Understanding and Governing the Risks of Solar Radiation Management (SRM) - A few basic ideas to start our discussions

1. Understanding and Governing the Risks of Solar Radiation Management (SRM)-A few basic ideas to start our discussions 2011 January 31 M. Granger Morgan Department of Engineering and Public Policy Carnegie Mellon University Pittsburgh, PA 15213 tel: 412-268-2672 e-mail: granger.morgan@andrew.cmu.edu

2. To cool the earth either: Increase albedo just a little bit (this is fast). Remove CO2 and other GHGs (this is slow). OR Three ways tochange the climate: To warm the earth add CO2 and other GHGs.

3. There has been a lot of confusion about nomenclature Too many things are being termed “geoengineering.” The result is that people make general statements that actually only apply to one subset of possible strategies. The Royal Society has introduced two terms that help: SRMor “solar radiation management” CDR or “carbon dioxide removal”

4. Three ways tochange the climate: To cool the earth either: Increase albedo just a little bit (this is fast). Remove CO2 and other GHGs (this is slow). OR To warm the earth add CO2 and other GHGs. SRM CDR 4

5. The first of these is probably the most feasible so I will concentrate on just that option. Four examples of how the earth's albedo might be increased: • 1. Add small reflecting particles in the stratosphere. • 2. Add more clouds in the lower part of the atmosphere. • 3. Place various kinds of reflecting objects or diffraction gratings in space either near the earth or at a stable location (the L1 point) between the earth and the sun. • 4. Change large portions of the planet's land cover from things that are dark and absorbing, such as trees, to things that are light and reflecting, such as open snow-cover or grasses.

6. Stratospheric aerosols Adding more of the right kind of fine particles to the stratosphere can increase the amount of sunlight that is reflected back into space. There is clear evidence from many large past volcanic eruptions that this mechanism can cool the planet (Mount Pinatubo produced global scale cooling of about 0.5°C). Figure source: NASA and IPCC. Source: Novim report, 2009, p. 14

7. This is not hard to do,and probably not all that expensive David Keith has suggested that it should be possible to create microscopic reflecting composite particles that would be self-orienting and self-levitating, and thus might not have to be replaced very frequently. A single nation could do these within its national boundaries Figure sources: EADS; NASA; www.carlstumpf.com

8. While there is… …a great deal of uncertainty about SRM, last year in Nature David Keith, Ted Parson and I argued that three things are pretty certain:

9. In order to get a better estimate of cost… My colleagues Jay Apt and David Keith recently commissioned a study by Aurora Flight Systems. The folks at Aurora concluded that delivery by special aircraft is probably the most cost-effective strategy.

10. Modest infrastructure They conclude that total cost might be just a few $billion/year

11. Comparing costs How does the cost of achieving ~80% reduction in the emissions of CO2 and other GHGs compare to the cost of SRM (which, of course, would have no impact on CO2 level but could “eliminate” warming)?

12. 0.25 to 3.3x1012 $/year 0.4% to 5.5% of world GDP/year 60x1012 $/year The cost of GHG abatement Today, the world is emitting about 50x109 tonnes per year CO2-eq (of which about 30x109 is CO2) The IPCC 4th assessment says: "Modelling studies show that global carbon prices rising to US$20-80/tCO2-eq by 2030 are consistent with stabilisation at around 550ppm CO2-eq by 2100. For the same stabilisation level, induced technological change may lower these price ranges to US$5-65/tCO2-eq in 2030." (50x109 tCO2-eq)(5 to 65$/tCO2-eq) = 250 to 3300x109 $/year The size of the global economy is of the order of $60x1012

13. The cost of SRM ~ 6 x109 $/year ~ 0. 01% of world GDP/year 60x1012 $/year BOTTOM LINE: It is probably safe to assume that the direct monetary cost of SRM would be >100 times less than the cost of a full program of GHG abatement. At this cost, one or several nations that started experiencing serious climate impacts, might be tempted to unilaterally engage in SRM.

14. That handles “cheap” and “fast”Now lets consider “imperfect”

15. If we change albedo a little… …to cool the planet, what else might happen? Possibilities include: • Impacts will not be uniform. Some places will change more than others. • Precipitation patterns will shift (of course, that is also happening under climate change). • Continued and growing impacts on the oceans as they take up more and more CO2. • Particles in the stratosphere can provide reactive surfaces that might contribute to the destruction of the ozone layer. 15

16. My PhD student Kate Ricke: Is exploring how uniformly SRM could offset the effect of rising radiative forcing. Using climateprediction.net she has looked at a number of different SRM scenarios that made uniform modifications to stratospheric optical depth to approximately stabilize mean global near-surface air temperature under SRES A1B. She finds that the effectiveness of any given amount of modification to optical depth in returning regional climates to their baseline state varied from region to region and varied over time.

