Readily Deployable Approaches to Geoengineering: Cool Materials and Aggressive Reforestation
| Author | Max G. Bronstein |
| Position | graduate student at the University of Michigan pursuing a masters in Public Policy, a certificate in science and technology policy, and is a graduate student instructor for a course in National Science Policy |
| Pages | 44-47 |
44
WINTER 2010
ReaDily Deployable appRoacheS to
geoengineeRing: cool mateRialS anD
aggReSSive RefoReStation
by Max G. Bronstein*
* Max G. Bronstein is a graduate student at the University of Michigan pursuing
a masters in Public Policy, a certificate in science and technology policy, and is
a graduate student instructor for a course in National Science Policy. He previ-
ously served as a policy analyst and advisor to the Directors of the U.S. National
Science Foundation. He has also completed a Congressional internship with the
House Committee on Science and Technology. In the fall of 2010, he plans to
pursue a PhD in science and technology policy.
INTRODUCTION
Humans have been disrupting the Earth’s climate for
hundreds of thousa nds of years.1 Burni ng a piece of
wood for warmth, cutting down a tree to build shelter,
or even planting a crop are all ways that humans have interacted
with and fundamentally altered the climate and the environment.
New research has indicated that br eakthroughs in agriculture
as long as 8,000 y ears ago have played a maj or role in green-
house gas emissions and may have even reversed a trend toward
global cooling.2 The widespread cultivation of rice in Asi a,
which fir st began 5,000 years ago, was followed by unnatural
increases in m ethane concentration that some scientists believe
may have averted another ice age.3 Today, rice p addies cover
130 million hectares of the Earth’s surface, emitting between 50
and 100 million metric tons of methane per year.4 In addition,
ruminants prod uce a significant amount of methane and, when
combined with the emissions from rice, account for nearly half
of the world’s methane output.5 Hence , human behavior th at
originated thousands of years ago continues to alter the climate
today albeit on a much larger scale.
Deforestation was first recorded in 1086 AD when a sur-
vey of England indicated that humans had cleared upwards of
90 percent of the forests to make way for agriculture.6 Between
2,000 and 3,000 years ago, humans also deforested wide swaths
of fertile land near rivers in China and India to support quickly
growing and increasingly dense settl ements.7 The scale of this
deforestation deprived the planet of major carbon sinks.8 Forest-
lands were often burned and then subsequently flooded to pro-
vide irrigation; both activities produce signifi cant greenhouse
gas emissions.9 Today, forests are being destroyed at an unprec-
edented rate—ev ery year, human a ctivities destroy an area the
size of Panama.10 At this rate, the world’s rain forests, the most
bio-diverse portions of the plan et, could disappear entirel y in
less than 100 years.11 A recent study found that decreasing the
rate o f deforestation by 50 percent and maintaining that level
for 100 years would reduce global fossil fuel emissions by the
equivalent of six ye ars.12 These occurrences demonstrate that
humans have historically caused significant climate disruptions
and even modest changes in behavior—such as decreasing the
rate of deforestation—ca n have a marked impact on c arbon
emissions.
