Advertisement

Frontiers of Engineering Management

, Volume 6, Issue 1, pp 38–51 | Cite as

Geoengineering and the blockchain: Coordinating Carbon Dioxide Removal and Solar Radiation Management to tackle future emissions

  • Andrew Lockley
  • Zhifu Mi
  • D’Maris CoffmanEmail author
Open Access
Research Article

Abstract

Geoengineering is a proposed response to anthropogenic global warming (AGW). Conventionally it consists of two strands: Solar Radiation Management (SRM), which is fast-acting, incomplete but inexpensive, and Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR), which is slower acting, more expensive, and comprehensive. Pairing SRM and CDR offers a contractually complete solution for future emissions if effectively-scaled and coordinated. SRM offsets warming, while CDR takes effect.We suggest coordination using a blockchain, i.e. smart contracts and a distributed ledger. Specifically, we integrate CDR futures with time and volume-matched SRM orders, to address emissions contractually before release. This provides an economically and environmentally proportionate solution to CO2 emissions at the wellhead, with robust contractual transparency, and minimal overhead cost.

Our proposal offers a ‘polluter pays’ implementation of Long & Shepherds SRM ‘bridge’ concept. This ‘polluter geoengineers’ approach mandates and verifies emissions-linked payments with minimal friction, delay, or cost. Finally, we compare alternative market designs against this proposal, finding that this proposal offers several advantages. We conclude that blockchain implementation of the ‘polluter geoengineers’ approach is attractive and feasible for larger wellhead contracts. We also identify a handful of advantages and disadvantages that merit further study.

Keywords

Geoengineering Solar Radiation Management Carbon Dioxide Removal futures markets smart contracts blockchain 

