As the effects of climate change have become more pressing, research into different potential solutions has broadened. Although adaptation strategies such as changing dietary habits or energy sources present an opportunity to combat greenhouse gas emissions, the effects of climate change still seem like an inevitable threat. However, geoengineering is a way to manipulate the environmental system, potentially limit the impacts of global warming.
Geoengineering is generally divided between Carbon removal and Solar radiation management strategies (ie. reduction of either one ‘naturally’). CDR (climate removal) is generally seen as more laborious and expensive, but may have better long-term results. SRM (Solar Radiation Management strategies) are less economically abrupt, but often only have local/shot-term results. Geoengineering, even at a small-scale, will likely be necessary to truly mitigate climate changes’ impacts. According to an Intergovernmental report, out of the 204 scenarios they tested where we wouldn’t get a greater than two degree temperature increase, 184 had a geoengineering procedure, so it’s clearly a vital tool for combating extreme weather.
Cloud seeding
Cloud seeding is a form of geoengineering which would be used to create clouds and precipitation. This would be vital to end droughts or wildfires, but it could potentially be used to “wash out” pollution in areas with lower air quality. Cloud seeding can add up to 10% more freshwater into a local area, but it works best when precipitation is already occurring in an area. This method would be useful in an area currently undergoing a rainy season, but where droughts still frequently occur. This could allow for extra rain collection to be used during droughts. However, cloud seeding does pose some risks. Cloud seeding requires the use of silver iodide which usually concerns environmentalists in the seeding area (although, there doesn’t seem to be much evidence of cloud seeding posing a risk because of this). The big risk with cloud seeding is its potential to quickly spiral out of control and create massive rain or snow storms which an area may not be able to handle.
Solar Radiation Management
As sort of a catch all term, solar radiation management strategies involve a series of strategies that reduce the amount of solar radiation reaching Earth’s surface. For example, proposals have been made to spray reflective particles into a particular area. This would reflect more sunlight, heat, into the outer space. This could potentially decrease the heat in an area. Similar proposals have been made to place tiny glass beads onto arctic sea ice to prevent the positive feedback loop of polar ice melting and increasing the amount of heat being absorbed by the ocean. However, both of these solutions raise significant concerns. Although this is less expensive than cloud seeding, the environmental/health concerns of spraying chemicals into the air or placing small glass-like beads into the polar ice caps is concerning. This past year, the SCoPEX project in Sweden was delayed for 2022 because locals were concerned about the effects of the chemicals being sprayed in the air. However, SRM does show significant potential in the great barrier reef and will likely be further explored there.
Afforestation/Ocean Fertilization:
Afforestation involves replanting lost (through forest fires or logging) trees and ocean fertilization allows for increased phytoplankton growth. Both trees and phytoplankton provide a way for atmospheric CO2 to be absorbed. While this would provide a simple way to restore habitats and decrease greenhouse gases, each has their own obstacles. Both afforestation and ocean fertilization would require lots of money and labor. Afforestation in particular would require an absurd amount of both to occur at a greater rate than the current deforestation occurring in the rest of the world. Additionally, ocean fertilization would likely create massive ocean dead zones, were no marine life could habitat. Once phytoplankton dies, these areas are created and significantly reduce marine biodiversity.
BECCs
Bioenergy and carbon capture with storage is a new potential energy source. BECCs are a way in which bioenergy is extracted from biomass which captures and stores carbon. It's argued to be a “negative,” carbon-eating energy source. Although BECCs are a promising energy source, if we were to rely solely on BECCs as an energy source, they could potentially encroach on land needed for our food supply.
Biochar
As yet another ‘negative carbon’ source, biochar may be useful for reversing the damage of climate change. Biochar is formed when biomass is burned in areas with low-levels of oxygen. This form of burning converts the carbon in biomass to a form which is more resistant to decay and, therefore, less likely to end up in the atmosphere. This leftover charcoal can be used to improve soil quality or power electrical appliances. Its negative potential comes from its ability to irrigate soil, allowing more CO2 eating plants to grow in an area. Therefore, this source requires controlled environments and more research.
Comments