Geoengineering Harms and Compensation
Geoengineering Harms and Compensation
复制标题
地球工程危害与补偿
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2011
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
M. Bunzl
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
M. Bunzl
在当代的论述中，地球工程学通常被认为是指故意干预气候以限制全球变暖的想法。地球工程的想法本身就让许多人感到不安，当这个想法有资格专注于大规模干预时，更是如此。正如加德纳所说，这似乎是对自然傲慢态度的精髓。尽管如此，即使假设国际社会认真对待全球经济去碳化的基本任务，如果我们将大气中的二氧化碳稳定在百万分之几的安全水平之上，情况会怎样？事实上，如果我们已经超过了这一水平，会发生什么？然后呢？自然过程需要很长时间才能纠正错误。与此同时，地球工程研究提出了两个问题。首先，我们能否通过碳捕获(ACC)加快大气中二氧化碳的自然去除速度？其次，与此同时，我们是否能够通过太阳辐射管理(SRM)来抵消大气中二氧化碳的影响？ACC能否发挥作用是一个悬而未决的问题，围绕着能源需求展开。但如果它真的奏效，这项任务将既庞大又缓慢。相比之下，如果二氧化硫(SO2)能够有效地引入平流层，SRM就有可能相对便宜和快速。但这种SRM既不是一个全面的解决方案，也不是一个长期的解决方案。与ACC不同，它不能对抗海洋酸化。由于二氧化硫在大气中的寿命有限，它需要不断的补充。面对真正的气候紧急情况，使用SO2的SRM可能暂时有用，但认为SRM可以完全抵消大气中二氧化碳的影响是不可信的。它在抵消这些影响方面的好处将是不均衡的，如果仅仅是因为当地云量的变化产生了非
In contemporary discourse, geoengineering is usually taken to refer to the idea of intentionally intervening in the climate to limit global warming. The very idea of geoengineering sets many people on edge, all the more so when this idea is qualified to focus on large-scale interventions. As Gardiner argues, it seems the quintessence of an arrogant attitude toward Nature. Nonetheless, even assuming that the world community gets down to the essential business of de-carbonizing the global economy, what if we stabilize above a safe level of parts per million of CO2 in the atmosphere? Indeed what if we are already above that level? Then what? Natural processes will take a long time to set things right. In the meantime, geoengineering research poses two questions. First, might we be able to accelerate the natural rate of removal of CO2 from the atmosphere by carbon capture (ACC)? Second, in the meantime, might we be able to counteract the effects of CO2 in the atmosphere by solar radiation management (SRM)? Whether ACC can work is an open question revolving around energy requirements. But if it does work, the undertaking would be both massive and slow. In contrast, SRM holds out the prospect of being relatively cheap and quick if sulfur dioxide (SO2) can be effectively introduced into the stratosphere. But SRM of this kind offers neither a comprehensive nor a long-term solution. Unlike ACC, it does not counter ocean acidification. And because SO2 has a limited life in the atmosphere, it needs continual replenishment. In the face of a bona fide climate emergency, SRM using SO2 might be useful temporarily, but it is not plausible to think that SRM can fully counter the effects of CO2 in the atmosphere. Its benefit in offsetting those effects will be uneven if only due to variations in local cloud cover producing non-