Geoengineering...
There. I said it.
In a relieving step out of last week's sewage, over the next few weeks I am going to focus on issues, governance and practices of urban geoengineering. We need to achieve not zero, but negative GHG emissions to avoid severe climatic and economic consequences, and geoengineering our cities may be a viable option in addressing this issue.
However, to be considered a viable alternative to traditional geoengineering, this method would need to contribute to stabilizing emissions at 9-11Gt a year by 2062. That is quite a substantial challenge and one that Robert Socolow does not eschew in his calls for societal reforms to achieve these targets(See figure 1). Socolow's (and Pacalas!) concepts are highly applicable in cities and are interesting to consider in geoengineering urban environments.
The big, concrete clad picture:
Huge urban expansion is projected over the next 20 years, with a 185% expansion forecast globally for 2030. This NYU video offers further perspective on what this means for developers and planners:
Big growth, but is geoengineering an option and how are cities relevant?
Its a good question to be asking ourselves. The IPCC and a number of authors criticize large scale geoengineering projects, namely stratospheric sulfate injection, and some terrestrial techniques, on the grounds of their extensive land use changes, let alone the $535 trillion dollar bill. Long-term consequences and risks in deploying stratospheric aerosol injections, particularly devastating rapid warming and carbon release that would occur should such solar radiation management(SRM) infrastructure fail, make them a less attractive.
Additional critique has emerged from the spheres of environmental justice, where deployment of such infrastructure risks violation of inter-generational ecological justices. Some studies have found that Carbon Dioxide Removal(CDR) appears more popular over SRM. So while CDR may be seen as more credible option than SRM, caution should be exercised and the equities of deployment of such technologies(See figure 2) considered. Top down approaches in large scale SRM projects are problematic along ethical, governance and trans-boundary parameters, while overlooking atmospheric GHGs concentrations.
CDR methods (specifically; carbon capture and storage, biomass energy, urban agriculture and urban afforestation) are highly applicable to urban development and regeneration scenarios. While SRM is less viable, surface albedo enhancement approaches may mitigate urban heat island effect(see my second blog post), though overlooking the atmospheric GHG concerns.
So, the technology is there, but cities may be a better geoengineering option in terms of governance...
Cities are nexuses of environmental degradation, governance, and innovation. Some, such as George Bugliarello, suggest urbanization is mankind's largest ongoing geoengineering experiment, so considering cities through a geoengineering lens may prove productive in implementing effective mitigation strategies.
Jonathan Fink outlines the greater ability of city municipal governments to mobilize force in putting sustainability policies into action compared to national governments. Therefore, transferring environmental policy reform jurisdiction to municipal and city governments may prove more effective in bottom up approaches, especially in distributing and proliferating CDR infrastructure. Furthermore, city governments are able to bring together non-governmental forces in this discourse such as organisations and businesses, facilitating democratic forums for implementing environmental policy, exchanging new ideas and acquiring funding.
While not 100% convinced by all of Fink's arguments when considering the amount of carbon we would need to stop emitting and sequester, I feel that he is on to something with regards to geoengineering in cities. Either way, this makes urban geoengineering and mitigation a political issue...
...making urban environmental movements important
The activities of urban populations have implications far beyond the boundaries of their respective cities. By targeting urban populations, downstream impacts may be experienced. This was clearly the case in Portland, wherein public opposition of sourcing power from Boardman coal plant 250km east led to the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality pushing Portland General Electric to close the plant 20 years early. Clearly, political engagement of the public in cities is a key factor in effecting change and is a key factor in my view of the potential for cities to have a significant geoengineering role with relation to developing CDR.
But why don't we just use renewables?
Renewable energy is an obvious area of focus to combine with urban CDR, but one I wont expand on this too heavily. This is because CDR to be removes GHGs, instead of just reducing their primary emission. Projects incorporating solar and renewables as a primary method of sustainable development and mitigation such as Masdar city(video below) or Dongtan in China are compelling. However, taking these utopian cities with a pinch of salt is advisable, as they are criticized for their questionable economic viability and scalability, while their full life cycle assessments of carbon costs remain unclear. Interestingly, a study of Australian sustainable housing developments found that it would actually make more sense to retrofit and 'hybridize' existent housing instead of relying on new 'project' housing to lower emissions.
There. I said it.
In a relieving step out of last week's sewage, over the next few weeks I am going to focus on issues, governance and practices of urban geoengineering. We need to achieve not zero, but negative GHG emissions to avoid severe climatic and economic consequences, and geoengineering our cities may be a viable option in addressing this issue.
