Ecosystem impacts of geoengineering: a review for developing a science plan.

Geoengineering methods are intended to reduce climate change, which is already having demonstrable effects on ecosystem structure and functioning in some regions. Two types of geoengineering activities that have been proposed are: carbon dioxide (CO(2)) removal (CDR), which removes CO(2) from the atmosphere, and solar radiation management (SRM, or sunlight reflection methods), which reflects a small percentage of sunlight back into space to offset warming from greenhouse gases (GHGs). Current research suggests that SRM or CDR might diminish the impacts of climate change on ecosystems by reducing changes in temperature and precipitation. However, sudden cessation of SRM would exacerbate the climate effects on ecosystems, and some CDR might interfere with oceanic and terrestrial ecosystem processes. The many risks and uncertainties associated with these new kinds of purposeful perturbations to the Earth system are not well understood and require cautious and comprehensive research.

The Effects of Carbon Dioxide Removal on the Carbon Cycle.

Increasing atmospheric CO2 is having detrimental effects on the Earth system. Societies have recognized that anthropogenic CO2 release must be rapidly reduced to avoid potentially catastrophic impacts. Achieving this via emissions reductions alone will be very difficult. Carbon dioxide removal (CDR) has been suggested to complement and compensate for insufficient emissions reductions, through increasing natural carbon sinks, engineering new carbon sinks, or combining natural uptake with engineered storage. Here, we review the carbon cycle responses to different CDR approaches and highlight the often-overlooked interaction and feedbacks between carbon reservoirs that ultimately determines CDR efficacy. We also identify future research that will be needed if CDR is to play a role in climate change mitigation, these include coordinated studies to better understand (i) the underlying mechanisms of each method, (ii) how they could be explicitly simulated, (iii) how reversible changes in the climate and carbon cycle are, and (iv) how to evaluate and monitor CDR.

Evaluating climate geoengineering proposals in the context of the Paris Agreement temperature goals.

Current mitigation efforts and existing future commitments are inadequate to accomplish the Paris Agreement temperature goals. In light of this, research and debate are intensifying on the possibilities of additionally employing proposed climate geoengineering technologies, either through atmospheric carbon dioxide removal or farther-reaching interventions altering the Earth's radiative energy budget. Although research indicates that several techniques may eventually have the physical potential to contribute to limiting climate change, all are in early stages of development, involve substantial uncertainties and risks, and raise ethical and governance dilemmas. Based on present knowledge, climate geoengineering techniques cannot be relied on to significantly contribute to meeting the Paris Agreement temperature goals.

Deliberative Mapping of options for tackling climate change: Citizens and specialists 'open up' appraisal of geoengineering.

Appraisals of deliberate, large-scale interventions in the earth's climate system, known collectively as 'geoengineering', have largely taken the form of narrowly framed and exclusive expert analyses that prematurely 'close down' upon particular proposals. Here, we present the findings from the first 'upstream' appraisal of geoengineering to deliberately 'open up' to a broader diversity of framings, knowledges and future pathways. We report on the citizen strand of an innovative analytic-deliberative participatory appraisal process called Deliberative Mapping. A select but diverse group of sociodemographically representative citizens from Norfolk (United Kingdom) were engaged in a deliberative multi-criteria appraisal of geoengineering proposals relative to other options for tackling climate change, in parallel to symmetrical appraisals by diverse experts and stakeholders. Despite seeking to map divergent perspectives, a remarkably consistent view of option performance emerged across both the citizens' and the specialists' deliberations, where geoengineering proposals were outperformed by mitigation alternatives.

Interactions between reducing CO2 emissions, CO2 removal and solar radiation management.

We use a simple carbon cycle-climate model to investigate the interactions between a selection of idealized scenarios of mitigated carbon dioxide emissions, carbon dioxide removal (CDR) and solar radiation management (SRM). Two CO(2) emissions trajectories differ by a 15-year delay in the start of mitigation activity. SRM is modelled as a reduction in incoming solar radiation that fully compensates the radiative forcing due to changes in atmospheric CO(2) concentration. Two CDR scenarios remove 300 PgC by afforestation (added to vegetation and soil) or 1000 PgC by bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (removed from system). Our results show that delaying the start of mitigation activity could be very costly in terms of the CDR activity needed later to limit atmospheric CO(2) concentration (and corresponding global warming) to a given level. Avoiding a 15-year delay in the start of mitigation activity is more effective at reducing atmospheric CO(2) concentrations than all but the maximum type of CDR interventions. The effects of applying SRM and CDR together are additive, and this shows most clearly for atmospheric CO(2) concentration. SRM causes a significant reduction in atmospheric CO(2) concentration due to increased carbon storage by the terrestrial biosphere, especially soils. However, SRM has to be maintained for many centuries to avoid rapid increases in temperature and corresponding increases in atmospheric CO(2) concentration due to loss of carbon from the land.