Reply to Ken Caldeira
Clive Hamilton
I’m confused. In one post Ken Caldeira calls for respectful communication and in the next (see below) he attacks me sharply for “making things up”. So let me respond.
I should first confess that on occasion I make mistakes. When they are pointed out I correct them. My book, Earthmasters, was read thoroughly by several readers with various kinds of expertise, and revised several times to correct errors. Since publication a couple more have been pointed out by a diligent reader and will be corrected in the next printing by Yale University Press.
But there is no need to make any corrections after Ken’s criticisms of me on this site.
My source for the claim about Bill Gates and Silver Lining was an article in The Times. There it was stated:
“Silver Lining, a research body in San Francisco, has received $300,000 (£204,000) from Mr Gates.” (http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/science/article2504715.ece) It’s the reference I include for the claim in my book (page 220, note 15)
As for the role of Haroon Kheshgi, he was a member of the workshop convened by NASA and the Carnegie Institution that led to a report in 2007 advocating research into SRM and essentially pushing geoengineering hard.
Ken was the convener of that meeting. He thought it appropriate to invite a representative of Exxon Mobil and a representative from the American Enterprise Institute. The latter was Lee Lane. Lane is responsible for an “economic analysis” (published by the AEI) purporting to show that SRM would be a much cheaper way to deal with global warming than cutting greenhouse gas emissions and is to be preferred.
Ken was happy to have Lane co-author the NASA report with him. The AEI later cut and pasted large chunks of the NASA report into one of its own reports. This is all documented in my book.
Ken invited Kheshgi to the NASA meeting but says that the leader of Exxon’s Global Climate Change programme had no influence over the proceedings or the report. Well (as one might say in the US) tell that to the marines.
Ken can see no problem inviting onto a team to write a pro-geoengineering report a representative of the oil corporation that has done more than any other to attack climate science and resist all measures to curb carbon emissions. He also had no problem inviting a representative of the organization that has been the leading right-wing think tank attacking climate science for two decades.
The AEI itself has received funding from Exxon Mobil to engage in climate science disinformation. One of its resident scholars infamously wrote to US climate scientists offering $10,000 in cash for any who agreed to write a critique of the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report (Hoggan, Climate Cover-Up, pp 73-4).
Ken can see no problem working closely with these people on geoengineering. Nor can he see any problem with his public claim that all geoengineering research should be publicly funded (a claim he made at a public debate with me in Berkeley) while he himself accepts private funding (from Gates) and has privatized intellectual property by putting his name on geoengineering patents. Again, this is all documented in my book.
What is most disturbing about the NASA report, co-authored by Ken from the meeting he organized, is its profoundly anti-democratic analysis. As I note in the book, Ken Caldeira and Lee Lane argue that in the “emergency” framing of geoengineering there is no point thinking about political objections and popular resistance to solar radiation management because, in a crisis, “ideological objections to solar radiation management may be swept aside”. The authors count the ability to sweep aside civil society objections to deployment of solar radiation management as an “obvious political advantage”.
It is no surprise to me that the right-wing ideologues from the American Enterprise Institute should support the bypassing of democracy. That Ken, who frequently wheels out his credentials as an activist, should endorse such disdain for public participation in decisions determining the future of the planet comes as a shock.
If Ken were to borrow a copy of my book he would learn a lot more about the politics of geoengineering, and perhaps even a bit about himself. As I compiled the index I noticed that his name features more than any other. I was surprised by this as my own assessment is that David Keith is a substantially more influential player. But David is more careful about how he goes about it.
Clive Hamilton
Ross,I agree with you about the need to focus on facts and ideas and not making snarky remarks about people.Unfortunately, Clive does himself and the broader discussion a disservice by promulgating an abundance of misinformation.Just grabbing the first thing I could find on the web, he claimed that Bill Gates is an investor in Silver Lining, which is patently untrue. Bill Gates has no investment in Silver Lining.
