Climate engineering: Modelling projections oversimplify risks

Date:
September 9, 2020
Source:
Institute for Advanced Sustainability Studies e.V. (IASS)
Summary:
Climate change is gaining prominence as a political and public
priority.

But many ambitious climate action plans foresee the use of climate
engineering technologies whose risks are insufficiently understood.

Researchers now describe how evolving modelling practices
are trending towards 'best-case' projections. They warn that
over-optimistic expectations of climate engineering may reinforce
the inertia with which industry and politics have been addressing
decarbonization.



FULL STORY ========================================================================== Climate change is gaining prominence as a political and public
priority. But many ambitious climate action plans foresee the use
of climate engineering technologies whose risks are insufficiently
understood. In a new publication, researchers from the Institute
for Advanced Sustainability Studies in Potsdam, Germany, describe
how evolving modelling practices are trending towards "best- case"
projections. They warn that over-optimistic expectations of climate
engineering may reinforce the inertia with which industry and politics
have been addressing decarbonisation. In order to forestall this trend,
they recommend more stakeholder input and clearer communication of the
premises and limitations of model results.


==========================================================================
The focus of the paper lies on the models underpinning the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Assessment Reports
-- the first port-of-call for mapping combinations of technologies,
alternative pathways of deployment, and climatic impacts. The authors
show how modelling of solar radiation management and carbon dioxide
removal technologies tends toward "best-case" projections.

According to their analysis, the poorly substantiated promises delivered
by these projections influence research, policy, and industry planning in
the near term and may already be entrenching carbon infrastructures. In
the case of certain kinds of carbon dioxide removal, for example,
the prospect of future carbon capture is sometimes wrongly seen as a
substitute for present mitigation.

Climate models are not neutral The researchers outline ways in which
this trend can be forestalled. They propose mechanisms for increasing stakeholder input and strengthening political realism in modelling. "The portrayal of modelling as explorative, technically focused mappings
for supporting decision making is simplistic. Modellers have to choose parameters and design scenarios. Their choices cannot be 'neutral' - - scenarios reflect hidden judgments and create benchmarks for further conversation, whether in assessment, or in technology and policy
development," says co-author Sean Low. For that reason, there needs to
be more transparency about the ways in which models are constructed,
perceived, and applied. Efforts to expand modelling "reality checks"
with technology experts, social scientists, and a wide range of users
are a pragmatic first step.

Glossing over fine print can lead to big problems The scientific community
must also be wary of the selective use of projections.

Projections offer schemes that are stylised, optimised, and deceptively
simple.

By abstracting from possible technical failures and messy politics,
they can create a false sense of certainty regarding the feasibility
of a particular course of action. But it would be wrong to use
them as alternatives to existing climate action plans or instruction
manuals. Since modelling projections can offer only partial depictions
of systemic risk, it is problematic if political and industry interests
co-opt a stylised version for pre-existing agendas and gloss over the
models' fine print.

Much governance work ahead The authors emphasise the need for policy guardrails: "In climate governance the devil really does lie in the
details. The inertia of the carbon economy requires that significant
efforts are made to prevent particular and short-term interests
undermining policy integrity," says co-author Matthias Honegger. In
addition to more transparent modelling, a lot of careful policy
development and governance work is needed to ensure that solar radiation management and carbon dioxide removal technologies play a constructive
role in future climate policy.


========================================================================== Story Source: Materials provided by Institute_for_Advanced_Sustainability_Studies_e.V._ (IASS). Note:
Content may be edited for style and length.


========================================================================== Journal Reference:
1. Sean Low, Matthias Honegger. A Precautionary Assessment of Systemic
Projections and Promises From Sunlight Reflection and Carbon
Removal Modeling. Risk Analysis, 2020; DOI: 10.1111/risa.13565 ==========================================================================

Link to news story: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/09/200909100246.htm

--- up 2 weeks, 2 days, 6 hours, 50 minutes
* Origin: -=> Castle Rock BBS <=- Now Husky HPT Powered! (1337:3/111)