1. Practical Geoengineering Options to Prevent
Abrupt and Long-Term Climate Change
Alvia Gaskill, President
Environmental Reference Materials, Inc.
Research Triangle Park, N.C.
agaskill@nc.rr.com
888-645-7645
Charles E. Reese, Ph.D.
Consultant
St. Julians, Malta
reese@adeptscience.com
356-2137-1223
Presented to:
U.S. Climate Change Technology Program
U.S. Department of Energy
Washington, D.C.
June 16, 2004

2. Acknowledgments
Senator Elizabeth Dole
Representative Richard Burr
Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham
Mr. David Conover, Climate Change Technology Program
Dr. Michael MacCracken
Mr. Tom Partridge, Tyco Plastics
Dr. Ken Caldeira, LLNL
Dr. Hashem Akbari, LBNL
Dr. Haider Taha, Altostratus

3. Topics to be Discussed
1. Problem of Long-Term Climate Change
2. How Addressed by Treaties & Emission
Reduction
Technologies
3. Geoengineering Alternatives to
Treaties/Emission
Reduction Technologies
4. Large-Scale Surface Albedo Enhancement to
Address Long-Term Climate Change, Urban
Heat
Islands & Cape Verde Hurricanes

4. Topics to be Discussed
5. Abrupt Climate Change: Methane Hydrate Release,
Gulf Stream Shutdown
6. Use of Atmospheric Particulate Injection to Alter
Hurricane Steering Currents

5. Long-Term Climate Change Problem
• Earth heated almost entirely by solar radiation (visible,
near infrared, UV).
• This shortwave radiation (0.3 to 0.4 µm) absorbed by
atmosphere and surface, re-emitted as longwave
infrared radiation (4-40 µm).
• Trace gases in atmosphere (water vapor, carbon
dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, halocarbons, ozone)
absorb this infrared (IR) or thermal radiation and re-emit
it back to surface, where it can be absorbed and radiated
skyward again.

6. Solar spectrum

7. Climate Change Problem, cont’d.
• This doubles amount of IR in troposphere, giving Earth
average temperature of 60°F.
• This process known as “greenhouse effect.”
• Burning of fossil fuels and food production adding to
levels of these “greenhouse gases” or GHGs in
atmosphere and amount of absorbed IR.
• This enhanced greenhouse effect has caused increase
in average temperature of Earth of 1°F since 1850,
phenomenon known as “global warming.”

8. Climate Change Problem, cont’d.
• Left unchecked, GHG emissions may cause temperature to
increase another 2.5-10.5°F by 2100.
• Global climate change caused by warming may result in loss of
millions of species, droughts, floods, deadly heat waves, damaging
sea level rise and threaten food supply. Some effects already seen
in melting of mountain glaciers, warmer temperatures in Arctic, early
arrival of spring in England, sea level rise.
• Significant changes to temperate regions by 2025; irreparable
damage by 2050.
• Climate: average of weather conditions over 30-year period for an
area.

9. Efforts to Reduce GHG Emissions
• Policy track: emissions reduction by
treaties and legislation- 10-15 year
timeline.
• Technology track: emissions reduction by
technological innovation and deployment-
decades to develop and deploy.

10. Policy Track: 1997 Kyoto
Protocol and Related Efforts
• Part of ongoing process since 1992.
• Applies to 38 developed nations and the EU.
China, India not covered.
• Goal: reduce levels of certain GHG emissions by
5.2% back to 1990 or 1995 baseline by 2012.
• CO2, CH4, N2O, PFCs, HFCs, SF6.

11. Kyoto et al., cont’d.
• First step to 60-90% reduction by 2050 to stabilize
atmospheric levels.
• After 2012, all nations would have to reduce emissions,
but no targets set yet.
• To go into effect, requires ratification by enough of 38
developed countries to account for 55% total 1990
baseline emissions.
• Russian ratification needed. They may soon. Can make
$billions selling credits to other countries that can’t meet
targets by reducing emissions.

12. Kyoto et al., cont’d.
• Treaty watered down to satisfy U.S., Japan, Russia and developing
countries. No financial penalties for non compliance.
• U.S., Australia won’t ratify due to economic cost of reducing
emissions.
• Byrd-Hagel 1997; Clear Skies 2002.
• U.S. says voluntary program with incentives will lower emissions by
4.5% relative to BAU.
• Some say U.S. program merely BAU under different name, with
most of the projected reductions heavily back-loaded and emissions
actually increase by 25% relative to 1990.

