AMBIO 2012, 41:350–369

DOI 10.1007/s13280-012-0258-5

REVIEW PAPER

Ecosystem Impacts of Geoengineering: A Review for Developing

a Science Plan
Lynn M. Russell, Philip J. Rasch, Georgina M. Mace, Robert B. Jackson,
John Shepherd, Peter Liss, Margaret Leinen, David Schimel, Naomi E. Vaughan,
Anthony C. Janetos, Philip W. Boyd, Richard J. Norby, Ken Caldeira,
Joonas Merikanto, Paulo Artaxo, Jerry Melillo, M. Granger Morgan

Received: 22 June 2011 / Revised: 27 September 2011 / Accepted: 31 January 2012 / Published online: 20 March 2012

Abstract Geoengineering methods are intended to reduce attributed to this accumulation of greenhouse gases (GHGs;
climate change, which is already having demonstrable IPCC 2007a). While there has now been much general
effects on ecosystem structure and functioning in some discussion of the different means by which geoengineering
regions. Two types of geoengineering activities that have may be accomplished and some speculation about the
been proposed are: carbon dioxide (CO2) removal (CDR), research strategies by which their effectiveness could be
which removes CO2 from the atmosphere, and solar radi- determined (Shepherd et al. 2009), there has been relatively
ation management (SRM, or sunlight reflection methods), little discussion of research needed to understand their
which reflects a small percentage of sunlight back into potential for affecting ecosystems. Yet many geoengi-
space to offset warming from greenhouse gases (GHGs). neering activities could significantly impact both natural
Current research suggests that SRM or CDR might and managed ecosystems and their functions. This is
diminish the impacts of climate change on ecosystems by important because ecosystems, including those within
reducing changes in temperature and precipitation. How- forests, oceans, grasslands, and wetlands, provide both
ever, sudden cessation of SRM would exacerbate the cli- innate value and our life support systems, including
mate effects on ecosystems, and some CDR might interfere numerous essential goods and services (MEA 2005). This
with oceanic and terrestrial ecosystem processes. The many study focuses on research needs related to identifying and
risks and uncertainties associated with these new kinds of quantifying potential ecosystem consequences of proposed
purposeful perturbations to the Earth system are not well geoengineering methods. Ecosystem impacts form a subset
understood and require cautious and comprehensive of a much broader range of pertinent social and physical
research. science research questions, including issues of governance
and ethics, all of which should be addressed before any
Keywords Geoengineering
Ecosystems
proposed geoengineering method could be considered as a
Climate change
Carbon dioxide removal
viable policy option.
Solar radiation management In this report, we follow the Royal Society (Shepherd
et al. 2009) in referring to two different sets of activities:
carbon dioxide removal (CDR) methods, including a range
INTRODUCTION of engineered and biological processes to remove carbon
dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere, and solar radiation
As anthropogenic emissions of GHG rise and their con- management (SRM or sunlight reflection) methods, typi-
centrations in the atmosphere continue to increase, there is cally involving reflecting a small percentage of solar light
growing discussion about the need to evaluate ‘‘geoengi- and heat back into space to offset the warming due to
neering’’ methods to reduce the greenhouse effects on the GHGs. CDR and SRM techniques are fundamentally dif-
climate and environment (Shepherd et al. 2009). Geoen- ferent in the timescales over which the interventions would
gineering can be defined as the deliberate manipulation of operate (Lenton and Vaughan 2009; Shepherd et al. 2009).
features of the Earth system to reduce the magnitude and The scale-up of a CDR deployment to the point where it
rate of changes in the physical climate system that are would have significant climate effects would be slow

 Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences 2012

123 [Link]/en
AMBIO 2012, 41:350–369 351

(likely decades for a substantial drawdown of CO2), but • Direct engineered capture of CO2 from ambient air (i.e.,
with long lasting effects. In contrast, SRM could provide collection and removal of CO2 from the atmosphere to
rapid cooling (in months) but would require continual storage reservoirs that are isolated from the atmosphere);
renewal. Of these two types of methods, only CDR would • Enhancement of oceanic uptake of CO2 by, for
address the CO2 concentrations responsible for both cli- example, fertilization of ocean biota with naturally
mate change as well as other CO2-induced ecosystem scarce nutrients or increasing upwelling processes.
effects such as ocean acidification. If implemented in addition to CO2 mitigation, these CDR
methods would reduce the proximate cause of the problem,
The Climate System would diminish ocean acidification, and would return the
climate to something closer to the pre-industrial state.
The Earth’s temperature and climate are fundamentally Because these CDR methods reduce the concentrations of
controlled by its energy balance, which drives and main- atmospheric CO2, other things being equal, they would be
tains the climate system. This balance consists of incoming preferred to SRM methods, but they act slowly (decades)
energy from the Sun (including ultra violet, visible, and and are likely to be costly (Shepherd et al. 2009).
infrared) and outgoing heat (thermal infrared) radiation.
These energy streams do not reach or leave Earth’s surface Solar Radiation Management
unimpeded. On average, about one third of the incoming
sunlight radiation is reflected by clouds and aerosols, ice SRM methods, also called sunlight reflection methods, aim
caps, and bright surfaces. This fraction that is reflected is to reflect up to a few percent of the incident sunlight away
referred to as its ‘‘albedo’’. Most incoming energy passes from Earth. Once broadly deployed, they would take a few
through the atmosphere to reach Earth’s surface; the part months to have an effect on climate, and therefore some
not reflected by the albedo is absorbed and so warms the people argue they might be useful if a rapid response is
surface. The absorbed energy is transferred to the atmo- needed, for example to avoid reaching a climate threshold
sphere by emitted surface radiation, evaporative cooling, (Shepherd et al. 2009). Methods that have been suggested
and direct thermal motion. Some outgoing thermal energy previously include:
then emitted by Earth’s surface is absorbed by GHGs in the • Increasing the surface reflectivity of the planet by
atmosphere (mainly by water vapor and CO2) and also by brightening human structures (e.g., painting them
clouds, thus reducing the amount of heat radiation escaping white), planting crops with a high reflectivity, and
to space and warming the atmosphere and Earth’s surface. covering deserts with reflective material;
This is known as the greenhouse effect. On average, only • Enhancing marine cloud brightness (reflectivity) by
about 60% of the radiation emitted at the surface leaves the increasing the number of particles acting as cloud
atmosphere, after absorption and emission within the condensation nuclei (CCN) over the oceans;
atmosphere. Increased atmospheric CO2 is not only • Injecting aerosol particles (e.g., sulfates) into the lower
responsible for temperature changes, but for other conse- stratosphere to mimic the effects of volcanic eruptions;
quences to the Earth system. In addition, increased CO2 • Placing shields or deflectors in space to reduce the
absorbed by the ocean has a measurable effect on ocean amount of solar energy reaching Earth.
acidity, with consequent impacts on ocean biogeochemistry
Model simulations (and some natural analogs like volcanic
and biodiversity.
eruptions that change the planetary albedo) indicate that
SRM methods would act quickly (within months) (Rasch
et al. 2008; Kravitz et al. 2009). In addition, some initial
Carbon Dioxide Removal
estimates suggest they would likely be relatively cheap
(i.e., billions rather than trillions of dollars per year)
CDR methods are designed to remove CO2 from the
(Shepherd et al. 2009). Nonetheless, SRM methods would
atmosphere and transfer it to long-lived carbon reservoirs.
only create an artificial, approximate, and potentially
They include:
delicate temperature balance between two opposing anthro-
• Land use management to protect or enhance terrestrial pogenic forcings. They would also require ongoing main-
carbon sinks; tenance for the duration that excess GHGs remain in the
• Using biomass for carbon sequestration as well as (or atmosphere (perhaps centuries) unless CDR techniques
instead of) a carbon neutral energy source; were employed. In the event ongoing SRM were halted
• Accelerating natural geological processes that remove while CO2 concentrations remained high, Earth would
CO2 from the atmosphere (e.g., ‘‘enhanced weathering’’); warm within months. Besides having this ‘‘termination

 Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences 2012

[Link]/en 123
352 AMBIO 2012, 41:350–369

problem’’ (see below) (Shepherd et al. 2009), SRM and SRM methods,2 we acknowledge that geoengineering
methods do nothing to remediate ocean acidification (the involves risks and uncertainties associated with novel
‘‘other CO2 problem’’). Furthermore, because the Earth perturbations to the imperfectly understood Earth system
system is far more complex than current climate models, (as well as numerous ethical and governance questions). In
there would likely be unanticipated consequences of large particular, the interconnectedness of many ecosystem
scale deployments of SRM methods. processes across a wide range of spatial and temporal
scales leads to systems of such complexity, that outcomes
Ecosystems are difficult to predict as the systems move outside any
previously observed states.
The world’s terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems are critically Ecosystems play a variety of pivotal roles for Earth, but
important for humanity’s well-being and economic pros- some specific aspects are being clearly altered by the
perity (MEA 2005). They drive the production of food and changing climate (Mooney et al. 2009). Effects include
energy, regulate water supplies and climate, provide resil- altered ocean productivity and food web dynamics, reduced
ience to disease, and recycle waste products. We also value abundance of habitat-forming species, shifting species
them for recreational, inspirational, spiritual, and cultural distributions, and a possible greater incidence of some
purposes, both at the local level and more broadly. Many diseases (Hoegh-Guldberg and Bruno 2010), as well as
ecosystem functions that support these services are also some decreases in biodiversity (Pereira et al. 2010). Since
dependent on biodiversity—the rich variety of species ecosystems are being affected, ecosystem services are also
representing the full breadth of life on Earth, including altered. For example, natural and managed ecosystems are
specific evolutionary adaptations that lead to distinctive important components of the global carbon budget; one key
local biota. Ecosystems are dynamic complexes of plant, ecosystem service that is affected by these climate effects
animal, and micro-organism communities interacting as a is the *100 Pg (turnover) of biologically produced carbon
functional unit with their non-living environment (MEA each year (Field et al. 1998, 2007). Other vital services
2005). Changes to the physical and biological components sustain human nutrition and air quality and provide fuel,
of ecosystems will affect the nature, interactions, and rates clean water, climate regulation, and spiritual and esthetic
of ecosystem processes and therefore ecosystem services fulfillment (MEA 2005). Ecosystems also maintain the
(namely resources and processes supplied by natural eco- world’s biodiversity.
systems) on which people depend. It is already widely While both CDR and SRM methods have been proposed
recognized that climate change will have a dramatic range to reduce climate change, scientists are still actively
of consequences on ecosystems and their capacity to pro- debating the strategies under which these methods might be
vide goods and services to society (MEA 2005; Mooney used effectively. For example, some researchers have
et al. 2009).1 focused primarily on addressing global temperature and its
While the objective of this work is to identify the associated impacts on precipitation (Crutzen 2006; Keith
research needed to assess the ecosystem impacts of CDR et al. 2006; Trenberth and Dai 2007). Others have focused
on targeted geoengineering methods to address specific
climate impacts of increased CO2, like hurricane intensity
and landfalls, persistence of summer sea ice, and precipi-
1
tation regimes (MacCracken 2009). And still others have
By 2100, climate change is likely to have altered most ecosystems
focused on addressing the impacts of ocean acidification.3
in their structure, function and biodiversity, and most of these
alterations could compromise the services those ecosystems provide 2
to society (IPCC 2007a). Terrestrial ecosystems currently are highly There is a fundamental problem in estimating the ecosystem (and
important in carbon sequestration, but the terrestrial biosphere can other) effects of geoengineering, namely the choice of alternative
also act as a net source of carbon to the atmosphere. There is an (reference) scenario against which they are assessed. Throughout this
increasingly high risk of plant and animal species extinctions across document we compare with a reasonably likely scenario as our
terrestrial, fresh water, and marine biota as global mean temperatures ‘‘control,’’ i.e., one in the mid-range of SRES scenarios (IPCC
exceed a warming of 2–3 C above pre-industrial levels. These 2007a), midway between the extremes of Business-as-Usual and very
impacts on biodiversity are in many cases practically irreversible. The rapid reduction of emissions. This assumes some ‘‘moderate’’ rate of
structure and functioning of terrestrial ecosystems are likely to fossil carbon and other greenhouse gases (GHG) into the atmosphere
change; some of these impacts may be positive and others negative. from energy use and land use changes. The expected responses of
The structure and functioning of marine ecosystems also are likely to ecosystems to the atmospheric and climatic changes resulting from
be impacted regionally by climate change with models projecting increasing GHG concentrations were reviewed and summarized
elevated productivity at high latitudes and reduced productivity at low (IPCC 2007b). We assume that this would correspond to a leveling off
latitudes (Doney 1996). The most vulnerable ecosystems and species of CO2 concentrations and temperatures at approximately doubled
are thought to be coral reefs, the sea ice biome, other high-latitude CO2 (560 ppm).
3
ecosystems, mountain ecosystems, and Mediterranean-climate See [Link] Accessed 7
ecosystems. June 2011.

 Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences 2012

123 [Link]/en
AMBIO 2012, 41:350–369 353

Yet one important open question remains: How would not identify mechanisms other than individual national
CDR and SRM methods influence the many roles of eco- governance to carry out recommendations. In contrast, the
systems on the Earth system? It is widely recognized that London Convention/London Protocol (LC/LP)5 has
climate change, and mankind more generally, already have assumed responsibility for establishing a governance
demonstrable effects on ecosystem structure and functions. framework for all planned research into ocean fertilization
Thus, it is very likely that climate change (and ocean as a climate modification method. Following consultation
acidification) will have increasing consequences in a world with the research community, the Scientific Group of the
with continuing unabated CO2 emissions, or even in a LC/LP has completed an assessment framework for
world with the levels of emissions reduction currently research on ocean fertilization. This framework if approved
under negotiation by governments. Consequently, there is a by the Legal Group of the LC/LP would be considered for
second important open question: Would the impacts of adoption. This would be the first international governance
CDR and SRM methods be less or more acceptable than mechanism for any climate engineering technology.
the likely ecosystem impacts from climate change under A group of researchers from Oxford University pro-
politically reasonable scenarios of emissions reduction or posed a set of five principles of governance6 that were later
unabated emissions? Because we know very little about elaborated at the large Asilomar International Conference
how each of the CDR and SRM methods might modify on principles for governance7. The principles emphasize
ecosystems and their services, it would not be meaningful the need for research to promote the collective benefit of
to compare their combined consequences (Boyd 2009) to humankind and the environment and the need to establish
the alternative, a future where emissions of GHGs are responsibility and liability, open and cooperative research,
largely unmitigated. In addition, it is worth noting that iterative evaluation and assessment, and public involve-
some methods probably will involve additional risks and ment and consent. Most members of the research com-
uncertainties associated with new kinds of perturbations to munity have articulated the belief that governance is
the imperfectly understood Earth system. necessary for potentially risky CDR and SRM field tests.8
Geoengineering methods have several important char-
acteristics from the standpoint of understanding their eco-
logical consequences as well as their potential physical PART 1: POSSIBLE IMPACTS
effects on the Earth system. Depending on the objective of OF GEOENGINEERING ON ECOSYSTEMS
the geoengineering, they might need to operate on very large
spatial scales and might require long-term commitments. The rates and impacts of the various proposed CDR and
This could result in purposeful alteration of biological pro- SRM methods on climate, ocean acidification, ecosystems,
cesses, such as productivity and carbon sequestration, or the and human activities will vary (Boyd 2008). To compare
transfer of the Sun’s energy, on scales that have never before the direct and indirect effects of these CDR and SRM
been observed, let alone attempted deliberately. methods on ecosystems, we consider two scenarios for
each proposed method, one with geoengineering and the
Governance of CDR and SRM Research other without geoengineering. In each case, both scenarios
have the same level of reduction of CO2 emissions
Although there are a growing number of publications on (although CO2 concentrations will be lower for CDR
geoengineering methods (Shepherd et al. 2009 and refer- methods). Compared to the scenarios without geoengi-
ences therein), to date there has been little discussion of neering, by definition, each of the geoengineered scenarios
formal governance arrangements for either research or will have a lower global mean temperature. However,
potential implementation by international governing bod- because this temperature reduction varies in quantity and
ies. The UK Royal Society report outlines the need to build speed (e.g., CDR techniques would have a much slower
governance structures if research into a wide range of temperature response than SRM), as well as impacts on
geoengineering methods is to take place (Shepherd et al.
2009). In 2010, the UN Convention on Biological Diversity
5
issued two statements on climate engineering techniques. A description of the London Convention (or London Protocol) is
Recently the Environmental Defense Fund, the United available at [Link]
AndInitiatives/Pages/[Link].
Kingdom Royal Society, and the Third World Academy of 6
The proposed five principles are available at [Link]
Sciences have initiated a series of meetings aimed at discussing
[Link]/centres/insis/news/Pages/[Link].
governance needs for SRM research ([Link]).4 7
Articles on this topic are available in the special issue of Stanford
These efforts provide suggestions to governments, but do Journal of Law, Science and Policy at [Link]
group/sjlsp/cgi-bin/articles/[Link]?CatID=1013.
4 8
See [Link] See Footnote 7.

 Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences 2012

[Link]/en 123
354 AMBIO 2012, 41:350–369

other climate characteristics (such as precipitation), eco- Each case study was analyzed in two parts. First, we
system impacts of different SRM and CDR methods will be identified the physical and chemical perturbations that the
different in magnitude and regional extent and should be CDR or SRM method is meant to induce (Table 1). Sec-
considered individually. ond, we identified how each individual perturbation and the
As there have been only a few limited field tests of some collective impacts might affect ecosystems and the services
CDR methods (e.g., afforestation) and essentially no field that they provide for humanity (Tables 2, 3). We applied
tests of any SRM methods, there is little observational this two-part assessment framework to the methods noted
evidence to characterize the beneficial and detrimental above (SRM-ocean, SRM-land, CDR-ocean, CDR-land),
effects of these methods on ecosystems. There has been including one example for each and a fifth example for
some exploration of both the purposeful and inadvertent CDR with storage underground. We assumed that each
impacts of different CDR and SRM methods (Boyd 2008; method would work approximately as designed in terms of
Shepherd et al. 2009) that exploits information from ana- its climate impact, its temporal and spatial scales of
logs in the natural world (e.g., volcanic eruptions, Hamme deployment, and its potential side effects (e.g., CDR-
et al. 2010) or from other research on the ocean’s role in mediated reductions in CO2 and decreased fertilization of
modulating climate (de Baar et al. 2005). Together they terrestrial crops or enhanced photosynthesis in plant can-
reveal that the impacts of both CDR and SRM methods can opies by SRM-elevated diffuse light). We also took into
have both beneficial and detrimental effects. For example, account the likelihood that the methods will not work as
the purposeful enhancement of net primary production by envisioned, although this assessment is extremely uncertain
ocean fertilization can potentially add more carbon to the due to the very limited amount of available information.
base of food webs (de Baar et al. 2005), which could be
considered a positive outcome or an unwanted ecosystem ‘‘Control’’ Scenario (Without CDR or SRM)
disturbance. Inadvertent effects of this method could
include the stimulation of populations in tropical, subarctic, Since there was no need to implement CDR or SRM in pre-
and Southern Ocean waters of phytoplankton species industrial conditions, choosing whether or not to imple-
capable of releasing toxins (Trick et al. 2010; Silver et al. ment CDR or SRM needs to be evaluated by comparison to
2010). Based on prior inter-comparisons of the different a likely future that differs from the geoengineered future
CDR and SRM methods (Boyd 2008; Lenton and Vaughan only in its lack of geoengineering. Current and expected
2009), it is possible to put forward preliminary criteria that climate changes have had and will have significant impacts
could be used to rank which method will be least detri- on ecosystems and their services (IPCC 2007a, b; MEA
mental to ecosystems. For example, a method that would 2005), whether or not CDR or SRM is implemented, and
best retain ecosystem health would be one that offsets the these changes must be considered in our assessment of the
effects of climate change without directly targeting and risks and benefits of CDR and SRM. We assume a mid-
perturbing the land, the oceans, or their biota (and also range mitigation scenario as our ‘‘control’’ scenario, which
have virtually no ecological side effects). In contrast, a implies an approximate doubling of pre-industrial atmo-
method that does not reduce CO2 and for which both the spheric CO2 concentration (560 ppm).9 Given a mid-range
purposeful and inadvertent side effects on ecosystems climate sensitivity this would equate to an increase above
outweighed any benefit of mitigating climate change would pre-industrial global temperatures of 3 C (IPCC 2007a). It
be considered most detrimental. is likely that these changes will increase the magnitude of
Presently it is not possible to make a general assessment currently observed impacts on ecosystem and ecosystem
of all of the types of impacts on ecosystems that might service (IPCC 2007b).
result from all of the CDR and SRM methods. The diffi-
culty in generalizing to all geoengineering methods is Carbon Dioxide Removal
partly because of the preliminary state of research, but
mostly due to the disparate nature of the dozens of indi- Removing CO2 from the atmosphere requires identifying
vidual geoengineering methods and their vastly different a means for storing the captured carbon as a stable
impacts on the Earth system. Therefore, we limited this chemical, in a location that will provide long-term stor-
report to a few case studies, followed by a discussion of the age. While several possible solutions exist, there is con-
research necessary to extend an assessment beyond these cern that many may not provide permanent sequestration
examples. We have considered separately CDR and SRM (Table 4).
techniques, as well as land-based and ocean-based tech-
niques. The case studies are not intended to be compre-
hensive but rather to illustrate the expected range of
9
effects, both positive and negative, on ecosystems. See Footnote 2.

 Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences 2012

123 [Link]/en
 Table 1 Impacts of Control, SRM, and CDR scenarios on the physical climate system
Control CDR examples SRM examples
Doubled atmospheric CO2 Afforestation (land) Engineered carbon capture Ocean fertilization (ocean) Stratospheric aerosol Cloud albedo enhancement
and storage (underground) injection (land/ocean) (ocean)
AMBIO 2012, 41:350–369

Mechanism for N/A CDR provides a nearly direct offset of CO2 emissions by removing the CO2. SRM techniques increase planetary albedo to offset the
offsetting CO2- Other climate impacts from CDR are indirect: surface albedo may be changed warming associated with CO2 increases. These albedo
based warming through changes in vegetation required for some CDR strategies (e.g., changes may not be uniform in space or time
afforestation); soil moisture, river runoff, nutrient cycles, etc.,may be changed
to support some kinds of CDR (e.g., biochar)
Spatial Man-made CO2 emissions Increased vegetation Minimal expected changes Imposed biogeochemical Most studies to date have Marine stratocumulus
distribution (e.g., fossil fuel burning) on land (likely to land or ocean regions changes in ocean regions considered sulfate clouds seem optimal for
occur primarily over land. targeting temperate as this method could by fertilizing with aerosols. Their long albedo change (Latham
CO2 is a long-lived or tropical regions), remove CO2 quickly, nutrients. In the Southern lifetime in the stratosphere et al. 2008). These clouds
greenhouse gas, making it but the CO2 response countering a lot of CO2 Ocean, direct iron addition means that they will exist in the eastern side of
well mixed in the will be global emissions, with capitalizes on large spread extensively (at subtropical ocean basins
atmosphere and relatively little impact on inventories of unused least hemispherically),
insensitive to the spatial local resources plant nutrients such as producing relatively small
distribution of its sources nitrogen and phosphate albedo change locally
and sinks. This long (Sarmiento et al. 2010). In
lifetime produces warming low-latitude waters,
which is nearly uniform indirect ocean fertilization

[Link]/en
globally and other indirect by pumping up nutrients
consequences regionally in ocean pipes (Karl and
Letelier 2008)
Atmospheric CO2 N/A 0.4–0.8 Pg C/year 1.7–1700 Pg C/year, 10–30 Tg C after 100 years *0 Tg C/year, except for a *0 Tg C/year, with
reduction per removal of CO2 removal of CO2, with the (Gnanadesikan et al. 2003) small enhancement from possible effect on

 Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences 2012

year (Shepherd et al. expected value limited or 32 Pg C over 100 years increased light into plant atmospheric CO2
2009) by technology and cost (Zeebe and Archer 2005); canopy, possible small concentration through
(Dooley and Calvin 3.4 Pg C air–sea flux over reduction in atmospheric ocean cooling providing a
2011) 10 years (Jin et al. 2008) CO2 due to lower marginal enhancement of
temperature solubility pump
Major physical N/A Significant changes to No expected effects other Projected changes in ocean Relatively uniform albedo Significant albedo change in
attributes of albedo and latent and than reduced heat budgets with change, expected marine stratocumulus
CDR or SRM sensible heat fluxes atmospheric and oceanic potential for episodic and reduction in stratospheric regions, potential small
method over land (Pielke CO2 extreme meteorological ozone, small diurnal cycle effects on local ocean
et al. 2002) and effects in low latitude suppression, and possible salinity of the surface
possible increases in ocean (Gnanadesikan et al. seasonal suppression layer
cooling from 2010) (Robock et al. 2008)
biogenic aerosol

123
355
 Table 1 continued
356

Control CDR examples SRM examples

Afforestation (land) Engineered carbon capture Ocean fertilization (ocean) Stratospheric aerosol Cloud albedo enhancement

123
Doubled atmospheric CO2
and storage (underground) injection (land/ocean) (ocean)

Climatological Surface temperatures All changes for the ‘‘Control’’ case would be mitigated to some extent if the CO2 Modeling studies suggest that many large scale climate
feature changes increase, polar decrease is large enough. Combinations of CDR might be required; afforestation changes produced in the ‘‘Control’’ case could be
associated with amplification of by itself would not be enough to mitigate loss of sea ice or sea level (Moore mitigated by SRM. However, it will be difficult to
CO2 increases temperature increase, sea et al. 2010) simultaneously compensate for temperature changes and
that may be level increase, sea ice hydrologic cycle changes (Ricke et al. 2010). For
ameliorated by decrease, poleward shift of example, if SRM were applied to the level that makes
CDR or SRM storm tracks, increase of global temperature similar to present day, then tropics
methods strength of hydrological may be somewhat cooler than present, polar regions
cycle (IPCC 2007a); somewhat warmer, and the global hydrologic cycle
changes in ocean somewhat weaker. Many other subtle changes are
circulation (Cunningham possible (too numerous to list here)
et al. 2007) and
stratification (Doney
2006); projected increase
in permafrost thawing and
methane release
Unique features N/A Signicant demands on There are likely to be Biologically-mediated Aerosol scattering decreases Reduction in sunlight of up
of particular water and land use; minor impacts on land heating effects in vicinity the ratio of direct-to- to 50 W m-2 at surface in
geoengineering possible impacts on use but the impacts on of fertilized surface waters diffuse light, with a small stratocumulus regions,
strategies nitrogen cycle water use are less certain (Manizza et al. 2009) reduction in net surface temperature
phototrophic light cooling larger over ocean

[Link]/en
reaching the surface; than land; other changes
changes in ozone and similar to stratospheric
additional aerosols may aerosol injection. Local
impact surface UVB light cloud albedo increases,
(Rasch et al. 2008); resulting in possible

 Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences 2012

potential global reduction changes in circulation, sea
in precipitation, possible surface temperature
shifts in precipitation and gradients, nutrient
temperature; impacts on upwelling, and El Niño
summer monsoon patterns
AMBIO 2012, 41:350–369
AMBIO 2012, 41:350–369 357

Table 2 Impacts of Control, SRM, and CDR scenarios on ecosystem cycling and chemical environment
Control CDR examples SRM examples
Doubled atmospheric CO2 Afforestation Engineered Ocean fertilization (ocean) Stratospheric Cloud albedo
(land) carbon capture aerosol injection enhancement
and storage (land/ocean) (ocean)
(underground)

Effects on Elevated CO2: accelerated Increased Slow reversal Possible nutrient robbing Changes caused by warming for
nutrient development of nutrient demand for of baseline (Gnanadesikan and the ‘‘Control’’ case would be
cycling limitation (Norby et al. fertilizer. conditions, Marinov 2008); substantial mitigated to some extent;
(including 2010); warming: but no effect macronutrient depletion, changes caused by elevated CO2
nutrient accelerated nutrient on nitrogen possibly limited by silicate would not be affected
supply to cycling, transfer of deposition availability (Boyd et al.
ecosystems) nutrients from soil to 2004); O2 loss in midwater
vegetation, accelerated and deep ocean resulting
nutrient loss (Melillo et al. in possible increased
2002); increased nitrogen hypoxia; reduced surface-
deposition with fossil fuel ocean and increased deep
use; projected increase in ocean acidification (Cao
ocean stratification will and Caldeira 2010)
reduce vertical nutrient
supply (Doney 2006)
Chemical Potential enhancement of Increased Changes for O2 loss in deep oceans, Some deposition Possible
environment anoxia on continental N2O the acidification in deep of dilute sulfuric increased
for shelves emissions ‘‘Control’’ oceans (Cao and Caldeira acid but small transport
ecosystems (Chan et al. 2008) case would 2010), N2O production relative to and
be mitigated (Law 2008) natural and deposition
to some anthropogenic of sea spray
extent sources to land
(Kravitz et al.
2009)

Afforestation Rotenberg and Yakir 2010). New forests will also emit
volatile organic compounds (VOCs), which increase CCN
Afforestation of ‘‘abandoned’’ land is suggested as a CDR concentrations and affect cloud formation (Spracklen et al.
geoengineering strategy that would remove carbon from 2008). The combined effects of afforestation on the
the atmosphere and store it either in the vegetation itself or hydrological balance, the surface albedo, and cloud prop-
as organic matter (decayed vegetation) in soils.10 In order erties can influence regional precipitation patterns and
to notably impact atmospheric CO2 concentration, affor- climatology, an area for which considerable new research
estation would have to be conducted on a very large scale is needed. Furthermore, nominally ‘‘abandoned’’ land may
and over a long term (e.g., Lenton 2010; Jackson and already be providing some services, such as esthetic con-
Salzman 2010). Tropical forests would likely accumulate tributions; so afforestation could result in the demand that
carbon the fastest given their long growing seasons (Sabine these services be displaced to other land, resulting in
et al. 2004). Impacts to ecosystem and ecosystem services unintended effects to that land. These socio-economic
will depend on the plant species involved, the degree to dimensions of the demands and diversity of ecosystem
which monocultures are used, the amount of fertilizer and services could be important and should be taken into
water needed to accelerate carbon capture, the storage account. Finally, the permanence of carbon removal by
necessary to meet targets, the previous use of the afforested afforestation is dependent on continued management of
land, and the latitude of the plantation (e.g., surface albedo afforested land to maintain the sequestration. Without a
impacts of boreal forests, Betts 2000). Afforestation is commitment to continued management, afforestation is
likely to cause changes in local and regional energy bal- effective as CDR only for a limited duration (*100 years).
ance and hydrology, soil chemistry and acidity, along with
impacts on soil carbon storage (e.g., Jackson et al. 2005; Engineered Carbon Capture and Storage

10 An engineered method for carbon capture with subsequent

We consider afforestation here as a CDR method, even though in
some circumstances it is also considered a mitigation method, e.g., geological storage could involve using chemical sorbent
avoided deforestation. materials to capture CO2 from the atmosphere (Lackner

 Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences 2012

[Link]/en 123
 358

123
Table 3 Impacts of Control, SRM, and CDR scenarios on ecosystem components
Control CDR examples SRM examples
Doubled atmospheric CO2 Afforestation Engineered carbon Ocean fertilization (ocean) Stratospheric aerosol injection Cloud albedo enhancement
(land) capture and storage (land/ocean) (ocean)
(underground)

Community Changes in biome distributions Reduced changes Changes for the Purposeful redistribution of Changes for the ‘‘Control’’ Changes for the ‘‘Control’’
structure and in land (tundra, Amazon, in biome ‘‘Control’’ case phytoplankton species (Boyd case would be mitigated to case would be mitigated to
taxonomic boreal, desertification) and distribution, would be et al. 2007). Short-term some extent: reduced some extent: more
diversity ocean (Boyd and Doney more forests mitigated to some (multi-week) changes in changes in biomes, biodiversity than base case;
2002; Boyd and Ellwood retained; extent: reduced phytoplankton, heterotrophic extinctions. Change in unknown effects on surface-
2010; Boyd et al. 2010) reallocation of changes in bacteria and higher trophic seasonality will impact ocean species distributions
ecosystems; increased land use (e.g., biomes, levels during bloom phenology, especially for (e.g., reduced light could
weediness; reduced from grassland to extinctions (permanent changes are near-freezing ecosystems favor phytoplankton that are
biodiversity; reduced sea ice forest) possible, with increased toxic adapted to lower light), but
causing polar bear extinction diatoms in some regions) likely smaller than the
(Durner 2009); ocean (Trick et al. 2010; Silver ‘‘Control’’ case
acidification; large effects on et al. 2010)
community structure in coral
reefs; uncertain effects on
calcifying plankton; effects

[Link]/en
will be different for different
species (Fabry et al. 2008)
Biomass and Benefits from warming: Increased forest Changes for the Purposeful increase in net Biomass and productivity will May be more biomass than
productivity increased biological biomass and ‘‘Control’’ case primary productivity and be stimulated by increased base case if global
productivity because of CO2 productivity would be phytoplankton biomass in diffuse radiation and synergy temperature is reduced, but

 Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences 2012

fertilization and water mitigated to some surface waters (Boyd et al. with high CO2 (reduction in intense cooling over small
efficiency, including extent, but 2004; Boyd et al. 2007); PAR will limit this effect); in ocean regions could change
increases in oceanic net localized changes increases could be either some places, productivity ocean productivity and
primary productivity (Saba in land use are sustained or transient, could be reduced by different circulation (e.g., El Nino and
et al. 2010); losses from likely in deserts depending on region and or exacerbated regional monsoon cycles), which
warming: sensitivity to amount of unused nutrients; drought could have detrimental
drought, possible transition changes on land for effects on land; changes in
of Amazon to tundra, ‘‘Control’’ case would be stratification, nutrient supply,
decreased productivity from mitigated sunlight
coastal changes in
hydrology, increased
vulnerability to wild fires
AMBIO 2012, 41:350–369
AMBIO 2012, 41:350–369 359

possible localized changes in

2003) or reacting CO2 with strong bases (Keith et al. 2006).

circulation and precipitation

changes in ocean cycling;
Stratospheric aerosol injection Cloud albedo enhancement
The captured CO2 must be recovered, transported, and

biogeochemical cycling;

ocean chemical cycling

changes in atmospheric
Cooler soil temperatures could Potentially high regional

deposition in rain; changes in could have large scale

placed in a site for underground geological storage (Elliott

impacts on terrestrial
et al. 2001; Lackner 2003; Keith et al. 2006). Geological
storage is envisaged to be similar to that used for Carbon
Capture and Storage (CCS) (IPCC 2005). The process has
substantial energy and water requirements that vary with
(ocean)

technique and exact design specifications (Socolow et al.

