Presentation of the report on the first European Transdisciplinary Assessment of Climate Engineering

good morning ladies and gentlemen and welcome to the public launch of the uterus projects the European transdisciplinary assessment of climate engineering i’m tim kruger I’m from the University of Oxford and I’ll be moderating today’s events before we get started I’ve got a few housekeeping notices first of all we’re not expecting any far alarms today so if there is a fire alarm please leave through the fire exits which are at that end of the building and a bad end as well and there are toilets on the floor below this one on the fourth floor can I ask you all to please check your mobiles to check that they are switched to silent please the timing for today we’re going to start now with a brief introduction presentation on the uterus project and that’s going to be followed by very brief presentations from four panelists here who will explain their work in the project that will be followed by half an hour of question and answers and I’ll take us up to about eleven-thirty as you will have already gathered this meeting is being conducted in English but at eleven-thirty there will be an opportunity for you to speak to the panelists in their native language which is mainly german or icelandic of any of you speak Icelandic the formal meeting will finish at midday and that will be followed by a lunch reception in this room so I that’s all the housekeeping and timing stuff I’d like to start the meeting by introducing professor mark lawrence who is a director at the ISS potsdam and here’s the coordinator of this you trace project thank you very much kind of supply list and move to the side so thank you very much Tim in good morning ladies and gentlemen it’s my pleasure to be able to introduce you to the you trace project and its assessment report as Tim said you trace stands for the European transdisciplinary assessment of climate engineering climate engineering is being discussed against the background of climate change which you will all be quite familiar with and you’ll also be familiar with the two main approaches to addressing climate change namely mitigation which is reducing our emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases and particles and adaptation which is reducing our vulnerability in recent years numerous stakeholders including researchers policymakers civil society members and others have begun asking questions and discussing whether there are also other ways to possibly address climate change one of the main ways being discussed is whether or not it would be possible to remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere another approach that’s being discussed is whether it would be possible to intentionally cool the surface of the earth by increasing the reflectivity or the technical term for that the albedo of the earth these two approaches together are being referred to collectively under the umbrella term of climate engineering also under the term geoengineering which is usually used synonymously with climate engineering now I won’t go into detail about all the different types of techniques that have been proposed which we looked at in the assessment but I’ll point out that in the assessment we took a closer look into three particular techniques namely becks which stands for bioenergy combined with carbon capture and sequestration ocean iron fertilization and stratospheric aerosol particle injections what we found in the assessment report is that generally for the techniques proposed for greenhouse gas removal there is certainly a potential for these techniques to contribute to a long-term stabilization of greenhouse gas levels in the atmosphere if this is done in combination with mitigation and of course if the technique that the technological capacities turn out to actually be feasible there is no technique that is seems to have the capacity or would have the capacity to content to actually reduce the co2 levels if we were to continue to increase our levels of co2 emissions and there’s nobody that we know of in the field that’s proposing that any greenhouse gas removal technique could actually solve the climate injured climate change problem alone all of these are being considered as an issue as a possibility in combination with mitigation for albedo modification techniques we find that several of these based on initial research have the potential to rapidly reduce the global mean temperatures but this is if they turn out to be technologically and politically feasible why do we add politically feasible there because there

are a wide range of environmental concerns environmental risks uncertainties unknowns and a wide range of societal risks uncertainties and unknowns associated with the various techniques now given this background in order to go about responsible decision-making policy development there’s a need for a substantial information basis and this is where the you trace project has come into play you trace is a partnership of fourteen institutes across Europe five countries represented in the project and was funded by the European Union’s framework seven program as a coordination and support action with a budget of 1 million euros for the time frame from jun 2012 through September 2014 we delivered our initial final report to the European Union at the end of the project but have continued to work on the report as a consortium afterwards to better incorporate the comments that we got from the project advisory board and from other members of the community so that we now have a report that we feel is a very strong contribution not only to the European Union but to the larger group of stakeholders the broader policy community and civil society community and other interested stakeholders who would who would like to learn more about the topic and this is what we’re releasing today within you trace our main activities have been of course developing the assessment which especially looked into trying to develop a basis for understanding what the real research needs are for this topic and how to go about what kind of options there are for going about developing policy we also in put some effort into public and policy engagement with several stakeholder dialogues and into dissemination and outreach the assessment report then covers at first the scientific and technological characteristics of the various techniques that have been proposed main techniques they’ve been proposed for moving greenhouse gases and for modifying the planetary albedo it then delves into a number of the emerging societal issues which are associated with these discussions and from that basis looks into what the possibilities are for and what the current status is for international regulation and more broadly for governance gives an overview of the research possibilities what the key research gaps are what’s the what the arguments in favor of and against research are and what some of the main research questions to answer would