13. Kyoto vs. Reality
• Progress to date not encouraging.
• Japan projects +4.6 vs. -6% target.
• Only 2/15 EU members will meet target.
• UK and Sweden. UK due to fuel switching
unrelated to Kyoto.

14. Kyoto vs. Reality, cont’d.
• Projection is for EU to reduce emissions by 0.5% vs. 8%
agreed to.
• To meet target will require extraordinary use of offsetting
mechanisms of Kyoto not significantly used to date:
emissions credits, CDM, JI.
• EU emissions credit trading program to start January
2005.
• EU countries now worried about economic impact!

15. Meanwhile, in the U.S. Senate
• McCain-Lieberman Climate Stewardship Act:
reduce U.S. emissions to 1990 levels by 2016
across 3 sectors.
• Carper Clean Air Planning Act: reduce CO2 from
utilities only back to 2001 levels by 2012.
• Passage of these or similar bills unlikely now,
but efforts like them will eventually result in
enacted legislation or U.S. re-entry into a Kyoto-
like process.

16. The Problem with
Treaties & Legislation
• Arbitrary short-term deadlines make development and
deployment of significant technological change
impossible.
• Example: what meaningful changes can be made in the
next 6 months (Kyoto deadline #1) or 3.5 years (#2) or 8
years (#3)?
• Conclusion: don’t count on Kyoto or similar efforts to
solve the climate change problem in time.

17. Technology Track
• Comprehensive effort to fundamentally change how
energy produced.
• Problem #1: Man-made GHG emissions are produced
from and spread globally across variety of sources:
Transportation 20%
Power generation 20%
Heating (non-electric) 20%
Food, landfills, pipeline leaks 20%
Deforestation, land use 10%
Non transportation halocarbons 5%

18. Technology Track, cont’d.
• Problem #2: Replacement technologies
immature or non-existent.
• Fuel cells/Hydrogen: NAE doesn’t think
they will be significant until >2030.
• Uncertainties about hydrogen production,
distribution, storage, emissions control if
extracted from fossil fuels.

19. Technology Track, cont’d.
• Carbon management: capture and sequestration (land
disposal) too expensive, only applicable to future
generation large power stations that may be replaced by
smaller ones anyway.
• Renewables: still too expensive (solar) and no
infrastructure to support (wind); biomass not enough.
• Nuclear: too expensive and public won’t accept.
• These replacement technologies at least 20-40 years
away from being commercially deployable.

20. Technology Track, cont’d.
• No idea when soil carbon can be
manipulated to reduce emissions or food
production emissions can be controlled.
• No progress on deforestation or
halocarbon replacements.

21. Technology Track, cont’d.
• Problem #3: Existing capital stock.
• Cars: lifespan of 20 years. Hybrid cars
<0.1% of global sales (2002).
• How long to replace entire fleet with them
and after that FCVs?

22. Technology Track, cont’d.
• Power plants: lifespan of 35 years-indefinite.
• Heating systems: 30 years-indefinite.
• Assuming no fundamental changes made until
2025, long life cycles mean it will be well past
2050 before these GHG emissions can be
brought under control. And these only cover 60-
70% of emissions.

23. Our Conclusion
• GHG emissions will NOT be
reduced in time to prevent a
climate catastrophe!

24. A Question of Time
• When you know something isn’t going to
get done in time, what do you need?
• The answer is: MORE TIME!
• How are we going to get ourselves the
time needed to reduce emissions to safe
levels?

25. Geoengineering
• Geoengineering: aka macro climate
engineering; deliberate modification of
Earth’s climate.
• Usually presented as an alternative to
reducing emissions.

26. Geoengineering Strategies
• Increase IR loss by reducing atmospheric
CO2: afforestation, ocean fertilization, soil
carbon manipulation.
• Decrease absorbed solar radiation by
increasing albedo of atmosphere or
surface or by space-based reflectors.
• Other: altering ocean currents, icecaps.

27. Ocean Fertilization: Theory
• Theory: adding iron to iron deficient areas
of oceans stimulates phytoplankton
production and reduces atmospheric CO2
levels via ocean/air gradient.
• Dead phytoplankton sink to bottom,
keeping carbon there for centuries.

28. Ocean Fertilization: Reality
• Iron not only limiting nutrient. Silicate needed by
diatoms at 5000x iron levels.
• Only 5% of dead phytoplankton sink to bottom
from any one crop. Rest oxidized in upper layer
of ocean and CO2 simply re-circulated there.
• Significant transport to ocean bottom takes 100s
of years.