References

  1. Al Kawasmi E, Arnautovic E, Svetinovic D (2015). Bitcoin-based decentralized carbon emissions trading infrastructure model. Systems Engineering, 18(2): 115–130Google Scholar
  2. Antonopoulos A (2014). Mastering Bitcoin—Unlocking Digital Cryptocurrencies. New York: O’Reilly MediaGoogle Scholar
  3. Bayon R, Hawn A, Hamilton K (2012). Voluntary Carbon Markets: An International Business Guide to What They Are and How They Work. Abingdon: RoutledgeGoogle Scholar
  4. Brennan M J, Crew N (1997). Hedging long maturity commodity commitments with short-dated futures contracts. In: Dempster M, Pliska S, eds. Mathematics of Derivatives Securities. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 165–190Google Scholar
  5. Broeren M L M, Saygin D, Patel M K (2014). Forecasting global developments in the basic chemical industry for environmental policy analysis. Energy Policy, 64: 273–287Google Scholar
  6. Brühl C, Lelieveld J, Tost H, Höpfner M, Glatthor N (2015). Stratospheric sulfur and its implications for radiative forcing simulated by the chemistry climate model EMAC. Journal of Geophysical Research, D, Atmospheres, 120(5): 2103–2118Google Scholar
  7. Bui M, Adjiman C S, Bardow A, Anthony E J, Boston A, Brown S, Fennell P S, Fuss S, Galindo A, Hackett L A, Hallett J P, Herzog H J, Jackson G, Kemper J, Krevor S, Maitland G C, Matuszewski M, Metcalfe I S, Petit C, Puxty G, Reimer J, Reiner D M, Rubin E S, Scott S A, Shah N, Smit B, Trusler J P M, Webley P, Wilcox J, Mac Dowell N (2018). Carbon capture and storage (CCS): The way forward. Energy & Environmental Science, 11(5): 1062–1176Google Scholar
  8. Carl J, Fedor D (2016). Tracking global carbon revenues: A survey of carbon taxes versus cap-and-trade in the real world. Energy Policy, 96: 50–77Google Scholar
  9. Carlsson-Kanyama A, González A D (2009). Potential contributions of food consumption patterns to climate change. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 89(5): 1704S–1709SGoogle Scholar
  10. Celia M A, Nordbotten J M, Bachu S, Dobossy E, Court B (2009). Risk of leakage versus depth of injection in geological storage. Energy Procedia, 1(1): 2573–2580Google Scholar
  11. Chapron G (2017). The environment needs cryptogovernance. NATNews, 545: 403Google Scholar
  12. Chen D (2018). Utility of the blockchain for climate mitigation. Journal of the British Blockchain Association, 1(1): 3577MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  13. Chen G Q, Patel M K (2012). Plastics derived from biological sources: Present and future: A technical and environmental review. Chemical Reviews, 112(4): 2082–2099Google Scholar
  14. Chitchya R, Murkin J (2018). Review of blockchain technology and its expectations: Case of the energy sector. http://arXiv preprintarXiv:1803.03567Google Scholar
  15. Coffman D, Lockley A (2017). Carbon dioxide removal and the futures market. Environmental Research Letters, 12(1): 015003Google Scholar
  16. Corbera E, Estrada M, Brown K (2009). How do regulated and voluntary carbon-offset schemes compare? Journal of Integrative Environmental Sciences, 6(1): 25–50Google Scholar
  17. Courtland R (2008). Planktos dead in the water. NATNews, 451: 879Google Scholar
  18. Dai Z, Weisenstein D K, Keith D W (2018). Tailoring meridional and seasonal radiative forcing by sulfate aerosol solar geoengineering. Geophysical Research Letters, 45(2): 1030–1039Google Scholar
  19. Duffle D, Zhu H (2011). Does a central clearing counterparty reduce counterparty risk? Review of Asset Pricing Studies, 1(1): 74–95Google Scholar
  20. Dwork C, Naor M (1993). Pricing via Processing, Or, Combatting Junk Mail. Advances in Cryptology. CRYPTO’92: Lecture Notes in Computer Science No. 740. Berlin: Springer, 139–147Google Scholar
  21. Frunza M, Guegan D, Lassoudiere A (2011). Missing trader fraud on the emissions market. Journal of Financial Crime, 18(2): 183–194Google Scholar
  22. Galenovich A, Lonshakov S, Shadrin A (2018). Blockchain ecosystem for carbon markets, environmental assets, rights, and liabilities: Concept design and implementation. In: Marke A, eds. Transforming Climate Finance and Green Investment with Blockchains. Cambridge: Academic Press, 229–242Google Scholar
  23. Galloway J N, Townsend A R, Erisman J W, Bekunda M, Cai Z, Freney J R, Martinelli L A, Seltzinger S P, Sutton M A (2008). Transformation of the nitrogen cycle: Recent trends, questions, and potential solutions. Science, 320(5878): 889–892Google Scholar
  24. Garman M B (1976). Market microstructure. Journal of Financial Economics, 3(3): 257–275MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  25. Gerrard M B, Hester T (2018). Climate Engineering and the Law: Regulation and Liability for Solar Radiation Management and Carbon Dioxide Removal. Cambridge: Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
  26. Giungato P, Rana R, Tarabella A, Tricase C (2017). Current trends in sustainability of bitcoins and related blockchain technology. Sustainability, 9(12): 2214Google Scholar
  27. Green J F (2017). The strength of weakness: Pseudo-clubs in the climate regime. Climatic Change, 144(1): 41–52Google Scholar
  28. Gutknecht V, Snæbjörnsdóttir S Ó, Sigfússon B, Aradóttir E S, Charles L (2018). Creating a carbon dioxide removal solution by combining rapid mineralization of CO2 with direct air capture. Energy Procedia, 146: 129–134Google Scholar
  29. Hamilton C, Turton H (2002). Determinants of emissions growth in OECD countries. Energy Policy, 30(1): 63–71Google Scholar
