View metadata, citation and similar papers at [Link].

uk brought to you by CORE

provided by University of East Anglia digital repository

Opinion

Rethinking climate engineering

categorization in the context
of climate change mitigation and
adaptation
Olivier Boucher,1∗ Piers M. Forster,2 Nicolas Gruber,3 Minh
Ha-Duong,4 Mark G. Lawrence,5 Timothy M. Lenton,6 Achim Maas5
and Naomi E. Vaughan7
The portfolio of approaches to respond to the challenges posed by anthropogenic
climate change has broadened beyond mitigation and adaptation with the recent
discussion of potential climate engineering options. How to define and categorize
climate engineering options has been a recurring issue in both public and
specialist discussions. We assert here that current definitions of mitigation,
adaptation, and climate engineering are ambiguous, overlap with each other
and thus contribute to confusing the discourse on how to tackle anthropogenic
climate change. We propose a new and more inclusive categorization into
five different classes: anthropogenic emissions reductions (AER), territorial or
domestic removal of atmospheric CO2 and other greenhouse gases (D-GGR),
trans-territorial removal of atmospheric CO2 and other greenhouse gases (T-
GGR), regional to planetary targeted climate modification (TCM), and climate
change adaptation measures (including local targeted climate and environmental
modification, abbreviated CCAM). Thus, we suggest that techniques for domestic
greenhouse gas removal might better be thought of as forming a separate
category alongside more traditional mitigation techniques that consist of emissions
reductions. Local targeted climate modification can be seen as an adaptation
measure as long as there are no detectable remote environmental effects. In
both cases, the scale and intensity of action are essential attributes from the
technological, climatic, and political viewpoints. While some of the boundaries in
this revised classification depend on policy and judgement, it offers a foundation
for debating on how to define and categorize climate engineering options and
differentiate them from both mitigation and adaptation measures to climate
change. © 2013 The Authors. WIREs Climate Change published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

How to cite this article:

WIREs Clim Change 2014, 5:23–35. doi: 10.1002/wcc.261

∗ 5
Correspondence to: [Link]@[Link] Institute for Advanced Sustainability Studies, Potsdam, Germany
1 6 College of Life and Environmental Sciences, University of Exeter,
Laboratoire de Météorologie Dynamique, IPSL/CNRS, Université
P. et M. Curie, Paris, France Exeter, UK
7
2 School of Earth and Environment, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, School of
3
Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK
Institute of Biogeochemistry and Pollutant Dynamics and Center
for Climate Systems Modeling, ETH Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland The copyright line in this article was changed on 26 August 2014
4 Centre International de Recherche sur l’Environnement et le
after online publication.
Conflict of interest: The authors have declared no conflicts of interest
Développement, CNRS, Nogent-sur-Marne, France for this article.

Volume 5, January/February 2014 23

© 2013 The Authors. WIREs Climate Change published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs License, which permits use and distribution in
any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non-commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.
 Opinion [Link]/climatechange

INTRODUCTION more robust taxonomy to categorize these responses.

It should be viewed as an opinion article whose role
T he concept of large-scale environmental engineer-
ing is not new and a number of ideas have been
proposed over the last century (see Ref 1 for a histori-
is to initiate and foster debate on the subject.
We stress that any such categorization will
depend on its aim—here we attempt a primarily
cal perspective). The idea to engineer the environment
climate-science-based categorization focusing on
to specifically counter anthropogenic climate change
spatial and temporal scales and Earth system
can be traced back at least to the 1960s with a US
processes impacted. We recognize, however, that
report calling for research on ‘possibilities to deliber-
our categorization involves nonuniversal cultural
ately bringing about countervailing climatic changes’
attitudes, as well as certain norms, value judgement,
to that of carbon dioxide.2 The term ‘geoengineering’
and political choices. We only address peaceful
itself was coined by Marchetti3 to discuss the idea of
applications of climate engineering and omit any
injecting CO2 into the ocean to reduce its atmospheric
potential military dimension of climate engineering.
burden. Since then, the term has evolved and now
Neither do we attempt to rank the effectiveness or
encompasses a broad and ill-defined set of approaches
appropriateness of climate change responses in any
that aim to deliberately alter the climate system on a
manner.
large scale in order to alleviate the impacts of climate
change.4 Due to the strong emphasis on the climate
modification aspect, we favor the use of ‘climate engi-
neering’ (CE), which we use throughout this study
DISCUSSION OF EXISTING
(with the exception of a brief revisiting of the term DEFINITIONS
‘geoengineering’). Definitions of Mitigation and Adaptation
The Royal Society5 categorized climate engineer-
Mitigation is defined by the Intergovernmental Panel
ing methods into two broad classes. Solar radiation
on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth assessment report’s
management (SRM) refers to the intentional mod-
glossary16 as ‘technological change and substitution
ification of the Earth’s shortwave radiative budget
that reduce resource inputs and emissions per unit
to reduce anthropogenic climate change. Injection of
of output’. It further specifies that ‘although several
stratospheric aerosols6 and cloud brightening7 are two
social, economic, and technological policies would
examples. Carbon dioxide removal (CDR) refers to
produce an emission reduction, with respect to climate
approaches that aim to reduce atmospheric CO2 con-
change, mitigation means implementing policies to
centration by either increasing natural or engineering
reduce greenhouse gas emissions and enhance sinks’.
new carbon sinks. CDR methods can involve ocean,
This definition is consistent with that from the IPCC
land, and technological systems, examples include
Third assessment report17 and implies that methods
iron fertilization, large-scale afforestation, and direct
aiming at reducing natural sources or enhancing
capture of carbon dioxide.8 However, this classifica-
tion does not capture all CE methods which have natural sinks of CO2 and other greenhouse gases
been proposed, for example, the proposal to increase do qualify as mitigation policies. This definition is
outgoing longwave radiation by seeding cirrus clouds also consistent with the United Nations Framework
with ice nuclei.9 Nor does it provide a clear distinc- Convention on Climate Change18 (UNFCCC) which
tion between climate engineering and other policy stipulates in its Article 4 that Parties ‘shall adopt
responses like climate mitigation and adaptation. national policies and take corresponding measures
There has been considerable attention on CE on the mitigation of climate change, by limiting its
since the publication by Crutzen.6 Various studies anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases and
have compiled and assessed CE schemes,4,8,10,11 protecting and enhancing its greenhouse gas sinks
and several national assessments have also been and reservoirs’.
conducted.5,12,13 Yet there is a lack of common These definitions raise three important com-
understanding of what CE refers to and existing ments:
studies do not provide an up-to-date and complete
taxonomy of climate engineering methods. How to 1. There is an ambiguity as to whether mitiga-
define and categorize climate engineering options tion includes emission reductions through a
has indeed been a recurring issue in both public voluntary reduction of production and/or con-
and specialist discussions of climate engineering.14,15 sumption per capita, i.e., so-called nontechnical
This study will (1) critically discuss how climate measures. The above-mentioned definition and
engineering fits into the wider portfolio of responses IPCC14 refer to emissions reductions per unit of
to anthropogenic climate change and (2) develop a output or gross domestic product, but emissions