2011). In general, direct impacts of this method on eco-
atmospheric circulation and system resources (e.g., water) appear relatively small and
reduce nutrient turnover in
soils; reduced carbon loss;

terrestrial biogeochemical
precipitation could have are likely to be highly localized to the site of the capture
large scale impacts on
small change in sulfur

facility and the underground site of the storage facility,

unless there was a major requirement for minerals, water,
or materials.
SRM examples

(land/ocean)

cycling

Ocean Fertilization

Two proposed CDR methods for stimulating ocean bio-

logical removal of CO2 by fertilization have received the
re-mineralization of sinking
particles (Boyd et al. 2004)
(including CO2 uptake and

acceleration and enhanced

most attention. One relies on iron fertilization to alleviate

Engineered carbon Ocean fertilization (ocean)

trace gases, DMS, N2O);

cycling in surface layers
Increased biogeochemical

unknown extent of CO2

the iron limitation of phytoplankton growth. In this

drawdown; expected

approach, large inventories of unused nutrients in those

ocean regions that have High Nutrients but paradoxically
Low Chlorophyll (termed HNLC, Martin et al. 1990) are
used to stimulate phytoplankton growth, which will take up
CO2. The second approach involves nutrients like nitrate or
phosphate, which have a limited supply in surface waters.
mitigated to some

The underlying principle is to increase biological produc-

capture and storage

extent, including
‘‘Control’’ case

tivity as a means of increasing carbon export to deeper

Changes for the

restoration of
(underground)

imbalances

waters.
would be

possible

nutrient

Regions where these methods could be deployed are

large (basin scale) HNLC regions limited by iron avail-
ability, such as the Southern Ocean, and oligotrophic areas
that are limited by nitrate or phosphate availability (Boyd
Increased nitrogen deposition Increased nitrogen

et al. 2007). Adding nutrients could be accomplished by

CDR examples
Afforestation

deposition

surface enhancement (Matear and Elliott 2004) or

upwelling of deeper, more nutrient rich waters over large
(land)

swathes of the remaining (Low Nutrient Low Chlorophyll)

ocean (Karl and Letelier 2008; Shepherd et al. 2009). By
combustion (e.g., in Arctic);

altering both the biomass of phytoplankton and the species

decreased particulate export
coastal and to some extent

(Duce et al. 2008); overall

changing nutrient loads in
from continued fossil fuel

flux in open ocean (Bopp

Doubled atmospheric CO2

which will thrive, these interventions will necessarily alter

atmospheric deposition

food web structure and hence many other ecosystem

open oceans due to
eutrophication and

functions (Boyd et al. 2007).

et al. 2002)

Solar Radiation Management

Control

As SRM methods do not address increased atmospheric

CO2 concentrations, they will not reduce ocean acidificat-
Table 3 continued

Biogeochemical

ion or the effects of high CO2 concentrations on terrestrial

ecosystems (e.g., favoring woody over grassy plants).
cycling

However, their potentially rapid reduction of warming may

provide sufficient benefits in and of themselves to merit
consideration under some conceivable circumstances. Two

 Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences 2012

[Link]/en 123
 Table 4 Impacts of Control, SRM and CDR scenarios on ecosystem services
360

Control CDR examples SRM examples

123
Doubled atmospheric CO2 Afforestation Engineered Ocean fertilization (ocean) Stratospheric aerosol injection Cloud albedo enhancement
(land) carbon capture (land/ocean) (ocean)
and storage
(underground)

Supporting Mixed effects on ocean and land Increased Depends on Ocean nutrient robbing— Changes for the ‘‘Control’’ case Changes similar to the ‘‘Control’’
(net primary net primary productivity; forest causes materials localized increases in primary would be same for CO2, and case are expected for land net
productivity, indirect effects on soils; positive higher net needed for production but potential productivity would be enhanced primary productivity; enhanced
soil, nutrient effects from high CO2; mixed primary specific decreases far afield by increased diffuse radiation upwelling and nutrient supply
cycling) effects from increased productivity carbon (Gnanadesikan and Marinov may increase ocean net primary
temperature; negative effects capture 2008) productivity
from drought; reduced ocean technology
nutrient supply but could be
offset in some regions by
enhanced atmospheric nitrogen
deposition (Duce et al. 2008)
Provisioning Food supply is reduced by Competition Energy cost Possible enhancement of some Energy will be required for Energy is required; potential
(fuel, fiber, temperature increase and with food for for capturing fisheries due to increased aerosol delivery; otherwise fuel changes to fishery production in
food) drought, but partially offset by arable land and storing phytoplankton, but such carbon and fiber likely improved some regions (e.g., Peruvian
high CO2; ocean impacts are CO2 cycling through food web relative to ‘‘Control’’ case tuna fishery); possible increased
unclear but probably negative would reduce carbon productivity for upwelling-
for fisheries and shellfish (e.g., sequestration based fisheries
altered distribution of ‘fish

[Link]/en
food’ zooplankton in
Atlantic,Richardson and
Schoeman 2004)
Regulating Diminished capacity for carbon Increased Water will be Possible albedo increases from Cooler temperatures may increase May be better climate regulation
(climate sequestration; terrestrial water use required for enhanced DMS emissions; water availability due to lower than base case if global
regulation, biosphere is likely to become and changes capturing enhanced ocean capacity of temperature and less drought; temperature is reduced, but

 Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences 2012

water net carbon source; tundra source to water and storing CO2; potential production of increased ozone hole formation intense cooling over small
quality) of methane; change in water availability; CO2 N2O during re-mineralization from aerosol heterogeneous ocean regions could change
vapor distribution; freshwater trace gas (Law 2008); altered water chemistry, causing increased circulation (e.g., El Nino and
supply redistributed; higher O3 emissions quality (less nutrients, less O2 UV radiation damage to land- monsoon cycles), which could
exposure of plants; warming reduced and more acid) in mid and deep based biota impede climate regulation;
reduces ocean biological (Bopp water as well as column enhanced ocean upwelling
et al. 2002) and solubility could increase outgassing of
pumps CO2
Cultural Changes in biome distributions; Reduced Factories will Impacts on coastal fishing No blue sky; impeded Increased man-made structures in
(esthetics, loss of biodiversity and visual be visually communities; possible H2S astronomical observations ocean regions; possible reduced
educational, ecosystems, especially at high diversity unappealing production due to increased visibility at sea; similar to
spiritual) altitudes and latitudes; negative but likely to anoxic zones; increased arguments against offshore
impacts on coral and other impact small, acidification of deep ocean wind turbines
ecosystem-related tourism unpopulated biota (Cao and Caldeira 2010)
areas
AMBIO 2012, 41:350–369
AMBIO 2012, 41:350–369 361

SRM methods, commonly thought to be among the more gross primary productivity reaches a maximum at a diffuse
feasible, are considered here, stratospheric aerosol injec- fraction of 0.4, after which it decreases due to a reduction
tion and cloud albedo enhancement. in the total PAR. In the absence of deliberate aerosol
injection associated with SRM, a decline in aerosols before
Stratospheric Aerosol Injection atmospheric CO2 is stabilized will mean the effect of dif-
fuse radiation on photosynthesis will decline to near zero
Injecting sulfate (or other) aerosols into the lower strato- by the end of the 21st century (Mercado et al. 2009).
sphere would induce a cooling, similar to that observed in Analyses of the effects of SRM on oceanic photosyn-
response to the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo in June 1991 thesis by phytoplankton have not been made, but oceanic
(Stenchikov et al. 1998; Soden et al. 2002; Crutzen 2006; photosynthesis depends on downward directed or ‘‘down-
Rasch et al. 2008). This cooling is a result of the aerosols’ welling’’ PAR. In many marine ecosystems, there is a deep
reflecting sunlight away from the planet. However, parti- chlorophyll maximum where upwelling nutrients rise high
cles from volcanic eruptions do not represent an exact enough so that there is sufficient light to drive net photo-
analog for the particles proposed for use in geoengineering, synthesis. A reduction in PAR and a shift from direct to
particularly because the latter will have different sizes, diffuse radiation may shift this deep chlorophyll maximum
concentrations, and lifetimes and because their continued with as yet unknown consequences for marine ecosystems.
use will result in a larger widespread change in the
stratosphere that is unlikely to scale linearly from the iso-
Cloud Albedo Enhancement
lated perturbations of volcanoes. But maintaining the
concentrations necessary to continuously reduce tempera-
The principle behind this geoengineering intervention is to
tures would require regular aerosol or precursor gas
increase the reflectivity of low-level maritime clouds by
injections.
generating CCN (Latham 1990; Latham 2002). As an
Sulfate aerosol geoengineering could lead to unwanted
example, sea salt could be sprayed into the marine
side effects such as changes in precipitation and ozone
boundary layer using specifically designed vessels (Salter
depletion in heterogeneous chemical reactions (Trenberth
et al. 2008). Three remote marine areas are identified as
and Dai 2007; Robock et al. 2008; Rasch et al. 2008,
having suitable atmospheric conditions for such enhance-
Tilmes et al. 2008). The increased acidification from sul-
ment: North East Pacific, South East Pacific, and South
fate additions appears to be a small contribution to acid
East Atlantic Oceans (Latham et al. 2008). Currently, little
rain, with the quantities of sulfur likely less than 10% of
to no research has been done on the potential impact of this
global deposition (Kravitz et al. 2009). A large increase in
surface cooling and light reduction on marine ecosystems.
total stratospheric sulfate can lead to significant ozone
To achieve a sufficient reduction in global annual mean
depletion (Tilmes et al. 2008). The impact of this ozone
temperature, this strategy requires significant localized
depletion on the amount of UVB light reaching the surface
cooling in these regions. This strong regional cooling has
(with a consequent effect on ecosystem function) is as yet
been shown in some modeling studies to perturb mesoscale
unknown because stratospheric aerosols also attenuate light
atmospheric-oceanic systems, such as the West African
in this part of the energy spectrum (Rasch et al. 2008).
Monsoon and the El Niño Southern Oscillation, although
The efficiency of carbon fixation by the forest canopy is
the results are inconsistent across the different studies
increased when the light is distributed more uniformly
(Latham et al. 2008; Jones et al. 2009; Rasch et al. 2009).
throughout the canopy, as occurs with diffuse light. Diffuse
Biological effects have not yet been estimated but could
light penetrates the upper canopy more effectively than
presumably be significant. These atmospheric and oceanic
direct-beam radiation, because direct light saturates upper
perturbations may in turn have significant terrestrial eco-
sunlit leaves but shades lower leaves. The primary effect of
system impacts, especially through changes to regional
injecting of sulfate aerosols into the stratosphere is to
precipitation regimes. Uncertainties related to changes in
scatter light, and this will increase the fraction of light
‘downwelling’ PAR apply to this type of SRM as well.
reaching Earth’s surface that is diffuse. Hence, it has been
suggested that the (small) reduction in total photosynthet-
ically active radiation (PAR) would reduce terrestrial pro- Additional Considerations
ductivity less than the increase due to increased efficiency
resulting from the increase in diffuse radiation. Such may SRM Novel Environment
have been the case following the Mt. Pinatubo eruption (Gu
et al. 2003) and during the ‘‘global dimming period’’ Given the evidence now available from climate modeling
(1950–1980) (Mercado et al. 2009). A sensitivity analysis simulations, implementing SRM methods would produce
carried out for the broadleaf forest shows that simulated smaller temperature and precipitation changes from

 Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences 2012

[Link]/en 123
362 AMBIO 2012, 41:350–369

today’s Earth than if greenhouse gas emissions continued occurred; much larger anomalies could result from a
unchecked (Shepherd et al. 2009). If these simulations are sudden cessation of SRM.11
accurate (Ricke et al. 2010) and if SRM is undertaken and
sustained for decades at a level chosen to roughly offset Ocean Acidification
growing greenhouse gas forcing, the ecosystem impacts of
SRM might be more modest than the impacts arising from Ongoing ocean acidification is a result of rising atmo-
climate change without SRM. However, these simulations spheric levels of carbon dioxide (Shepherd et al. 2009) and
are uncertain, especially because the combinations of would realize very different effects from any large scale
changes in an SRM-altered world—more diffuse light, adoption of either CDR or SRM or strategies. If the world,
altered precipitation patterns, very high CO2 concentra- or some major emitting states, were to adopt SRM as the
tions—are unlike any historically known combination that primary strategy for addressing climate change, rising
today’s species and ecosystems have ever faced and to atmospheric levels of CO2 could be more likely to continue
which they have become adapted. Presently, we have low unchecked. In this event, ongoing ocean acidification, and
confidence in our ability to predict the ecological conse- the large impacts likely on ocean ecosystems (Fabry et al.
quences to such an unknown combination of climatic 2008), would also go unchecked. In contrast, any CDR
variables and in our ability to predict surprises arising strategy that slows or reverses the rise in atmospheric CO2
from the deployment of SRM, especially given the rather levels would help to slow or even reverse the process of
short transition times that may be involved with both ocean acidification.
initiation and termination. Until a few years ago, the ecological consequences of
ocean acidification had received very little research atten-
tion (Doney et al. 2009). Possible impacts of ocean acidi-
SRM Termination Problem fication may include both reduced calcification and
enhanced dissolution of the shelled organisms that consti-
SRM will provide cooling only as long as it is continually tute significant links in ocean foodwebs (Raven et al.
renewed. If SRM is undertaken for many decades with its 2005). Should significant levels of SRM be undertaken
forcing increasing to offset rising greenhouse gas levels, without being accompanied by a comparably major effort
then cessation of SRM will result in very rapid warming to limit ocean acidification, substantial impacts on the
(Wigley 2006; Matthews and Caldeira 2007), and large and ocean would result.
rapid changes in circulatory patterns and precipitation While it is not the focus of this study, in principle it
would likely occur. Such rapid changes would almost would be possible to engage in a form of geoengineering
certainly have very large harmful impacts on ecosystems. designed to regulate the pH of the oceans (e.g., alkalinity
Ecosystem responses to such rapid warming would be addition methods by oceanic ‘‘enhanced weathering’’ or
expected to be much more severe than the response of the ‘‘liming the oceans’’)12 (Rau and Caldeira 2002; Rau
biota to the more gradual warming that has already 2011). The amount (mass) of minerals that would have to
resulted—and will result in the future—from the ongoing be moved to do this makes it expensive and therefore
gradual increase in greenhouse gas concentrations. With unlikely to be attractive as a global strategy in the near
no time for species and communities to adapt, many future. But some local ‘‘preservation’’ of unique or valu-
microbial organisms, plants, animals, and their interac- able ecosystems, such as specific coral reefs or aquaculture
tions could be affected, altering community structure, sites, might be feasible as a last resort.
biogeochemical cycles, carbon and nutrient losses from
soil, and fire risk. Very rapid warming could also cause
accelerated thawing of permafrost. As an example of an PART 2: UNCERTAINTIES IN DETECTION
even more sudden warming (over the time scale of days AND ATTRIBUTION
rather than the months for SRM termination), Europe
experienced an extraordinarily hot summer in 2003, Climate variability and anthropogenic climate change are
resulting in 40 000 extra deaths in the region during that already altering both ocean and terrestrial ecosystem
period. July’s temperature was 6 C above the long-term dynamics on a global scale (Boyd and Doney 2002;
average, and annual precipitation was 50% below aver-
age. The resulting drought-induced reduction of gross
11
primary productivity by 30% produced a strong anoma- CDR methods do not have this so-called ‘‘termination problem’’
(unless storage proves unstable), since any reduction of GHG
lous net source of CO2 to the atmosphere, reversing concentrations is necessarily gradual and essentially permanent, and
4 years of ecosystem-driven net carbon sequestration this can be regarded as a major advantage of this class of methods.
(Ciais et al. 2005). Note also that significant crop failures 12
See note 3.

 Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences 2012

123 [Link]/en
AMBIO 2012, 41:350–369 363

Parmesan and Yohe 2003). But detecting and attributing on the order of 10 km in size) geoengineering field
the relative contributions of natural climate variability and experiments, as we do not have a strong a priori basis for
climate change to altering ecosystem dynamics is chal- knowing all the potential consequences of geoengineering
lenging (Doney 2010). Likewise, detecting and quantifying experiments or even for predicting whether they will yield
the impact of individual (or multiple) geoengineering results that can be easily interpreted. The potential for
activities on ecology would be difficult, whether these are unanticipated environmental or ecological responses (e.g.,
research experiments or potential future deployments of toxic phytoplankton blooms, Trick et al. 2010) from such
CDR and SRM (Boyd 2009). Scholars and international experiments, in addition to the risk of failure of the CDR or
groups are already beginning to discuss questions of gov- SRM method, must be acknowledged.
ernance (e.g., Blackstock and Long 2010) and liability
potential associated with loss of ecosystem services or
Observational Records and Process Studies
alterations to ecosystem structure after an experiment or
future deployment. Such questions would also require
Many CDR and SRM methods are intrinsically very large
distinguishing the relative role of natural (climate vari-
scale or global in their application and impacts and so
ability) and anthropogenic (climate change, CDR, SRM)
cannot be studied without a clear baseline observational
alterations to ecosystem structure (Boyd 2009; Blackstock
record before beginning intervention (Law 2008). Base-
and Long 2010). Research into such detection and attri-
lines and coordinated process studies are also critical to
bution will need to play a central role in any overall
be able to explicitly attribute the changes detected to
research strategy to understand the ecological impacts of
specific causes. However, given the longevity (decades)
geoengineering.
or spatial extent (ocean basin scale or large part of the
stratosphere) of some CDR and SRM methods, defining a
baseline is difficult, as ideally it would include a long-
PART 3: PRELIMINARY RESEARCH PLAN
term, spatially resolved record of Earth’s ecosystems
(Keller et al. 2008).
Given the clear need to better assess the potential impacts
of proposed geoengineering schemes on ecosystems, we
discuss here the salient features of a research plan. Numerical Models and Experiments

Framing the Question Ecologists need to define the key processes, space and time
scales, and state variables required to study the impacts of
To assess the ecosystem impacts of CDR and SRM, the CDR and SRM methods. Specifically, distinguishing sen-
focus needs close coordination between the design of the sitivity and adaptability to rates and to types of environ-
perturbation itself (the emulation of the CDR or SRM mental change will increase the utility of analyses (Dawson
method) and the design of the research on its impacts on et al. 2011). Specifically, the types of ecological models
the ecosystem. It is important to carefully design the that need to be used must be clearly defined, as well as the
locations and durations of CDR and SRM studies to ensure models and model experiments (e.g., simulated CDR and
that the responses of the ecosystems and their time scales SRM impacts) used in the design of observing systems and
of response are captured, including both the intentional experiments. It is likely that data assimilation approaches
perturbation as well as any associated side effects (whether will also be required (Raupach et al. 2005; Watson et al.
anticipated or unanticipated). This is also true if natural 2008). Coupled feedbacks between ecosystems and climate
perturbations are to be studied (such as volcanic eruptions), could also be important, particularly over time scales of
since the responses may occur over longer times than the decades, and should be investigated using advanced Earth
observed disturbance. Particular attention needs to be paid system models (Arneth et al. 2010; Carslaw et al. 2010).
to the large uncertainties associated with the desired
effects, as well as the side effects associated with the Experiments: Analog and Field
proposed techniques. Selecting a baseline reference set of
observations with which to compare the outcomes of the Analog exercises (e.g., laboratory-scale experiments that
perturbation is also a problematic issue. In addition, many capture key features of proposed geoengineering approa-
geoengineering concepts couple effects in marine, terres- ches) can be extremely valuable, especially when key
trial, and atmospheric systems, thus requiring that these features of the system and its feedbacks and interactions
domains be studied together. can be modeled, while greatly compressing the time and
Scientists and funding agencies should be prepared to be spatial scales required. Such experiments (e.g., the effects
cautious and judicious in designing even small-scale (i.e., of elevated CO2 or increased temperature on plant growth),

 Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences 2012

[Link]/en 123
364 AMBIO 2012, 41:350–369

while idealized, can lead to developing hypotheses for Integration

further exploration using full-scale experiments, numerical
simulations, and observations. Analog experiments can An integrated approach to experimental design and execu-
provide evidence of sensitivity to rates of change and can tion, observations, and modeling is needed to study the
be used in experiments that examine unnatural worlds (i.e., impacts of CDR and SRM methods. Experiments are needed
worlds with combinations of variables that do not, or not to provide insight into how organisms and ecosystems
yet, exist on Earth. respond to perturbations of current environmental condi-
Field experiments that use either direct manipulation or tions. Observations are needed to detect consequences of
take advantage of natural perturbations (such as volcanic CDR and SRM and determine whether anticipated or unan-
eruptions (Hamme et al. 2010), or large scale dust depo- ticipated effects occur. Models are needed to integrate
sition to the oceans) are critical for exploring the geoen- observations, and to explore consequences at time and space
gineering impacts on ecosystems. Field experiments using scales that cannot be addressed with experiments.
direct manipulation should be preceded by risk assessments We have outlined some but likely not all of the com-
and numerical modeling. To fully exploit such experi- ponents and strategies important for a geoengineering
ments, coupled physical, chemical, optical, and biological research agenda. Workshops dedicated to addressing
measurements need to be made, which would be carefully important questions may be needed to elucidate specific
designed by experts in each area working in close coop- goals, including:
eration (Watson 2008). A large suite of skills (and possibly
(1) To design experiments that examine the ecological
international funding sources) will be required to design
consequences of an engineered planet (e.g., cool, but
effective CDR and SRM experiments. However, not all
with high CO2);
experiments need to be large to be useful. For example,
(2) To define the baseline observations necessary for
relatively small (but sustained) field experiments could be
interpreting results of CDR and SRM experiments;
designed to study the effects of an increase in diffuse
(3) To define the types of models necessary to address
sunlight (such as might occur with some SRM schemes) on
ecological impacts of CDR and SRM (in particular,
various terrestrial ecosystems. These local environmental
ecologists need to define the key processes, scales,
studies might be performed without any introduction of
state variables, and sensitivities to rates of change for
stratospheric aerosols or cloud seeding. For example,
modeling ecological impacts); and
translucent plastic sheeting might be used to increase the
(4) To define the models and analyses necessary for
amount of light that reaches a forest canopy diffusely.
comparing geoengineered and non-geoengineered
Due to their inherent complexity, experiments that are
worlds.
intended to provide information for evaluating geoengi-
neering proposals should be included as an integral part of
the design process, to optimize their location, spatial scale,
duration, and sampling strategy. During and after an PART 4: CONCLUSIONS
experiment, comparisons should be made between models AND RECOMMENDATIONS
and observations for mid-course correction to forecasts
(Watson et al. 2008) and to identify model errors diag- From our synthesis of what is currently known about pro-
nostic of unknown or uncertain processes. In addition, posed CDR and SRM methods and their potential impacts
comparing measurements and model outputs are vital for on ecosystems, we offer the following conclusions and
extrapolating results in space and time. recommendations.
An international approach is required to address the
scale and potential policy importance of CDR and SRM Conclusions
field studies. Leadership by international science organi-
zations will be needed to design experiments that can be Although relatively little is presently known about the
executed at large scales, have minimal impacts, and pro- effects of CDR and SRM geoengineering methods on
duce results that are credible to the many nations involved. ecosystems, it is clear that different geoengineering strat-
Indeed, CDR and SRM experiments may be so large and egies will bring about different ecological impacts.
may have sufficient trans-boundary environmental impact Regardless of whether geoengineering methods were tar-
(Boyd 2009) that international governance may be required geted at a particular ecosystem (e.g., ocean iron fertiliza-
sooner rather than later. Societal perspectives and upstream tion) or designed to affect Earth’s energy balance directly
engagement of stakeholder constituencies should also be (e.g., SRM), there would likely be inadvertent effects on
incorporated in future experimental design (Parkhill and the targeted ecosystem as well as on ecosystems not spe-
Pidgeon 2011). cifically targeted. And even if geoengineering strategies are

 Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences 2012

123 [Link]/en
AMBIO 2012, 41:350–369 365

designed to address local to regional impacts of climate field, and modeling research in conditions representative of
change, global consequences might result as well. the changing climate, both with and without CDR and
In addition, we note that: SRM, if they are to provide an improved baseline and basis
for evaluating possible future impacts. International coop-
• Research on the possible ecological impacts of SRM
eration in the design and execution of CDR and SRM
and CDR will be important before large-scale (i.e., on
research programs would be highly desirable.
the order of 100 km in size) implementation is
In addition, we recommend specifically that
evaluated, since geoengineering may produce new
environments that differ from those existing in the 1. Research into the impacts of CDR and SRM on
present or that occur in a non-geoengineered future. ecosystems and ecosystem services, would benefit
This research could complement studies on the ecosys- from multi- and inter-disciplinary research incorporat-
tem impacts of climate change that are needed and ing physical, biological and social disciplines to ensure
those already underway, as well as contribute to other detailed study of all relevant aspects of each CDR or
aspects of mainstream ecological research. SRM technique and its ecological impacts.
• The effects of CDR and SRM methods undertaken to 2. Geoengineering-related ecological research should
moderate climate change are uncertain for ecosystems
a. be integrated with mainstream and climate change
and their biodiversity. These effects may be smaller or
related research programs wherever possible and
less severe than the effects of unmitigated climate
b. include efforts to study novel environments that
change in some cases but would require the initiation of
may be created as a result of possible geoengi-
targeted research to identify the most promising
neering interventions, which may include careful
approaches and locations and to reduce uncertainties.
perturbation experiments.
• Some CDR and SRM methods may alter key features of
the climate system such as the location of the inter- 3. Careful thought needs to be given to research,
tropical convergence zone or oceanic upwelling sys- especially to field experiments. Although caution
tems with consequent effects on ecosystems and needs to be exercised for geoengineering-related
biodiversity. Though these multi-link chains of coupled research, a broad moratorium on experiments that are
physical-biological impacts are highly uncertain, they small relative to the scale of ongoing human activities
can be extremely influential (Wang and Schimel 2003). is not recommended as it could impede the discovery
• If SRM was undertaken without concomitant attention of solutions to climate change related problems
to increases in atmospheric CO2, ocean acidification through the advancement of knowledge of the Earth
(and effects of CO2 on terrestrial ecosystems) would system. A system of governance is needed for
remain a concern. If SRM was pursued, then ended experiments that could have substantial or trans-
abruptly, all ecosystems would sustain large and rapid boundary ecological or other impacts that would be
changes in temperature and other climate variables, likely to have impacts exceeding those of ongoing
creating impacts that are likely to be more severe than commercial and agricultural activities. Any such
current (slower) warming scenarios. regulatory system needs to take into account the
• Ecological research may produce results indicating that appropriate expert guidance necessary for relevant
some or all proposed geoengineering approaches would experiments.13
have large and unacceptable ecosystem consequences.
Societal decisions related to geoengineering will require
Therefore, support for a research program should not be
input from a broad range of social and physical sciences,
interpreted as support for development of specific
and include considerations of an even broader range of
geoengineering technologies. Rather, support for a
social, ethical, and political factors. One of the factors that
research program is based on the assumption that good
should affect these decisions is a careful evaluation of
policy decisions depend on good science.
ecosystem impacts, including an assessment of uncertain-
ties and the likelihood of unanticipated outcomes. With
Recommendations (for Research) well-designed research efforts, ecosystems scientists can
help provide this much-needed information.
Given the current large uncertainties, research on ecosys-
tem impacts is needed to provide the knowledge on which
13
to base informed decisions on CDR and SRM. Current The efforts already being made through the Solar Radiation
Management Governance Initiative (of the Royal Society, the Third
knowledge of existing biodiversity and ecosystem structure
World Academy of Science, and the Environmental Defense Fund)
and function is inadequate and must be improved by and through the London Convention for ocean fertilization will
undertaking major coordinated programs of laboratory, contribute to the development of necessary systems and norms.

 Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences 2012

[Link]/en 123
366 AMBIO 2012, 41:350–369

Acknowledgments The authors gratefully acknowledge financial Cunningham, S.A., T. Kanzow, D. Rayner, M.O. Baringer, W.E.
support from the U.S. National Science Foundation grant AGS1111205 Johns, J. Marotzke, H.R. Longworth, E.M. Grant, et al. 2007.
and the U.K. Natural Environment Research Council, as well as seed Temporal variability of the Atlantic meridional overturning
funding and outreach support from the International Geosphere-Bio- circulation at 26.5 degrees N. Science 317: 935–938. doi:
sphere Program. We also gratefully acknowledge workshop partici- 10.1126/science.1141304.
pation from Richard Norris, Richard Somerville, Susan Hassol, Kathy Dawson, T.P., S.T. Jackson, J.I. House, I.C. Prentice, and G.M. Mace.
Barbeau, Luis Gylvan, Phil Ineson, Ninad Bondre, Ben Kravitz, 2011. Beyond predictions: Biodiversity conservation in a
Spencer Hill, Lili Xia, Robin Stevens, and Anita Johnson. changing climate. Science 332: 53–58.
de Baar, H.J.W., P.W. Boyd, K.H. Coale, M.R. Landry, A. Tsuda, P.
Assmy, D.C.E. Bakker, Y. Bozec, et al. 2005. Synthesis of iron
fertilization experiments: From the Iron Age in the age of
REFERENCES
enlightenment. Journal of Geophysical Research-Oceans 110:
1–24. doi:10.1029/2004jc002601.
Arneth, A., S.P. Harrison, S. Zaehle, K. Tsigaridis, S. Menon, B.J. Doney, S.C. 1996. A synoptic atmospheric surface forcing data set
Bartlein, J. Feichter, A. Korhola, et al. 2010. Terrestrial and physical upper ocean model for the U.S. JGOFS Bermuda
biogeochemical feedbacks in the climate system. Nature Geo- Atlantic Time-Series Study site. Journal of Geophysical
science 3: 525–532. doi:10.1038/ngeo935. Research-Oceans 101: 25615–25634.
Betts, R.A. 2000. Offset of the potential carbon sink from boreal Doney, S.C. 2006. Oceanography—plankton in a warmer world.
forestation by decreases in surface albedo. Nature 408: 187–190. Nature 444: 695–696. doi:10.1038/444695a.
Blackstock, J.J., and J.C.S. Long. 2010. The politics of geoengineer- Doney, S.C., V.J. Fabry, R.A. Feely, and J.A. Kleypas. 2009.
ing. Science 327: 527. Ocean acidification: The other Co2 problem. Annual Review of
Bopp, L., C. Le Quere, M. Heimann, A.C. Manning, and P. Monfray. Marine Science 1: 169–192. doi:10.1146/[Link].0109
2002. Climate-induced oceanic oxygen fluxes: Implications for 08.163834.
the contemporary carbon budget. Global Biogeochemical Cycles Doney, S.C. 2010. The growing human footprint on coastal and open-
16. doi:10.1029/2001gb001445. ocean biogeochemistry. Science 328: 1512–1516. doi:10.1126/
Boyd, P.W., and S.C. Doney. 2002. Modelling regional responses by science.1185198.
marine pelagic ecosystems to global climate change. Geophys- Dooley, J.J., and K.V. Calvin. 2011. Temporal and spatial deployment
ical Research Letters 29: 53-1–53-4. 10.1029/2001gl014130. of carbon dioxide capture and storage technologies across the
Boyd, P.W., C.S. Law, C.S. Wong, Y. Nojiri, A. Tsuda, M. representative concentration pathways. Energy Procedia 4:
Levasseur, S. Takeda, R. Rivkin, et al. 2004. The decline and 5845–5852.
fate of an iron-induced subarctic phytoplankton bloom. Nature Duce, R.A., J. LaRoche, K. Altieri, K.R. Arrigo, A.R. Baker, D.G.
428: 549–553. doi:10.1038/nature02437. Capone, S. Cornell, F. Dentener, et al. 2008. Impacts of
Boyd, P.W., T. Jickells, C.S. Law, S. Blain, E.A. Boyle, K.O. atmospheric anthropogenic nitrogen on the open ocean. Science
Buesseler, K.H. Coale, J.J. Cullen, et al. 2007. Mesoscale iron 320: 893–897. doi:10.1126/science.1150369.
enrichment experiments 1993–2005: Synthesis and future direc- Durner, G.M., et al. 2009. Predicting 21st-century polar bear habitat
tions. Science 315: 612–617. doi:10.1126/science.1131669. distribution from global climate models. Ecological Monographs
Boyd, P.W. 2008. Ranking geo-engineering schemes. Nature Geo- 79: 25–58.
science 1: 722–724. doi:10.1038/ngeo348. Elliott, S., K.S. Lackner, H.J. Ziock, M.K. Dubey, H.P. Hanson, S.
Boyd, P.W. 2009. Geopolitics of geoengineering. Nature Geoscience Barr, N.A. Ciszkowski, and D.R. Blake. 2001. Compensation of
2: 812. doi:10.1038/ngeo710. atmospheric CO2 buildup through engineered chemical sinkage.
Boyd, P.W., and M.J. Ellwood. 2010. The biogeochemical cycle of Geophysical Research Letters 28: 1235–1238.
iron in the ocean. Nature Geoscience 3: 675–682. doi:10.1038/ Fabry, V.J., B.A. Seibel, R.A. Feely, and J.C. Orr. 2008. Impacts of
ngeo964. ocean acidification on marine fauna and ecosystem processes.
Boyd, P.W., D.S. Mackie, and K.A. Hunter. 2010. Aerosol iron ICES Journal of Marine Science 65: 414–432. doi:10.1093/
deposition to the surface ocean—modes of iron supply and icesjms/fsn048.
biological responses. Marine Chemistry 120: 128–143. doi: Field, C.B., M.J. Behrenfeld, J.T. Randerson, and P. Falkowski. 1998.
10.1016/[Link].2009.01.008. Primary production of the biosphere: Integrating terrestrial and
Cao, L., and K. Caldeira. 2010. Can ocean iron fertilization mitigate oceanic components. Science 281: 237–240.
ocean acidification? Climatic Change 99: 303–311. doi: Field, C.B., D.B. Lobell, H.A. Peters, and N.R. Chiariello. 2007.
10.1007/s10584-010-9799-4. Feedbacks of terrestrial ecosystems to climate change. Annual
Carslaw, K.S., O. Boucher, D.V. Spracklen, G.W. Mann, J.G.L. Rae, Review of Environment and Resources 32: 1–29. doi:10.1146/
S. Woodward, and M. Kulmala. 2010. A review of natural [Link].32.053006.141119.
aerosol interactions and feedbacks within the Earth system. Gnanadesikan, A., J.L. Sarmiento, and R.D. Slater. 2003. Effects of
Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics 10: 701–1737. patchy ocean fertilization on atmospheric carbon dioxide and
Chan, F., J.A. Barth, J. Lubchenco, A. Kirincich, H. Weeks, W.T. biological production. Global Biogeochemical Cycles 17: 1050.
Peterson, and B.A. Menge. 2008. Emergence of anoxia in the doi:10.1029/2002gb001940.
California current large marine ecosystem. Science 319: 920. Gnanadesikan, A., and I. Marinov. 2008. Export is not enough:
doi:10.1126/science.1149016. Nutrient cycling and carbon sequestration. Marine Ecology-
Ciais, P., M. Reichstein, N. Viovy, A. Granier, J. Ogee, V. Allard, M. Progress Series 364: 289–294. doi:10.3354/meps07550.
Aubinet, N. Buchmann, et al. 2005. Europe-wide reduction in Gnanadesikan, A., K. Emanuel, G.A. Vecchi, W.G. Anderson, and R.
primary productivity caused by the heat and drought in 2003. Hallberg. 2010. How ocean color can steer pacific tropical
Nature 437: 529–533. doi:10.1038/nature03972. cyclones. Geophysical Research Letters 37: L18802. doi:
Crutzen, P.J. 2006. Albedo enhancement by stratospheric sulfur 10.1029/2010gl044514.
injections: A contribution to resolve a policy dilemma? Climatic Gu, L.H., D.D. Baldocchi, S.C. Wofsy, J.W. Munger, J.J. Michalsky,
Change 77: 211–219. doi:10.1007/s10584-006-9101-y. S.P. Urbanski, and T.A. Boden. 2003. Response of a deciduous

 Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences 2012

123 [Link]/en
AMBIO 2012, 41:350–369 367

forest to the Mount Pinatubo eruption: Enhanced photosynthesis. Society A-Mathematical Physical and Engineering Sciences
Science 299: 2035–2038. 366: 3969–3987. doi:10.1098/rsta.2008.0137.
Hamme, R.C., P.W. Webley, W.R. Crawford, F.A. Whitney, M.D. Law, C.S. 2008. Predicting and monitoring the effects of large-scale
DeGrandpre, S.R. Emerson, C.C. Eriksen, K.E. Giesbrecht, et al. ocean iron fertilization on marine trace gas emissions. Marine
2010. Volcanic ash fuels anomalous plankton bloom in subarctic Ecology-Progress Series 364: 283–288. doi:10.3354/meps07549.
northeast pacific. Geophysical Research Letters 37: 1–5. doi: Lenton, T.M., and N.E. Vaughan. 2009. The radiative forcing
10.1029/2010gl044629. potential of different climate geoengineering options. Atmo-
Hoegh-Guldberg, O., and J.F. Bruno. 2010. The impact of climate spheric Chemistry and Physics 9: 5539–5561.
change on the world’s marine ecosystems. Science 328: Lenton, T.M. 2010. The potential for land-based biological CO2
1523–1528. doi:10.1126/science.1189930. removal to lower future atmospheric CO2 concentration. Carbon
IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 2005. Special Management 1: 145–160.
report on carbon dioxide capture and storage. Prepared by MacCracken, M.C. 2009. On the possible use of geoengineering to
Working Group III, ed. B. Metz, O.D., H.C. De Coninck, M. moderate specific climate change impacts. Environmental
Loos, and L.A. Meyer. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Research Letters 045107: 045114. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/4/4/
IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 2007a. Climate 045107.
change 2007: The physical science basis. Contribution of Manizza, M., M.J. Follows, S. Dutkiewicz, J.W. McClelland, D.
Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report, ed. Menemenlis, C.N. Hill, A. Townsend-Small, and B.J. Peterson.
S. Solomon, D.Q., M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. 2009. Modeling transport and fate of riverine dissolved organic
Avery, M. Tignor, and H.L. Miller. Cambridge: Cambridge carbon in the Arctic Ocean. Global Biogeochemical Cycles 23.
University Press. doi:10.1029/2008gb003396.
IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 2007b. Climate Martin, J.H., R.M. Gordon, and S.E. Fitzwater. 1990. Iron in antarctic
change 2007: Impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. Contribution waters. Nature 345: 156–158.
of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report, ed. M.L. Matear, R.J., and B. Elliott. 2004. Enhancement of oceanic uptake of
Parry, O.F.C., J.P. Palutikof, P.J. Van Der Linden, and C.E. anthropogenic CO2 by macronutrient fertilization. Journal of
Hanson. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Geophysical Research-Oceans 109. doi:10.1029/2000jc000321.
Jackson, R.B., E.G. Jobbagy, R. Avissar, S.B. Roy, D.J. Barrett, C.W. Matthews, H.D., and K. Caldeira. 2007. Transient climate-carbon
Cook, K.A. Farley, D.C. le Maitre, et al. 2005. Trading water for simulations of planetary geoengineering. Proceedings of the
carbon with biological sequestration. Science 310: 1944–1947. National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
doi:10.1126/science.1119282. 104: 9949–9954.
Jackson, R.B., and J. Salzman. 2010. Pursuing geoengineering for MEA (Millenium Ecosystem Assessment). 2005. Ecosystems and
atmospheric restoration. Issues in Science and Technology 26: human well-being: Synthesis. Washington: Island Press.
67–76. Melillo, J.M., P.A. Steudler, J.D. Aber, K. Newkirk, H. Lux, F.P.
Jin, X., N. Gruber, H. Frenzel, S.C. Doney, and J.C. McWilliams. Bowles, C. Catricala, A. Magill, et al. 2002. Soil warming and
2008. The impact on atmospheric CO2 of iron fertilization carbon-cycle feedbacks to the climate system. Science 298:
induced changes in the ocean’s biological pump. Biogeosciences 2173–2176.
5: 385–406. Mercado, L.M., N. Bellouin, S. Sitch, O. Boucher, C. Huntingford, M.
Jones, A., J. Haywood, and O. Boucher. 2009. Climate impacts of Wild, and P.M. Cox. 2009. Impact of changes in diffuse
geoengineering marine stratocumulus clouds. Journal of Geo- radiation on the global land carbon sink. Nature 458: 1014–1017.
physical Research-Atmospheres 114: 1–9. doi:10.1029/2008jd0 doi:10.1038/nature07949.
11450. Mooney, H., A. Larigauderie, M. Cesario, T. Elmquist, O. Hoegh-
Karl, D., and R. Letelier. 2008. Nitrogen fixation-enhanced carbon Guldberg, S. Lavorel, G.M. Mace, M. Palmer, et al. 2009.
sequestration in low nitrate, low chlorophyll seascapes. Marine Biodiversity, climate change, and ecosystem services. Current
Ecology-Progress Series 364: 257–268. doi:10.3354/meps07547. Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 1: 46–54. doi:10.1016/
Keith, D.W., M. Ha-Duong, and J.K. Stolaroff. 2006. Climate strategy [Link].2009.07.006.
with CO2 capture from the air. Climatic Change 74: 17–45. doi: Moore, J.C., S. Jevrejeva, and A. Grinsted. 2010. Efficacy of
10.1007/s10584-005-9026-x. geoengineering to limit 21st century sea-level rise. Proceedings
Keller, M., D.S. Schimel, W.W. Hargrove, and F.M. Hoffman. 2008. of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of
A continental strategy for the national ecological observatory America 107: 15699–15703. doi:10.1073/pnas.1008153107.
network. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 6: 282–284. Norby, R.J., J.M. Warren, C.M. Iversen, B.E. Medlyn, and R.E.
Kravitz, B., A. Robock, L. Oman, G. Stenchikov, and A.B. McMurtrie. 2010. CO2 enhancement of forest productivity
Marquardt. 2009. Sulfuric acid deposition from stratospheric constrained by limited nitrogen availability. Proceedings of the
geoengineering with sulfate aerosols. Journal of Geophysical National academy of Sciences of the United States of America
Research-Atmospheres 114: D14109. doi:10.1029/2009jd01 107: 19368–19373. doi:10.1073/pnas.1006463107.
1918. Parkhill, K.A., and N.F. Pidgeon. 2011. Public engagement on
Lackner, K.S. 2003. A guide to CO2 sequestration. Science 300: geoengineering research: Preliminary report on the SPICE
1677–1678. deliberative workshops. Technical Report (Understanding Risk
Latham, J. 1990. Control of global warming. Nature 347: 339–340. Group Working Paper, 11-01). Cardiff: School of Psychology,
Latham, J. 2002. Amelioration of global warming by controlled Cardiff University.
enhancement of the albedo and longevity of low-level maritime Parmesan, C., and G. Yohe. 2003. A globally coherent fingerprint of
clouds. Atmospheric Science Letters 3: 52–58. doi:10.1006/ climate change impacts across natural systems. Nature 421:
ASLE.2002.0048. 37–42. doi:10.1038/nature01286.
Latham, J., P. Rasch, C.C. Chen, L. Kettles, A. Gadian, A. Gettelman, Pereira, H.M., P.W. Leadley, V. Proenca, R. Alkemade, J.P.W.
H. Morrison, K. Bower, et al. 2008. Global temperature Scharlemann, J.F. Fernandez-Manjarres, M.B. Araujo, P. Bal-
stabilization via controlled albedo enhancement of low-level vanera, et al. 2010. Scenarios for global biodiversity in the 21st
maritime clouds. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal century. Science 330: 1496–1501. doi:10.1126/science.1196624.

 Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences 2012

[Link]/en 123
368 AMBIO 2012, 41:350–369

Pielke, R.A., G. Marland, R.A. Betts, T.N. Chase, J.L. Eastman, J.O. National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
Niles, D.D.S. Niyogi, and S.W. Running. 2002. The influence of 107: 20762–20767. doi:10.1073/pnas.1006968107.
land-use change and landscape dynamics on the climate system: Socolow, R., M. Desmond, R. Aines, J. Blackstock, O. Bolland, T.
Relevance to climate-change policy beyond the radiative effect Kaarsberg, N. Lewis, M. Mazzotti, et al. 2011. Direct air capture
of greenhouse gases. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal of CO2 with chemicals, a technology assessment for the APS
Society of London Series A-Mathematical Physical and Engi- panel on public affairs. [Link]
neering Sciences 360: 1705–1719. doi:10.1098/rsta.2002.1027. assessments/[Link]?csModule=security/getfile&PageID=
Rasch, P.J., S. Tilmes, R.P. Turco, A. Robock, L. Oman, C.C. Chen, 244407.
G.L. Stenchikov, and R.R. Garcia. 2008. An overview of Soden, B.J., R.T. Wetherald, G.L. Stenchikov, and A. Robock. 2002.
geoengineering of climate using stratospheric sulphate aerosols. Global cooling after the eruption of Mount Pinatubo: A test of
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A-Mathematical climate feedback by water vapor. Science 296: 727–730.
Physical and Engineering Sciences 366: 4007–4037. doi: Spracklen, D.V., B. Bonn, and K.S. Carslaw. 2008. Boreal forests,
10.1098/rsta.2008.0131. aerosols and the impacts on clouds and climate. Philosophical
Rasch, P.J., J. Latham, and C.C. Chen. 2009. Geoengineering by Transactions of the Royal Society A-Mathematical Physical and
cloud seeding: Influence on sea ice and climate system. Engineering Sciences 366: 4613–4626. doi:10.1098/rsta.2008.
Environmental Research Letters 4: 045112–045119. doi: 0201.
10.1088/1748-9326/4/4/045112. Stenchikov, G.L., I. Kirchner, A. Robock, H.F. Graf, J.C. Antuna,
Rau, G.H., and K. Caldeira. 2002. Minimizing effects of CO2 storage R.G. Grainger, A. Lambert, and L. Thomason. 1998. Radiative
in oceans. Science 295: 275–276. forcing from the 1991 Mount Pinatubo volcanic eruption.
Rau, G.H. 2011. CO2 mitigation via capture and chemical conversion Journal of Geophysical Research-Atmospheres 103: 13837–
in seawater. Environmental Science and Technology 45: 13857.
1088–1092. doi:10.1021/es102671x. Tilmes, S., R. Muller, and R. Salawitch. 2008. The sensitivity of polar
Raupach, M.R., P.J. Rayner, D.J. Barrett, R.S. DeFries, M. Heimann, ozone depletion to proposed geoengineering schemes. Science
D.S. Ojima, S. Quegan, and C.C. Schmullius. 2005. Model–data 320: 1201–1204. doi:10.1126/science.1153966.
synthesis in terrestrial carbon observation: Methods, data Trenberth, K.E., and A. Dai. 2007. Effects of Mount Pinatubo
requirements and data uncertainty specifications. Global Change volcanic eruption on the hydrological cycle as an analog of
Biology 11: 378–397. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2486.2005.00917.x. geoengineering. Geophysical Research Letters 34(5): L15702.
Raven, J.A., et al. 2005. Ocean acidification due to increasing doi:10.1029/2007gl030524.
atmospheric carbon dioxide. London: Royal Society. Trick, C.G., B.D. Bill, W.P. Cochlan, M.L. Wells, V.L. Trainer, and
Richardson, A.J., and D.S. Schoeman. 2004. Climate impact on L.D. Pickell. 2010. Iron enrichment stimulates toxic diatom
plankton ecosystems in the northeast Atlantic. Science 305: production in high-nitrate, low-chlorophyll areas. Proceedings of
1609–1612. the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of
Ricke, K., G. Morgan, and M. Allen. 2010. Regional climate response America 107: 5887–5892. doi:10.1073/pnas.0910579107.
to solar-radiation management. Nature Geoscience 3: 537–541. Wang, G.L., and D.S. Schimel. 2003. Climate change, climate modes,
doi:10.10.38/NGEO915. and climate impacts. Annual Review of Environment and
Robock, A., L. Oman, and G.L. Stenchikov. 2008. Regional climate Resources 28: 1–28.
responses to geoengineering with tropical and arctic SO2 Watson, A.J., P.W. Boyd, S.M. Turner, T.D. Jickells, and P.S. Liss.
injections. Journal of Geophysical Research-Atmospheres 113: 2008. Designing the next generation of ocean iron fertilization
D16101–D16115. doi:10.1029/2008jd010050. experiments. Marine Ecology Progress Series 364: 303–309.
Rotenberg, E., and D. Yakir. 2010. Contribution of semi-arid forests Wigley, T.M.L. 2006. A combined mitigation/geoengineering
to the climate system. Science 327: 451–454. doi:10.1126/ approach to climate stabilization. Science 314: 452–454. doi:
science.1179998. 10.1126/science.1131728.
Saba, V.S., M.A.M. Friedrichs, M.E. Carr, D. Antoine, R.A. Zeebe, R.E., and D. Archer. 2005. Feasibility of ocean fertilization
Armstrong, I. Asanuma, O. Aumont, N.R. Bates, et al. 2010. and its impact on future atmospheric CO2 levels. Geophysical
Challenges of modeling depth-integrated marine primary pro- Research Letters 32. doi:10.1029/2005gl022449.
ductivity over multiple decades: A case study at bats and hot.
Global Biogeochemical Cycles 24. doi:10.1029/2009gb003655. AUTHOR BIOGRAPHIES
Sabine, C.L., M. Heimann, and P. Artaxo. 2004. Current status and
past trends of the global carbon cycle, 17–44. Washington: Lynn M. Russell (&) is a Professor of Atmospheric Chemistry at the
Island Press. Scripps Institution of Oceanography at the University of California,
Salter, S., G. Sortino, and J. Latham. 2008. Sea-going hardware for San Diego. Her research interests include atmospheric aerosols and
the cloud albedo method of reversing global warming. Philo- their interactions with clouds.
sophical Transactions of the Royal Society A-Mathematical Address: Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of Cali-
Physical and Engineering Sciences 366: 3989–4006. doi: fornia, San Diego, 9500 Gilman Dr. Mail Code 0221, La Jolla, CA
10.1098/rsta.2008.0136. 92093-0221, USA.
Sarmiento, J., R. Slater, J. Dunne, A. Gnanadesikan, and M. Hiscock. e-mail: lmrussell@[Link]
2010. Efficiency of small scale carbon mitigation by patch iron
fertilization. Biogeosciences 7: 3593–3624. doi:10.5194/bg-7- Philip J. Rasch is a Chief Scientist for Climate Science in the
3593-2010. Atmospheric Science and Global Change Division of the Pacific
Shepherd, J., K. Caldeira, P. Cox, J. Haigh, D. Keith, B. Launder, G. Northwest National Laboratory. His research interests include
Mace, G. MacKerron, et al. 2009. Geoengineering the climate. understanding the role of clouds and aerosols in influencing climate;
London: The Royal Society. climate modeling; and in numerical methods for the solution of dif-
Silver, M.W., S. Bargu, S.L. Coale, C.R. Benitez-Nelson, A.C. ferential equations in climate models.
Garcia, K.J. Roberts, E. Sekula-Wood, K.W. Bruland, et al. Address: Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, 902 Battelle Bou-
2010. Toxic diatoms and domoic acid in natural and iron levard, P. O. Box 999, MSIN K9-34, Richland, WA 99352, USA.
enriched waters of the oceanic pacific. Proceedings of the e-mail: [Link]@[Link]

 Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences 2012

123 [Link]/en
AMBIO 2012, 41:350–369 369

Georgina M. Mace is a Professor of Conservation Science at Philip W. Boyd is a Professor of Ocean Biogeochemistry at the
Imperial College London. Her research focuses on the causes and National Institute of Water and Atmosphere in Dunedin New Zealand.
consequences of biodiversity loss and ecosystem change. His research interests include phytoplankton ecology, iron biogeo-
Address: Centre for Population Biology, Imperial College London, chemistry, and the biological pump.
Ascot, Berks SL5 7PY, UK. Address: NIWA Centre of Chemical & Physical Oceanography,
e-mail: [Link]@[Link] Department of Chemistry, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zea-
land.
Robert B. Jackson is a Nicholas Professor of Global Environmental e-mail: Pboyd@[Link]
Change in the Nicholas School of the Environment at Duke Univer-
sity. His research interests include energy and environmental sci- Richard J. Norby is a Corporate Research Fellow at the Oak Ridge
ences. National Laboratory in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, USA. His research
Address: Nicholas School of the Environment, Duke University, interests include physiological ecology and terrestrial ecosystem
Durham, NC 27708, USA. response to atmospheric and climatic change.
e-mail: jackson@[Link] Address: Environmental Sciences Division, Oak Ridge National
Laboratory, Bethel Valley Road, Bldg. 2040, MS-6301, Oak Ridge,
John Shepherd is a Professorial Research Fellow in Earth System TN 37831-6301, USA.
Science, University of Southampton School of Ocean and Earth e-mail: rjn@[Link]
Sciences.
Address: Earth System Science, School of Ocean and Earth Sciences, Ken Caldeira is a Staff Scientist in the Carnegie Institution
National Oceanography Centre, University of Southampton, Euro- Department of Global Ecology and a Professor (by courtesy) in the
pean Way, Southampton SO14 3ZH, UK. Stanford University Department of Environmental Earth System
e-mail: [Link]@[Link] Sciences. His research interests include long-term geochemical con-
trols on climate and ocean chemistry, long-term biogeochemical
Peter Liss is a Professorial Fellow in the School of Environmental cycles, climate modeling, energy systems, and economics.
Sciences at the University of East Anglia in Norwich UK. His Address: Department of Global Ecology, Carnegie Institution, Stan-
research interests are in ocean–atmosphere interaction particularly ford, CA 94305, USA.
involving trace gases. e-mail: kcaldeira@[Link]
Address: School of Environmental Sciences, University of East
Anglia, Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK. Joonas Merikanto is a Postdoctoral research fellow at the Division of
e-mail: [Link]@[Link] Atmospheric Sciences at the University of Helsinki. His research
interests include global modeling of atmospheric aerosols and aerosol
Margaret Leinen is an Associate Provost for Marine and Environ- microphysics.
mental Initiatives at Florida Atlantic University and Executive Address: Division of Atmospheric Sciences, Department of Physics,
Director of Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institute. Her research University of Helsinki, P.O Box 64, 00014 Helsinki, Finland.
interests are paleoceanography and paleoclimate, biogeochemical e-mail: [Link]@[Link]
cycling, and governance of geoengineering.
Address: Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institute, 5600 US Rt 1 Paulo Artaxo is a Professor of Environmental Physics at the Uni-
North, Fort Pierce, FL 34946, USA. versity of São Paulo, Brazil. His research interests are in the role of
e-mail: mleinen@[Link] aerosol particles in tropical ecosystems, including radiative forcing
and aerosol–cloud interactions.
David Schimel is a Chief Science Officer and Principal Investigator Address: Institute of Physics, University of São Paulo, Rua do Matão,
at the National Ecological Observatory Network. His research interest Travessa R, 187, São Paulo, SP CEP 05508-090, Brazil.
focuses on the global carbon cycle, climate change and the impacts of e-mail: Artaxo@[Link]
climate change on ecosystem dynamics.
Address: NEON Inc, 1685 38th Street, Boulder, CO 80305, USA. Jerry Melillo is a Distinguished Scientist at the Marine Biological
e-mail: dschimel@[Link] Laboratory in Woods Hole, Massachusetts, USA. His research focu-
ses on understanding the impacts of human activities on the carbon
Naomi E. Vaughan is a senior research associate at the Tyndall and nitrogen cycles of land ecosystems using a combination of field
Centre for Climate Change Research, University of East Anglia. Her studies and simulation modeling.
research interests include societal responses to climate change, geo- Address: The Ecosystems Center, Marine Biological Laboratory,
engineering, and global carbon cycle–climate interactions. Woods Hole, MA 02543, USA.
Address: Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, School of e-mail: jmelillo@[Link]
Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich, NR4
7TJ, UK. M. Granger Morgan is a Professor and Head of the Department of
e-mail: [Link]@[Link] Engineering and Public Policy at Carnegie Mellon University where
he is also University and Lord Chair Professor in Engineering. His
Anthony C. Janetos is the Director of the Joint Global Change research addresses problems in science, technology, and public policy
Research Institute, a creation of the Pacific Northwest National with a particular focus on energy, environmental systems, climate
Laboratory and the University of Maryland. His research interests lie change, and risk analysis.
in the interactions of human decisions about land use and the land’s Address: Department of Engineering and Public Policy, Carnegie
subsequent interactions with the physical climate system. Mellon University, 5000 Forbes Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15213, USA.
Address: Joint Global Change Research Institute Pacific Northwest e-mail: [Link]@[Link]
National Laboratory/University of Maryland, 5825 University
Research Court, Suite 3500, College Park, MD 20740, USA.
e-mail: [Link]@[Link]

 Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences 2012

[Link]/en 123