In an earlier email, I noted Clive's propensity to make claims about people's motivations, when he is not in a position to discern their motivation.Clive also wrote "Through Kheshgi, Exxon has begun to influence “independent” reports into geoengineering, such as the 2007 NASA report on solar radiation management organised by Caldeira.". What is the evidence for Exxon's influence in this report? Is it just an assertion, or is there real evidence?I have little desire to get into a discussion fact-checking Clive's every statement, but at least a few of them appear to have little foundation. (Many of them have a ring of "truthiness", in that they are related to true statements. The problem is that they are not in themselves true statements.)We can have our own points of view, but we cannot invent our own facts.Best,KenPS. An example of "truthiness" might be the assertion of Exxon influenced the 2007 meeting report (http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20070031204_2007030982.pdf).Haroon Kheshgi was at the meeting, but I do not recall any influence he had in producing the report. Perhaps Clive can enlighten us, and tell us more specifically how Kheshgi influenced this report.--_______________
Ken Caldeira
Carnegie Institution for ScienceDept of Global EcologyCaldeira Lab is hiring postdoctoral researchers.On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 5:56 PM, Ross Salawitch <r...@atmos.umd.edu> wrote:
Disheartening to read criticism of Clive Hamilton, upon publication of his op-ed piece in the 26 May 2013 edition of the New York Times.
Clive is eminently qualified to write on the topic of geo-engineering of climate, following the 22 April 2013 publication of his book "Earthmasters: The Dawn of the Age of Climate Engineering":
http://www.amazon.com/Earthmasters-The-Dawn-Climate-Engineering/dp/0300186673
This book is very well referenced with citations to enumerable papers written by those active in this group. Since when has an op-ed piece contained citations to the peer reviewed literature? (in case it is not obvious, this is a rhetorical question). Several prior commentors seem to have lost sight of the fact a NY Times op-ed piece is written for the public, rather than a highly specialized audience of academics. IMHO, Clive's piece is outstanding and he should be lauded for such a thorough, succinct summary of this important societal issue.
This forum is maintained by Google groups. Presumably, anything written will be preserved for many generations to follow. At the moment, this forum is close to delving into a pit of snarkiness. I urge those who chose to write to consider the permanency of your remarks before hitting the "post" button.--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Clive Hamilton
Professor of Public Ethics
Charles Sturt University
www.clivehamilton.com
Ken Caldeira
Ken Caldeira
Carnegie Institution for Science
Hawkins, Dave
While I want to respect Ken’s wishes to get back to his work, I have a few points to add.
First, I too do not like the tone of many of the comments on this list recently about Clive Hamilton and his position. They are unnecessarily dismissive and incorrectly (in my view) treat the issues Clive raises as though they were non-issues. One can disagree with his conclusions without attacking him for publishing his views.
But I want to respond directly to Clive’s description of Ken’s role in the 2006 SRM meeting hosted at NASA Ames. I too attended this meeting and I think Clive’s criticism of Ken for his choice of invitees and report co-authors is way off base. Clive takes Ken to task for having invited Haroon Kheshgi of ExxonMobil and Lee Lane, then with AEI, to the workshop and for involving Lee Lane as a co-author of the workshop report. I have not read Clive’s book so I am reacting only to his email.
I have spent a fair amount of my professional career fighting the positions of ExxonMobil and AEI but I think there is no basis for the innuendo that Clive draws from the fact that Ken involved Haroon and Lee in this workshop. There is a style of advocacy writing that uses the mere fact of a person’s employer as an explanation for the findings of various reports. Sometimes there are sufficient associated facts to warrant the implication that the employer explains the position taken. But that is not the case here. Clive seems to have decided to claim that Ken is somehow in league with anti-GHG-mitigation agendas of ExxonMobil and AEI just because he included their employees in the workshop and worked with Lee as a report co-author.
There is a much simpler, non-conspiratorial (and in my opinion, more truthful) explanation for Haroon and Lee’s workshop involvement: they both possess intellectual skills and had some familiarity with the topic and Ken knew them. (As Haroon and Lee both know, I have had lots of occasion to disagree with positions they have espoused but there is nothing sinister or untoward in their participation in discussions like those at NASA Ames.)