be and then finally looks at how we could go about developing effective policy for climate engineering there have been several assessments of climate engineering so far including earlier this year one published by the National Academy of Sciences in the United States so the question of course comes up what’s new what’s special why another assessment well first the field is growing very rapidly the understanding and the the number of publications are growing very rapidly so it will be important in the coming years to have regular assessments updating and giving an extensive overview of the newest state of knowledge about both greenhouse gas removal and albedo modification techniques this report has focused on bringing together a highly inter and to an extent transdisciplinary group to give a balanced view of the environmental end the sitel effects that would be associated with climate engineering if it were ever to be pursued and this is reflected in the participants that we have in the panel as you’ll see later it’s also reflected in why we had a consortium of 14 partners where normally for such coordination and support actions it’s typically about four or five partners but we wanted to have really the breadth of expertise for the various issues that are associated with climate engineering so that we could address these deeply within this report one of the chapters of the report gives to the extent of our knowledge for the first time a clear overview of the arguments that are being made for and against climate engineering research and a long catalog of the key questions that we think will need to be addressed in order to provide good information for policymakers and for other members of stakeholder groups and finally we look into how what kind of options there are for policy development and especially look at this from the European Union perspective so building on what I’ve told you so far I’d like to bring out three key points that we make in the report one of those is that based on all of this information we conclude that it’s imprudent to expect that climate engineering techniques will play a significant role in climate change policy development in the next few

decades that leaves us then with the focus remaining sensibly on reducing our emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases however it’s certainly possible that later on in the second half of this century the climate engineering especially greenhouse gas removal will begin to play a larger and significant role in climate policy developments and if this is the case in order to do so responsibly this would have to be based on a broad and robust understanding of the breadth of issues that are involved in discussions around climate engineering and this kind of an information basis can only be developed through support of ongoing research especially into the plenary research bringing together the various aspects that are involved in this issue and especially linking this together with dialogue with stakeholders and finally I’d like to make the point that we conclude that the European Union is in a position to contribute significantly to the development of effective governance of climate engineering especially given its focus on Environmental Protection embedded in European Union environmental policy of environmental policy and law and my colleague Stephan Schafer will give you a little bit more insights about that in the panel discussion so moving to the panel discussion then as I mentioned we put together a relatively broad panel if we had tried to put together a panel that covered all of the main expertise is then we’d have most of the front of the room and probably going around the side given the breadth of complexity of issues that are involved in this in this in this issue but we have five panel members together and you see here who they are and what their expertise azhar unfortunately our law expert Kate Houghton had to cancel at the last moment due to illness but we hope that we’ll be able to cover most of the questions that you asked in detail during the panel discussion and with that I’d like to hand it over to our moderator tim kruger thank you very much mark so we’re now going to proceed into the introduction part and I’m going to first call on professor Yana go Christiansen from the University of Oslo and his professor of meteorology fge on Eagle a little modification or reflectivity modification for the last five years in collaboration with climate scientists in other countries both within this consortium and also on the international arena the albedo modification refers to climbed engineering techniques which seek to counteract the warming effect of anthropogenic co2 by enhanced reflection of solar radiation the most investigated technique so-called stratospheric sulphur injections seeks to mimic the cooling effect of major volcanic eruptions by injecting sulfur gases into stratosphere leading to a layer of highly reflective tiny particles at about 25 kilometers high like a sunscreen and we know that we have these cooling in connection with major eruptions so we think that it might also work to do deliberately that’s the idea behind it there are some other ideas another proposed technique so-called marine cloud brightening involves injections of sea salt particles into low marine clouds to make them brighter a slightly different type of technique so-called cirrus cloud sending targets high thin clouds which have a warming effect on climate and seek to make them even sinner to enable more heat to escape to space in the models for all these techniques if enough material is injected a partial or even full cancellation of global warming is achieved however along with potential benefits there will also be side effects for instance changes in the hydrological cycle precipitation patterns with winners in some regions are losers and other regions other side effects include for instance stratospheric ozone depletion common to all the proposed methods is that the uncertainties are large both concerning injection mechanisms and effectiveness one reason for this large uncertainty is that our incomplete understanding of the underlying cloud and aerosol processes limits greatly limits the capability of the climate models that we use to deal

