Geoengineering techniques need more study, says science coalition

Geoengineering techniques need more study, says science coalition













Geoengineering
the planet's climate, using techniques such as objects in orbit to
reflect the sun's energy, needs further research. Photograph:
Nasa/REUTERS.
More research on the risks and governance of geoengineering
the planet's climate by reflecting sunlight into space is needed, a
grouping of science bodies and a green NGO have said, as the end of the
first week of UN climate talks nears.

Concern about such techniques is significant and so more dialogue and research is needed on the risks and benefits, said the Solar Radiation Management Governance Initiative, a coalition formed in March 2010 of the Royal Society, Italian-based academy of science for the developing world Twas, and US non-profit, the Environmental Defence Fund.

Various techniques for combating global warming by reducing the amount
of the sun's energy reaching the earth have been proposed, from huge
space reflectors in orbit to stratospheric aerosols released in the
upper atmosphere. A UK-backed plan to test the mechanics of inserting
such aerosols, using a hosepipe attached to a giant balloon, was postponed in September and the so-called Spice project was criticised by scientists writing in Nature earlier this month.

Steven Hamburg, the chief scientist for the Environmental Defence Fund
and co-chair of the SRMGI, said: "Solar radiation management might
sound, at first, like something from science fiction – but it's not.
There are already serious discussions beginning about it, and that's
why we felt it was urgent to create this governance initiative. Solar
radiation management could be a Plan B to address climate change, but first we must figure out how to research it safely. Only then should we even consider any other steps."

The SRMGI's co-chair, John Shepherd, said: "Unless the apparent lack of
political will to significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions
changes soon, geoengineering may be needed and SRM methods could be
used in unregulated and possibly reckless ways by individuals,
corporations or individual countries. "

He added: "We must also work outside our national borders, bringing
together interested parties from around the globe to debate the issues
of geo-engineering, agree appropriate governance structures and ensure
that any research is undertaken in a safe, transparent and socially
acceptable manner. The question of whether solar geo-engineering will
prove to be helpful or harmful will largely depend on how humanity can
govern the issue and its political implications, and avoid unilateral
action."
But Silvia Ribeiro, the Latin American director of the ETC Group, which
campaigns against geoengineering, said: "This report is dominated by
scientists engaged in geoengineering research in the UK, US and Canada.
They are advocates for more research, several of them have claimed
patents and have significant financial, institutional and professional
interests in the field of geoengineering research. There are the same
familiar names that we have seen in a whole series of recent reports:
John Shepherd or David Keith."

In September, Shepherd wrote in the Guardian
that research would be "sadly necessary". In October, David Keith of
Harvard University, a member of the SRMGI working group, and founder and
president of Carbon Engineering, a geo-engineering company with 10
employees funded with around $6m (£3.8m) by Bill Gates, wrote a study that said the public strongly reported research into solar geoengineering.
Some 72% of the 3,105 participants in the UK, US and Canada said they
somewhat or strongly supported general research when asked: "Do you
think scientists should study solar radiation management?"

Ribeiro went on: "Solar radiation management technologies are high-risk
and extremely dangerous and they should be treated under international
law like nuclear weapons – except, unlike nuclear weapons, we have an
opportunity to ban their testing and their proliferation them before
the technology is fully developed, rather than trying to prevent their
proliferation after the fact. This is where we should be looking to for
guidance on governance. We need to ban these technologies, not
facilitate their development."

The SRMGI said a ban on geoengineering would not work: "A moratorium on
all SRM-related research would be difficult if not impossible to
enforce. The range of SRM research runs from computer simulations and
laboratory studies right up to potentially risky, large-scale
experiments in the real world. While most SRMGI participants were
comfortable with low risk research, there was much debate over how to
govern any research outside the lab," said the coalition's report, published on Thursday.


Source:-
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/dec/01/geoengineering-techniques-study-science-coalition?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3487