24 © 2013 The Authors. WIREs Climate Change published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Volume 5, January/February 2014
 WIREs Climate Change Rethinking climate engineering categorization

reductions are often considered to contribute can be modified locally by increasing green spaces in
toward mitigation objectives irrespective of their cities,20 building large dams21 or changing agricultural
origin. However, behavior changes can also practices through irrigation22 or the modification
contribute to emissions reductions and it is sur- of land cover. The boundary between adaptation
prising that this is not made explicit in the and climate engineering within current definitions
definition. A related issue is whether emissions can therefore be blurred. This was also noted by
and emission reductions should be counted from Heyward15 who observes that SRM could be seen
a territorial (i.e., depending on their location) or as preventative or responsive depending on ‘whether
a consumption (i.e., depending on who the ‘final dangerous anthropogenic interference or dangerous
user’ is) perspective. climate change is taken as the referent’. It is worth
2. Carbon capture and storage (CCS), as a noting that the definition of adaptation considered
technology which aims to capture and sequester here is very specific to addressing climate change; it is
waste CO2 from large source points before it also possible to adapt our environment to better suit
is emitted in the atmosphere, qualifies as a our individual and community needs as a habitat, as
mitigation technology.19 has been done already for millennia.
3. The IPCC and the UNFCCC definitions include
the enhancement of greenhouse gas sinks as a
mitigation option. This was designed to include Definitions of Climate Engineering
sustainable forms of agriculture and forest As discussed above, there is no definition of
management, reforestation and afforestation ‘geoengineering’ or ‘climate engineering’ which is
within the scope of the UNFCCC and the agreed on by the research, policy and civil society
Kyoto Protocol. It is unlikely that UNFCCC communities at large. The IPCC working group III
negotiators and IPCC authors had in mind defined it as ‘technological efforts to stabilize the
the full spectrum of CE methods that have climate system by direct intervention in the energy
now been proposed to modify the carbon cycle balance of the Earth for reducing global warming’23
when they crafted these definitions. Heyward15 and later more generally as ‘a broad set of methods
discussed this issue and concluded that there and technologies that aim to deliberately alter the
are advantages of specifying CDR as a separate climate system in order to alleviate the impacts of
category rather than a subset of mitigation. climate change’,14 while the Royal Society5 refers
to as ‘the deliberate large-scale intervention in the
Adaptation is defined as ‘initiatives and measures Earth’s climate system, in order to moderate global
to reduce the vulnerability of natural and human warming’. Recognizing the lack of agreed definition,
systems against actual or expected climate change the Convention on Biological Diversity24 stated in
effects’.16 The IPCC further specifies that ‘various its decision X/33 that ‘Without prejudice to future
types of adaptation exist, e.g., anticipatory and deliberations on the definition of geo-engineering
reactive, private and public and autonomous and activities, understanding that any technologies that
planned’ and provides some examples of adaptation deliberately reduce solar insolation or increase carbon
measures such as ‘raising river or coastal dikes’ and sequestration from the atmosphere on a large scale
‘the substitution of more temperature-shock resistant that may affect biodiversity (excluding carbon capture
plants for sensitive ones’. Central to the concept of and storage from fossil fuels when it captures carbon
adaptation is the idea to reduce the vulnerability of dioxide before it is released into the atmosphere)
natural and human systems to climate change through should be considered as forms of geo-engineering
a modification of these systems. It is not always which are relevant to the Convention on Biological
clear, however, what the system boundaries are when Diversity until a more precise definition can be
talking about adaptation. For instance, one could developed’.
adapt to the risk of fluvial flooding by building dykes, There is a broader naming issue surrounding
by diverting streams and rivers, increasing storage the concept of CE. Prior to the more recent usage of
capacity, or theoretically if it were at all possible to, the term ‘geoengineering’ in relation to counteracting
by preventing extreme rain events from occurring. global warming, the term has historically been used as
There is potentially varying degrees of climate or an abbreviation for ‘geotechnical engineering’, which
environmental engineering in such adaptation options. is ‘a branch of civil engineering concerned with the
It should also be noted that modifying natural and engineering behavior of earth materials’ (Wikipedia),
human systems may feedback on the local climate. For or ‘a science that deals with the application of
instance, it is now well understood that the climate geology to engineering’ ([Link]), or

Volume 5, January/February 2014 © 2013 The Authors. WIREs Climate Change published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. 25
 Opinion [Link]/climatechange