with these questions a robust signal from all the models is that if one were forced to shut off the albedo modification for some reason then that would inevitably lead to extremely rapid global warming which might be difficult to handle both for ecosystems and society in summary clamed engineering by alberta modification has the potential to significantly cool the climate but there are huge uncertainties about the cost the technical feasibility and the scientific soundness of the proposed techniques and there are huge risks involved Johnny go the way we’re going to work this is we’re going to have the statements from all the panelists and then follow that with questions after that so I would next night to call on Wilfred Rickles dr. Wilfred Rickles who is at the keel Institute for world economy and his specialism is economics yeah thank you Tim I had the pleasure to work in particular on economic aspects in this excellent interdisciplinary research team responsible for the you trace report following the preceding speakers I would also like to stress as we have two very distinct set of technologies also from an economic perspective namely carbon dioxide removal and radiation management one could argue that as far as carbon dioxide removal measures are concerned climate engineering has already required maintaining the two-degree goal without carbon dioxide removal measures such as biochar production effort station or even air capture does not seem to be a realistic option carbon dioxide removal measures effect directly atmospheric carbon concentration and therefore as economic prospects can more easily compared to a Mission Control since that’s the case for radiation management even if carbon dioxide removal discourage the Mission Control the net effect would still be lower atmospheric carbon concentration nevertheless existing studies on the large-scale deployment of carbon dioxide removal neglects the role of price effects and therefore the effects on the entire economy in particular land-based carbon dioxide removal even if combined force carbon capture and storage is expected to have significant influences on land and food prices so economic limitations on the potential of land-based carbon dioxide removal are not yet properly investigated or acknowledged turning now to the other group of measures radiation management one needs to stress that these measures have the distinct feature of a very high leverage allowing to influence the temperature within a timescale of a year this is neither possible with emission control or carbon dioxide removal not at least not at feasible cause this high leverage seems to provide in general insurance against unforeseen or even catastrophic climate change however there’s still significant uncertainty about those say effectiveness and the efficiency of radiation management measures and therefore the potential of those measures to reduce climate change pretty wrists in practice obviously arm the characteristics of the artificial climate would not all be negative but it’s clear that the costs and benefits would be unevenly distributed regionally implying that there will be also great differences in countries desired levels of radiation management obviously even the most ambitious and precautionary research program will not be able to completely eliminate the risk of using climate engineering measures in particular radiation management measures however ignoring these risks could result in a false sense of security and dealing with climate change thank you thank you very much real freedom and a third speaker is Professor Jurgen chevron from the Institute of geography at the University of Hamburg and he’s going to talk about that but I can talk about yes I will focus on the potential risks and conflicts associated with climate engineering since this is a large and ever you could imagine that this is affecting social and national systems at a large scale and we have identified a few potential risk and conflict areas one is the competition over scarce resources because these techniques require major infrastructures to compensate for the effects of climate change either by reducing the concentration or by changing the radiation balance and this increases the potential need for water energy land and

also for labor for various other materials and it could increase the competition for these resources and have a impact on the world economy and the second potential field of risking conflicts is the resistance from actors that are against climate engineering either local actors they’re not satisfied with the implications of climate engineering and that constants are against capturing of co2 or the various risks associated with climate engineering the third type of risking conflict is the distribution effects in the conflicts over the distribution of benefits costs and risks either within societies and between nations internationally since some regions could suffer from the effects of climate engineering to resist the consequences well others benefit from it and the third type of factors just has to pay for it the fourth dimension includes includes the interaction between these different types of actors across different scales from local to global scales for instance and one region people suffering from climate change may call for an increase of climate engineering called the government’s and the government’s is taking action which then leads to resistance from other countries other regions the five type of conflict could be power games between major players in the world including the potential security dilemmas when the the wrist one part of the region is suffering risks and the other is experienced and fitting so in the end it may lead to the attempt to control the global thermostat who is controlling the commode global thermostat to the benefit or avoiding risks so this is a wide set of potentials and conflicts these are all still a big uncertainties which of these will happen because it’s under research field thank you thank you very much again and last but not least Stefan Schaffer from ISS pod stamp who will be addressing the policy aspects and is the lead author of this report thank you Tim and good morning everyone my background is in political science I’ll also try and cover some of the legal aspects that we addressed in the you trace assessment with the caveat of myself not being a legal scholar so I’d like to make three points the first is that while climate engineering is a new space there are existing regulations in place at the national regional and international level that apply however there’s also a gap if one were to develop more comprehensive regulation that would need to be filled there might not be an immediate need to fill this gap right now but however in the future such a need might arise and generally it’s useful to be prepared to be politically prepared to to fill this gap and this is also of course one of the reasons for why we conducted the you trace assessment to assist the European Union in developing a political preparedness for developing further regulation and governance and policies on climate engineering and I’d be happy to discuss some of the specific policy developments that we discussed in the uterus report in the Q&A period now the second point and the third point as well that I’m going to bring up are closely related to this potential future need for further regulation and governance that is more comprehensive than what already exists so we all hope that Paris in December the periscope where States will negotiate an agreement to reduce emissions and related efforts that aim at reducing greenhouse gas emissions will succeed and that subsequently global warming will be limited to less than 2 degrees Celsius during the century as politically agreed upon at the international level however and is clear liquids already pointed out the you trace assessment also notes that the vast majority of scenarios that achieve the goal of limiting 2 degrees Celsius of limiting global warming to less than 2 degrees Celsius in the 21st century already assume that greenhouse gases will be removed from the atmosphere on a large scale during the second half of the 21st century so these scenarios assume that there will be an overshoot which is that more greenhouse gases will be emitted than would be allowed for staying below 2 degrees Celsius and that this would have to be compensated by removing greenhouse gases from the atmosphere so seen from this