As to Clive’s claim that the workshop report puts forth a “profoundly anti-democratic analysis,” that is really a distortion of what the report says. The report described two competing strategic visions for SRM techniques. The first would do some research but put deployment on the shelf -- reserved for use akin to an emergency brake -- deployed only when a greater calamity was unavoidable. The second vision contemplated deployment of SRM in advance of calamitous change as a time-buying technique. The report’s comment about the “political advantages” of the emergency-use vision was an observation that in an emergency, issues that might require some time to work through, tend to get ignored. I would agree that labeling this feature as a “political advantage” was a poor choice of words, since it can be misrepresented as an endorsement of that form of decision-making. But, if anything, the report’s description of the pros and cons of the two strategic visions leans rather heavily in the direction of making the case against the emergency-use approach. I would be surprised if Clive actually believed the report was endorsing that approach and did so because it avoided democratic processes. Clive’s highlighting this as the most disturbing aspect of the NASA workshop report comes across to me more as a “gotcha” quotation approach; rhetorically useful but not an accurate account.
Personally, I share a lot of Clive’s misgivings about how societies might misuse the prospect of geoengineering having some potential utility in fending off climate disaster but I don’t see that advocating a ban on research is a wise approach to dealing with geoengineering’s very real downsides. I respect Clive’s right to hold and defend a different opinion but as someone who knows Ken pretty well, I think impugning his integrity or judgment as Clive seems to be doing is unsupportable.
David Hawkins
rongre...@comcast.net
Clive, cc List
I write partly as the self-designated “CDR Nag” on this list about failures to properly use the term “Geoengineering” when the real topic is “SRM”. But I am more concerned that you wrote in your recent NYT Op-Ed (emphasis added): “Some approaches, like turning biomass into biochar, a charcoal whose carbon resists breakdown, and painting roofs white to increase their reflectivity and reduce air-conditioning demand, are relatively benign, but would have minimal effect on a global scale.”
I wish you had replaced “benign” with something more ethically demanding (such as “polluter pays”), but I see zero justification for your term “minimal”. Jim Hansen is proposing, through afforestation and reforestation, to add 100 Gt C to the existing roughly 600 Gt C of above ground biomass. Presumably this could “minimally” add more than about 1/6 to the present annual land-based NPP of 60 Gt C/yr, or about 10 Gt C/yr. (This saying nothing about a possibly equal amount possible from the oceans.) There is a considerable published literature that says we can add to stocks and simultaneously, through management, have an annual flow draw-down of much more than your “minimal” amount. I assume your “minimal” means a biochar wedge of 1 Gt C/yr, whereas you will find that such a published number means minimal changes from present land-use practices, afforestation, species, and soil productivity. We should instead be predicting, for ethical reasons backed up by funding, steady NPP improvements of many percent per year – both globally and per unit area.
One main ethical societal question seems to be how one should handle the several Gha of land now devoted to pastures and raising cattle. But what I am really interested in are your views on the ethics of striving, totally independent of SRM, for a massive global effort into the CDR side of geoengineering. By “ethics” and “massive”, I mean about 10 wedges of carbon negativity – some large part of which (biochar) also addresses the mess we have made of the world soils, and that can aid (not being limited by daily and seasonal availability issues) in getting to 100% renewable energy and full employment.
I also would have liked to see some discussion of the ethics of SRM only for the Arctic – continued only until CDR can have its desired effect . To end on a positive note, I thought much of your Op-Ed well supported the ethical views regularly expressed on this list by Professor Alan Robock - which I do not believe are intended to apply to all geoengineering approaches.
So, I am hoping that you can provide to this list as strong a positive ethical message on some CDR aspects of geoengineerng as you have on some negative SRM ethical aspects. This is more than an issue of nomenclature. Youth and groups like 350 ppm need hope - which you discourage with the dismal (and I feel inaccurate) term “minimal”.
From: "Clive Hamilton" <ma...@clivehamilton.com>
To: "Ken Caldeira" <kcal...@gmail.com>
Cc: "Ross Salawitch" <r...@atmos.umd.edu>, geoengi...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2013 6:36:34 AM
Subject: [geo] Reply to Ken Caldeira
Lee Lane
Clive Hamilton refers to me a couple of times in his latest attack on
Ken Caldeira. His reasoning seems to be that I worked for AEI;
therefore, I must be a right-wing ideologue. Caldeira, then, should
not have invited me to take part in the NASA workshop. A couple of
things are wrong with this syllogism.
