Planet Engineering: A Technology Assessment

Geoengineering—the concept of planetary-scale engineering projects that can counter the manmade effects of climate change—is typically viewed as a last-resort option. Like something out of a Hollywood blockbuster, such deliberate actions could potentially stave off ecological cataclysm at the last minute, reverse the effects of global warming, or provide a window of time for a more sustainable long-term solution to be developed.

However, their side effects could produce unintended negative consequences of their own. Proposed technologies generally focus either on removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere or offsetting solar radiation. At this point, however, they are largely speculative.

To study these issues, the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) has released a technology assessment report, “Climate Engineering: Technical Status, Future Directions, and Potential Responses.” The report examines what stages of development various climate-engineering technologies have reached and whether any of them can become viable in the next 20 years. It also considers the potential repercussions of unleashing them.

The GAO asked 45 experts from different fields to present their views, projecting ahead to 2030. Most of the experts surveyed were in favor of researching potential methods to engineer the Earth and its climate, believing that greater preparation in advance could lead to avoidance of negative outcomes later.

The process began with the development of four scenarios by “a group of six experts in climate engineering and related fields who met with me,” says GAO chief scientist Timothy M. Persons. He adds, “Clem Bezold of the Institute for Alternative Futures facilitated the scenario-building meeting.” Individuals from a wide range of disciplines were then asked for their opinions on climate engineering, taking into account the possible scenarios.

Potential technologies were rated on a scale of 1 to 9, with 9 representing a proven technology ready for deployment. All except for one were assigned Level 1 or 2. The direct air capture of carbon dioxide via chemicals was assigned Level 3, indicating that it has reached the beginning of the active research and development stage.

However, the report states, “direct air capture is believed to be decades away from large-scale commercialization.” It further points out that large-scale implementation of all proposed carbon dioxide removal technologies would need to overcome a variety of challenges in order to become viable, and that even the research stage poses risks. The same caveat also applied to solar radiation management technologies.

The bottom line, according to the assessment, is that “climate engineering technologies are not now an option for addressing global climate change, given our assessment of their maturity, potential effectiveness, cost factors, and potential consequences.” Nevertheless, the majority of those surveyed believed that further research, including risk assessment and management, is imperative.

Experts also advocated for international research and collaboration between nations, in order to prevent a situation where “a single nation might unilaterally deploy a technology with transboundary effects.” In other words, the potential for international conflict also needs to be addressed.

The report concludes with a call for more “foresight activities to help anticipate emerging research developments, key trends, and their implications for climate engineering research—notably, the new or emerging opportunities and risks that such changes might bring.” While it makes it clear that climate-engineering technologies have a long way to go before they become viable options, it emphasizes the need for a “coordinated strategy for climate engineering research.”

The full report is available to the public on GAO’s Web site, along with several earlier publications on the topic. Among the futurists who contributed to the report are Jamais Cascio, a research fellow at the Institute for the Future and author of Hacking the Earth: Understanding the Consequences of Geoengineering (2009), and World Future Society board chairman Kenneth Hunter.

Source: “Climate Engineering: Technical Status, Future Directions, and Potential Responses,” published by U.S. Government Accountability Office, www.gao.gov.

Sustainable Arctic Development

A new Arctic research institute based in Norway will focus on commercial development projects that are achieved through sustainable technological approaches.

The Centre for Research-based Innovation on Sustainable Arctic Marine and Coastal Technology (SAMCoT) aims to balance economic and environmental values in the development of this critical region. Energy resources, particularly in the Barents Sea, will be developed using the same principles that have enabled successful exploitation of oil in the North Sea, according to the Norwegian University of Science and Technology, which is hosting the new Institute.

SAMCoT will receive support from the Norwegian Research Council as well as partners such as Aker Solutions, Shell, Statoil, and Kongsberg Maritime.

Source: Norwegian University of Science and Technology, www.ntu.edu/samcot.