Geoengineering: we need more evidence before we cast our vote

Government and scientists need more and better information on the pros and cons, and the only way to achieve this is with appropriate research


John Shepherd
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 14 September 2011 06.30 BST

This Wednesday, scientists will publish details of a long-proposed but controversial experiment on the feasibility of geoengineering the planet's climate.


One of the proposed techniques involves releasing into the atmosphere small particles, such as sulphates, to reflect a small percentage of the Sun's energy back into space. The Stratospheric particle injection for climate engineering (Spice) experiment, as the Guardian reported last month, will use a balloon to lift a hose about 1km into the air to test the feasibility of pumping liquids into the atmosphere. The experiment will not spray anything other than tapwater into the air, so it is not a test of geoengineering, since it will not have any effect on the climate or the weather. The research will simply test the mechanics, and has negligible environmental risks.


But some environmental groups feel that even physically harmless tests could represent the first step onto a slippery slope that would ultimately lead to full scale deployment of these technologies. This is a legitimate concern. However, to accept that "nothing should ever be done for the first time" is a counsel of despair that would have left our society devoid of many of the scientific advances from which we now benefit, had it been adhered to in the past. If the technology is found to be undesirable we must of course, ensure that it is not used.


Geoengineering the climate is a controversial subject, and rightly so. The Royal Society published an influential report reviewing the topic in 2009, but neither supports nor opposes geoengineering in general, and does not support any particular research projects, financially or otherwise. The report warned of the great uncertainty about the feasibility, costs, effectiveness and environmental and social consequences of almost all geoengineering ideas. However, it concluded that unless major cuts to greenhouse gas emissions are made soon, geoengineering technologies may become necessary.


I've concluded that geoengineering research – and I emphasise the term research - is, sadly, necessary. Our report was very clear that geoengineering does not provide an alternative to cutting emission and adapting to climate change, and that these activities must remain our top priorities. However, current emissions cuts are not enough and political aspirations are not yet leading to effective global action. The possible impacts of climate change could be disastrous for vulnerable people, and failing to explore ways to mitigate climate change, in addition to emission cuts, would be irresponsible.


What we really need is more and better information. The only way to get that information is through appropriate research.


Geoengineering, like climate change itself, is a global issue that affects us all, and therefore governance of research, and international co-operation, will be crucial. The UN Convention on Biological Diversity has decided that small-scale and low-risk field trials are acceptable (and the proposed Spice experiment is certainly one of these), but it did not define the boundaries of what is considered "small scale". Indeed there are, at present, no adequate international agreements to restrict or control many possible geoengineering activities, especially those in the atmosphere, and little experience of applying international legislation to this area.


A wide-ranging debate that involves all points of view is needed, and the Royal Society has launched a project to do just that.


As a scientist, I don't want to have to make decisions based on ignorance, and I don't believe that members of the public want that either. Those who prefer their decisions to be based on evidence should probably wait a bit before casting their vote on geoengineering.

• Prof John Shepherd is Chair of the Royal Society Working Group on Geoengineering

How China dominates solar power

Huge loans from the Chinese Development Bank are helping Chinese solar companies push American solar firms out of the market


Stephen Lacey for Grist, part of the Guardian Environment Network
guardian.co.uk, Monday 12 September 2011 14.10 BST


Armed with tens of billions in loans from the Chinese government, Chinese solar companies have scaled at a rate unthinkable only a few years ago. At the end of this year, there will likely be 50,000 megawatts (MW) of manufacturing capacity in place around the world, with much of that new capacity being developed in China and other Asian countries. (In the year 2000, there were only 100 MW of production capacity worldwide.)

In four years, the solar manufacturing sector shifted from being led by a geographically dispersed number of companies to one dominated by Chinese companies. In 2006, there were two companies from China in the list of top ten cell producers. In 2010, there were six, according to Bloomberg New Energy Finance. There are currently only two non-Asian manufacturers in the top ten, and those companies -- First Solar and Q-Cells -- have shifted a lot of their production to Asia.

So what happened? How did the Chinese come to completely dominate the solar industry in such a short period of time?

Bryan Ashley, the Chief Marketing Officer for Suniva, an American company that produces high-efficiency solar cells in Georgia, doesn't mince words.

"The Chinese strategy is very clear. They are engaging in predatory financing and they're trying to drive everybody else out of the market. When you've got free money you can out-dump everybody below cost," Ashley said in an interview with Climate Progress.

That "free money" Ashley refers to is the cheap debt provided by the
Chinese Development Bank (CDB). Here's how the CDB works its magic.