First, Hamilton, who claims to be a meticulous fact checker, seems not
to have bothered to learn a number of things that he could have found
out from the open paper trail or by the simple expedient of asking me.
For instance, in 2006, when Caldeira invited me to help write the
workshop report, I had not yet joined AEI. In fact, at that time, I
was the executive director of the Climate Policy Center (CPC). CPC was
a centrist and bipartisan think tank seeking solutions to climate
change. The Chairman of CPC’s board of directors was a former sub-
cabinet level official in the Clinton Administration State Department.
Another of the board members had held a similar post in the Clinton
DOE. My association with these people is clearly a blight on my
credentials as a right-wing ideologue, but I disclose it here it in
order to spare Ken blame for insufficient dogmatism.
While still at CPC, I wrote a book (published in October 2006 by AEI
Press) that called for research into SRM. It also urged the Bush
administration to endorse the concept of a harmonized carbon tax and a
vigorous energy R&D program aimed a devising low carbon energy
sources. In early 2008, the then President of AEI, Chris DeMuth, who
obviously knew my views, hired me to co-direct the brand new AEI Geo-
Engineering project. In fact, like my current base, the Hudson
Institute, AEI takes no positions as an organization.
Hamilton goes on to quote a passage from the NASA report that, he
claims, implies that Caldeira and I, “support the bypassing of
democracy.” This claim is preposterous. The subsection from which the
quotation is taken is clearly intended to discuss options for a future
research agenda, which was the workshop’s purpose. The full passage
for which Hamilton quotes states:
"The two rival policy visions described in the preceding section pose
rather different policy choices, and they may imply somewhat different
research priorities. The parachute strategy has both advantages and
disadvantages.
"If solar radiation management were to be deployed only in case of a
clear climate emergency, there would be relatively little practical
value in research about current political objections and resistance to
solar radiation management. (In a crisis, ideological objections to
solar radiation management may be swept aside.) Also, comparisons
between the costs and benefits of solar radiation management versus
emissions reduction would be irrelevant. If it were assumed that the
potential crisis lies far in the future, the relevance of ozone
depletion would be slight."
The report, therefore, merely notes (correctly) that in crises,
dissent is often overborne. The passage makes no value judgments
whatever other than a hypothetical about how the value of current
research may vary with one’s expectation about future climate
scenarios.
It is true that I am concerned about preserving the institutions of a
market economy, limited government, and the application of science to
the goal of economic production. I am also quite chary about
sacrificing any of that legacy on the basis of somebody’s vision of
supposedly benign social engineering. If that, in Hamilton's eyes,
makes me a right-wing ideologue, I accept the label happily.
Lee Lane
Visiting Fellow
Hudson Institute
Washington, DC
On May 30, 8:36 am, Clive Hamilton <m...@clivehamilton.com> wrote:
> I’m confused. In one post Ken Caldeira calls for respectful communication
> and in the next (see below) he attacks me sharply for “making things up”.
> So let me respond.
>
> I should first confess that on occasion I make mistakes. When they are
> to correct errors. Since publication a couple more have been pointed out by
> a diligent reader and will be corrected in the next printing by Yale
> University Press.
>
> But there is no need to make any corrections after Ken’s criticisms of me
> on this site.
>
> My source for the claim about Bill Gates and Silver Lining was an article in
> > producing the report. Perhaps Clive can enlighten us, and tell us more
> > specifically how Kheshgi influenced this report.
>
> > _______________
> > Ken Caldeira
>
> > Carnegie Institution for Science
> > Dept of Global Ecology
> > 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA
> >http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab @kencaldeira
>
> > *Caldeira Lab is hiring postdoctoral researchers.*
> > *http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab/Caldeira_employment.html*
>
> > Check out the profile of me on NPR's All Things Considered<http://www.npr.org/2013/04/22/176344300/this-scientist-aims-high-to-s...>
> > On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 5:56 PM, Ross Salawitch <r...@atmos.umd.edu> wrote:
>
> >> Disheartening to read criticism of Clive Hamilton, upon publication of
> >> his op-ed piece in the 26 May 2013 edition of the New York Times.