29. Ocean Fertilization: Conclusion
• Ocean fertilization with iron or other
nutrients won’t reduce atmospheric CO2
levels and can’t solve the GHG emissions
problem by 2050 or ever.

30. Reducing Solar Radiation
• Solar radiation is the energy source that powers the
greenhouse effect.
• Reflecting enough incoming sunlight from outside or
inside atmosphere would offset the heating from GHG
emissions.
• Outside the atmosphere: mirrors or diffraction gratings in
low Earth orbit or a million miles from Earth in fixed
position.
• Inside the atmosphere: reflective balloons or particles
injected into stratosphere or troposphere.

31. Reducing Solar Radiation, cont’d.
• Climate modeling shows no adverse impact on climate
from reduction outside the atmosphere.
• Problems: most of these ideas technically impractical by
2050.
• No way to build/deploy 1000’s of square miles of mirrors
in space; billions of balloons may not stay aloft or
separated-bunch up at poles.
• Particle injection possible, but may damage ozone layer
if chemically reactive (sulfate aerosols). Aluminum oxide
not reactive, but shorter residence time.

32. Surface Albedo Enhancement
• What’s left? The surface of the Earth.
• How? By increasing the reflectivity of the
surface to sunlight.
• Albedo: a measure of how much incident solar
radiation reflected from surface.
• Albedo scale of 0 to 1, with 0 = 0% reflection
and 1 = 100% reflection.

33. Surface Albedo Enhancement, cont’d.
• Black pavement has albedo of around
0.05 and fresh snow 0.9.
• Disadvantage: not as efficient as reflection
from space, since only half the solar
radiation that reaches top of the
atmosphere makes it to surface.

34. Solar and IR Fluxes
• Both incoming (downwelling) solar and outgoing
(upwelling) IR radiation measured in watts/m2
.
• A watt/m2
is a measure of how much energy impacts a
surface area per unit time-also known as flux.
• Average intensity of solar radiation at the Earth’s surface
= 168 watts/m2
. Includes day and night, year round, all
latitudes, oceans, land, ice caps.
• Solar and IR fluxes vary greatly throughout the day.

35. Surfrad Site
• Desert Rock, Nevada
• NOAA surface radiation monitoring ground
station.

37. Diurnal Variation in
Solar and IR Flux

38. Diurnal Variation
in Air Temperature

39. Radiative Forcing
• Greenhouse gas increases since 1700 have added
about 2 watts/m2
to the IR flux in the atmosphere, about
a 1% increase.
• This is known as positive radiative forcing.
• For perspective, a Christmas bulb puts out about 2
watts, but applied to the entire surface area of Earth (510
million million square meters), this is roughly equivalent
to output of 2 million 500 MW power plants.
• An additional 3-5 watts/m2
radiative forcing may be
added this century due to GHG emissions.

40. Small Scale Attempts to
Lower Air Temperature by
Increasing Surface Reflectivity
• White plastic mulch around vegetable plants.
• Keeps soil cooler so young plants can grow in
hot weather.
• Reflects sunlight onto underside of leaves,
giving more photosynthetically active radiation to
plants in more northern locations where less
solar radiation early in growing season.

41. Applying White Plastic Mulch

42. Mulch Application, cont’d.

43. Urban Heat Island Mitigation
• Whitening shingles and pavement to
lessen urban heat island effect.

44. Reflective Pavements are Cooler
• Fresh asphalt
Albedo: 0.05
Temperature: 123°F
• Aged asphalt
Albedo: 0.15
Temperature: 115°F
• Prototype
asphalt coating
Albedo: 0.51
Temperature: 88°F

45. Proposals to Manipulate Global
Climate by Increasing Surface Albedo
• The ocean: floating white plastic island, white
spheres, white chips, white foam.
• Too expensive, won’t stay white or in place.
• The land: planting white vegetation in desert or
spray coating desert vegetation with white
pigment. Not enough water.

46. The Ideal Candidate Land
• The ideal candidate land is the desert.
• Advantages: uninhabitated, unvegetated,
flat, stable, high solar flux, low humidity
(less absorption of solar and IR by water
vapor), otherwise worthless.
• Disadvantage: highest albedos except for
ice caps (0.35 vs. 0.15 global average).

47. Deserts of the World
• 7.5 million square miles.
• 75% gravel plains, dry lakebeds, mountains.
• About 15-20% sand dunes, vegetation.
• Sahara (3.5 million), Arabian (1 million),
Australian (600,000), Gobi (500,000).