perspective research on removing greenhouse gases from the atmosphere could actually become a significant component of developing and evaluating policy options for staying below 2 degrees Celsius in the future the third point that I’d like to make is that the you trace report shows that there are many difficulties associated with developing and then also scaling up and implementing techniques that attempt to remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere at large scale elles and combined with the currently slow progress on implementing climate change mitigation measures a strict commitment to do 22 degrees celsius to limiting global warming 22 degrees Celsius join the 21st essentially could eventually lead to a very difficult decision over whether to attempt to reduce global warming by reflecting incoming sunlight back into space or allowing recognizing that this would be very risky as pointed out by the previous speakers allowing the 2 degrees Celsius threshold to be crossed and thereby returning to my first point taken together this creates a certain need at least reflect upon and consider what options might be for developing governance should such situations unfold and finally I’d like to close by by emphasizing that the only way to avoid these difficult situations is that too immediately and significantly reduce the amount of greenhouse gases that are being emitted into the atmosphere thank you very much indeed Stephan and thank you to all the panelists the floor is now open for questions so do we have any of the Tigers Peter here in Berlin and several of you made the point that maybe in the second half of the century we might be in a situation in which at least removal techniques might be necessary on the other hand I wonder why you think that that in the second half of the century the money would be taken to do that if right now and in the next 30 years the money might not be taken to just reduce emissions which is something we know how to do and the risk is really low I roof return can you handle that well first we could expect that it will be undone by markets so if we have some an international climate regime we will have corresponding carbon price is giving the incentives for carbon dioxide removal and it should not be neglected set serious and advantage of carbon dioxide removal that you can have significant unilateral impact on global carbon emissions and that comes if you factor in economic leakage so if you reduce emissions that results in a reduction of domestic demand for energy resulting in lower prices and therefore other countries are than expected to consume this energy so that’s what we’re referring to economic carbon leakage and if you remove carbon from the atmosphere which has already been admitted you circumvent this economic hub and leakage so there are definitely some strategic advantages of carbon dioxide removal thank you I’ll add to that even if the funding were to be put into it right now into removing carbon dioxide techniques none of the techniques is developed enough technologically to be implementable immediately so there’s still it would be considerable development needed and there’s still questions whether or not that that would work there are the infrastructures that would be needed for the techniques would be comparable for many of the techniques would be comparable to the size of the infrastructure of the oil industry so building that up would take considerable time so it’s not something that could be implemented immediately and then there would be especially for techniques that deal with biomass there would be the competition issues to be solved which bill freed partly mentioned and so all of these are reasons why the techniques are not ready or capable for deployment now but assuming that they would be done in tandem together with mitigation that begins now later in the century it may become very desirable I would hesitate from using the term necessary it’s a it’s a normative judgement of what the society once but it certainly may be very desirable for by society at that time if the capacity exists thanks chaps Andy Parker iass great presentations thank you very much for

all of those had a quick look through the executive summary of the report I’ve been involved in some similar sort of assessment reports in the past and one of the things that normally you can you can set your watch by it comes out every time up front is a is a wreck amino at scientists together you get a recommendation for more research into whatever their area or interest may be but i found that conspicuous by its absence in the executive summary here you go into a fair degree of specificity over some of the governance arrangements precautionary principle anticipate we governance but there’s only a very general statement about how a broad and robust understanding of climate engineering would be valuable so can you clarify do you support research into this and if so why and if not why not in in the chapter 5 of the report we go into quite a detail about the arguments that are present for and against some research and there are strong arguments on both sides and so rather than making a blanket statement in as a flat recommendation given that of course there’s a substantial differentiation from technique to technique and we haven’t spoken about that so much here we’ve been talking largely under the blanket term climate engineering but of course there’s a great differentiation that needs to be made from technique to technique we did not make a blanket recommendation in support of research research in the executive summary rather we left it open as the statement the underlying statement if there is a desire to pursue any of these techniques by policymakers or by other societal stakeholders then that would need a much more robust and much deeper understanding which would then in turn of course require research our 14 gunshot fill up and comment and i think that’s very important what what mark just said it’s the question what kind of research and a particular because of this slippery slope argument I think Stefan will talk about that later and in this report and also and previous reports we have stress that one should focus on research to assess uncertainties but that you