‘the branch of engineering concerned with the However, this is not enough to resolve all of the
analysis, design and construction of foundations, ambiguities.
slopes, retaining structures, embankments, tunnels, Defining climate engineering as ‘engineering
levees, wharves, landfills and other systems that the climate system’ requires one to specify what is
are made of or are supported by soil or rock’ meant by climate system. It is usual to define the
(The Electronic Journal of Geotechnical Engineering). climate system as the sum of and the results of
There is also a Journal of Geoengineering (published the interactions between the atmosphere, the ocean,
by the Taiwan Geotechnical Society) which ‘covers the cryosphere, and the biosphere. It is sometimes
various topics in geotechnical engineering.’ This considered to include the crustal lithosphere and the
is quite different from what is understood under ‘anthroposphere’ of human population, technology,
‘geoengineering’ in the context of climate change. activities, and consciousness. Normally, however, the
Due to the imprecise nature of ‘geoengineering’ definition excludes sediments and other geological
and the potential for confusion with geotechnical reservoirs that are nevertheless known to play a role
engineering, many climate scientists have instead on long climatic timescales. This justifies a posteriori
begun to use the term ‘climate engineering’, which is why CCS19 is usually not considered as CE as it
more specific and for which the intent is immediately reduces CO2 emissions at the source (i.e., capturing
more apparent.8,11–13,25 Climate engineering is the CO2 from flue gases of power plants or other CO2 -
most widely used alternate terminology, although emitting industry) rather than removing CO2 from the
many other terms have been proposed, such as atmosphere. However, CCS is required for some forms
‘climate intervention’, ‘climate management’, ‘climate of carbon dioxide removal from the atmosphere,
remediation’, and ‘novel options for addressing notably biomass energy with CCS (BECCS), and
climate change’. In the rest of this study, we refer to the direct capture through chemical engineering and
topic as climate engineering (sometimes abbreviated storage.8,27 BECCS has the potential to remove CO2
CE), for the reasons of greater precision, although we from the atmosphere and will have an impact on the
recognize that the term ‘climate engineering’ is not biosphere if performed on a large scale. It should
without a past: it has sometimes been used to refer therefore be considered as climate engineering even
to air conditioning technologies, as opposed to the though bioenergy and CCS on their own are usually
large scale climate control being considered here. The considered as mitigation options as they individually
word ‘engineering’ itself may also be misleading as contribute to reduce atmospheric emissions of CO2 .
we are considering here methods that try to influence Conversely, some climate engineering proposals
one aspect of a complex system rather than control or may also be considered as adaptation options.
‘engineer’ the full system. For instance, introducing more reflective roofs or
Finally, there is considerable discussion within road/pavement surfaces is sometimes presented as a
the community about whether an umbrella term climate engineering method.28,29 But this technique
should be used at all, given the vast range of techniques can be seen as an adaptation method to mitigate
that it subsumes. We will not attempt to address the urban heat island effect.30 Highly reflective
this issue here. We rather develop an improved building surfaces were already a common architectural
categorization for what generally falls under the feature in countries with a hot climate long before
umbrella term. However, for future discussions of the anthropogenic climate change started to become an
issue, we hope that our improved categorization will issue. Likewise changes in cropland management
allow people to be more comfortable either addressing practices such as increasing irrigation22 or increasing
a specific category of climate engineering and using crop albedo31 may also help to adapt to a changing
terminology which makes that clear, and also to be climate by cooling the Earth’s surface locally and
able to specify what categories they are subsuming maintain crop productivity in a warmer climate.
under the umbrella term. While the distinction between SRM and CDR5
is useful, it does not cover all potential climate
engineering schemes that have been proposed to date.
Issues and Overlaps with Existing For instance, it has been suggested that the terrestrial
Definitions radiation budget could also be artificially modified
There is also potential overlap with both mitigation through changes in cirrus clouds.9 Such a technique
and adaptation. Responses to climate change can be aims to increase outgoing longwave radiation but
categorized according to where they take place in the shares a lot of characteristics with SRM techniques
chain of processes between anthropogenic drivers of in that it is nonpermanent, quasi-reversible and is
climate change and the impacts of climate change.15,26 only meant to ‘mask’ the warming effect due to

26 © 2013 The Authors. WIREs Climate Change published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Volume 5, January/February 2014
 WIREs Climate Change Rethinking climate engineering categorization

greenhouse gases. Carbon dioxide is not the only long- constitutes a ‘measurable climate impact’ is subject to
lived greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, and removal judgment although analyses of past events, such as the
or destruction of methane can also be envisaged either eruption of Mount Pinatubo, and model simulations
in the atmosphere32 or before emissions from natural could be used to quantify this. We envisage that
reservoirs take place.33,34 a typical scale relevant to regional climate impact
could be of the order of 300 km × 300 km ≈ 105 km2 .
Conversely, any action that mainly aims at modifying
WHAT CHARACTERIZES AND the climate at the local scale should be considered as an
DISTINGUISHES CLIMATE adaptation measure rather than as CE per se, as long
ENGINEERING? as there is no measurable or detectable remote effect.
Again this is subject to judgment and we envisage that
We now discuss a number of attributes of CE a typical scale relevant to local climate impact could be
techniques, which can help to classify these techniques, that of a small city or approximately 30 km × 30 km ≈
and differentiate such techniques from mitigation and 103 km2 . There is a scale or intensity beyond which it is
adaptation. no longer possible to affect the climate locally without
having a measurable effect remotely. For instance,
Jones et al.35 showed that a rather intense cloud
Intent
brightening applied on a fairly small fraction of the
There is general agreement in the scientific literature
world’s ocean would have significant remote impacts
that climate engineering is per se an intentional
in terms of surface temperature and precipitation.
attempt to counteract climate change by a method
Such options therefore qualify as climate engineering.
that does not seek to reduce anthropogenic emissions
We recognize though that the border between local
of warming agents. For instance, the emission of
and regional climate modification is likely to be fuzzy
sulfate aerosols from burning fossil fuels, although
and will require additional research and public debate
responsible for a cooling effect, is not considered
conceivably on a case-by-case basis. For example, a
to be climate engineering because it is a by-product
small-scale intervention in the wrong place could have
rather than a deliberate human action to cool the
a larger impact than a large intervention in a less
climate. Although in most cases, it is clear if an
sensitive area.
action is or is not a deliberate attempt to modify the
climate, there are situations where this criterion may
not apply clearly. A particularly poignant example
Impact on Global Commons and Remote
is the emission of sulfur dioxide (SO2 ) from ocean-
going ships. A putative deliberate decision to continue Effects
burning high-sulfur fuel over the open oceans to Climate engineering techniques may also be cate-
maintain the cooling effect of sulfate aerosols could gorized according to whether they intervene within
be considered a form of climate engineering, if such ‘territorial’ regions and/or intervene in the global
a decision is made despite the availability of low- commons. By global commons we refer here to the
cost, low-sulfur fuel and known adverse impact on air Earth’s nonowned natural resources, such as the atmo-
quality. sphere and the oceans, but purposely leave the global
climate out of this concept. Global commons are
therefore resources that are beyond national jurisdic-
Scale and/or Intensity tions whose ownership is subject to interpretation
Climate engineering implies a certain scale and/or (Antarctica) or held jointly (e.g., the atmosphere
intensity of action and/or impact. Below some spatial because it is perpetually in motion and crosses bor-
scale a deliberate environmental change should not be ders). SRM by stratospheric aerosols and marine cloud
considered as climate engineering. Planting trees on brightening are examples of climate engineering tech-
a small plot of land or whitening roofs in a small niques based on the global commons, for which some
urban area do not constitute CE as their impact remote effects are known and understood.35,36 The CE
on the climate system will be negligible. Scale and medium (e.g., stratospheric aerosols) will travel in the
intensity clearly distinguish climate engineering from atmosphere and cross national boundaries. Likewise
weather modification or other sorts of ecological or ocean fertilization,37,38 increased ocean alkalinity39
environmental engineering that usually attempt to and SRM by ocean foam or hydrosols40,41 rely on
modify the environment on a fairly small scale. CE using the ocean and can hardly be contained to ter-
can be considered to start when there is a measurable ritorial waters; they should therefore be considered
climate impact at the regional or global scale. What as trans-territorial. Land-based CDR methods can be