17. Kate finds that “Optimal” SRM varies regionally “Optimum” by region in 2020s “Optimum” by region in 2070s More Geoengineering Less Geoengineering Approximate Global-Mean SAT (°C) Source: Ricke, Morgan and Allen, Nature Geoscience, 2010

18. Imperfect compensation and regional disparities Source: Ricke, Morgan and Allen, Nature Geoscience, 2010

19. In a new round of studies… Kate is doing “perturbed physics” runs to see if any of the range of values of key model parameters that are consistent with past climate can result in dramatically different outcomes. So far, it looks like the general finding that responses will likely be different in different parts of the world, and that they may diverge over time, remains true.

20. Acification of the oceans I hardly need to note for this audience that much of the CO2 we put into the atmosphere ultimately ends up in the oceans. Today the oceans are 30% more acidic than before the industrial revolution. Source: Doney et al., Annual Reviews of Marine Science, 2009

21. During this workshop… …I look forward to learning whether there is agreement that this means the demise of most coral reefs and the ecosystems they support. 375ppm +1°C 450-500ppm +2°C >500ppm >3°C Source: O. Hoegh-Guldberg et al., "Coral reefs under rapid climate change and ocean acidification," Science, 318, pp. 1737-1742, December 14, 2007. 21

22. Shell dissolution(e.g. pteropod or "sea butterfly") A key food source for juvenile pink salmon and other small fish. 22 Source: Orr et al., Nature, 2005; Wikipedia; www.ims.uaf.edu

23. Serious studies of acidification have hardly begun 23 Source: Doney et al., Annual Reviews of Marine Science, 2009

24. And as Ken will no doubt point out… …the longer one does SRM by injecting fine particles in the stratosphere, the greater the risk of rapid change if one suddenly stops. Such changes could devastate many terrestrial ecosystems. Source: Matthews and Caldeira, PNAS, 2007.

25. Two reasons to say no: If in a few decades we have major climate surprise (e.g., lose half the ice in Greenland so sea level goes up >3m), we may have a billion people at risk and need to take collective protective action. Given all the uncertainties… …shouldn't we just create a global taboo against geoengineering as we have for CBW? We may need a bit of geoengineering in combination with abatement to “get the world over the hump” while we reduce GHG levels. Figure source: www.globalwarmingart.com

26. The CFR workshop… Because the diplomatic community was almost completely unaware of SRM, in 2008 we organized a workshop at the Council on Foreign Relations in Washington, DC. The workshop led to a paper that appeared in the 2009 March/April issue of Foreign Affairs. Participants in the 2008 workshop were all from North America. To extend the conversation to a more international group, we ran a second workshop in April 2009 in Lisbon, Portugal. Source: Council on Foreign Relations

27. The Lisbon Workshop… …was hosted by the Ministry of Science, Technology and Higher Education of the Government of Portugal. The two-day workshop was held at the facilities of the Gulbenkian Foundation. Co-sponsors included: IRGC, CMU-CDMC, U Calgary. Participants came from N. America, EU, China, Russia, and India. 27 4 Sources: Gulbenkian & Qian Yi

28. The Lisbon Workshop has been followed by… March 2010: The discussion of risk governance at the Asilomar conference on geoengineering Sep. 2009: The governance section of the Royal Society’s report on Geoengineering Ongoing: Adoption of the “allowed zone” concept by the NCEP in its advice to the US Gvt. Jan 2010 Jan 2011 March 2010: Testimony to a joint session of the US House Science Committee and the Science Committee of the UK Parliament Ongoing: IRGC’s co-sponsorship of the Royal Society’s follow-on project on global risk governance June 2009: Contributions by several IRGC-linked experts at the US NRC workshop on geoengineering August 2010: First multi-university summer study program for graduate students on geoengineering held at Heidelberg. Second will be summer 2011 in Calgary March 2010: Evening briefing to CFR

29. Returning now to the issue of research…

30. Global norms versus global regulations There are some already calling for formal global regulation of any SRM-related research. At this early stage, that would be a recipe to make sure that no research gets done. I think the proper way forward in the early stages is for the international research community to agree on some norms about what constitutes modest research that will have no significant impact and thus should be allowed, subject only to national rules. Any such work should be open and transparent, and all results should be made public.

31. Defining an allowed zone Source: Morgan and Ricke, IRGC, 2010

32. Research time line

33. Unilateral deployment

34. Collective deployment

35. For more… …on the policy and risk governance issues in SRM go to “publications” at: www.IRGC.org www.irgc.org/IMG/pdf/SRM_Opinion_Piece_web.pdf

36. Thanks Portions of this work have been supported by the Climate Decision Making Center funded by the US National Science Foundation (SES-0345798), by an NSF Graduate Fellowship to Kate Ricke, and by the International Risk Governance Council (IRGC). The views are those of the speaker.