should at this point not necessarily do research which would recite and deployment readiness of these technologies and this advice has picked up by the German Research Foundation which have no a specialty special priority program on climate engineering was exact sis again does that say only fund research which addresses uncertainties of climate engineering but not know engineering questions finding young stroke from a cloud side room gotcha faster lock in Frankfurt I would like to address one question to anybody of you I don’t know and can can you please formulate anybody of you formulate any consequences or demands on agriculture production in future because agriculture of course is an important factor in this household co2 and I maybe I’m right mr. Ricketts I think you you made a remark on prices on food prices if geoengineering will be coming to practice so any idea of how to put use food in future in the world small-scale big scare whatever yeah very very important question and again and we would have to remember that we are talking about and two different set of technologies if we would like to do large-scale carbon dioxide removal on land we will have conflicts with land use for agricultural production and current studies also like am jst estimates in the ippc who just assumes that we achieve system air emissions have not properly investigated an acknowledged set in particular the effect of food prices so that’s icing and a very important and research get the other techniques um we still have to say we do not really know because radiation management results and an uneven compensation of climate variables across the globe but that does not necessarily have to be all negative so

more recent studies show said for water stress I most responsible for water stress I extreme hot days so even in denen climate and an engineer climate was radiation management which would have less precipitation and the pre-industrial level it might be that crops would have less water stress sand scenario was climate change and that makes it very difficult for for assessment and we all still need to need better integrated assessment models because with radiation management you have this effect of carbon dioxide removal of carbon dioxide concentration and temperature disentangle so you can have low temperatures with high carbon concentration which would actually be a fertilizer for for the agriculture sector so there are voices and studies who point out set with radiation management one could ship passes a word into a more productive place regarding agriculture production but that’s very uncertain because we said the scientific models are not yet capable to predict with a good spatial resolution resolution Hauser’s changes in temperature and precipitation will exactly be yes yes I think it’s a very good question very important question and and I could just add to wilford’s remarks that this is now starting to be addressed in and the climate models like linking the climate models to crop models so that we can actually feed the output from the climate models to crop models where we can really start looking into these kinds of questions but and but so far the results are just preliminary so it’s not possible to draw any conclusion but this is definitely a research direction that we’re going into and I would also add briefly that of course the several of the most discussed techniques we’re moving greenhouse gases in particular Beck’s bioenergy combined with carbon capture and sequestration would involve a significant overlap or competition with agriculture but of course there are also several techniques such as direct air capture which is artificial removal or from from the air and combined with sequestration or ocean based techniques which would not necessarily interfere with agriculture they may still have crossover effects with agriculture due to the the resources needed for setting up the infrastructures due to the changes in climate that come do the changes in co2 levels that come so there may be effects on agriculture but they’re not directly affecting a cup of tea competing with land I would also like to make one other clarification you’ll hear amongst the panel probably several different terminologies being used and the field is relatively heterogeneous in its use of terminology I mentioned two terms for the blanket term climate engineering and geoengineering the National Academy of Sciences is now calling at climate intervention also for the term reflectivity modification we use that as a more broad as the more public oriented term or albedo modification is the technical term this is also broadly referred to as radiation management which Alfred ricos tends to use or solar radiation management which much of the community uses so just as a clarification if you hear terms that you’re not sure of because of this breadth of common terminology then please just ask for a quick clarification Manfred stock parts them Institute I would like to ask you about a combination of carbon removal from the atmosphere and soil improvement because the degradation of soil is another problem we have to face especially with respect to agricultural problems this second question is about the different forms of radiation management on the different levels on I would expect that on on surface level the risk is less than in between in the atmospheric levels and another question is with respect to space level whether there can be reduced risk with comparison to injecting sulfur or something in the atmosphere so I’ll take the first part of that question and let y’all Nagle Christensen take the second part of the question so what you’re referring to about the connection between carbon removal and soil quality

enhancement is what we refer to in the report as biochar that’s a technique and the idea behind that for those that aren’t familiar with it is to take large amounts of biomass and through pyrolysis turn those into basically charcoal that then becomes can be mixed in with soils and enrich ‘as the quality of the soils thereby removing co2 from the air that came from the air for the for the photosynthesis to originally make the biomass in the report we don’t have any of our land-based experts on the panel they weren’t able to join us today but I can give you a quick idea of what our assessment is of that and in the report on what we found from the literature is that the maximum estimated contribution that could make and that is making vast assumptions about the amount of biomass that would be input into this technique would be of the order of three-and-a-half gigatonnes of carbon dioxide per year so about ten percent of our current emissions so it’s not going to be like I mentioned for all of the techniques it’s not something that would solve the situation by itself it is a technique that may play a small contribution especially if emission levels are stabilized or reduced in the future however there are lots of uncertainties still involved with this like many of the techniques