Volume 5, January/February 2014 © 2013 The Authors. WIREs Climate Change published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. 27
 Opinion [Link]/climatechange

considered as territorial in that they operate within those under (b) and (c) could be one or the other,
or at least from within national boundaries. They depending on what other attributes are considered.
are unlikely to have any measurable trans-boundary
impact (beyond that due to decreasing atmospheric
concentrations of CO2 ) if performed on a small scale.
Degree of Permanency
However, such methods should be considered as trans- This relates to the timescale at which the system will
territorial when their intensity or scale are such that come back to its initial state after the action stops. The
they have significant trans-boundary impacts. For permanence of climate engineering methods (but also
instance land-based biological CDR techniques will mitigation and adaptation actions) can vary greatly. It
have a regional impact on the hydrological cycle if can be either a positive or a negative trait of particular
climate engineering methods depending on their mode
they are performed on a large scale. Likewise SRM
of action and side effects.
by whitening roofs or increasing desert reflectivity can
be considered as territorial as long as they do not
have any measurable remote, trans-boundary impact. Rapidity
There is, however, an intensity beyond which such Related to but distinct from the previous attribute,
techniques will have remote effects.42 An important is whether the impact of a particular method
characteristic of climate engineering therefore relates occurs slowly or rapidly. This relates both to the
to the existence of remote side effects. characteristics of the method and to its potential rate
of deployment. This can again by either a positive or
negative trait depending on mode of action and side
Degree of (Perceived) ‘Naturalness’ effects.
Some proposed climate responses to climate change
may be seen as more natural than others, such as
planting trees even if on a large scale, and it has been
Leverage
suggested that ‘unnaturalness’ and/or the recourse High leverage is when a rather small effort (e.g.,
to technology should be a characteristic of climate in terms of energy input or financial investment)
engineering methods.43 Indeed, this issue also surfaced results in a rather large climate engineering effect.
in the public perception of climate engineering.44,45 It is generally the case that high-leverage climate
Notwithstanding that what constitutes a technology engineering methods (such as stratospheric aerosol
is ill defined, especially when technology attempts to injection) can be rapid but have a fairly low degree of
reproduce or enhance some natural processes, this permanency, while methods with a greater degree of
permanency have much lower leverage.
raises the issue of the relationship between humans
and nature, which is value-laden. Furthermore,
humanity has interacted with nature in a number CATEGORIZATION OF CLIMATE
of ways, e.g., through large-scale forest clearing,
ENGINEERING IN RELATIONSHIP TO
development of monocultures and breeding of animal
and plant species for commercial purposes, thus it is MITIGATION AND ADAPTATION
debatable to what extent ‘nature’ exists independently These considerations lead us to propose a more
of human influence, or is just socially constructed general categorization of responses to climate change
as such.46,47 Overall, the degree of ‘naturalness’ (Table 1). In doing so, it is important to be clear
or the reliance on ‘technology’ do not really help about our aim and motivation. As a group of
to differentiate climate engineering from mitigation climate scientists, we seek to clarify the wider societal
and adaptation.15 However, it might be helpful to discourse and action on responses to climate change by
consider if a climate engineering approach removes distinguishing methods according to the processes in
warming climate agents or instead adds cooling the Earth system being altered and the corresponding
climate agents (e.g., stratospheric aerosols). When spatial and temporal scales of action and effects.
removing climate agents, it may often be constructive However, our categorization is also aware of the
to make a distinction between whether this is political context in that it distinguishes territorial and
done by (a) decreasing anthropogenic emissions trans-boundary actions/effects, rather than speaking
to the atmosphere, (b) increasing ‘natural’ sinks, purely in terms of numerical metrics of scale. In other
(c) decreasing ‘natural’ emissions, or (d) creating words, it is a primarily scientific categorization that is
new engineered sinks. While approaches under (a) also somewhat rooted in political reality. Alternative
definitely fall under a strict definition of mitigation and approaches to categorization could be technology-
approaches under (d) are forms of climate engineering, based or more policy-oriented.