55. Desert Land Available
for Albedo Enhancement
• Around 4.5 million square miles may be
suitable for albedo enhancement by
covering with a reflective surface.
• Coverage on this scale: the Global Albedo
Enhancement Project.

56. Land Coverage Requirements
• How much land to be covered to offset
most of 21st
century radiative forcing due to
GHGs?
• How much land required to meet other
offset targets?

57. Assumptions About Land
Coverage Requirements
• 2.75 watts/m2
GHG forcing 2010-2070.
• A reasonable estimate based on emissions forecasts.
• No significant land coverage could begin before 2010.
• By 2070, GHG emissions begin to be controlled.
• All additional radiation reflected at surface returned to
space.

58. Calculation of Net Reflected Solar
• Solar fluxes in watts/m2
shown below typical for deserts:
No cover With cover
Desert albedo 0.36 0.80
Shortwave down 310 310
Shortwave up 112 248
Absorbed solar 198 62
Absorbed no cover – absorbed with cover = additional
reflected sunlight. 198 – 62 = 136 watts/m2
.

59. Calculation of Land Area Coverage
• By taking the total watts for a given level
of forcing and dividing by 136 watts/m2
,the
land area required for coverage is
determined.

60. Land to Offset Forcings
in Million Square Miles
Forcing, W/m2
W x 1015
M sq. mi.
0.20a
0.102 0.29
0.27b
0.138 0.39
1 0.510 1.4
1.36c
0.694 2.0
2 1.020 2.9
2.48d
1.265 3.6
2.75e
1.403 4.0
5.43f
2.769 7.9

61. Coverage for Various
Scenarios, Square Miles
U.S. Kyoto target 290,000
U.S. electric power 390,000
generation 1750-2070
U.S. all forcing 1750-2070 2,000,000
Global forcing 1750-2000 3,600,000
All forcing 2010-2070 4,000,000
All forcing 1750-2070 7,900,000

62. Considerations and Perspective
• 4 million square miles is required to offset
all of the forcing from 2010-2070, almost
all of the available desert land that would
likely be suitable.
• Averaged over 60 years, this is 67,000
square miles/yr., about the area of
Missouri or less than the 80,000 sq. mi.
planted in wheat annually in U.S.

63. Implementation
• Computer climate modeling to predict impacts
• Surface cover selection and development
• Installation
• Monitoring
• Maintenance
• Costs/financing
• Schedule

64. Climate Modeling
• Global: to detect changes on global scale
such as changes in temperature, wind flow
patterns, precipitation and hydrology, dust
storms, tropical wave formation.
• Regional, mesoscale: same general
issues as global, but on a smaller scale
and with greater resolution.

65. Value of Doing Modeling
Before Field Studies
• Systematic errors in comparative runs
tend to cancel out.
• Models can be designed to avoid
problems that natural variability will induce
in trying to identify changes.

66. Global Climate Modeling of
Changes in Earth’s Radiation Balance
• Typically based on applying instantaneous
change in solar radiation to an area (entire
planet, large region) and allowing planetary
conditions to stabilize for some number of years
before evaluating the impact of the change in
radiative balance.
• Not reality. Real change would occur
incrementally as space-based reflectors or
surface covers are built and deployed.

67. Global Climate Modeling Used to Study
Changes in Earth’s Radiative Balance
• LLNL Climate & Carbon Cycle Modeling
Group.
• Two studies of changes in surface and
atmospheric temperatures resulting from
doubling and quadrupling CO2 levels with
an accompanying decrease in solar
radiation from outside atmosphere.

68. Geoengineering Earth’s radiative
balance
Ken Caldeira
Climate and Carbon Cycle Modeling Group
Energy & Environment Directorate
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
kenc@llnl.gov
Tyndall Centre & Cambridge-MIT Institute Symposium
Macro-Engineering Options for Climate Change Management & Mitigation
8 January 2004

69. Model description
Community Climate Model, Version 3
(CCM3) developed at the National Center
for Atmospheric Research.
– spectral model with 42 surface spherical harmonics to
represent the horizontal structure of prognostic
variables
– horizontal resolution is 2.8° latitude and 2.8° longitude
– 18 levels in the vertical.
– slab ocean, spatially and temporally prescribed ocean
heat flux and mixed layer-depth, which ensures
replication of realistic sea surface temperatures and
ice distributions for the present climate
– thermodynamic sea-ice model

70. Description of simulations
• Perform three simulations
– Control — 280 ppm CO2, observed solar
constant
– Doubled-CO2 — 560 ppm CO2, observed solar
constant
– Geoengineered — 560 ppm CO2, solar constant
reduced to
compensate global mean
radiative
forcing from increased CO2
• Compare
– Doubled CO2 minus Control
– Geoengineered minus Control