>
> >> Clive is eminently qualified to write on the topic of geo-engineering of
> >> climate, following the 22 April 2013 publication of his book "Earthmasters:
> >> The Dawn of the Age of Climate Engineering":
>
> >> This book is very well referenced with citations to enumerable papers
> >> written by those active in this group. Since when has an op-ed piece
> >> contained citations to the peer reviewed literature? (in case it is not
> >> obvious, this is a rhetorical question). Several prior commentors seem to
> >> have lost sight of the fact a NY Times op-ed piece is written for the
> >> public, rather than a highly specialized audience of academics. IMHO,
> >> Clive's piece is outstanding and he should be lauded for such a thorough,
> >> succinct summary of this important societal issue.
>
> >> This forum is maintained by Google groups. Presumably, anything written
> >> will be preserved for many generations to follow. At the moment, this
> >> forum is close to delving into a pit of snarkiness. I urge those who chose
> >> to write to consider the permanency of your remarks before hitting the
> >> "post" button.
>
> >> --
> >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> >> "geoengineering" group.
> >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> >> email to geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com.
> >> To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com.
> >> Visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
> > --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> > "geoengineering" group.
> > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> > email to geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com.
> > To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com.
> > Visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
Clive Hamilton
eugg...@comcast.net
Cc: kcal...@gmail.com, "Ross Salawitch" <r...@atmos.umd.edu>, geoengi...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Saturday, June 1, 2013 2:23:57 AM
Subject: Re: [geo] Re: Reply to Ken Caldeira
Tom Wigley
that anyone associated in any way with organizations like AEI and Exxon
must be a fox. And that anyone who doesn't realize this must be naive.
He's wrong.
Tom.
++++++++++++++++++++++
On 6/1/2013 6:05 AM, eugg...@comcast.net wrote:
> There is an old saying that takes the form, "don't invite the fox into
> the henhouse." As an independent reader it seems to me that this is just
> what Clive Hamilton is saying. He has a point of view. It ought to be
> respected but we must go on discussing the prospects and need for
> geoengineering and watch the fox. You ought to know that the US has
> spent $400 billion on cancer research during the last 40 years and still
> there is no cure for cancer, only mitigation. This year $20 billion is
> being spent in the US. It seems to me that global warming could be a
> worse prospect for the world than the continuing scourge of cancer and
> we ought to be spending for research on possible cures like a drunken
> sailor.
>
> My instinct is that the warming is a result of a warm spell that will
> end in time but I respect the opinion of those who believe it is
> atmospheric CO2. We ought to do the research because we really don't
> know, and we need to be ready.
>
> -gene
>
> *From: *"Clive Hamilton" <ma...@clivehamilton.com>
> *To: *"Dave Hawkins" <dhaw...@nrdc.org>
> *Cc: *kcal...@gmail.com, "Ross Salawitch" <r...@atmos.umd.edu>,
> geoengi...@googlegroups.com
> *Sent: *Saturday, June 1, 2013 2:23:57 AM
> *Subject: *Re: [geo] Re: Reply to Ken Caldeira
> Dear David
>
> Thanks for your response to my post; it provides a helpful perspective
> on the NASA-Ames meeting and subsequent report. However, I think you
> have misunderstood the point I was making. I am not suggesting that Ken
> is or was "somehow in league with" ExxonMobil and the AEI. I was making
> two points.
>
> First, I was pointing to the ethical problem of inviting representatives
> from the two organizations in the United States perhaps most responsible
> for propagating climate science denial and undermining efforts to curb
> greenhouse gas emissions. It is not much of an exaggeration to say that
>
> On the question of the anti-democratic sentiments of the NASA group's
> report, I read the report very carefully and, in the context of the
> report overall and the composition of the group, I think my
> interpretation is a reasonable one. I invite others to read the NASA
> report and perhaps to peruse the more extensive analysis in my book.
> Put it this way; if I had been a member of that group and we wanted to
> management may be swept aside� and that this is an �obvious political
> advantage�, all sorts of alarm bells would have gone off. But it appears
>
> Yes, the report does come down more in favour of the "buying time"
> argument than the "emergency" framing, but it does so because the
> authors calculated that governments would be scared off by the emergency
> framing and would be less likely to fund research into geoengineering.
>
> I hope this makes my arguments clearer.