28 © 2013 The Authors. WIREs Climate Change published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Volume 5, January/February 2014
 TABLE 1 A Possible Categorization of Responses to Anthropogenic Climate Change Along with Their Attributes
Trans-Boundary
Proposed Name Mapping onto Previous Impact on the or Transnational Permanence of
and Acronym Short Definition Terminology Examples Scale of Action Scale of Impacts Global Commons∗ Side Effects* the Effect
Anthropogenic Initiatives and Includes most forms of Improved energy Generally a Global through a None expected. Generally none Commensurate to the
emissions measures to reduce mitigation but efficiency, reduction in localized action decrease in the Expected to slow atmospheric
reductions (AER) or prevent excludes production and/or or a sum of global-mean RF down the depletion lifetime of the
WIREs Climate Change

anthropogenic human-induced CO2 consumption of goods localized by greenhouse of fossil fuel species being
emissions of sink enhancement and services, actions gases and other resources (except mitigated, longer if
warming agents introduction of warming agents for CCS). Expected emission reduction

Volume 5, January/February 2014

into the renewable energies, to slow down is sustained
atmosphere nuclear energy, fossil ocean acidification
fuel energy with CCS, for CO2 measures
reducing emissions
from deforestation and
forest degradation,
emission reductions of
BC and ozone
precursors
Territorial or Removal of CO2 and Includes territorial CO2 Reforestation, biochar Generally a Global through a None in the strict Possible (e.g., Commensurate with
domestic removal long-lived sink enhancement and other means of localized action decrease in the sense. May not through changes the permanence of
of atmospheric greenhouse gases previously labeled increasing storage of C or a sum of global-mean RF slow down the in evaporation, the storage medium
CO2 and other from the under mitigation, in soils, small-scale localized by greenhouse depletion of fossil runoff, river flow,
long-lived atmosphere with environmental afforestation, BECCS, actions gases fuel resources. changes in
greenhouse gases operating within side effects if any CO2 air capture and Expected to slow biodiversity) but
(D-GGR) national occurring within storage in territorial down ocean limited
jurisdictions and national (geological) reservoirs, acidification for
little consequences jurisdictions enhanced weathering CO2 measures
outside (without input of
by-products into rivers
or the oceans)
Trans-territorial or Removal of Includes the more Large-scale afforestation, Localized but with Global through a Expected (e.g., Trans-boundary or Commensurate with
trans-boundary atmospheric CO2 environmentally ocean alkalinity, significant decrease in the through changes to transnational side the permanence of
removal of and long-lived disruptive CDR enhanced weathering remote effects global-mean RF the water cycle, effects expected the storage medium
atmospheric CO2 greenhouse gases techniques (with input of and/or diffuse by greenhouse rivers, and/or the
and other from the by-products into rivers with diffuse gases global ocean).
long-lived atmosphere or the oceans), iron effects Expected to slow
greenhouse gases operating or having fertilization, injection down ocean
(T-GGR) consequences of CO2 into the ocean acidification in the

© 2013 The Authors. WIREs Climate Change published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
partly or fully across case of CDR
or beyond national methods not
jurisdictions involving iron
fertilization or
ocean injection

29
Rethinking climate engineering categorization
 30
Opinion

TABLE 1 Continued
Trans-Boundary
Proposed Name Mapping onto Previous Impact on the or Transnational Permanence of
and Acronym Short Definition Terminology Examples Scale of Action Scale of Impacts Global Commons∗ Side Effects* the Effect
Regional to Intentional Essentially what used Injection of Large-scale Regional to Yes (e.g., through Measurable Short as this
planetary modification of to be defined as stratospheric and/or diffuse global cooling the atmosphere trans-boundary happens
targeted climate the Earth’s SRM, but excludes aerosols, marine (even though and remote or transnational through rapidly-
or environmental energy fluxes in small-scale SRM. cloud brightening, the initial climate effects). side effects responding
modification order to offset Excludes removal cirrus suppression, action can be Does not slow components of
(TCM) climate change of long-lived desert brightening local) down ocean the climate
at the regional to greenhouse gases on a large scale, acidification system
global scale but includes other ocean heat mixing,
large-scale modification to
changes to the Arctic sea ice
Earth’s energy
budget that do not
involve long-lived
greenhouse gases
Climate change Initiatives and Essentially what is Relocating urban or Local with no or Local None expected None, limited to Commensurate to
adaptation measures to usually considered rural settlements, little remote the local scale, the lifetime of
measures reduce the as adaptation also building dykes, air effects or not detectable the adaptation

© 2013 The Authors. WIREs Climate Change published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
including local vulnerability of includes conditioning, (i.e., ‘within the measure
targeted climate natural and small-scale SRM agricultural crop noise’). Some (typically
or environmental human systems that only has small choices, reflective measures may months to
modification to the effects of if any remote crops, whitening of however affect decades)
(CCAM) climate change. climate impacts human settlements river flow
Local risk on a small scale,
management irrigation

CCS, carbon capture and storage; BECCS, biomass energy with CCS; CDR, carbon dioxide removal; SRM, solar radiation management. RF, radiative forcing; BC, black carbon
∗ Beyond any direct effects due to decreasing concentrations of greenhouse gases and other warming agents.

Volume 5, January/February 2014

[Link]/climatechange
 WIREs Climate Change Rethinking climate engineering categorization