in terms of the actual the pyrolysis in terms of how to build an infrastructure that would not then interfere with agriculture as the question came up before in terms of building an infrastructure that would also be non-polluting since pyrolysis can very easily lead to black carbon and other emissions and then building the infrastructure for a distribution appropriately into soil regions interest into into regions where it would be mixed in with the soils and then so far mixing in biogeography soils has only been done on a very small scale and test it on small scale it’s very unclear what happens when this is scaled up to it would if this were scaled up to an immense scale then would it change the general characteristics of the soil of her long term we don’t have really an insight into that so there’s many many questions that would need to be resolved before a technique like that could be pursued this is gives you an example of the kinds of issues that we’ve found around most of the techniques techniques which is why we conclude that the contribution to near term removal of carbon dioxide is highly unlikely but after many of these issues are resolved and if the social issues like the competition with agriculture are resolved then there may be a contribution later in the century to the second part of the question about the risks involved in the various radiation management options or a bit of modification options yeah it depends a little bit were I mean there are different types of risk and for instance i already mentioned that in connection with a stratospheric sulphur injections there there is a risk of ozone depletion which may not be as large as we thought initially when we saw this in our models but which is still something that we really need to be concerned about so in that sense you might think that it might be safer to do I’ll be the modification of the surface but but it’s actually not that simple because based on our model simulations and also an agreement with her understanding of the climate system if we if we for instance dude desert albedo modification if we artificially great enhance the reflective of the desert regions then that would lead to a detrimental effect on precipitation over low latitude languages because it would create a circulation pattern which would greatly diminish precipitation in those regions so that it essentially would mean that the deserts would expand whereas firstly we do the opposite marine cloud brightening where we are doing the cooling over ocean we see the opposite we see a certain tendency of increased precipitation over orlando region and reduced over ocean so so this question of risks is actually quite tricky and and it really needs to be investigated carefully and one thing also to keep in mind is that in the case of stratospheric self-rejection then we would essentially get a haze layer that is global so we have a global sort of blanket that reflects on the solar radiation and the other techniques do not have that global ass so like marine cloud Breton were only enhances the reflectivity of limited regions over the ocean or the desert modification the same thing only certain regions of a land cirrus cloud sending

would also probably only work at relatively high latitudes so it would also which might be beneficial for the Arctic sea ice if it if it works it works so so that there are very many aspects here and it’s another aspect for instance in marine club right knee we will be injecting sea salt into this low cloud so we might get problems with corrosion on a near coastal region so so it’s a long list of issues and it’s really difficult to draw from conclusion of which one is the riskiest and hina banking as you mentioned professor Lawrence biochar we have since 10 years these discussions with Terra Preta there as civilizations have been done on large-scale everywhere it was possible to really create you moss and his colleague studied much about the Earthborn so there are some really natural processes so we can make socio-cultural or eco socio-cultural designs and architecture which are in our set so I think when I uses discussion and I was here last week we should step back there was a systemic error by missing soil mr. Sheppard saying now but it was placed in Rio 92 so isn’t it necessary to really look into the win-win possibilities as it was designed in the MDGs also for the SDGs that we come to in integrated proposals which I’m just coming from Brussels from the European Commission there are integrated approaches there like with muscle reforms to clean oceans and provide foot and infrastructure and and soil eliminations through the shells to really look into natural processes and knots get stuck to our old urban designs and sewer systems which are really dilute what we are doing here it’s just shoveling and the chairs on the Titanic the question is can you take a step back okay okay I about to take a step back I’m not sure that I understood quite that part of the question but the first part of the question about the biochar and Terra Preta there I would comment on that we should also be careful to consider decoupling some issues for instance first off there was a substantial difference in population long ago and now in terms of the amount of impact we’re having on the environment including our co2 emissions there may be very very good reasons for producing biochar and mixing them in with soils to enhance the quality oils that have nothing to do with climate change be even if it is done at a scale that has no contribution or we should watch out for absolutes that has a very insignificant contribution of considerably less than a percent of the annual emissions of carbon dioxide even if it’s none of that scale there may be very good reasons for considering biochar in that context of enriching soils that are decoupled from the perspective of climate engineering we also discussed this with in the report that there are many of the techniques that are proposed are ones that might be sensible for other reasons at small scales that are decoupled from their role in climate when they if they were to be scaled up to an enormous scale then they could become techniques that would be considered climate engineering so the techniques themselves could have other purposes and then fall into the category of climate engineering and I think if that’s maybe that’s what you mean by taking a step back and looking at the broader picture and yes we do take that broader picture perspective in the report and discuss the techniques also from the potential that some of them may have other purposes besides contributing to reducing climate change I know we don’t mention Terra Preta con con concretely we do have to limit of course in terms of the detail that we can go into in each of the techniques we do refer to a number of the publications around biochar but then go into further detail like that Tomas Prince la info ha jo valine um to whom is the report addressed nearly all experts I interviewed during the last years