>
> Clive
>
>
>
>
>
> On 31 May 2013 02:53, Hawkins, Dave <dhaw...@nrdc.org
>
> While I want to respect Ken�s wishes to get back to his work, I have
> a few points to add.____
>
> __ __
> First, I too do not like the tone of many of the comments on this
> list recently about Clive Hamilton and his position. They are
> unnecessarily dismissive and incorrectly (in my view) treat the
> issues Clive raises as though they were non-issues. One can
> disagree with his conclusions without attacking him for publishing
>
> __ __
>
> But I want to respond directly to Clive�s description of Ken�s role
> task for having invited Haroon Kheshgi of ExxonMobil and Lee Lane,
> then with AEI, to the workshop and for involving Lee Lane as a
> am reacting only to his email.____
>
> __ __
> I have spent a fair amount of my professional career fighting the
> positions of ExxonMobil and AEI but I think there is no basis for
> the innuendo that Clive draws from the fact that Ken involved Haroon
> and Lee in this workshop. There is a style of advocacy writing that
> associated facts to warrant the implication that the employer
> explains the position taken. But that is not the case here. Clive
> seems to have decided to claim that Ken is somehow in league with
> anti-GHG-mitigation agendas of ExxonMobil and AEI just because he
> included their employees in the workshop and worked with Lee as a
>
> __ __
> There is a much simpler, non-conspiratorial (and in my opinion, more
> the topic and Ken knew them. (As Haroon and Lee both know, I have
> had lots of occasion to disagree with positions they have espoused
> but there is nothing sinister or untoward in their participation in
>
> __ __
>
> As to Clive�s claim that the workshop report puts forth a
> �profoundly anti-democratic analysis,� that is really a distortion
> strategic visions for SRM techniques. The first would do some
> research but put deployment on the shelf -- reserved for use akin to
> an emergency brake -- deployed only when a greater calamity was
> unavoidable. The second vision contemplated deployment of SRM in
> advance of calamitous change as a time-buying technique. The
> that might require some time to work through, tend to get ignored.
> advantage� was a poor choice of words, since it can be
> approach and did so because it avoided democratic processes.
> workshop report comes across to me more as a �gotcha� quotation
> approach; rhetorically useful but not an accurate account.____
>
> __ __
>
> Personally, I share a lot of Clive�s misgivings about how societies
> pretty well, I think impugning his integrity or judgment as Clive
>
> __ __
>
> David Hawkins____
>
> __ __
>
> *From:*geoengi...@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:geoengi...@googlegroups.com>
> [mailto:geoengi...@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:geoengi...@googlegroups.com>] *On Behalf Of *Ken Caldeira
> *Sent:* Thursday, May 30, 2013 11:48 AM
> *To:* Clive Hamilton
> *Cc:* Ross Salawitch; geoengi...@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:geoengi...@googlegroups.com>
> *Subject:* [geo] Re: Reply to Ken Caldeira____
>
> __ __
>
> Clive Hamilton wrote____
>
> __ __
>
> "He [Gates] is an investor in SilverLining, a company pursuing
> marine cloud brightening methods."____
>
> __ __
>
> This is false. BillGates made no such investment. I could be wrong,
> but I do not believe that there is any such company.____
>
> __ __
> There are some related facts (i.e., David Keith and I made a grant
> [i.e., gift] to Armond Neukermans to explore indoors the feasibility
> of making a nozzle, under the specific condition that the grantors
> and funders would have no financial interest in the outcomes of his
> work). Clearly, there was never any investment by Bill Gates in any
>
> __ __
> I leave it to Clive, the ethicist, to tell us what the right thing
> to do is when you make public, false, and damaging statements about
>
> __ __
>
> ----____
>
> __ __
> I do apologize to Clive (and others) for making statements that
> criticized them as persons. I should have restricted myself to
> criticizing statements, and not persons. I was wrong to make
> remarks that were critical of Clive (and others) as persons. I
> regret it, and I am sorry, and I will do my best to avoid such
>
> __ __
>
> ---____
>
> __ __
>
> I want to do my work and not waste any more time with this. ____
>
> __ __
>
> Best,____
>
> __ __
>
> Ken____
>
>
> ____
>
> _______________
> Ken Caldeira
>
> Carnegie Institution for Science ____
>
> Dept of Global Ecology____
>
> 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA____
>
> +1 650 704 7212 <tel:%2B1%20650%20704%207212>
> kcal...@carnegiescience.edu <mailto:kcal...@carnegiescience.edu>____
>
> http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab @kencaldeira____
