Was breaking the taboo on research on climate engineering via albedo modification a moral hazard, or a moral imperative?

Abstract

The topic of increasing the reflectivity of the Earth as a measure to counteract global warming has been the subject of high-level discussions and preliminary research since several decades, though prior to the early 2000s there was only very limited research on the topic. This changed in the mid-2000s, particularly following the publication of a special section of Climatic Change with a lead paper by Crutzen [2006], which posited the idea of stratospheric aerosol injections as a possible solution to a policy dilemma. The discussions around the publication of Crutzen [2006] demonstrated how contentious the topic was at that time. The special section of Climatic Change contributed to breaking the "taboo" on albedo modification research that was perceived at that time, and scientific publications on the topic have since proliferated, including the development of several large national and international projects, and the publication of several assessment reports over the last decade. Here we reflect on the background and main conclusions of the publications in 2006, the developments since then, and on some of the main developments over the next decade that we anticipate for research and dialogue in support of decision-making and policy development processes.

Reflecting upon 10 years of geoengineering research: Introduction to the Crutzen + 10 special issue

“…The way in which solar geoengineering research is and will be understood may depend to a large extent on how information about the technologies is framed and communicated by privileged storytellers, such as leading academics [ Bellamy , ; Corner et al ., ; Scholte et al ., ; Anshelm and Hansson , , ; Cairns and Stirling , ; Huttunen and Hildén , ; Linner and Wibeck ; Harnisch et al ., ]. In this issue, Caldeira and Bala discuss the tendency among both natural and social scientists in the field of geoengineering to present viewpoints as if they were facts, and in a similar vein, Reynolds et al .…”

Prospects of Stabilization of the Global Surface Atmocpheric Temperature at an Acceptable Level

“…Эти вопросы требуют подроб-ных исследований, и принятия некоторых мер, необходимых для возможности реализации методов SRM в будущем. Например, необходимо создание международного органа по управлению и контролю в области SRM, который, на первом этапе, будет осуществлять проведение и регулирование тестовых полевых экспериментов (Lawrence, Crutzen, 2016;Sandler, 2017). Теоретическое время начала использования метода «стратосферных аэрозо-лей» можно отнести к середине или концу текущего века.…”

Do climate engineering experts display moral-hazard behaviour?

“…An important concern is that engagement with CE might in future shift the attention of the public, of economic enterprises, and of political decision-makers away from the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and towards the use of CE. This concern is also called moral hazard (Baatz, 2016;Lawrence & Crutzen, 2017;Lin, 2013;McLaren, 2016;Morrow, 2014).…”

“…Though the idea of using SAI to modify the climate has already been discussed for decades, the number of research publications was very low before the early 2000s (Lawrence & Crutzen, 2017). In 2006, Nobel prize winner Paul Crutzen called for research on the 'feasibility and environmental consequences of climate engineering', especially SAI (Crutzen, 2006, p. 214).…”

“…In 2006, Nobel prize winner Paul Crutzen called for research on the 'feasibility and environmental consequences of climate engineering', especially SAI (Crutzen, 2006, p. 214). Since then, the field has developed very dynamically with a major upsurge in research publications (Lawrence & Crutzen, 2017) and heightened public interest (Tingley & Wagner, 2017). Also negative emission technologies, as CDR methods are often called, have gained substantial traction in the climate policy debate over the past years.…”