Although our categorization scheme was potentially more disruptive techniques belong to T-
developed independently, it shares some aspects of GGR. Whether the carbon is stored in national
the typology recently put forward by Heyward.15 jurisdictions (e.g., in forests, soils, or geological
However, it goes beyond Heyward15 in that it reservoirs) or outside such national jurisdictions (e.g.,
broadens the SRM and CDR categories and revisits in the ocean) matters as this would raise very different
the boundaries of both mitigation and adaptation. cultural, political, and legal issues (e.g., for verification
The categorization proposes five main categories. A purposes). While we focus here on the potential trans-
preliminary version of this categorization has been boundary effects on climate and global commons,
tested against a list of 47 possible responses to we also recognize that other trans-boundary transfers
climate change by 10 scientists from the European may be involved (e.g., fibers or financial flows).
Framework Programme 7 EuTRACE project involved The fourth category, targeted climate modifica-
in CE research. Because of the small sample of tion (TCM), encompasses all techniques aiming to
responses considered here, we did not seek to interpret affect the climate on the regional to global scale
the responses in a statistical sense but rather as through a direct modification of radiative or energy
expert elicitation to guide our study. Results from fluxes, rather than indirectly through the removal of
the questionnaire showed that in about one third of long-lived greenhouse gases. It includes but is not
the cases, responses were unanimously attributed to a restricted to SRM techniques. Most of the proposed
particular category by all 10 researchers, and in about techniques that fall in this category are likely to oper-
two thirds of the cases it was unambiguous, with 8 of ate rather rapidly, but they lack permanency, i.e.,
10 agreeing; however, there were cases with multiple the climate system will return rapidly to its initial
answers and/or some spread in the answers, with only state if this type of climate engineering is stopped.
about half of the responses agreeing on the ‘best’ We tentatively define the regional scale as covering an
choice. Most of the time the spread in answers was area of the order of 300 km × 300 km ≈ 105 km2 but
because of some ambiguity on the scale of the climate recognize there is a judgement involved here.
change response or because the primary intention of Finally, the fifth category, climate change
the method was not necessarily to address climate adaptation measures (CCAM), covers traditional
change. This exercise led to further improvements and adaptation measures, but broadens the concept to
refinements of the definitions and attributes of the five also include those relying on local targeted cooling,
categories. We present the new categorization that as long as they have no measurable remote effects.
resulted from these improvements in Table 1. We tentatively define the local scale as being of the
The first category, anthropogenic emissions order of 30 km × 30 km ≈ 103 km2 . The broadening
reductions (AER), includes initiatives and measures of the adaptation concept does not necessarily require
to reduce or prevent anthropogenic emissions any changes in the currently accepted definition, but
of warming agents into the atmosphere. This we nevertheless propose the new acronym CCAM to
encompasses most of what IPCC and UNFCCC designate this expansion, and also to make clear that
regard in their definition as mitigation, including it is referring to adaption to climate change (since
CCS from fossil fuel combustion. AER excludes, adaptation can also apply to other environmental and
however, CO2 sink enhancement techniques that are also social changes).
considered as mitigation by IPCC and UNFCCC. This Figure 1 provides a flowchart that helps classify
category could be further divided into the mitigation a particular action into the categories defined above.
of emissions of well-mixed (long-lived) greenhouse The question of ‘significant trans-boundary (remote)
gases and the mitigation of emissions of short-lived effects’ is likely to be the one that is most difficult to
radiative forcing agents such as black carbon. answer and where some fuzziness may arise between
The second and third categories, domestic and categories D-GGR and T-GGR, as well as between
trans-boundary greenhouse gas removal (D-GGR TCM and CCAM. Analyses of past events and
and T-GGR, respectively), encompass all techniques regional climate modeling can be used to inform
aiming at removing CO2 from the atmosphere (i.e., what the threshold scale/intensity of a particular
CDR) as well as potential techniques to remove other method is for remote effects to become detectable.
long-lived greenhouse gases from the atmosphere. For completeness we can mention a sixth possible
D-GGR includes techniques that are territorial, do category, introduced and labeled as ‘rectification’ by
not involve the global commons and are unlikely Heyward,15 which covers financial compensation and
to have any significant trans-boundary impact (i.e., symbolic measures.
those techniques originally envisaged as being part Although not universal, the new five-class
of mitigation in a UNFCCC sense), while other, categorization maps naturally on current usage. The

Volume 5, January/February 2014 © 2013 The Authors. WIREs Climate Change published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. 31
 Opinion [Link]/climatechange

Categorizing a policy response to climate change

Is the policy to reduce or prevent anthropogenic Yes

AER: anthropogenic
emissions of climate warming agents? emissions reductions
No
Is the policy to reduce D-GGR: territorial or
the concentrations of Yes Is the action territorial Yes Are there any No domestic removal of
anthropogenic climate and does not involve significant atmospheric CO2 and
warming agents? global commons? transboundary other long-lived
(remote) effects? greenhouse gases
No
Yes T-GGR: trans-territorial
No or trans-boundary
removal of atmospheric
CO2 and other long-lived
greenhouse gases
Yes Yes
Is the policy to modify Is the policy to modify
(cool) the climate? (cool) the climate at the TCM: regional to
regional to global scale? planetary targeted
climate or environmental
No Local scale only modification
No, policy is
to reduce
vulnerability Yes
Are there any
significant CCAM: adaptation and
transboundary local targeted climate or
(remote) effects? environmental
No modification

FIGURE 1 | Flowchart of the proposed categorization of climate change responses. Text in white boxes corresponds to policy questions; text in
the green box corresponds to a legal question; text in pink boxes corresponds to questions that involve value judgements but can be informed by
climate and related sciences. Yellow boxes to the right side list the five categories.

combination of AER and D-GGR corresponds to the about the consequences of particular actions. We
definition of mitigation by UNFCCC and IPCC. The suggest that particular methods such as BECCS can be
combination of D-GGR and T-GGR encompass all assigned to a primary category in our classification,
methods of atmospheric removal of carbon dioxide with the possibility of secondary categories where
(CDR) along with other long-lived greenhouses gases. these are clearly identifiable.
Categories T-GGR and TCM collectively correspond
to the more ‘disruptive’ forms of interventions, which
corresponds to what is often envisioned under the term CONCLUSION
‘climate engineering,’ and are likely to be the most The large and growing number of CE methods that
controversial. Finally, categories TCM and CCAM have been proposed, irrespective of their feasibility,
have in common that they do not attempt to reverse is causing ambiguity in the current definitions
the anthropogenic modification of the atmospheric of mitigation and adaptation. The definition of
composition, which is the main cause of climate climate engineering itself is unclear and has been a
change. recurring issue in discussions. We have proposed a
There remain some overlaps in our classification, simple categorization of the strategies to respond to
for example, BECCS can both offset fossil fuel anthropogenic climate change in five distinct classes
emissions (AER), achieve territorial removal of CO2 that alleviates some of the issues associated with the
(D-GGR), potentially range across territories by existing terminology.
involving import of biomass in the global economy In particular, we recommend that CDR
(T-GGR), and create a land-use change carbon source techniques (except CCS directly at power and
(thus adding to the anthropogenic causes of climate industrial plants) should no longer be considered as
change).48 Such overlaps are inevitable in any attempt part of mitigation, but should instead form separate
to fit the world into simple categories. They can be categories of responses to climate change. We also
beneficial in the sense of encouraging broader thought suggest that localized climate modification can be