Most peo ple believe er roneously tha t humans did not
begin to significantly alter the climate until the second half of
the 19th century, which marked the start of the second Indus -
trial Revolution.13 Rather, the Indu strial Revo lution acte d as
a carb on multiplier by automating and scaling up the carbon-
intensiv e acti vities that humans had already undertaken for
thousands of years. The new technologies and innovations of
this age required carbon-based fuel s to power factories, auto-
mobiles, and the industrial machines that automated agriculture
and deforestation. In fact, from 1850 to 1863, total world carbon
emissions nearly doubled from 54 million metric tons (“MMT”)
per year, to 104 MMT. By 1900, world emissions had reached
534 MMT.14 By 2006, the world was emitting 8230 MMT, an
increase of 259 MMT from the previous year.15
For thousands of years, humans have been altering the cli-
mate and fundamenta lly remaking the envir onment at a local
and planetary scale. 16 The beha viors driving such changes,
like agriculture, deforestation, and transportation, are deeply
ingrained hallmarks of civilization and are a core component of
traditional development and economic progress. It should come
as no surprise that policymakers have been struggling for over a
decade to create a viable framework for limiting emissions and
mitigating clima te change.17 Meanwhile, as our understanding
of the impacts of climate change has sharpened, it is increasingly
evident that failure to limit emissions will result in massive and
irreparable damage to the env ironment and human welfare .18
This realization has been one of the factors driving research and
debate a round geoengineering19—a “Plan B”—should policy-
makers fail to create a viable framework for mitigating climate
change.20
However, the geoengineering solutions put forth by scien-
tists are often untested, expensive, difficult to deploy, and igno-
rant of the non-technologi cal barriers to implementation, suc h
as policy and politics. Many of the so-called geoengineering
“solutions” are ove rly reliant on advanced technologies that do
not exist today and may require decades to deploy, which could
only have a s ignificant impact on the climate at an enormou s
financial cost. Effectively implementing such technologies on a
meaningful scale would require an international framework and
cost-sharing scheme that could be as complex and politically
sensitive as the current climate treaty negotiations. If the nations
of the world struggle even to reach an agreement to limit climate
45 SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT LAW & POLICY
emissions in a timely manner , a future inte rnational resolution
on geoengineering will face similar obstacles.
Rather than relying on untested and poorly understood geo-
engineering interventions, scientists and policymakers need to
look toward tested and readily deployable mechanisms for regu-
lating climate and mitigating the impacts of carbon emissions.
Many proposed geoengineering solutions aim to deflect the
sun’s energy, including proposals ranging from space-base d
mirrors to cloud whitening and
clou d see ding usin g aer osol
particl es.21 The goa l o f t hese
appro aches i s to contr ol the
amount of solar energy striking
the Ear th by deflect ing more
of this energy into space.22 If
ultima tely successfu l, the cli-
mate will cool becau se energy
is bein g reflected ra ther than
absorbed by the Earth and the
atmospher e.23 While these are
intr iguing a pproach es, some
are exorbi tantly expensive (e .g.
space mirrors) and, al though
others are more affordable, they
are relatively untested and could
result in other irreversible, unin-
tended co nsequences.2 4 How-
ever, there are more affordable
and pr acticabl e met hods f or
incre asing the Earth ’s global
albedo or reflectivity. What fol-
lows is a low-cost, low-tech, low-risk, geoengineering plan that
can be implemented on a local, regional, or national level with-
out the need for a complex international treaty, which makes it
more politically feasible than other proposed solutions.
COOL MATERIALS COOL THE WORLD
The U.S. Secretary of E nergy, Nobel Laureate Dr. Steven
Chu, h as frequently avowed the virtues of white roofs.25 The
theory underlying this solution is qu ite simple; lighter colors
reflect more sunlight and therefore incr ease the planet’s reflec-
tivity, which, on a large scale, can result in global cool ing.26
This intervention would be most effective in urban areas, which
only account for about one percent of the Earth’s land surface,
but if implemented on a large scale, could equate to a 63 kg CO2
offset for every square meter of white roof.27 Estimate s have
also shown that a “ cool roofs” initiat ive could offset about 24
billion gi gatons of CO2—the equivalent of total annual g lobal
CO2 emissions—over the course of the roofs’ lives.28
In a ddition to increasing g lobal albedo, white roof s keep
buildings cooler. Cooler buildings redu ce energy c osts and in
turn lower CO2 emissions. Lower energy costs and a sma ller
carbon footprint help to minimize the “heat island” effect. The
heat i sland effect is an incre ase in tempe rature in ur ban areas
caused by warming of absorptive surfaces and infrastructure.29
Temperature differences are mos t marked when comp ared to
non-urban areas, which are 1-3 degrees Celsius cooler and on a
clear, windless night the temperature difference can be as much
as 12 degrees Celsius.30 These higher urban temperatures result
in an increased demand for electricity for energy i ntensive air
conditioning.31 In fact, one study estimates that the heat island
effect alone accounts for 5-10 percent of the peak electric-
ity demand for cooling buildings in cities.32 Hence, mitigating
the heat isla nd e ffect through
simple interventions like white
roofs can be an effective way of
reducin g en ergy demand, cut-
ting CO2 emissions, and increas-
ing global albedo.