>
> __ __
>
> *Caldeira Lab is hiring postdoctoral researchers.*____
>
> *http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab/Caldeira_employment.html*____
> Check out the profile of me on NPR's All Things Considered
>
> __ __
> On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 5:36 AM, Clive Hamilton
>
> I�m confused. In one post Ken Caldeira calls for respectful
> I should first confess that on occasion I make mistakes. When they
> revised several times to correct errors. Since publication a couple
> more have been pointed out by a diligent reader and will be
>
> But there is no need to make any corrections after Ken�s criticisms
> of me on this site.____
> My source for the claim about Bill Gates and Silver Lining was an
>
> �Silver Lining, a research body in San Francisco, has received
> $300,000 (�204,000) from Mr Gates.�
> (http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/science/article2504715.ece) It�s the
> reference I include for the claim in my book (page 220, note 15)____
> As for the role of Haroon Kheshgi, he was a member of the workshop
> convened by NASA and the Carnegie Institution that led to a report
> in 2007 advocating research into SRM and essentially pushing
> Ken was the convener of that meeting. He thought it appropriate to
> invite a representative of Exxon Mobil and a representative from the
> American Enterprise Institute. The latter was Lee Lane. Lane is
> global warming than cutting greenhouse gas emissions and is to be
> Ken was happy to have Lane co-author the NASA report with him. The
> AEI later cut and pasted large chunks of the NASA report into one of
> Ken invited Kheshgi to the NASA meeting but says that the leader of
> Ken can see no problem inviting onto a team to write a
> pro-geoengineering report a representative of the oil corporation
> that has done more than any other to attack climate science and
> resist all measures to curb carbon emissions. He also had no problem
> inviting a representative of the organization that has been the
> leading right-wing think tank attacking climate science for two
> The AEI itself has received funding from Exxon Mobil to engage in
> climate science disinformation. One of its resident scholars
> infamously wrote to US climate scientists offering $10,000 in cash
> Assessment Report (Hoggan, /Climate Cover-Up/, pp 73-4).____
> Ken can see no problem working closely with these people on
> geoengineering. Nor can he see any problem with his public claim
> that all geoengineering research should be publicly funded (a claim
> he made at a public debate with me in Berkeley) while he himself
> accepts private funding (from Gates) and has privatized intellectual
> property by putting his name on geoengineering patents. Again, this
> What is most disturbing about the NASA report, co-authored by Ken
> from the meeting he organized, is its profoundly anti-democratic
> analysis. As I note in the book, Ken Caldeira and Lee Lane argue
> to solar radiation management may be swept aside�. The authors count
> It is no surprise to me that the right-wing ideologues from the
> American Enterprise Institute should support the bypassing of
> democracy. That Ken, who frequently wheels out his credentials as an
> activist, should endorse such disdain for public participation in
> If Ken were to borrow a copy of my book he would learn a lot more
> about the politics of geoengineering, and perhaps even a bit about
> himself. As I compiled the index I noticed that his name features
> more than any other. I was surprised by this as my own assessment is
> that David Keith is a substantially more influential player. But
>
> Clive Hamilton____
>
> __ __
> <mailto:kcal...@carnegiescience.edu>> wrote:____
>
> Ross,____
>
> __ __
> I agree with you about the need to focus on facts and ideas and not
>
> __ __
> Unfortunately, Clive does himself and the broader discussion a
>
> __ __
> Just grabbing the first thing I could find on the web, he claimed
> that Bill Gates is an investor in Silver Lining, which is patently
>
> __ __
> In an earlier email, I noted Clive's propensity to make claims about
> people's motivations, when he is not in a position to discern their
>
> __ __
> Clive also wrote "Through Kheshgi, Exxon has begun to influence
> is the evidence for Exxon's influence in this report? Is it just an
>
> __ __
> I have little desire to get into a discussion fact-checking Clive's
> every statement, but at least a few of them appear to have little
> foundation. (Many of them have a ring of "truthiness", in that they
> are related to true statements. The problem is that they are not in
>
> __ __
> We can have our own points of view, but we cannot invent our own
>
> __ __
>
> Best,____
>
> __ __
>
> Ken____
>
> __ __
