Developing a test-bed for robust research governance of geoengineering: the contribution of ocean iron biogeochemistry

Abstract

One contribution of 20 to a discussion meeting issue 'Biological and climatic impacts of ocean trace element chemistry'.

CO2 Removal With Enhanced Weathering and Ocean Alkalinity Enhancement: Potential Risks and Co-benefits for Marine Pelagic Ecosystems

“…Ultimately, it will be important to plan and eventually execute (sub-) mesoscale in situ OAE experiments since only experiments at the scale envisioned for OAE perturbations can provide a more comprehensive picture of ecosystem-wide impacts (Carpenter, 1996). Indeed, previous mesoscale iron enrichment studies have provided insights on the efficacy and potential side-effects of this NET that would probably not been revealed with conventional methodology (Boyd and Bressac, 2016). However, comprehensive risk assessments for environment including ethical considerations in an open public discourse would have to be made to assess whether such experimentation would be morally acceptable (Lawford- Smith and Currie, 2017;Oschlies and Klepper, 2017;Pidgeon and Spence, 2017;GESAMP, 2019).…”

Changing Ocean, Marine Ecosystems, and Dependent Communities

“…Warming may also exacerbate the effects of ocean acidification on the rate of photosynthesis in phytoplankton (Lefevre, 2016). There is some, but limited, reports of observed impacts on calcified pelagic organisms that are attributed to secular trend in ocean acidification and warming (Harvey et al 2013;Kroeker et al 2013;Boyd et al 2016).…”

“…Simultaneously, projected expansion of OMZ and ocean acidification could lead to shifts in community composition toward hypoxia-tolerant and non-calcified organisms, respectively. However, these projected biological changes in the ocean raise questions about how individuals, communities and food webs will respond to the multiple impacts from climatic and non-climatic stressors in the future, and the feedbacks of the effects of their ecological impacts on modifying the physical and biogeochemical conditions of the ocean (Schaum et al 2013;Boyd et al 2016;O'Brien et al 2016;Moore, 2018). This section focuses on addressing these questions in order to assess the future risk of impacts of climate change on the epipelagic ecosystem.…”

“…Modelling studies (Aumont and Bopp, 2006) indicate that the climatic benefits could be relatively short-lived. Furthermore, public and political acceptability for ocean fertilisation is low (Williamson et al 2012;Boyd and Bressac, 2016;Williamson and Bodle, 2016;Fuentes-George, 2017;McGee et al 2018). Ocean iron fertilisation is regulated by the London Protocol, with amendments prohibiting such action unless constituting legitimate scientific research authorised under permit (see Section 5.5.4.1).…”

Development of geopolitically relevant ranking criteria for geoengineering methods

“…Such detection and attribution may also be confounded, as pointed out by Boyd [], by shifting baseline conditions due to natural climate variability and the influence of climate change on climate variability [ Boyd et al ., ]. Examples of shifting baselines driven by natural variability include warming [El Niño and La Niña; Sumner , ], cooling (another large‐scale eruption akin to Pinatubo or El Chichón), cryptic shifts in natural carbon sinks [Southern Ocean, Landschützer et al ., ], or oxygen inventories [ Chan et al ., ], which in some cases could negate or exacerbate the signatures from geoengineering [either SRM or CDR, see Boyd and Bressac , ]. Bürger and Cubasch [] have recently employed data sets from CMIP5 [ Taylor et al ., ] and GeoMIP [ Kravitz et al ., ] to reveal difficulties in detecting and attributing (years to decades) the climatic effects of geoengineering against a background of “nonstationary” gradual warming.…”