In addition to roofs, roads
are another component of urban
infras tructure that can play a
significant r ole in global reflec-
tivity and mitigation of the heat
island effect. Cool pavements,
as they are comm only called,
work on t he same principle as
white r oofs. Urban pavement
accounts for 35 percent of urban
surface area whereas roofs only
account for 25 percent.33 So me
cal culat ions hav e in dicat ed
that a cool pavem ents initia -
tive could offset as much as 38
kg CO2 pe r square meter.3 4 If
extrapola ted to account for all
urban areas, cool pavements could offset up to 20 billion giga-
tons of CO2.35 Aside from the reflectivity and energy savings
benefits, cool pavements ca n also enhance nighttime visibilit y
and reduce the amount of street lighting needed during the eve-
ning hours, thereby further reducing energy demand.36
What is most appealing about these “cool” solutions is that
there are lo w barriers to implementation, as th ey are largely
cost competiti ve wi th ex isting approaches and the underly-
ing technology is relatively mature.37 Hence, these approaches
have already been deployed in various urban areas acros s the
United States38 and have been shown to actually increase albedo
regardless of color.39 Cool roofs do not necessarily have to be
white, but mu st contain composite materials that increase solar
reflectance and therma l emittance.40 In addition , experiments
have even begun to test newly developed paints for cooler cars,
which also cov er much of the land surface in urban areas.41
When c ombined, these “cool” approache s present a relatively
low-risk, low -cost, and politically viable approach t o geoengi-
neering. Even simple policy interventions at the local or s tate
level co uld have a marked impact on reducing the heat i sland
effect, lowering energy demand, and ultimately decreasing CO2
emissions. While this is an imp ortant approa ch to mitigating
climate change, increas ing the global albedo is only part of the
Meanwhile, as our
understanding of the
impacts of climate change
has sharpened, it is
increasingly evident that
failure to limit emissions
will result in massive and
irreparable damage to
the environment and
human welfare.
46WINTER 2010
solution. The planet also needs a strategy to sequester the vast
concentrations of CO2 already in the atmosphere.
AGGRESSIVE REFORESTATION
Forests serve as an enormous carbon sink and store more
than double the amount of carbon than is present i n the atmo-
sphere.42 In addition, forests store 45 percent of all terrestrial
carbon.43 However, defo restation is releasing th at stored car-
bon on an unprecedented scale; every year a forest area the size
of Panama is lost.44 Deforestatio n can occur natura lly through
wildfires—which have been increasing in number with global
warming—but deforestation is more commonly driven by the
need for agricultural and grazing space.45 In 2004, deforestation
and decay of biomass accounted for 17.3 percent of total green-
house gas emissions.46 Hence, forests can act as both a sink and
a source of carbon. The fate of the carbon in forests, however,
largely depends on how humans interact with them.
