high risk of causing, through the combined effects of climate change, overexploitation, pollution and habitat loss, the next globally significant extinction event in the ocean" (p. 7). One action they reportedly recommend is to move forward with research on CDR geoengineering, although they rule out iron fertilization on grounds that this technique would exacerbate ocean acidification (in the available summary report, IPSO calls only for "significantly increased measures for mitigation of atmospheric CO2" (p. 8), but a full report with more specific recommendations is due shortly).

The release of this report is timed to coincide with an UNCLOS meeting currently taking place in New York. It also happens to coincide with the IPCC geoengineering meeting now underway in Peru, as well as a CBD geoengineering meeting scheduled for next week in London. Hopefully these IPSO findings will influence deliberations at these gatherings by underscoring the urgent need for research on possible geoengineering strategies.