32 © 2013 The Authors. WIREs Climate Change published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Volume 5, January/February 2014
 WIREs Climate Change Rethinking climate engineering categorization

seen as an adaptation measure, as long as there are help to foster a debate among stakeholders such as
no measurable remote environmental effects. In both the research, policy, and civil society communities at
cases the scale and intensity of action are essential large. We invite in particular further feedback from
attributes from technological, climatic, and political social scientists and policymakers on our preliminary
viewpoints. Differentiating territorial or domestic categorization.
removal of greenhouse gases (D-GGR) from trans- Finally, we have not tried to rank or assess
territorial or trans-boundary removal (T-GGR), and policy responses to climate change, either within
differentiating local adaptation via targeted climate a category, or between categories. Multiple factors
and environmental modification (a component of have to be considered when comparing these policy
CCAM) from regional and global modification (TCM) responses, including their technological maturity,
will require further work. affordability, effectiveness, scalability, timescale for
Our aim is to progress the debate on how climate implementation, risk, residual climate change,
engineering should fit (or not) in the portfolio of unintended consequences, degree of interference
existing climate change policies. We hope that our with the climate system, intergenerational and
proposed revisions to the terminology and necessary trans-regional ethical implications, the policy and
definitions of the boundaries between categories can governance challenges they pose.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This opinion article has benefited from discussions held at the IPCC Expert Meeting on Geoengineering that
took place in Lima, Peru on 20–22 June 2011, which four of the authors attended. PMF and NEV would like
to acknowledge support from the EPSRC/NERC for the IAGP project. OB, ML, TML, AM, and NEV would
like to acknowledge partial support from the FP7 EuTRACE project grant agreement (306395). AM and ML
would additionally like to thank the German Ministry for Education and Research (BMBF), the Brandenburg
Ministry for Science, Research and Culture (MWFK) and the Research for Sustainability Platform (FONA). OB
acknowledge supports from the Agence Nationale de la Recherche under the REAGIR project. NG acknowledges
the financial support of ETH Zürich. The authors would also like to thank Jim Haywood, Thomas Leisner,
Helene Muri, Rodrigo Riestein, Simon Shackley, Harald Stelzer for useful discussions and for responding to
the questionnaire. Bénédicte Fisset helped with formatting the manuscript and references. We thank three
anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments that have contributed to improve this opinion article.

REFERENCES
1. Fleming JR. Fixing the sky: the checkered history of 7. Latham J. Control of global warming? Nature 1990,
weather and climate control. New York: Columbia 347:339–340. doi: 10.1038/347339b0.
University Press; 2010, 325 p.
8. Vaughan NE, Lenton TM. A review of climate engi-
2. President’s Science Advisory Committee. Restoring neering proposals. Clim Change 2011, 109:745–790.
the quality of our environment. Report of the doi: 10.1007/s10584-011-0027-7.
Environmental Pollution Panel, Washington, DC, 1965.
9. Mitchell DL, Finnegan W. Modification of cirrus clouds
3. Marchetti C. On geoengineering and the CO2 to reduce global warming. Environ Res Lett 2009,
problem. Clim Change 1977, 1:59–68. doi: 10.1007/ 4:04510. doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/4/4/045102.
BF00162777.
10. Boyd PW. Ranking geo-engineering schemes. Nat
4. Keith D. Geoengineering the climate: history and
Geosci 2008, 1:722–724. doi: 10.1038/ngeo348.
prospect. Annu Rev Energy Environ 2000, 25:245–284.
doi: 10.1146/[Link].25.1.245. 11. Feichter J, Leisner T. Climate engineering: a
5. Royal Society. Geoengineering the climate: science, critical review of approaches to modify the global
governance and uncertainty. Report 10/09, 2009, 82 energy balance. Eur Phys J 2009, 176:81–92. doi:
pp. 10.1140/epjst/e2009-01149-8.
6. Crutzen PJ. Albedo enhancement by stratospheric sulfur 12. GAO. Technology assessment: Climate Engineering:
injections: A contribution to resolve a policy dilemma? technical status, future directions and potential
Clim Change 2006, 77:211–220. doi: 10.1007/s10584- responses. U.S. Government Accountability Office,
006-9101-y. GAO-11-71, Washington DC, USA, 2011, 121 pp.

Volume 5, January/February 2014 © 2013 The Authors. WIREs Climate Change published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. 33
 Opinion [Link]/climatechange