There are several ways in which forests can increase uptake
of CO2: through reforestation that increases the carbon dens ity
of existin g forests; through use of f uels from biomass; and by
limiting deforestation and degradation. Calculations done by
Canadell et al. have shown that, if all deforested land was con-
verted back to forest s, the seques-
tration poten tial would be 1.5
Pg C (petagrams of carbon) per
year, which would reduce atmo-
spheric C O2 by 40-70 parts per
million (“ppm”) b y 2100 (CO2
concentration in 2008 was esti-
mated to be 385 ppm) .47 Even
reduc ing defor estation by 50
percent (a laudable goal), would
offset 50 Pg C.48 While reduc-
ing deforestation is socially and
politic ally difficult, indivi dual
nations can take the initiative to
reforest or increase the carbon
intensity of existing forests. For
example, in 2000, China used 24
mega hectares (“Mha ”) of new
and old forest re-growth to off-
set 21 percent of emiss ions in
2000.49
However, it is important to point out that creating new for-
ests is only the first step in this process. In o rder for such off-
sets to be pe rmanent, the forests must have prop er protection
and stewards hip to prevent future deforestation or degradation
that can lead to carbon emissions. Hence, in order for reforesta-
tion to c reate a viable carbon sink, it requires not only a short-
term planting period, but also a continued investment in forest
stewardship. Stewardship is especially challenging in light of
the nega tive impacts a ssociated with climate change. The fre-
quency and intensity of forest fires is expected to continue to
rise as is the number of insect outbreaks that can destroy healthy
forests.50
Reforestation not only alters carbon concentrations, but can
also have a significant impact on global albedo.51 On one hand,
dense forest canopies can actually decreas e albe do, the reby
absorbing more solar radiation, which can cause an increase in
temperature.52 On the other hand, forests also play an important
role in the water cycle through evapotranspiration, the migration
of water from roots, through leaves, and into the atmosphere.53
This moisture can ultimately seed clouds that can increase global
albedo and therefore lower the amount of solar radiation warm-
ing the planet.54 T he extent of the impact of these competing
forces is unclear and varies by region. For example, as forest
canopies substitute for snow-covered ground in boreal regions,
this would result in a net decrease in albedo.55 However, in trop-
ical regions, more forests would result in increasing c loud for-
mation, which would have a positi ve impact on albedo.56 This
evidence suggests that tropical regions would be most suited for
reforestation and stewardship programs.57
POLICY IMPLICATIONS & IMPLEMENTATION
MECHANISMS
Compared to other proposed methods of climate engineer-
ing such as space mirrors, artificial trees, or ocean fertilization,
reforestat ion and albedo manage-
ment a re two simp le, relatively
ine xpen sive, and e ffect ive
meth ods fo r m itigat ing cl i-
mate change. Reforesta tion not
only increases albedo in certain
regions , but more widesprea d
and healthy forests act as a natu-
ral carbon sink, provide innu-
mera ble ecosy stem ser vices,
and create ne w habitation space
in areas that have tradit ion-
ally been threate ned by human
development. Using novel roofs
and roads provides a cost-effec-
tive mechan ism for deflecting
the sun’s energy and decreasing
the heat island effect, which can
ultimatel y lowe r ener gy usa ge
and the r equisite carbon e mis-
sions. But, for these solutions to
be viable , they must be implemented on regional and national
scales and must involve a variety of stakeholders. The following
recommendations outl ine a U.S. reforestation and albedo man-
agement program.
The President should establish an office of Climate Change
Miti gation with in the Envi ronmenta l Prot ection Agen cy
(“EPA”) by executive order. Establishing this office via execu-
tive order would bypass Congress, because this program needs
to be implemen ted as soon as possible in or der to maximize
impact a nd effectiveness. The office would be respo nsible for
drafting, implementin g, and enforcing best practices for devel-
opers and civil engineers to mit igate climate change through
Estimates have also
shown that a “cool roofs”
initiative could offset
about 24 billion gigatons
of CO2—the equivalent
of total annual global
CO2 emissions—over the
course of the roofs’ lives.
47 SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT LAW & POLICY
the use of reflective materials. Specifically, the office wo uld
establish requirements and regulations for using reflective mate-
rials in the construction of civil inf rastructure. Roads are con-
stantly being repaved or maintained and, as a result, it would be
relatively straightforward and ex pedient to phase in the use of
reflective and cooling materials. Developers in the private sector
need incen tives to implement these best practices in both new
buildings and existing structures.
While this initiative could be effectively seeded at the fed-
eral level, proper implementation a nd execution would r equire
trained agents working at the state and local levels. This would
require buy-in from these stakeholders and could be achieved
through additional training. A brief educational program should
be dev eloped that illustrates the benefits of cool material s for
energy consumptio n and mitigati on of climate change. This
material could then be disseminated to state and local depart-
ments of transportation and to public planners.
