Search results

Currently, negotiation on global carbon emissions reduction is very difficult owing to lack of international willingness. In response, geoengineering (climate engineering) strategies are proposed to artificially cool the planet. Meanwhile, as the harbor around one-third of all described marine species, coral reefs are the most sensitive ecosystem on the planet to climate change. However, until now, there is no quantitative assessment on the impacts of geoengineering on coral reefs. This study aims to model the impacts of stratospheric aerosol geoengineering on coral reefs.

The HadGEM2-ES climate model is used to model and evaluate the impacts of stratospheric aerosol geoengineering on coral reefs.

This study shows that (1) stratospheric aerosol geoengineering could significantly mitigate future coral bleaching throughout the Caribbean Sea; (2) Changes in downward solar irradiation, sea level rise and sea surface temperature caused by geoengineering implementation should have very little impacts on coral reefs; (3) Although geoengineering would prolong the return period of future hurricanes, this may still be too short to ensure coral recruitment and survival after hurricane damage.

This is the first time internationally to quantitatively assess the impacts of geoengineering on coral reefs.

Three Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 models involved in the G4 experiment of the Geoengineering Model Inter-comparison Project (GeoMIP) project were used to investigate the impact of stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI) on the mean surface air temperature and precipitation extremes in Africa.

This impact was examined under G4 and Representative Concentration Pathway (RCP) 4.5 scenarios on the total precipitation, the number of rainy days (RR1) and of days with heavy rainfall (R20 mm), the rainfall intensity (SDII), the maximum length of consecutive wet (CWD) and dry (CDD) days and on the maximum rainfall in five consecutive days (Rx5day) across four regions: Western Africa (WAF), Eastern Africa (EAF), Northern Africa and Southern Africa (SAF).

During the 50 years (2020–2069) of SAI, mean continental warming is −0.40°C lower in G4 than under RCP4.5. During the post-injection period (2070–2090), the temperature continues to increase, but at a lower rate (−0.19°C) than in RCP4.5. During SAI, annual rainfall in G4 is significantly greater than in RCP4.5 over the high latitudes (especially over SAF) and lower over the tropics. The termination of SAI leads to a significant increase of rainfall over Sahel and EAF and a decrease over SAF and Guinea Coast (WAF).

Compared to RCP4.5, SAI will contribute to reducing significantly regional warming but with a significant decrease of rainfall in the tropics where rainfed agriculture account for a large part of the economies. After the SAI period, the risk of drought over the extratropical regions (especially in SAF) will be mitigated, while the risk of floods will be exacerbated in the Central Sahel.

To meet the Paris Agreement, African countries will implement mitigation measures to contribute to keep the surface air temperature below 2°C. Geoengineering with SAI is suggested as an option to meet this challenge, but its implication on the African climate system needs a deep investigation in the aim to understand the impacts on temperature and precipitation extremes. To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this study is the first to investigate the potential impact of SAI using the G4 experiment of GeoMIP on temperature and precipitation extremes of the African continent.

The purpose of this paper is to show that the observed strong link between global economic output and primary energy use will continue in future; and attempts to replace fossil fuels with alternative energy sources or implementing CO₂ removal or geoengineering approaches cannot provide the level of clean energy that economic growth needs. Global economic growth, therefore, is unlikely to continue for much longer.

The paper uses historical and recent global data (2012) for energy output from various sources, economic output and CO₂, emissions to make its case.

Alternative energy output is growing too slowly, and faces too many problems, to significantly change the energy mix in the coming decades. Continued use of fossil fuels requires either massive CO₂ removal/sequestration or global solar radiation management (SRM). The first is too expensive and would take decades to be significant, the second carries risks, some already known and possibly also unknown ones.

The paper makes the case that technical fixes such as alternative fuels, energy efficiency improvements, carbon dioxide capture and SRM will not be sufficient to prevent global climate change.

Social change, rather than reliance on technical fixes, is needed for ecologically sustainable economies.

Most research argues that global energy intensity and carbon intensity will continue to fall. In contrast, we argue that the strong link observed between global economic output and primary energy use will most likely continue.

Climate engineering management (CEM) as an emerging and cross-disciplinary subject gradually draws the attention to researchers. This paper aims to focus on economic and social impacts on the technologies of climate engineering themselves. However, very few research concentrates on the management of climate engineering. Furthermore, scientific knowledge and a unified system of CEM are limited.