71. 2 x CO2
2 x CO2
and
1.7% reduction in
solar intensity

72. Annualmeansurface
temperaturechangeand
“statistical
significance”

73. Annual and zonal
mean temperature
change
2xCO2
Geoengineere
d

74. Why does geoengineering work
in this model?
• The oceans have a large heat capacity. The
oceans absorb heat in the summer and release
heat in the winter, diminishing the amplitude of
the seasonal cycle.
• The interseasonal heat “transport” is greatly
affected by the presence of seasonal sea ice.
• To first order, restoring the global mean
temperature restores sea-ice extent and
therefore the interseasonal “transport” of heat.

75. 4xCO2Geoengineere
d
Annualmeansurface
temperaturechangeand
“statistical
significance”

76. Conclusions
• Reduction of solar luminosity largely
compensates for the effects of increased
atmospheric CO2 (in this model)
– Regionally
– Seasonally

77. Conclusions
• These simulations suggest that
geoengineering could potentially mitigate
global, regional, and seasonal climate
change, despite the large differences
between solar forcing and CO2 forcing
– These studies are highly preliminary.

78. Limitations of Global Modeling
• Data points represent very large areas,
2.8 degrees latitude and longitude or
around 44,000 square miles.
• Not possible with this resolution to discern
changes inside this area.
• 44,000 square miles about 2/3 size of
annual coverage under GAEP.

79. Mesoscale, Regional Modeling
• Can use output from global models.
• Mesoscale detail added to account for
effects of increased albedo on regional
climates.
• Allows region-by-region assessment of
local impacts.

80. Examples of Use of Mesoscale
Modeling to Evaluate Surface
Albedo Enhancement
• Altostratus, Inc.
• Studied effect on air temperature and
ozone levels in Southern California.
• Examples from this and outline of
proposed work on GAEP follow.

81. Modeling and quantifying the potential
meteorological and air-quality impacts of
global and regional albedo enhancements
Haider Taha
Altostratus, Inc.
haider@altostratus.com
(925) 228-1573

82.  Regionally offsetting potential meteorological
impacts of global increases in radiative forcing
 Fine spatiotemporal-resolution modeling
Regional meteorology
Regional ground-level (tropospheric) ozone
Regional biogenic and anthropogenic emissions
This project sub-task will quantify impacts on:

83. Impacts on energy use and conversion
Impacts on thermal environment and heat waves
Large-scale increases in albedo:
Benefits
Inadvertent impacts
Related regional aspects of interest which can be
quantified based on results from this subtask

84. Proposed models and data
Regional (mesoscale)
MM5, version 3.6+ further modified
CAMx version 3.10/4.0, UAM-V
Global
Climate models (HadCM3, PCM, GISS)
Other
Land surface models
Biogenic and anthropogenic emission models

85. Land use and land cover
Global and regional LULC, e.g., USGS, and
remote sensing derivatives (e.g., MODIS/AVHRR)
Meteorlogical data
NCEP/NCAR reanalyses, or similar
Emission inventories (if air quality
modeling)
Climate model output
For selected emission scenarios (e.g., A* and B*
IPCC SRES)
Proposed models and data

86. Example regional modeling grid for the western US with downscaling focused on
Central California. The mesoscale grid resolution is 4 km and the
white dots show a portion of the global climate model grid

87. Initial MM5/CAMx example results
Southern California Example:
Simulated ground-level ozone concentrations for a base case at
1500 LST on August 5th, 1997.

88. Southern California Example:
Simulated 10m base-case air temperature (Cº) at
1200 and 1600 PST on August 5th
, 1997 (MM5)

89. Example:
Regional albedo modification scenarios
USGS LULC Base Moderate
increases
Large
increases
Urban LUCL only
11 Residential 0.157 0.218 0.278
12 Commercial/Services 0.139 0.223 0.366
13 Industrial 0.152 0.233 0.332
14 Transportation/Communicati
on
0.117 0.210 0.374
15 Industrial and commercial 0.145 0.228 0.349
16 Mixed urban or built up 0.134 0.229 0.281
17 Other urban or built up 0.142 0.156 0.199

90. Albedo modification potential for Southern California
Example: urban albedo increase 5km cells: 1291>0, 625>0.01,
456>0.02, 256>0.05, 143>0.10, 40>0.15, 17>0.16
Los Angeles
San Diego

91. Southern California Example:
Change in 10m air temperature (K) at 1200 PST
on August 5th
, 1997, due to increased regional urban albedo

92. Surface Cover
Selection & Development
• Ideal cover:
– Inexpensive to produce, install, maintain
– Highly reflective (albedo >0.8)
– Puncture and tear resistant
– Stable for years
– Recyclable as cover material
– Available today or within 5 years

93. Plastic Film
• Polyethylene film is the best choice for the
cover material.
• White polyethylene film is white due to
titanium dioxide pigment.
• For field use contains additives:
antioxidants, thermal stabilizers, UV
inhibitors.

