Month: May 2011

Allenby, Brad (2011): Geoengineering: A critique

Allenby, Brad (2011): Geoengineering: A critique. In: Proceedings of the 2011 IEEE International Symposium on Sustainable Systems and Technology: IEEE, S. 1–5. DOI: 10.1109/ISSST.2011.5936870[nbsp]

“Geoengineering is a technological response to the challenge of anthropogenic climate change and the failure of political mechanisms to achieve substantial progress in controlling atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations. Because it derives from the same policy framework as current global warming initiatives, it suffers from the same deficiencies. In particular, the geoengineering dialog to date fails to understand the full power of technology systems, and, because of its singleminded focus on global climate change, inadequately defines the class of technologies included in the geoengineering category.”

Burns, William C. G. (2011): Climate Geoengineering: Solar Radiation Management and its Implications for Intergenerational Equity

Burns, William C. G. (2011): Climate Geoengineering: Solar Radiation Management and its Implications for Intergenerational Equity. In: Stanford Journal of Law, Science [&] Policy 4 (May 10), pp. 39–55.

This article examines the implications of Solar Radiation Management climate geoengineering for intergenerational equity. It argues that under all but the most stringent circumstances, solar radiation management approaches would violate the internationally legally recognized principle of intergenerational equity.

Link

Humphreys, D. (2011), ‘Smoke and Mirrors: Some Reflections on the Science and Politics of Geoengineering’

Humphreys, D. (2011), ‘Smoke and Mirrors: Some Reflections on the Science and Politics of Geoengineering’, The Journal of Environment [&] Development, 20/2: 99–120.

“This article identifies and explores some of the political issues that will need to be addressed in the governance of geoengineering. It is argued that the diversity of different possible geoengineering techniques—encompassing solar radiation management (SRM) and carbon dioxide removal (CDR), and further divided into territorial techniques and commons-based techniques—rules out a single mode of geoengineering governance. Whereas some geoengineering techniques may be effective when implemented by a small number of countries, others would need to be implemented around the globe and involve most countries of the world, with different countries having different comparative advantages in the various geoengineering techniques. Such an enterprise would generate collective action problems related to implementation and disagreements over who should pay for the financial and nonfinancial costs of geoengineering. Nonetheless, a more coherent system of geoengineering governance is possible and is necessary if international conflict is to be avoided and the risks of unintended consequences are to be minimized. Any new international institutional design on geoengineering will need to address some pressing political and scientific questions, including the desired mean temperature of the world’s climate, the possible role of CDR technologies in carbon offsets and emissions-trading schemes, and whether there should be differentiated obligations between different groups of states.”

Guo, Dongfang; Thee, Hendy; et al. (2011): Borate-Catalyzed Carbon Dioxide Hydration via the Carbonic Anhydrase Mechanism

Guo, Dongfang; Thee, Hendy; da Silva, Gabriel; Chen, Jian; Fei, Weiyang; Kentish, Sandra; Stevens, Geoffrey W. (2011): Borate-Catalyzed Carbon Dioxide Hydration via the Carbonic Anhydrase Mechanism. In: Environ. Sci. Technol 45 (11), S. 4802–4807. DOI: 10.1021/es200590m

“The hydration of CO(2) plays a critical role in carbon capture and geoengineering technologies currently under development to mitigate anthropogenic global warming and in environmental processes such as ocean acidification. […]”