Framework Convention on Climate Change

The Royal Society has recently published a report on geoengineering - deliberately manipulating the climate. Their survey of the techniques and possibilities is useful and clear, and explores some of the complexities of policy in this area. The issues of moral hazard - whether researching geoengineering is actually dangerous because it distracts from emissions reduction - of side effects - whether these can be predicted, or calculated, and whether they are likely to be worse under a geoengineering scenario than a non-geoengineering scenario - and governance - the possibility of unilateral climate manipulation and the problems of multilateral climate management - are all touched upon. Geoengineering is potentially frightening, but some techniques, notably the use of sulphur aerosols, offer to return the global temperature to pre-industrial levels for just a few tens of billions of dollars a year. Contrary to the somewhat lukewarm approach of the report's conclusions this is something that deserves considerable attention and priority. It may well founder on the problems of side-effects, or be rendered superflous by successful emissions reduction, but it is still too early to say. On the basis of current evidence, geoengineering techniques such as the sulphur-based one are some of the most important contributions to climate policy and discussion of recent years and any serious policy approach to global warming requires engagement with their potential and risks.

Geoengineering the Climate: Science, Governance and Uncertainty

The Kyoto Protocol: A Guide and Assessment

World Development Indicators 2011 (15th edition)

As an important application of functional biomaterials, neural probes have contributed substantially to studying the brain. Bioinspired and biomimetic strategies have begun to be applied to the development of neural probes, although these and previous generations of probes have had structural and mechanical dissimilarities from their neuron targets that lead to neuronal loss, neuroinflammatory responses and measurement instabilities. Here, we present a bioinspired design for neural probes—neuron-like electronics (NeuE)—where the key building blocks mimic the subcellular structural features and mechanical properties of neurons. Full three-dimensional mapping of implanted NeuE–brain interfaces highlights the structural indistinguishability and intimate interpenetration of NeuE and neurons. Time-dependent histology and electrophysiology studies further reveal a structurally and functionally stable interface with the neuronal and glial networks shortly following implantation, thus opening opportunities for next-generation brain–machine interfaces. Finally, the NeuE subcellular structural features are shown to facilitate migration of endogenous neural progenitor cells, thus holding promise as an electrically active platform for transplantation-free regenerative medicine. Neural probes mimicking the size and mechanical properties of neurons interpenetrate the brain tissue, allowing stable single-unit recordings from implantation up to at least three months, and acting as scaffolds for the migration of new-born neurons.

Bioinspired neuron-like electronics

Prudent risk management requires consideration of bad-to-worst-case scenarios. Yet, for climate change, such potential futures are poorly understood. Could anthropogenic climate change result in worldwide societal collapse or even eventual human extinction? At present, this is a dangerously underexplored topic. Yet there are ample reasons to suspect that climate change could result in a global catastrophe. Analyzing the mechanisms for these extreme consequences could help galvanize action, improve resilience, and inform policy, including emergency responses. We outline current knowledge about the likelihood of extreme climate change, discuss why understanding bad-to-worst cases is vital, articulate reasons for concern about catastrophic outcomes, define key terms, and put forward a research agenda. The proposed agenda covers four main questions: 1) What is the potential for climate change to drive mass extinction events? 2) What are the mechanisms that could result in human mass mortality and morbidity? 3) What are human societies' vulnerabilities to climate-triggered risk cascades, such as from conflict, political instability, and systemic financial risk? 4) How can these multiple strands of evidence—together with other global dangers—be usefully synthesized into an “integrated catastrophe assessment”? It is time for the scientific community to grapple with the challenge of better understanding catastrophic climate change.

Climate Endgame: Exploring catastrophic climate change scenarios

This paper identifies critical lessons from the climate change experience to guide how communications and engagement on negative emissions can be conducted to encourage functional public an...

Learning from the Climate Change Debate to Avoid Polarisation on Negative Emissions

US-proofing the Paris Climate Agreement

Continued US membership in the Paris Agreement on climate would be symbolic and have no effect on US emissions. Instead, it would reveal the weaknesses of the agreement, prevent new opportunities from emerging, and gift greater leverage to a recalcitrant administration.

Luke Kemp

Papers

Climate Endgame: Exploring catastrophic climate change scenarios

Learning from the Climate Change Debate to Avoid Polarisation on Negative Emissions

US-proofing the Paris Climate Agreement

Better out than in

Assessing climate change’s contribution to global catastrophic risk