Cited by 26Climate Change and GeoengineeringBlockchain Technology Applications and SecurityClimate Change Policy and Economics

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

Open access
Lockley, Andrew, Mi, Zhifu, Coffman, D’Maris·2019·Frontiers of Engineering Management

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.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s42524-019-0010-y

Cites

83 of 83 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • All radiative forcing geoengineering techniques are still theoretical or at very early trial stages and carry a lot of uncertainty and risk in terms of practical large-scale deployment.

    “All these techniques are still theoretical or at very early trial stages and carry a lot of uncertainty and risk in terms of practical large-scale deployment.”

    From Strategies for mitigation of climate change: a review (2020) · cites this paper as Lockley et al. 2019

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 6

  1. Antonopoulos A (2014). Mastering Bitcoin-Unlocking Digital Cryp- tocurrencies. New York: O'Reilly Media
  2. 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, 165-190
  3. Hoffman G W (1941) Grain prices and the futures market: A 15-year survey, 1923-1938. USDA Technical Bulletin, 747
  4. IEAGHG (2011) Potential for biomass and carbon dioxide capture and storage. https://www.eenews.net/assets/2011/08/04/document_cw_ 01.pdf Interpol (2013). Guide to Carbon Trading Crime. Lyon: Interpol Environmental Crime Programme Publications 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 Press
  5. 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): 52-58
  6. Sargoni J, Lockley A (2015). Solar radiation management and the voluntary carbon market. Environmental Law Review, 17(4): 266- 269

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lockley, A., Mi, Z., & Coffman, D.
Affiliations
University College London (GB)
Corresponding author
Coffman, D’Maris
Venue
Frontiers of Engineering Management
Published
2019-03
Volume
6
Issue
1
Pages
38-51
ISSN
  • 2095-7513 (ISSN-L)
  • 2096-0255
OpenAlex
W2923582649
Cited by
26
References
83
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 3
FWCI
1.93
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Frontiers of Engineering Management (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Climate Change and Geoengineering
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Blockchain Technology Applications and Security
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Climate Change Policy and Economics
Keywords
geoengineering, solar radiation management, carbon dioxide removal, blockchain, smart contracts, distributed ledger technology, emissions trading, polluter pays principle, anthropogenic climate change

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review