Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorCusack, Daniela F.  Concept link
dc.contributor.authorAxsen, Jonn  Concept link
dc.contributor.authorShwom, Rachael  Concept link
dc.contributor.authorHartzell-Nichols, Lauren  Concept link
dc.contributor.authorWhite, Sam  Concept link
dc.contributor.authorMackey, Katherine R. M.  Concept link
dc.date.accessioned2014-07-10T19:55:44Z
dc.date.available2014-07-10T19:55:44Z
dc.date.issued2014-06
dc.identifier.citationFrontiers in Ecology and the Environment 12 (2014): 280–287en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/1912/6736
dc.descriptionAuthor Posting. © Ecological Society of America, 2014. This article is posted here by permission of Ecological Society of America for personal use, not for redistribution. The definitive version was published in Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 12 (2014): 280–287, doi:10.1890/130030.en_US
dc.description.abstractMitigating further anthropogenic changes to the global climate will require reducing greenhouse-gas emissions (“abatement”), or else removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and/or diminishing solar input (“climate engineering”). Here, we develop and apply criteria to measure technical, economic, ecological, institutional, and ethical dimensions of, and public acceptance for, climate engineering strategies; provide a relative rating for each dimension; and offer a new interdisciplinary framework for comparing abatement and climate engineering options. While abatement remains the most desirable policy, certain climate engineering strategies, including forest and soil management for carbon sequestration, merit broad-scale application. Other proposed strategies, such as biochar production and geological carbon capture and storage, are rated somewhat lower, but deserve further research and development. Iron fertilization of the oceans and solar radiation management, although cost-effective, received the lowest ratings on most criteria. We conclude that although abatement should remain the central climate-change response, some low-risk, cost-effective climate engineering approaches should be applied as complements. The framework presented here aims to guide and prioritize further research and analysis, leading to improvements in climate engineering strategies.en_US
dc.description.sponsorshipNSF grant #1103575 supported KRMM.en_US
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdf
dc.language.isoen_USen_US
dc.publisherEcological Society of Americaen_US
dc.relation.urihttps://doi.org/10.1890/130030
dc.titleAn interdisciplinary assessment of climate engineering strategiesen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1890/130030


Files in this item

Thumbnail
Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record