94. White Film, cont’d.
• Embossed to resist wind fatigue, cracking.
• Not completely opaque at thicknesses
commercially available (1-6 mil). Albedos
of around 60% are typical. However, this
is usually enough to triple surface
reflection and meet the needs of vegetable
growers.

95. Aluminized Composite Film
• To improve solar reflectivity, may be desirable to
use a composite film with an aluminized layer
bonded to a white layer.
• Aluminized layer may reflect 90% and white
layer 60%, for overall of around 80%.
• Such material used in vegetable crop production
and orchards.

97. Installation Issues
• Surface preparation: removal of material that
could puncture plastic- may require grading.
• Installation equipment may have to be designed.
Large installers used for geomembranes.
• How to keep in place: natural soil or mechanical
anchors.
• Spacing pattern: continuous or non continuous.

100. Monitored Parameters
• Parameters to be measured:
– Surface albedo: accuracy required for models,
to calculate “thermal credits,” and ensure
proper maintenance to keep albedo above
target value.
– Other parameters: radiometric,
meteorological, surface radiation flux, surface
characterization, water vapor.

101. Monitoring Systems
• Ground stations: expensive, not
representative due to small coverage
area. More comprehensive and
continuous than other options.
• Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs).
• Satellites

102. Maintenance
• Replacement of plastic every 3 years.
• Cleaning as needed with robotic vacuum
cleaners (Geovacs) to remove dust that
degrades albedo.

103. Surface Cleaning Issues
• Conventional robotic vacuum cleaners
spread fine coating not easily removed.
• See video for example and possible
solution.
• Another option is to cover areas dust
originates to limit impact.

104. Cost Assumptions
• Maximum coverage of 4 million square miles
done equally over 60 years or some fraction
thereof to achieve maximum cost advantage.
• Plastic: 3-layer, 4-mil polyethylene film @1.7
cents/square foot.
• Plastic can be recycled 3 times at 50% cost of
virgin. If composites used, hard to recycle.

105. Cost Assumptions, cont’d.
• Cost of installation 25% cost of plastic,
monitoring is 5%.
• Maintenance based on 24/7 vacuum
operation.
• Land free in return for jobs, debt
forgiveness.

106. Cost Assumptions, cont’d.
• No allowance for inflation or increase in
resin prices.
• Cover installed over 60-year period, kept
in place 150 years.
• Total cost at end of 150 years is $75
trillion or $19 million/square mile.

107. Financing
• All nations purchase thermal credits
relatable to GHG emissions under
successor treaty to Kyoto.
• Cost per tonne of carbon emissions
equivalent whose radiative forcing is offset
by the cover is based on future scenario in
which 1170 GtC emitted 2010-2070 (19.5
GtC/year). This is $64/tonne.

108. Cost Issues
• Purchase price of plastic film 80% of total
cost and drives the cost of the project.
• Bringing down this cost an important step.
• If 1-mil composite film meeting the
performance requirements could be
developed for 25% cost of the example,
cost per tonne drops to $26.

109. Schedule
Phase I Modeling completed by
end of 2004.
Phase II Cover development,
field trials 2005-2012
from 20 hectares in
2005 to 1000-5000
square miles in 2010-2012.
Phase III Full-scale implementation
2012-2072.

110. Other Issues
• GHG emissions created by the GAEP
• Other environmental impacts
• Political issues
• Liability issues

111. GHG Emissions from GAEP
• Expect mostly from production, transportation,
installation, recycling of plastic film.
• Estimates based on extrapolation of U.S.
plastics industry total GHG emissions to global
and this project.
• Separate GHG data not available for plastic film.

112. GAEP GHG Emissions Estimate
• Ethylene and resin production emissions
included.
• Present day U.S. emissions 19 MtC.
• U.S. emissions one third global. So global
emissions 57 MtC.
• Total GHG emissions 8000 MtC.
• Plastics industry emissions 0.7% all GHG.