including you mark told me climate engineering isn’t ready climate engineering is too expensive climate engineering has too many risks it seems to me that in the report you exactly it’sit’s your conclusion therefore who are the persons who try to enforce climate engineering which states also who likes who laughs climate engineering there were two separate questions there one of those was who is the report addressing and the other is is are there states that are what are the different attitudes towards climate engineering amongst different states I’ll take the first of the questions and then allow either on Jurgen chef Ron or Stefan Shafer to address the second part about the international policy attitudes so in terms of who the report is addressing and what our conclusions are you’re absolutely right that our general conclusion remains the same as the conclusion that has come along since basically the first assessment reports that Andy Parker was heavily involved in by the Royal Society which is that these as you stated it and as I had stated before that the the techniques are not ready for deployment at this point time but there are reasons for looking into them what our report does is goes into considerable detail in terms of several of the the new issues and we particularly look at addressing for the European Union giving them an overview of where the research gaps are and what arguments for and against research are so we go give that in a full chapter dedicated to that as part of the coordination and support action and we look into policy development procedures and options which is also addressed to the European Union but we’ve made the report the full report as a relatively deep scientific report so that it also should be useful to members of the scientific community who are getting into the topic becoming introduced to the topic members of the broader stakeholder community who are interested in really a deep dive into the topic and then from that of course we’ve put together a rather relatively concise executive summary in an extended summary that can be addressed to members of the communities who are interested in a quicker overview of the report thank you and efficient yes thank you so currently research on climate engineering is generally quite limited and I think that is something that in the report we we know and we say in relation to the efforts that are put into research on for example mitigation technologies or adaptation is also appropriate regarding the question of who this report then addresses in terms of policy development that’s a different question I think so the prospect raised by climate engineering as I’ve been trying to develop in my earlier short presentation has led to a certain political interest in the topic based on the fact that some of these techniques are perceived as perhaps providing a potential contribution to climate policy later in the century and in that sense I’d say that country’s positions so far are unclear I don’t think there have clear statements about what individual countries positions are but there is a certain desire a certain appetite for providing governance and regulation of these techniques at the international level maybe Germany is actually one of the most active countries in in climate engineering research and here the policy is very cautious so as we’ve cleared records had mentioned earlier the motto perhaps under which german research on climate engineering is proceeding is that it’s research for assessment not for deployment thank you very much Stefan we’ve got time for one more question in English or you’ll be probably relieved to hear that will switch to German and Icelandic Alexander gusoff I assess your project covers different aspects of climate engineering and also involve involves different research disciplines and I’m curious about methodology used and how the research process was organized maybe working groups or something else I think I understood your question was about the mettle of methodology used for the research okay to make it clear this is what the European Union cause the coordination and support action project so it doesn’t involve substantial amounts of original research it is an assessment project and so the

methodology that we used was to first come together with a group already the proposal stage and outline why we think another assessment would be important I outlined that in the talk what we think would be important aspects of such an assessment and then how we could divvy up distribute the various contributions to the report then the report chapters were done largely as individual sections and chapters amongst smaller groups and then brought it back together at annual meetings discussed also with our project advisory board in the process and then again continually iterated back and forth until in the end we saw based on all of the comments from the project advisory board that a slightly different format would be good for the report brought that together and then circulate that again amongst the colleagues all of the colleagues that were involved in the report so it was a very open participative problem procedure for the report yes’m yeah just like to add a comment that on the natural science side in concerning albedo modification there there has also been a very successful international collaboration called geometry with Stanford geoengineering model intercomparison project and what it means is that basically the same models that have been used for the IPCC report have been used to address the climate engineering so that we have when you bring together between 10 and 20 models you can we can get much more confidence in our assessment then before when we just had one model group doing this and another group doing something different and which is all very confusing thank you very much I’m I’m just like to answer panelists if they’ve got any final thoughts or comments based on the information and the questions that have come forward so far so if you’ve got any thoughts and you can capture them within a minute that would be great so we’ll fruit yeah thank you I would like to stress one point I made earlier by Mark and that we have to remember when we talk about climate engineering it’s really a matter of scale so when we talk about efficiency or effectiveness of a first station or biochar and when we look at global climate we talk about a gigatons scale and when we say these technologies are not sufficient to have an impact we have this scale in mind once you move down to regional pledges of countries in a Mission Control we are in the Megaton scale and then these technologies can of course be an important part of any regional climate mitigation strategy and then I would like to make one other point so I would say we have presented here rather pessimistic view on radiation management or its potential but we are not sure if if that’s really pissed mystic because what us what is clear to us that if we have any successful radiation