  30. Haywood J, Jones A, Bellouin N, Stephenson D (2013). Asymmetric forcing from stratospheric aerosols impacts Sahelian rainfall. Nature Climate Change, 3(7): 660–665Google Scholar
  31. Hermann B G, Blok K, Patel M K (2007). Producing bio-based bulk chemicals using industrial biotechnology saves energy and combats climate change. Environmental Science & Technology, 41(22): 7915–7921Google Scholar
  32. Heyen D, Wiertz T, Irvine P J (2015). Regional disparities in SRM impacts: The challenge of diverging preferences. Climatic Change, 133(4): 557–563Google Scholar
  33. Hill S, Ming Y (2012). Nonlinear climate response to regional brightening of tropical marine stratocumulus. Geophysical Research Letters, 39(15): L15707Google Scholar
  34. Hoffman G W (1941) Grain prices and the futures market: A 15-year survey, 1923–1938. USDA Technical Bulletin, 747Google Scholar
  35. IEAGHG (2011) Potential for biomass and carbon dioxide capture and storage. https://doi.org/www.eenews.net/assets/2011/08/04/document_cw_01.pdf Google Scholar
  36. Interpol (2013). Guide to Carbon Trading Crime. Lyon: Interpol Environmental Crime Programme PublicationsGoogle Scholar
  37. IPCC (2013). Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
  38. IPCC (2018). Summary for Policymakers. In: Global Warming of 1.5°C —an IPCC special report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty. Cambridge: Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
  39. Jones A, Haywood J, Boucher O (2010). A comparison of the climate impacts of geoengineering by stratospheric SO2 injection and by brightening of marine stratocumulus cloud. Atmospheric Science Letters, 12(2): 176–183Google Scholar
  40. Kaskaloglu K (2014). Near zero bitcoin transaction fees cannot last forever. Proceedings of the Society of Digital Information and Wireless Communication, 91–99Google Scholar
  41. Keith D (2010). Photophoretic levitation of engineered aerosols for geoengineering. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 107(38): 16428–16431Google Scholar
  42. Keith D W, Wagner G, Zabel C L (2017). Solar geoengineering reduces atmospheric carbon burden. Nature Climate Change, 7(9): 617–619Google Scholar
  43. Kiviat T I (2015). Beyond bitcoin: Issues in regulating blockchain tranactions. Duke Law Journal, 65: 569–608Google Scholar
  44. Kohler P, Hartmann J, Wolf-Gladrow D A (2010). Geoengineering potential of artificially enhanced silicate weathering of olivine. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 107(47): 20228–20233Google Scholar
  45. Kollmuss A, Schneider L, Zhezherin V (2015). Has joint implementation reduced GHG emissions? Lessons learned for the design of carbon market mechanisms. Stockholm: SEI Working Paper No. 2015–07Google Scholar
  46. Lackner K S, Brennan S, Matter J M, Park A H A, Wright A, Van Der Zwaan B (2012). The urgency of the development of CO2 capture from ambient air. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 109(33): 13156–13162Google Scholar
  47. Larsen H N, Hertwich E G (2009). The case for consumption-based accounting of greenhouse gas emissions to promote local climate action. Environmental Science & Policy, 12(7): 791–798Google Scholar
  48. Latham J (2002). Amelioration of global warming by controlled enhancement of the albedo and longevity of low-level maritime clouds. Atmospheric Science Letters, 3(2–4): 52–58Google Scholar
  49. Lemieux V L (2016). Trusting records: Is Blockchain technology the answer? Records Management Journal, 26(2): 110–139MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  50. Levy J I (2006). Contemplating delivery: futures trading and the problem of commodity exchange in the United States, 1875–1905. American Historical Review, 111(2): 307–335Google Scholar
  51. Liebenberg L (2002). The Electronic Financial Markets of the Future and Survival Strategies of the Broker-Dealers. London: Palgrave MacmillanGoogle Scholar
  52. Locatelli B, Pedroni L (2004). Accounting methods for carbon credits: Impacts on the minimum area of forestry projects under the clean development mechanism. Climate Policy, 4(2): 193–204Google Scholar
  53. Lockley A (2016). Licence to chill: Building a legitimate authorisation process for commercial SRM operations. Environmental Law Review, 18(1): 25–40Google Scholar
  54. Lockley A, Coffman D (2018). Carbon dioxide removal and tradeable put options at scale. Environmental Research Letters, 13(5): 054034Google Scholar
  55. Lomax G, Workman M, Lenton T, Shah N (2015). Reframing the policy approach to greenhouse gas removal technologies. Energy Policy, 78: 125–136Google Scholar
  56. Long J C S, Shepherd J G (2014). The strategic value of geoengineering research. In: Freedman B, eds. Global Environmental Change. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands, 1: 757–770Google Scholar
  57. MacMartin D, Caldeira K, Keith D (2014). Solar geoengineering to limit the rate of temperature change. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 372(2031): 20140134Google Scholar
  58. Marshall A (1919). Industry and Trade. London: Palgrave MacmillanGoogle Scholar
  59. Martin P, LoeffMR, Cassar N, Vandromme P, d’Ovidio F, Stemmann L, Rengarajan R, Soares M, González H E, Ebersbach F, Lampitt R S (2013). Iron fertilization enhanced net community production but not downward particle flux during the Southern Ocean iron fertilization experiment LOHAFEX. Global Biogeochemical Cycles, 27(3): 871–881Google Scholar
