February 10, 2015

expert reaction to two new reports on geoengineering to be published by the National Research Council (US)

The National Research Council in the US has published two reports on the subject of geoengineering to counter the effects of climate change. The reports focus on the removal of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, as well as the reflection of sunlight.

Dr Matthew Watson, Reader in Natural Hazards at the University of Bristol, said:

“This latest reports build on previous discussion and captures a centrist position that many scientists and publics will feel comfortable with. It highlights the need for careful, engaged and holistic thinking and strongly echoes the messages of UK researchers from the recent Royal Society meeting in London.”

Prof. John Shepherd, Chair of the Royal Society’s study Geoengineering the Climate published in 2009, said:

“I am very pleased that the NAS reports provide strong support for the conclusions of the Royal Society’s earlier work. I welcome their recommendation for serious discussions of what international research governance structures may be needed, involving civil society in decision-making through a transparent and open process.

“The SRM Governance Initiative (www.srmgi.org) of which I am a co-chair exists to promote just such early and sustained dialogue among diverse stakeholders around the world, and the support of the NAS will be a great help in widening this even further.”

Prof. Stuart Haszeldine, Professor of Carbon Capture and Storage at the University of Edinburgh, said:

“For a healthy planet, try a good diet of preventive medicine. Stop the bad diet of consuming carbon – then we don’t need to undertake biosphere carbon liposuction, or invent atmosphere drug therapy.

“Faced with long, slow and costly carbon reduction, versus cheap technological fixes with profitable corporations – we can all guess which way is politically easiest. How will science keep politicians honest during the next 100 years?

“The USA National Academy report makes a smart distinction between slowly and deliberately putting carbon back underground, and tinkering with sunlight reflection and adjusting the atmosphere. The first is slower, do-able, visible, and controllable but will cost more. The second is cheaper in the short term, but is poorly understood, will create global regions who are losers, and also means that humans have to keep maintaining the earth’s annual atmospheric injection.

“The real remedy is to become much more efficient in energy and resource use, to get out of extracting fossil carbon, and to get out before 2050, unless extraction is 100% balanced by carbon storage. That’s not easy; thirty years of effort have not achieved much change.  But it is clearly possible, by changing the way energy and resources are priced, and by technology innovation.

“The politics does not mean agreement from the whole world, but just four bilateral agreements for real carbon reductions at the Paris UNFCC between the USA, China, EU, and Australia. A minority of rich people hold the keys to all our futures.”

‘Climate Intervention: Carbon Dioxide Removal and Reliable Disposal’ and ‘Climate Intervention: Reflecting Sunlight to Cool Earth’ published by the National Research Council on Tuesday 10 February 2015. 

All our previous output on this subject can be seen at this weblink: http://www.sciencemediacentre.org/?s=geoengineering&cat=

Declared interests

Prof. Haszeldine holds no commercial interests in any companies involved in these technologies.  His research is funded by UK research councils, and consortia of hydrocarbon and power generation companies.  He was a member of the EU-TRACE review of climate engineering technologies, funded by the European Union.

Prof. Shepherd is a member of the Scientific Advisory Committee of the Virgin Earth Challenge.

Dr Watson is funded by the EPSRC, NERC and STFC to lead the SPICE (Stratospheric Particle Injection for Climate Engineering) project and to work on volcanic ash clouds. He is a member of both the government’s VAORG (Volcanic Ash Observations Review Group) and the VAAG (Volcanic Ash Advisory Group) and was a member of the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE) during the Icelandic ash crisis.