113. GAEP Emissions, cont’d.
• Plastic film 25% of total plastics industry
emissions.
• Plastic film 0.18% global GHG emissions.
• 1 million tonnes plastic film produced U.S. or 3
million globally.
• Weight of 4-mil plastic film 335 tonnes/sq. mi.
• 335 tonnes x 67,000 sq. mi. = 22.5 Mt

114. GAEP Emissions, cont’d.
• Applied maximally, the GAEP would increase
plastic film production from 3 to 22.5 Mt, a factor
of 7.5.
• Assuming additional activities related to
transportation and installation increase this to
10X current levels.
• GAEP GHG emissions would then be 1.8% of
global emissions.

115. GAEP Emissions, cont’d.
• The percentage contribution decreases as global
GHG emissions increase.
• Example: with global at 12,000 MtC/yr., the %
due to GAEP drops to 1.2%.
• If GAEP emissions can be captured and
sequestered, impact will be lessened.
• Effect of recycling on these estimates unknown.

116. GAEP Emissions
• Thus, while GAEP GHG emissions not
insignificant, the project would offset
almost 100X the emissions it would
create.

117. Other Environmental Impacts
• Loss of species: inevitable, but the loss of
hundreds or even 1000s of desert plant
and animal species due to the coverage of
their habitat must be weighed against the
expected loss of millions of species
globally from long-term 21st
century climate
change. In the end, only one species
really counts. We’re not running a global
zoo. This is where WE live.

118. Other Environmental Impacts
• Alteration of desert dust flow to rest of world.
• Sahara and other deserts supply world’s oceans
with iron and Amazon with iron and
phosphorous.
• Shutting off some of the dust storms by direct or
indirect coverage may impact these biomes.
• Potential impact must be known in advance by
doing appropriate climate modeling.

119. Political Issues
• Most of deserts located in politically volatile
regions. However, oil producing nations and
large emitters like China have a stake in smooth
transition to GHG stabilization. International
cooperation a key to success.
• 1977 UN treaty prohibiting hostile use of
environmental modification techniques including
weather/climate.

120. Liability Issues
• Who is responsible if GAEP results in
damage to climate, economy, etc. of a
country, region, etc.?
• International Price-Anderson type act
needed to cap liability or indemnify all
involved from all adverse judgments.

121. Application of Large-Scale
Surface Albedo Enhancement to
Urban Heat Island Problem
• The urban heat island effect is caused by
absorption and re-emission of solar
radiation by low reflectivity buildings and
pavement in urban areas. The lack of
trees to carry off the heat as transpired
water results in higher daytime and night
temperatures, higher air conditioning costs
and greater ozone formation.

122. LBNL and CEC Work
• Lawrence Berkeley National Lab and the
California Energy Commission have been
studying ways to mitigate the urban heat island
effect for a number of years.
• Their proposals to do so include whitening of
surfaces (roofs, pavements) and planting of
trees. The “whitening” includes the total solar
spectrum so some “dark” surfaces can be made
“whiter” relative to total solar radiation.

123. LBNL Work
• Examples of some their work are shown
on the following slides.

124. Cool Surfaces and Shade Trees: to
Reduce Energy Use,
Reduce Global Warming, and
Improve Air Quality in Urban Areas
Hashem Akbari
Tel: 510-486-4287
E_mail: H_Akbari@LBL.gov
Heat Island Group
Lawrence Berkeley National
Laboratory
http://HeatIsland.LBL.gov
April 20, 2004; San Francisco

125. What Is a Heat Island?

126. Measured Temperature Trends
in Selected Cities (3-8 Decades)

127. Effect of Temperature Rise on
Peak Ozone Concentration

128. Mitigation Measures: Light-
Colored Surfaces and Trees
•Direct Effect
- Light-colored roofs reflect solar radiation, reduce air-
conditioning use
- Trees that shade buildings reduce air-conditioning use
•Indirect Effect
- Light-colored surfaces in a neighborhood alter surface
energy balance; result in lower ambient temperature
- Vegetation in a neighborhood reduces ambient
temperature by evapotranspiration

129. Methodology: Energy and Air-Quality Analysis

130. ISP/LBNL Shingle With Whiter
Roofing Granules

131. Solar spectrum

132. Development of Cool Blacks
• Two-layer system
– top coat: thin layer of dioxazine purple (14-27 µm)
– undercoat or substrate:
aluminum foil (~ 25 µm)
opaque white paint (~1000 µm)
non-opaque white paint (~ 25 µm)
opaque black paint (~ 25 µm)
purple
over
aluminum
foil
purple
over
opaque
white paint
purple
over
non-opaque
white paint
purple
over
opaque
black paint