  60. McClellan J, Keith D W, Apt J (2012). Cost analysis of stratospheric albedo modification delivery systems. Environmental Research Letters, 7(3): 034019Google Scholar
  61. McCusker K E, Armour K C, Bitz C M, Battisti D S (2014). Rapid and extensive warming following cessation of solar radiation management. Environmental Research Letters, 9(2): 024005Google Scholar
  62. Metcalf G E, Weisbach D (2009). The design of a carbon tax. Harvard Environmental Law Review, 33: 499–556Google Scholar
  63. Ming T, Liu W, Caillol S (2014). Fighting global warming by climate engineering: Is the earth radiation management and the solar radiation management any option for fighting climate change? Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews, 31: 792–834Google Scholar
  64. Mitchell D L, Finnegan W (2009). Modification of cirrus clouds to reduce global warming. Environmental Research Letters, 4(4): 045102Google Scholar
  65. Moriyama R, Sugiyama M, Kurosawa A, Masuda K, Tsuzuki K, Ishimoto Y (2017). The cost of stratospheric climate engineering revisited. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 22(8): 1207–1228Google Scholar
  66. Nalam A, Bala G, Modak A (2018). Effects of Arctic geoengineering on precipitation in the tropical monsoon regions. Climate Dynamics, 50 (9–10): 3375–3395Google Scholar
  67. Noroozi A, Akbari N, Mohammadi M, Yousefiyan K, Ahmadzadegan M H (2018). A review of blockchain. International Journal of Information, Security and Systems Management, 7(1): 745–750Google Scholar
  68. Papageorgiou A, Skordoulis M, Trichias C, Georgakellos D, Koniordos M (2015). Emissions trading scheme: Evidence from the European Union countries. In: Kravets A, Shcherbakov M, Kultsova M, Shabalina O, eds. Communications in Computer and Information Science, Proceedings of Creativity in Intelligent Technologies & Data Science Conference. Berlin: Springer, 222–233Google Scholar
  69. Peters G W, Vishnia G R (2017). Blockchain architectures for electronic exchange reporting requirements: EMIR, Dodd Frank, MiFID I/II, MiFIR, REMIT, Reg NMS and T2S. In: Chuen D L K, Deng R, eds. Handbook of Blockchain, Digital Finance, and Inclusion, 2: 271–329Google Scholar
  70. Pirrong C (2001). Manipulation of cash-settled futures contracts. Journal of Business, 74(2): 221–244Google Scholar
  71. Ploeg F, Withagen C (2014). Growth, renewables, and the optimal carbon tax. International Economic Review, 55(1): 283–311MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  72. Poitras G (2009). The early history of option contracts. In: Bronzin V, eds. Option Pricing Models. Berlin: Springer, 487–518Google Scholar
  73. Routledge B R, Seppi D J, Spatt C S (2000). Equilibrium forward curves for commodities. Journal of Finance, 55(3): 1297–1338Google Scholar
  74. Rutkin A (2016). Blockchain-Based Microgrid Gives Power to Consumers in New York. London: New ScientistGoogle Scholar
  75. Saleuddin R (2018). The Government of Markets: How Interwar Collaborations between the CBOT and the State Created Modern Futures Trading. London: Palgrave MacmillanGoogle Scholar
  76. Saleuddin R, Coffman D (2018). Can inflation expectations be measured using commodity futures prices? Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 45: 37–48Google Scholar
  77. Sargoni J, Lockley A (2015). Solar radiation management and the voluntary carbon market. Environmental Law Review, 17(4): 266–269Google Scholar
  78. Stern N, Peters S, Bakhshi V, Bowen A, Cameron C, Catovsky S, Crane D, Cruickshank S, Dietz S, Edmonson N (2006). Stern Review: The Economics of Climate Change. London: HM TreasuryGoogle Scholar
  79. Subramanian H (2017). Decentralized blockchain-based electronic marketplaces. Communications of the ACM, 61(1): 78–84Google Scholar
  80. Takezawa N (1995). Currency swaps and long-term covered interest parity. Economics Letters, 49(2): 181–185MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  81. Tilmes S, Fasullo J, Lamarque J F, Marsh D R, Mills M, Alterskjær K, Muri H, Kristjánsson J E, Boucher O, Schulz M, Cole J N, Curry C L, Jones A, Haywood J, Irvine P J, Ji D, Moore J C, Karam D B, Kravitz B, Rasch P J, Singh B, Yoon J H, Niemeier U, Schmidt H, Robock A, Yang S, Watanabe S (2013). The hydrological impact of geoengineering in the Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project (GeoMIP). Journal of Geophysical Research, D, Atmospheres, 118 (19): 11–36Google Scholar
  82. Truby J (2018). Decarbonizing Bitcoin: Law and policy choices for reducing the energy consumption of Blockchain technologies and digital currencies. Energy Research & Social Science, 44: 399–410Google Scholar
  83. Walch A (2015). The bitcoin blockchain as financial market infrastructure: A consideration of operational risk. New York University Journal of Legislation and Public Policy, 18: 837–892Google Scholar
  84. Zhang X, Aranguiz M, Xu D, Zhang X, Xu X (2018). Utilizing blockchain for better enforcement of green finance law and regulations. In: Marke A, eds. Transforming Climate Finance and Green Investment with Blockchains. Cambridge: Academic Press, 289–301Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (https://doi.org/doi.org/creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the appropriate credit is given to the original author(s) and the source, and a link is provided to the Creative Commons license, indicating if changes were made.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Bartlett School of Construction and Project ManagementUniversity College LondonLondonUK

Personalised recommendations