However, to be considered a viable alternative to traditional geoengineering, this method would need to contribute to stabilizing emissions at 9-11Gt a year by 2062. That is quite a substantial challenge and one that Robert Socolow does not eschew in his calls for societal reforms to achieve these targets(See figure 1). Socolow's (and Pacalas!) concepts are highly applicable in cities and are interesting to consider in geoengineering urban environments.
 |
| Pacala and Socolow (2004) recommended this model to stabilize climate, where each wedge represented a mitigation strategy equivalent to emission reductions of 1 Gt Carbon over 50 years. This has since been updated to 9 following a review by Socolow in 2011. While specific identities were not given per wedge, it was outlined that these mitigation strategies could fit into 15 different areas for improvement. An extensive list can be found in Fink's review, but for the sake of clarity these areas can be broken down into: 1.) Increasing vehicle efficiency and sustainability while reducing vehicle use. 2.) Administering CDR at power plants while transitioning to an entirely renewables based infrastructure. 3.) Afforestation and reforestation. |
The big, concrete clad picture:
Huge urban expansion is projected over the next 20 years, with a 185% expansion forecast globally for 2030. This NYU video offers further perspective on what this means for developers and planners:
Its a good question to be asking ourselves. The IPCC and a number of authors criticize large scale geoengineering projects, namely stratospheric sulfate injection, and some terrestrial techniques, on the grounds of their extensive land use changes, let alone the $535 trillion dollar bill. Long-term consequences and risks in deploying stratospheric aerosol injections, particularly devastating rapid warming and carbon release that would occur should such solar radiation management(SRM) infrastructure fail, make them a less attractive.
Additional critique has emerged from the spheres of environmental justice, where deployment of such infrastructure risks violation of inter-generational ecological justices. Some studies have found that Carbon Dioxide Removal(CDR) appears more popular over SRM. So while CDR may be seen as more credible option than SRM, caution should be exercised and the equities of deployment of such technologies(See figure 2) considered. Top down approaches in large scale SRM projects are problematic along ethical, governance and trans-boundary parameters, while overlooking atmospheric GHGs concentrations.
CDR methods (specifically; carbon capture and storage, biomass energy, urban agriculture and urban afforestation) are highly applicable to urban development and regeneration scenarios. While SRM is less viable, surface albedo enhancement approaches may mitigate urban heat island effect(see my second blog post), though overlooking the atmospheric GHG concerns.
 |
| A diagram showing different forms of CDR and SRM referred to in this blog. Some forms are more preferable and feasible than others. Credit: Xu Qifei |
So, the technology is there, but cities may be a better geoengineering option in terms of governance...
Cities are nexuses of environmental degradation, governance, and innovation. Some, such as George Bugliarello, suggest urbanization is mankind's largest ongoing geoengineering experiment, so considering cities through a geoengineering lens may prove productive in implementing effective mitigation strategies.
Jonathan Fink outlines the greater ability of city municipal governments to mobilize force in putting sustainability policies into action compared to national governments. Therefore, transferring environmental policy reform jurisdiction to municipal and city governments may prove more effective in bottom up approaches, especially in distributing and proliferating CDR infrastructure. Furthermore, city governments are able to bring together non-governmental forces in this discourse such as organisations and businesses, facilitating democratic forums for implementing environmental policy, exchanging new ideas and acquiring funding.
While not 100% convinced by all of Fink's arguments when considering the amount of carbon we would need to stop emitting and sequester, I feel that he is on to something with regards to geoengineering in cities. Either way, this makes urban geoengineering and mitigation a political issue...
...making urban environmental movements important
The activities of urban populations have implications far beyond the boundaries of their respective cities. By targeting urban populations, downstream impacts may be experienced. This was clearly the case in Portland, wherein public opposition of sourcing power from Boardman coal plant 250km east led to the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality pushing Portland General Electric to close the plant 20 years early. Clearly, political engagement of the public in cities is a key factor in effecting change and is a key factor in my view of the potential for cities to have a significant geoengineering role with relation to developing CDR.
| The Sierra Club activists that pushed for the closure of Boardman Coal Plant (Source: Sierra Club, 2010) |
But why don't we just use renewables?
Renewable energy is an obvious area of focus to combine with urban CDR, but one I wont expand on this too heavily. This is because CDR to be removes GHGs, instead of just reducing their primary emission. Projects incorporating solar and renewables as a primary method of sustainable development and mitigation such as Masdar city(video below) or Dongtan in China are compelling. However, taking these utopian cities with a pinch of salt is advisable, as they are criticized for their questionable economic viability and scalability, while their full life cycle assessments of carbon costs remain unclear. Interestingly, a study of Australian sustainable housing developments found that it would actually make more sense to retrofit and 'hybridize' existent housing instead of relying on new 'project' housing to lower emissions.
Looking forward
To really follow up on the calls for cities to be focal points for geoengineering, we need to evaluate different methods of applying CDR technologies in city environments. So, over the next two weeks I will be focusing on urban afforestation and mineral weathering.
To really follow up on the calls for cities to be focal points for geoengineering, we need to evaluate different methods of applying CDR technologies in city environments. So, over the next two weeks I will be focusing on urban afforestation and mineral weathering.
Comments
Post a Comment