The CDB was originally set up as a "policy bank," to operate as an arm of the Chinese central government, doling out public funding to support central government development programs. Now it is a "joint stock company with limited liability" that often reports to China's national cabinet on certain policy issues. This allows the Chinese government to get involved in CDB activities and direct loans toward projects officials want to support.

Unlike most regular commercial banks, CDB raises most of its money
via long-term bonds. Funders cannot take that money back out until the term is up, so the bank can make longer-term loans to Chinese companies. CDB also gives borrowers very low interest rates, and, if the borrower cannot pay back the loan, it may be back-stopped by the Chinese government.

This makes it easier, cheaper, and a lot less risky for solar companies to obtain financing.



In 2010 alone, the bank handed out $30 billion in low-cost loans to the top five manufacturers in the country. (See chart above.) This has enabled China's solar producers to grow to GW scale in a very short period of time, turning the country into a leading exporter of solar and pushing down prices dramatically.

From a project development perspective, those steep price drops are a very good thing. But manufacturers trying to make product outside of China and other Asian countries are getting hit hard.

"Free money is impossible to compete with," said Ashley. "Even when global demand went down they were able to keep producing, producing, producing," said Ashley. "And now they're dumping. If something isn't done, there will be no American product left on the market."

Allegations of solar panel dumping have been made before in Europe and the U.S., but they have never been proven. In 2009, Suntech CEO Shi Zengrong explained in a conference call that his company was selling panels below marginal costs. But he reversed his statement shortly after, saying he misunderstood the reporter's question.

With Chinese producers in a far more dominant position than in 2009 and a slew of solar manufacturing facility closures announced in the U.S. in recent months, concerns about dumping have resurfaced. Just yesterday, Oregon Senator Ron Wyden sent a letter to President Obama asking him to investigate whether or not Chinese companies are selling product below cost in order to push American producers out of the market. He also called on the administration to implement a trade tariff on Chinese modules:


Letting that happen is unacceptable. Please know that if your administration is unwilling to take the appropriate steps, with haste, I will advance a legislative effort, as provided by the U.S. trade remedy laws, to ensure that the American solar industry is not harmed by unfair trade.

Wyden's letter comes after the high-profile bankruptcies of American solar manufacturers Solyndra and Evergreen. While a variety of technological and market-based factors contributed to the demise of these companies, the Chinese competition -- driven by cheap, easy debt -- played a central role.

Remarkably, even with all the pressure from China, the U.S. is a net exporter of solar products to the country. A new report issued by GTM Research and the Solar Energy Industries Association shows that America had a $247 million solar trade surplus with China in 2010, mostly because of polysilicon and equipment shipments.

"Yeah, that's great. But we're just sending the raw materials and buying back the finished goods," explained Suniva's Bryan Ashley. "That's a going-out-of-business strategy. Pretty soon they'll figure out how to produce quality polysilicon and they'll be doing it all themselves. We need to re-learn how to make things in this country."

Ashley would like to see a Buy America provision for certain installation programs and investigation into the dumping issue.

But rather than engage in trade battles, GTM Research's Director of Solar Shayle Kann believes that America needs to put its focus on technological innovation. Testifying in front of the House Natural Resources Committee yesterday, Kann explained the strategy:


It will be difficult for the U.S. to compete with China at its own game -- namely, high-volume manufacturing of a commoditized product -- given the cost advantages available for Chinese manufacturing. However, the U.S. can and should continue to develop and commercialize innovative technologies that offer lower costs than traditional panels. These new technologies are generally proprietary, require a more skilled labor force, and are difficult to duplicate.

Suniva could be considered part of this category. Using a unique cell design, the company has created a high-efficiency mono-crystalline solar cell that could compete with SunPower. But with all the cheap debt that the Chinese government is throwing at domestic companies, Suniva is finding it increasingly tough to stay in the U.S.

"If something isn't done, no one will be making solar PV in the U.S.," said Ashley.

The situation is a difficult one. China's domestic efforts are helping drop the price of solar at an astonishing pace -- something that everyone in the solar industry wants. But it's also making it extraordinarily difficult for American solar manufacturers to compete.

The United States invented the modern solar cell over a half century ago. As China continues to boost domestic solar companies, the American solar industry will be asking some hard questions about how -- and if -- solar manufacturing can ever make it in a big way in the U.S.

• Stephen Lacey is a reporter with Climate Progress covering clean energy issues. He formerly worked as a producer/editor at RenewableEnergyWorld.com.