Talk:Climate engineering

Governance

I removed the section, as there is a reasonble question as to whether governance is possible or desirable, especially when noting the claim above that a wealthy individual could do some of this. Section quoted below (with the raw URL references replaced by external links, for readability.

+++++++++

There is presently a lack of a universally-agreed framework for the regulation of either geoengineering activity or research. The London Dumping Convention addresses some aspects of the law in relation to biomass ocean storage and ocean fertilization. The Oxford Martin School at Oxford University has a programme to evaluate geoengineering governance. The 'Oxford Principles' have resulted from this work:

• Principle 1: Geoengineering to be regulated as a public good.
• Principle 2: Public participation in geoengineering decision-making
• Principle 3: Disclosure of geoengineering research and open publication of results
• Principle 4: Independent assessment of impacts
• Principle 5: Governance before deployment

These principles have been endorsed by the UK House of Commons Science and Technology Select Committee on “The Regulation of Geoengineering” http://www.geoengineering.ox.ac.uk/oxford-principles/history/ , and have been referred to by authors discussing the issue of governance. http://www.economist.com/node/15814427

The Asilomar conference was replicated to deal with the issue of geoengineering governance http://www.economist.com/node/15814427, and was made into a TV documentary programme, broadcast in Canada. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthur Rubin (talk • contribs) 18:24, 9 August 2012

++++++

I've just put the governance section back in (I had removed it in November 2022). Although I am confused now to see that it had already been removed in Aug 2012 (and then put back in?). Anyhow, I put it back in based on the discussion with User:TERSEYES on the talk page of the SRM article. But I find it quite confusing, even already the first sentence: Governance issues relating to carbon dioxide removal are distinct from those surrounding CE. when in fact CDR is one of the approaches that makes up CE? Or should this section rather be moved to the article on carbon dioxide removal? EMsmile (talk) 12:03, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Vague language

“In 2023, a modified proposal was tabled. It was proposed that an installation of underwater "curtains", made of a flexible material and anchored to the Amundsen Sea floor would be able to interrupt warm water flow while reducing costs and increasing their longevity (conservatively estimated at 25 years for curtain elements and up to 100 years for the foundations) relative to more rigid structures.”

Tabled has a completely opposite meaning in British English as it does in American English, “proposed” would be a better word. AWobblyFriend (talk) 21:48, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree with you and have changed it. EMsmile (talk) 07:44, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Further reading list removed

I've removed the "further reading" list because I don't think it adds value here and it's also rather arbitrary. If these publications are highly useful then rather use them for new text with in-line citations:

• Liao, S. Matthew; Sandberg, Anders; Roache, Rebecca (2012). "Human Engineering and Climate Change." Ethics, Policy & Environment, 15(2), 206–221. doi:10.1080/21550085.2012.685574
• Döbler, Niklas A.; Carbón, Claude (2023). "Adapting Ourselves, Instead of the Environment: An Inquiry into Human Enhancement for Function and Beyond." Integrative Psychological & Behavioral Science, 58, 589-637. doi:10.1007/s12124-023-09797-6 EMsmile (talk) 15:55, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Proposed significant changes

I believe that this article is not only in rough shape, but is also too long for a concept that is currently used little. "Geoengineering" was a preferred term from roughly 2009 (or perhaps even 1992) to 2015, but since then the components (i.e. SRM, CDR, arctic geoengineering) have generally been the distinct foci of attention. Currently, the articles of those three components appropriately contain the details. Having similar details here risks inconsistencies. Therefore, I propose to:

1. Rename the article "Geoengineering" or "Geoengineering (climate)", since this term is used more than "climate engineering";
2. Change sections to Lead, History (new, drawn partially from Research and projects), Methods (excerpts from SRM, CDR, arctic geoengineering); and probably Governance to address CBD ("climate-related geoengineering") and IMO ("marine geoengineering");
3. Not include in Methods: Passive daytime radiative cooling (which, if at large scale, would be SRM), Ocean geoengineering (which is CDR), and Glacier stabilization (which is Arctic geoengineering);
4. Remove sections Problems and risks and Research and projects (some of the latter would go to History), because all of these are distinct between SRM and CDR.

I will wait a couple weeks before diving into this. TERSEYES (talk) 16:04, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi, this article continues to be a "problem child"... Have you looked at the previous discussions in the talk page archive? See for example here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Climate_engineering/Archive_3#Much_more_work_needed . I am also pinging User:InformationToKnowledge. I agree with your assessment that the article has become too long and that the details should rather be in the articles about the various types of climate engineering, e.g. in the SRM article. We should avoid too much overlap and repetition.

In the past I have even argued for making this article into a disambiguation article, similar to marine resources or climate action. As to the name change to "Geoengineering", I have no opinion on this and would be happy to follow along with majority view. I think it wouldn't be necessary to add "climate" in brackets to the title, since geoengineering is only used in the climate change context, right?

Pinging also User:Chidgk1 and User:RCraig09. (perhaps you'd like to also put this on the talk page of WikiProject Climate Change to draw additional attention to this discussion?) EMsmile (talk) 11:52, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing me to that somewhat recent discussion in the archive. It appears that we agree that this article should be brief and largely refer to the components (CDR, SRM, Arctic). I am with @InformationToKnowledge that Tipping points in the climate system could be a model for a page that is largely a directory of other pages, with excerpts. Just to complicate matters further, "geoengineering" also has a more literal meaning in geotechnical engineering. See Geoengineering (disambiguation). Therefore, I think that "Geoengineering (climate)" is the way to go. TERSEYES (talk) 17:55, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

As usual I am all in favor of excepts Chidgk1 (talk) 18:40, 22 April 2025 (UTC)