In addition to establishing a new office at the EPA, the fed-
eral g overnment should fund more research into development
of cos t-competitive advanced materials t hat can hav e an even
greater i mpact on reflectivi ty and global albedo. Recently, the
Technology Innovation Program at the National Institute of Stan-
dards in Technology (“NIST”) released a call for proposal s.58
One of the topic areas was in civil infrastructure, but it made no
mention of reflective or cool materi als that coul d replace cur -
rent infrastructure and mitigate the impacts of climate change.59
The fiscal year 2010 sol icitation shou ld call for research and
development proposals on cool materials and should give fund-
ing priority to proposals that demonstrate potential for commer-
cialization. Emphasizing development could enable lat e-stage
projects to become viable in the market and ultimately be sold to
meet the increased demand that could be expected to follow the
release of new EPA regulations and best practices.
Throughout U.S. history, wide swaths of the country’s for-
est have been cleared to make way for development or harvested
as a natural resource. As a consequence, there are vast areas of
vacant and un inhabited rural land that could be reforested with
relatively little investment. Over time and with periodic mainte-
nance, these areas could give wa y to new, healthy forests. The
U.S. Forest Service has the expertise to take the lead on such an
initiative, but lacks sufficient resources to have an impact on a
scale tha t would significa ntly offset emiss ions. As the climate
bill is currently being discussed in the Senate,60 this is an oppor-
tune time to lobby for a reforestation provision that could spear-
head a nationwide initiative. The costs of the program could be
funded through revenues generated by the cap-and-trade scheme
and a nat ionwide pr ogram wou ld assist the United States in
reaching its emissions targets.
Recently, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vil sack announce d
the reci pients of a grant program that aims to revitalize u rban
areas through community forestry grants.61 While this is a rela-
tively modest program in terms of its funding ($900,000) and
scope, 62 programs like this should be expanded to urban areas
around the country. As a consequence of the current economic
downturn, there are many former business and industrial centers
in urb an areas ( “brownfields”)63 that could be re-purposed as
green spaces or as constructed wetlands. The benefits of urban
green spaces are widely known and constructed wetlands have
been shown to provide valu able ecosystem services at a lower
cost than traditional methods.64 Ultimately, these improvements
could act as an urban carbon sink, provide local and global eco-
system services, and enhance the aesthetic appeal of previously
abandoned areas.
CONCLUSION
While these initiati ves ma y appe ar ove rly am bitious or
unlikely, they present a more pragmatic approach to addressing
one of the most profound and complex challenges of our time.
Other proposals for geoeng ineering are more expensive, less
reliable, non-deployable, and likely to stir political controversy.
In contrast, reforestation and albedo management are relatively
apolitical policies that are readily deployable. Furthermore, with
the climate bill currently pending in the U.S. Senate,65 the nation
has a unique opportun ity to en act new domestic initiative s
that could have both nat ional and global bene fits. While it is
undoubtedly important to conduct further research and continue
to deb ate the effe ctiveness and risks associated with geoengi-
neering, we do posses effective methods for sequestering carbon
and managing planetary albedo. Bu t every day of inaction and
lack o f leadership brings the world closer to the harsh conse-
quences and realities of a planet in great peril.
1 See William F. Ruddiman, How Did Humans First Alter Global Climate?,
Sci. am., Mar. 2005.
2 Id.
3 Id.
4 K.L. Denman, et al., Couplings Between Changes in the Climate System
and Biogeochemistry, in climate change 2007: the phySical Science baSiS
542 (S. Solomon, et al. (eds.), Cambridge Univ. Press 2007), available at
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_Ch07.pdf.
5 Id.
6 Ruddiman, supra note 1, at 51.
Endnotes: Readily Deployable Approaches to Geoengineering: Cool
Materials and Aggressive Reforestation
Endnotes: Readily Deployable Approaches to Geoengineering:
Cool Materials continued on page 63
7 Id.
8 Id.
9 Id.
10 National Geographic, Facts, Deforestation Information, Effects of Deforesta-
tion, http://environment.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/
deforestation-overview.html (last visited Feb. 10, 2010).