management application then the changes reduce that we would ever put nature back into the driving seat so and then we would face a totally different challenge namely not the question whether to engineer the climate but the challenge on what type of global climate we want to engineer whether climate engineer works and is acceptable depends on the social economic and political environment in which these decisions are being made in the current situation when climate impacts are still small or moderate and there is the potential for mitigation and adaptation strategy is working there is little incentive to develop and even implement these techniques but if the adaptation and mitigation strategies are not working and humanity misses the current opportunities then the world may run into the so called climate emergency situations later the century where then there may be a sudden increase of needs for for climate engineering at least for some political actors and if this is not done in a coordinated way and a regulated way this could lead to a kind of climate chaos situation where different actors are taking different measures either together or against each other and then climate engineering may become maybe play a bigger role so it’s leading to the need I think to regulate this as early as possible yes thank you I think one thread that’s been running through almost all presentations and comments today was that climate engineering could potentially provide a

contribution to reducing climate risk in the second half of the 21st century and at the same time this is highly uncertain and what in any case even if it were technologically scientifically feasible politically feasible involve significant risks so therefore it’s also get back to the first question that was asked about the necessity of potential perceived necessity of deploying any climate engineering techniques later on this century I think it simply cannot be relied on there there’s no grounds to assume that this will be technologically scientifically politically feasible to reduce climate risk through climate engineering and therefore the imperative right now has to be to reduce greenhouse gas emissions which is what the Paris conference in December will be focusing on which is what other efforts are focusing on and those need to be supported the second aspect that the large uncertainties and risks involved point2 is that science and engineering can’t navigate this space alone so there’s a great need for in moving ahead in this area which i think is important it’s important to assess the potential of these techniques but while moving ahead there’s a great need for an involvement of areas beyond science and engineering of civil society of policy actors and the general public Thank You Stefan every TNA go yes I’d like to raise a couple of points first of all the reason we are here today is that humanity has failed to address the global warming problem and and this is sort of the and we I think all of us in this panel are very concerned about this in action and and this is why we have become interested in in this kind of research and through this research we have found all sorts of risks and issues as we talked about but but let’s not forget this this background and this setting and and the risk involves it’s two degree target for example which we we really need to emit vigorously to to be able to stay within and and in a situation like this there will always be people who suggest some ici Lucien so so that’s why I think the type of research that we have been doing is very important because they’re there are questions being asked for policymakers will be asked by by the public and even by engineers why don’t we just engineer ourselves out of this what do we need to think about mitigation and it’s very important that we have this kind of knowledge that we have developed through this and similar projects to to address these kinds of questions so so I think we really need to continue to have a certain amount of research just to keep the knowledge base intact so that we can get a right guidance to policymakers and finally I’d like to just say that let’s hope that we are not humanity are not stupid enough to put ourselves in a position where we need to do climate engineering thank you any final word to professor mark lawrence well the first thing I would like to bring up is something that was hinted at several times but was never really mentioned explicitly on very clearly and I think it’s important to bring it out is about the differentiation amongst the both the categories of the techniques and the techniques themselves and there was considerable discussion amongst our consortium even about whether we would write one report or two reports because of the substantial differences between greenhouse gas removal and albedo modification techniques we decided to keep it as one report because we find that there are a number of issues especially on the societal issue side that do connect these well enough but what we did with the report was to be extremely careful and this is one thing that I would give out to all who are discussing this be very careful in the way that you addressed the topics so we went through the report carefully and make sure whenever we said climate engineering we meant climate engineering as a blanket term if we meant something specific than we said greenhouse gas removal or albedo modification or we went down specifically to specific techniques like particle injections or ocean fertilization or Beck’s the second point I’d like to make echoes very much on what Stefan Schaeffer said that this topic calls for a broad dialogue broad discussion broad involvement much of the discussion so far has been amongst already relatively broad amongst interdisciplinary researchers policymakers and civil society but it’s been relatively regionally limited to Europe and North America and involvement in other parts of the world is present but it’s quite limited and I think this is a global issue that then deserves a

global discussion but also deserves discussion from other members of society who have not been as involved in this and other societal leaders and in particular I bring out religious leaders in this because of the importance of discussions around these techniques to many of the religious perspectives of people in the ethical considerations around the world then finally I’d like to finish off with the thanks thanks first off to the consortium members for the excellent work that they’ve put into this over the last several years and bringing us to I hope a very helpful valuable useful product in the end to our project advisory board for their contributions on helping to give us good good reviews on the report as we went along and in good suggestions on how we develop this and finally to you in the audience for your interest in this topic and wish you well on your way to discussing more about and understanding more about this very complex and controversial issue thank you very much