133. Dioxazine Purple
Reflectances
over aluminum
Rsolar = 0.41
over opaque white
Rsolar = 0.42
over non-opaque white
Rsolar = 0.30
over opaque black
Rsolar = 0.05

134. Potential National Savings from
Changing Roof Reflectivity

135. Energy and Air-Quality Benefits of
Trees
• Shading of buildings
• Evaporative cooling
• Wind shielding
• Smog reduction
• PM10 deposition
• Dry deposition
• Direct carbon sequestration

136. Simulated Air Temperature Difference:
Adding 11 M Trees
* Anaheim
* Irvine
* LAX
Los Angeles * * Ontario
* Riverside
* Burbank
Temperature difference (° C)
-3.5
-1.5
-3.0
-1.0
-2.5
-0.5
-2.0
Los Angeles, 3 p.m., August 28

137. Potential Savings From
Reflective Surfaces and Trees
Air conditioning: 2015 All electricity
uses in 1995
Base case Projected
savings
Electricity use (TWh) 400 40 3000
Electricity cost ($B) 40 4 200
CO2 (MtC) 70 7 500

138. White Roofs Programs in California
• One Time Incentive -- $20 Million
–at $0.15 to $0.20 per square foot
• New California Power Authority wants to
lend money for the entire cost of a re-roof
(only, of course, if white)
• 2001 to 2005-- credits white and cool
colored roofs
• 2005 will require cool flat roofs.

139. Potential Savings in LA
• Savings for Los Angeles
—Direct, $100M/year
—Indirect, $70M/year
—Smog, $360M/year
• Estimate of national
savings: $5B/year

140. Apparent Impact of Large-Scale Urban Heat
Island Mitigation on Climate Change
• The California Energy Commission has
calculated that whitening pavements and
rooftops in the largest 100 cities on Earth
could offset GHG emissions by 2.5%.

141. Delaying Global Climate Change
Efficiency Lessons from California
CEC/PIER Climate Change
Conference
Sacramento, 9 June 2004
Arthur H. Rosenfeld, Commissioner
California Energy Commission
(916) 654-4930
ARosenfe@Energy.State.CA.US

142. Cool Roofs and Pavements
Directly Cool the Earth.
.
• Alvia Gaskill wants to cool deserts; I’d first cool
100 megacities.
• Gaskill proposes to cover 4 M mi. sq. w/ white
plastic, and thus reduce radiative forcing by 2.7
W/m2.
• [Russell Seitz proposed painting the black rocks
of ND.]
• LA has 1000 mi2 of roof + roads. Assume
another 100 hot megacities, so 0.1 M mi2 total.
Cooling them would mainly save $ for a/c, and
reduce ozone, but it would also get us 2.5% of
the way to complete mitigation.

143. Value to a Megacity of Cool Roads
and Roofs if Carbon trades at $10/tc
($10/tonne of carbon)
• How much carbon equivalent is removed by 1000 mi2 of
cooler roofs and roads (albedo engineering) in, say, Los
Angeles?
• Gaskill says 4 Million mi2 = complete mitigation,
i.e 2 Gtc/ year..
– So 1000 mi2 = 1/4000 of 2 Gtc/year.
• But roofs/roads last 20 years, so each 1000 mi2 is
worth 20/4000 x 2 Gtc = 10 Mtc.
• At a trading price of $10/tc, this is worth $100 Million
(one time) to each megacity.

144. Applying GAEP Principles to
Urban Heat Island Effect
• The GAEP can be considered an
expanded version of urban heat island
mitigation.
• One way in which the two can be married
is to consider large scale albedo
enhancement of areas outside cities that
are urban heat islands.

145. Candidates for
Albedo Enhancement
• Las Vegas, NV
• Phoenix, AZ
• Covering 5-20 square miles outside each city
may cool off the cities themselves.
• This can be done much sooner than the
whitening of urban surfaces and large scale tree
planting which may take decades to complete.

146. Proposed Research
• Modeling: using conditions in LLNL papers
for reduction in inbound solar for
comparison.
• Compare incremental coverage vs. all at
once to gauge impact of incremental.
• Both global and mesoscale modeling of
these conditions.

147. Proposed Research, cont’d.
• Global and mesoscale modeling to
determine impact of urban heat island
mitigation of 100 largest cities by albedo
enhancement of pavement and roof tops
vs. large scale enhancement of
surrounding land.
• Must decide on which land to cover and
the albedo after enhancement.