English
 
Privacy Policy Disclaimer
  Advanced SearchBrowse

Item

ITEM ACTIONSEXPORT
  Five solar geoengineering tropes that have outstayed their welcome

Reynolds, J. L., Parker, A., Irvine, P. (2016): Five solar geoengineering tropes that have outstayed their welcome. - Earth's Future, 4, 12, 562-568.
https://doi.org/10.1002/2016EF000416

Item is

Basic

show hide
Genre: Journal Article

Files

show Files
hide Files
:
1910937.pdf (Publisher version), 132KB
Name:
1910937.pdf
Description:
Fulltext
Visibility:
Public
MIME-Type / Checksum:
application/pdf / [MD5]
Technical Metadata:
Copyright Date:
-
Copyright Info:
CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0

Locators

show

Creators

show
hide
 Creators:
Reynolds, Jesse L.1, Author
Parker, Andy2, Author              
Irvine, Peter1, Author
Affiliations:
1External Organizations, ou_persistent22              
2IASS Institute for Advanced Sustainability Studies Potsdam, ou_96022              

Content

show
hide
Free keywords: Climate change; Solar radiation management; Geoengineering
 Abstract: In the last decade, solar geoengineering (solar radiation management, or SRM) has received increasing consideration as a potential means to reduce risks of anthropogenic climate change. Some ideas regarding SRM that have been proposed have receded after being appropriately scrutinized, while others have strengthened through testing and critique. This process has improved the understanding of SRM's potential and limitations. However, several claims are frequently made in the academic and popular SRM discourses and, despite evidence to the contrary, pose the risk of hardening into accepted facts. Here, in order to foster a more productive and honest debate, we identify, describe, and refute five of the most problematic claims that are unsupported by existing evidence, unlikely to occur, or greatly exaggerated. These are: (A) once started, SRM cannot be stopped; (B) SRM is a right-wing project; (C) SRM would cost only a few billion dollars per year; (D) modeling studies indicate that SRM would disrupt monsoon precipitation; and (E) there is an international prohibition on outdoors research. SRM is a controversial proposed set of technologies that could prove to be very helpful or very harmful, and it warrants vigorous and informed public debate. By highlighting and debunking some persistent but unsupported claims, this paper hopes to bring rigor to such discussions.

Details

show
hide
Language(s): eng - English
 Dates: 2016-122016
 Publication Status: Finally published
 Pages: -
 Publishing info: -
 Table of Contents: -
 Rev. Type: -
 Identifiers: DOI: 10.1002/2016EF000416
 Degree: -

Event

show

Legal Case

show

Project information

show

Source 1

show
hide
Title: Earth's Future
Source Genre: Journal, E14, SCI, Scopus, oa
 Creator(s):
Affiliations:
Publ. Info: -
Pages: - Volume / Issue: 4 (12) Sequence Number: - Start / End Page: 562 - 568 Identifier: CoNE: https://publications.rifs-potsdam.de/cone/journals/resource/140217