In this paper, the concept of CEM and its characteristics are proposed and elaborated. In addition, the framework of CEM is established based on management objectives, management processes and supporting theory and technology of management. Moreover, a multi-agent synergistic theory of CEM is put forward to guide efficient management of climate engineering, which is composed of time synergy, space synergy, and factor synergy. This theory is suitable for solving all problems encountered in the management of various climate engineering rather than a specific climate engineering. Specifically, the proposed CEM system aims to mitigate the impact of climate change via refining and summarizing the interrelationship of each component.

Overall, the six research frontiers and hotspots in the field of CEM are explored based on the current status of research.

In terms of the objectives listed above, this paper seeks to provide a reference for formulating the standards and norms in the management of various climate engineering, as well as contribute to policy implementation and efficient management.

This paper provides a detailed survey of the greatest dangers facing humanity this century. It argues that there are three broad classes of risks – the “Great Challenges” – that deserve our immediate attention, namely, environmental degradation, which includes climate change and global biodiversity loss; the distribution of unprecedented destructive capabilities across society by dual-use emerging technologies; and value-misaligned algorithms that exceed human-level intelligence in every cognitive domain. After examining each of these challenges, the paper then outlines a handful of additional issues that are relevant to understanding our existential predicament and could complicate attempts to overcome the Great Challenges. The central aim of this paper is to constitute an authoritative resource, insofar as this is possible in a scholarly journal, for scholars who are working on or interested in existential risks. In the author’s view, this is precisely the sort of big-picture analysis that humanity needs more of, if we wish to navigate the obstacle course of existential dangers before us.

Comprehensive literature survey that culminates in a novel theoretical framework for thinking about global-scale risks.

If humanity wishes to survive and prosper in the coming centuries, then we must overcome three Great Challenges, each of which is sufficient to cause a significant loss of expected value in the future.

The Great Challenges framework offers a novel scheme that highlights the most pressing global-scale risks to human survival and prosperity. The author argues that the “big-picture” approach of this paper exemplifies the sort of scholarship that humanity needs more of to properly understand the various existential hazards that are unique to the twenty-first century.

Most employee attitudes and behaviors are determined by both personal and situational characteristics. Studies on person–organization fit (POF), which is defined as the congruence between individual and organizational values, also support this assumption. Employees who perceive high POF have high positive work attitudes and low intention to leave. However, this study assumes that the relationship between perceived POF and work attitudes may be different with respect to employees’ status and aims to investigate how perceived POF may differ in consequences among blue-collar and white-collar employees.

Multiple group analysis of structural equation modeling (SEM) was conducted to test the moderation effect of employee status on the relationship between perceived POF and work attitudes.

Results indicated that the relationship between perceived POF and organizational commitment, job satisfaction, organizational identification and intention to leave differ with respect to individual’s status (blue-collar–white collar). As the status of the individuals increases, the relationship between POF and work attitudes (organizational commitment, job satisfaction and organization identification) becomes weaker.

Rather than just focusing results of POF, this study focuses on moderating variables that differentiate the relationship between POF and outcomes by considering individual differences caused by different motivation and abilities.

The purpose of this paper is to problematize the need for debate in operationalizing the planetary boundaries framework when accounting for the Anthropocene.

This paper’s aim is achieved through a literature review focusing on the assumptions around the Anthropocene, planetary boundaries and organizations. The author conducted an integrated review of 91 documents discussing the operationalization of the planetary boundaries framework and the need for debate.

This paper develops two major findings. First, the author identifies the four main dimensions of the planetary boundaries that need to be debated: social, normative, narrative and control aspects. Second, the author exposes proposals in the literature that have the potential to fuel the debate, but which are themselves a source of debate.

This paper argues that, while being scientifically informed, the planetary boundaries framework leaves decision-makers with critical choices and decisions that need to be openly debated. This paper identifies some relevant proposals for doing so.

This paper underlines the need to open forums of debate for scientists and other stakeholders to raise the democratic legitimacy of the planetary boundaries framework.

To the best of the author’s knowledge, this is one of the very first papers to investigate dimensions of the planetary boundaries that need to be debated to respond to the challenge of its operationalization.