13. Rickels W, Klepper G, Dovern J, Betz G, Brachatzek Change, Nagoya, 18–29 October 2010. Available at
N, Cacean S, Güssow K, Heintzenberg J, Hiller S, [Link]
Hoose C, Leisner T, Oschlies A, Platt U, Proelß A, 25. Caldeira K, Wood L. Global and Arctic climate engi-
Renn O, Schäfer S, Zürn M. Large-Scale Intentional neering: numerical model studies. Philos Trans R Soc A
Interventions into the Climate System? Assessing the 2008, 366:4039–4056. doi: 10.1098/rsta.2008.0132.
Climate Engineering Debate. Scoping report conducted
26. Boucher O, Gruber N, Blackstock J. Summary of the
on behalf of the German Federal Ministry of Education
synthesis session. In: Edenhofer O, Field C, Pichs-
and Research (BMBF). Kiel: Kiel Earth Institute; 2011.
Madruga R, Sokona Y, Stocker T, Barros V, Dahe
14. IPCC. IPCC Expert Meeting Report on Geoengineering, Q, Minx J, Mach K, Plattner GK, Schlomer S, Hansen
(Edenhofer O, Field C, Pichs-Madruga R, Sokona Y, G, Mastrandrea M, eds. IPCC Expert Meeting Report
Stocker T, Barros V, Dahe Q, Minx J, Mach K, Plattner on Geoengineering. Potsdam: IPCC Working Group III
GK, Schlomer S, Hansen G, Mastrandrea M, eds.). Technical Support Unit, Potsdam Institute for Climate
Potsdam: IPCC Working Group III Technical Support Impact Research; 2011, 7 p.
Unit, Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research;
27. APS Direct air capture of CO2 with chemicals. A
2011.
technology assessment for the APS Panel on Public
15. Heyward C. Situating and abandoning geoengineer- Affairs, 1 June 2011. Available at: [Link]
ing: a typology of five responses to dangerous cli- policy/reports/assessments/upload/[Link]
mate change. Polit Sci Polit 2013, 46:23–27. doi: 28. Oleson KW, Bonan GB, Feddema J. Effects of white
10.1017/S1049096512001436. roofs on urban temperature in a global climate
16. IPCC. Climate Change 2007, Synthesis report, model. Geophys Res Lett 2010, 37:L03701. doi:
contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the 10.1029/2009GL042194.
Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental 29. Akbari H, Matthews HD, Seto D. The long-term
Panel on Climate Change, (Core writing team, Pachauri effect of increasing the albedo of urban areas.
RK, Reisinger A, eds.). Geneva: IPCC; 2007 104 p. Environ Res Lett 2012, 7:024004. doi: 10.1088/1748-
17. IPCC. Climate Change 2001, synthesis report, 9326/7/2/024004.
contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Third 30. Akbari H, Konopacki S, Pomerantz M. Cooling energy
Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on savings potential of reflective roofs for residential and
Climate Change, (R. T. Watson and the Core writing commercial buildings in the United States. Energy 1999,
team, eds.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 24:391–407. doi: 10.1016/S0360-5442(98)00105-4.
2001, 398 p.
31. Ridgwell A, Singarayer J, Hetherington A, Valdes
18. UNFCCC. United Nations Framework Convention on P. Tackling regional climate change by leaf albedo
Climate Change; 1992, 33 p. bio-geoengineering. Curr Biol 2009, 19:146–150. doi:
19. IPCC. Special report on carbon dioxide capture and 10.1016/[Link].2008.12.025.
storage, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 32. Boucher O, Folberth G. New directions: atmospheric
(Metz B, Davidson O, de Coninck H, Loos M, Meyer methane removal as a way to mitigate climate
L, eds.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2005. change? Atmos Environ 2010, 44:3343–3345. doi:
20. Gill SE, Handley JF, Ennos AR, Pauleit S. Adapting 10.1016/[Link].2010.04.032.
cities for climate change: the role of the green 33. Krey V, Canadell JG, Nakicenovic N, Abe Y, Andruleit
infrastructure. Built Environ 2007, 33:115–133. doi: H, Archer D, Grubler A, Hamilton NTM, Johnson A,
10.2148/benv.33.1.115. Kostov V, et al. Gas hydrates: entrance to a methane age
21. Miller NL, Jin J, Tsang CF. Local climate sensitivity or climate threat? Environ Res Lett 2009, 4:034007.
of the Three Gorges Dam. Geophys Res Lett 2005, doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/4/3/034007.
32:L16704. doi: 10.1029/2005GL022821. 34. Stolaroff JK, Bhattacharyya S, Smith CA, Bourcier
22. Boucher O, Myhre G, Myhre A. Direct influence of WL, Cameron-Smith PJ, Aines RD. Review of methane
irrigation on atmospheric water vapour and climate. mitigation technologies with application to rapid release
Clim Dynam 2004, 22:597–603. doi: 10.1007/s00382- of methane from the Arctic. Environ Sci Technol 2012,
004-0402-4. 46:6455–6469. doi: 10.1021/es204686w.
23. IPCC. Climate Change 2007: mitigation of climate 35. Jones A, Haywood J, Boucher O. Climate impacts of
change. Contribution of Working Group III to the geoengineering marine stratocumulus clouds. J Geophys
Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Res 2009, 114:D10106. doi: 10.1029/2008JD011450.
Panel on Climate Change (Metz B, Davidson O, Bosch 36. Bala G, Duffy PB, Taylor KE. Impact of geoengineering
P, Dave R, Meyer L, eds.). Cambridge: Cambridge schemes on the global hydrological cycle. Proc
University Press; 2007. Natl Acad Sci U S A 2008, 105:7664–7669. doi:
24. CBD. Decisions adopted by the conference of parties 10.1073/pnas.0711648105.
to the Convention on Biological Diversity at its tenth 37. Lampitt RS, Achterberg EP, Anderson TR, Hughes JA,
meeting, Decision X/33 on Biodiversity and Climate Iglesias-Rodriguez MD, Kelly-Gerreyn BA, Lucas M,

34 © 2013 The Authors. WIREs Climate Change published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Volume 5, January/February 2014
 WIREs Climate Change Rethinking climate engineering categorization

Popova EE, Sanders R, Shepherd JG, et al. Ocean fer- 43. Schelling T. The economic diplomacy of geoengineering.
tilisation: a potential means of geoengineering? Philos Clim Change 1996, 33:303–307. doi: 10.1007/BF001
Trans R Soc A 2008, 366:3919–3945. doi: 10.1098/ 42578.
rsta.2008.0139. 44. Croner AJ, Parkhill K, Pidgeon NF, Vaughan NE.
38. Watson AJ, Boyd PW, Turner SM, Jickells TD, Liss PS. Messing with nature? Exploring public perceptions of
Designing the next generation of ocean iron fertilisation geoengineering in the UK. Glob Environ Change, in
experiments. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 2008, 364:303–309. press. doi: 10.1016/[Link].2013.06.002.
doi: 10.3354/meps07552. 45. Hiller S, Renn O. Public perception of geoengineering.
39. Kheshgi HS. Sequestering atmospheric carbon diox- Security and Peace 2012, 4:215–220.
ide by increasing ocean alkalinity. Energy 1995, 46. Rolston H III. A managed Earth and the end of nature?
20:915–922. doi: 10.1016/0360-5442(95)00035-F. Res Philos Technol 1999, 18:143–164.
40. Evans JRG, Stride EPJ, Edirisinghe MJ, Andrews DJ, 47. Demeritt D. What is the ‘social construction of nature’?
Simons RR. Can oceanic foams limit global warming? A typology and sympathetic critique. Prog Hum Geogr
Clim Res 2010, 42:155–160. doi: 10.3354/cr00885. 2002, 26:766–789. doi: 10.1191/0309132502ph402oa.
41. Seitz R. Bright water: hydrosols, water conservation 48. Powell TWR, Lenton TM. Future carbon dioxide
and climate change. Clim Change 2011, 105:365–381. removal via biomass energy constrained by agricultural
doi: 10.1007/s10584-010-9965-8. efficiency and dietary trends. Energy Environ Sci 2012,
42. Irvine PJ, Ridgwell A, Lunt DJ. Climatic effects of 5:8116–8133. doi: 10.1039/c2ee21592f.
surface albedo geoengineering. J Geophys Res 2011,
116:D24112. doi: 10.1029/2011JD016281.

Volume 5, January/February 2014 © 2013 The Authors. WIREs Climate Change published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. 35