> PS. An example of "truthiness" might be the assertion of Exxon
> influenced the 2007 meeting report
> (http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20070031204_2007030982.pdf).Haroon
> Kheshgi was at the meeting, but I do not recall any influence he had
> in producing the report. Perhaps Clive can enlighten us, and tell us
> more specifically how Kheshgi influenced this report. ____
>
> __ __
>
> Ken Caldeira
>
> Carnegie Institution for Science ____
>
> Dept of Global Ecology____
>
> 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA____
>
> +1 650 704 7212 <tel:%2B1%20650%20704%207212>
> kcal...@carnegiescience.edu <mailto:kcal...@carnegiescience.edu>____
>
> http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab @kencaldeira____
>
> __ __
>
> *Caldeira Lab is hiring postdoctoral researchers.*____
>
> *http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab/Caldeira_employment.html*____
> Check out the profile of me on NPR's All Things Considered
>
> __ __
> <mailto:r...@atmos.umd.edu>> wrote:____
>
> Disheartening to read criticism of Clive Hamilton, upon publication
>
> Clive is eminently qualified to write on the topic of
> geo-engineering of climate, following the 22 April 2013 publication
> of his book "Earthmasters: The Dawn of the Age of Climate Engineering":
>
> http://www.amazon.com/Earthmasters-The-Dawn-Climate-Engineering/dp/0300186673
>
> This book is very well referenced with citations to enumerable
> papers written by those active in this group. Since when has an
> op-ed piece contained citations to the peer reviewed literature?
> (in case it is not obvious, this is a rhetorical question).
> Several prior commentors seem to have lost sight of the fact a NY
> Times op-ed piece is written for the public, rather than a highly
> specialized audience of academics. IMHO, Clive's piece is
> outstanding and he should be lauded for such a thorough, succinct
> summary of this important societal issue.
>
> This forum is maintained by Google groups. Presumably, anything
> written will be preserved for many generations to follow. At the
> moment, this forum is close to delving into a pit of snarkiness. I
> urge those who chose to write to consider the permanency of your
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "geoengineering" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
> send an email to geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
>
> __ __
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "geoengineering" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
> send an email to geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
>
>
>
> ____
>
> __ __
> --
> Clive Hamilton
> Professor of Public Ethics
> Charles Sturt University
>
> __ __
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "geoengineering" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
> send an email to geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
>
>
>
> --
> Clive Hamilton
> Professor of Public Ethics
> Charles Sturt University
Bickel
Having just read Clive Hamilton’s response to Lee Lane’s post, I found myself wondering if this list is still moderated. First, Clive levels ad hominem attacks against my co-author, Lee Lane, and fails to take any account of the facts Lee just provided. Second, as Tom points out, Clive lays out a logic that because someone is associated with a group Clive disapproves of (or even if they are pre-associated as the case with Lee and AEI) that they must have ill intentions or, at least, intentions that Clive defines as nefarious. This assertion is false on its face. One cannot correctly claim that everyone associated with ExxonMobil or AEI believes or does x, y, or z. Thus, these attacks must be false, yet they allowed through by the moderator. I fear the discussion on this group is devolving to the point where serious members need to consider a different venue.
Now, let me address another of Clive’s misunderstandings or “mistakes” that may be due a correction in the next edition his new book. Clive states that:
“Lane is responsible for an ‘economic analysis’ (published by the AEI) purporting to show that SRM would be a much cheaper way to deal with global warming than cutting greenhouse gas emissions and is to be preferred.”
“Lee Lane's paper purporting to show that sulphate aerosol spraying is the cheapest and best response to global warming is a travesty by any measure, and it is not surprising that it was published and heavily promoted by Bjorn Lomborg.”
Clive appears to be referring to the paper that Lee and I contributed as part of the 2009 Copenhagen Consensus on Climate. This paper was drafted in early 2009 and published in Smart Solutions to Climate Change: Comparing Costs and Benefits in 2010 (Bjorn Lomborg, Cambridge University Press, pp. 9-51).
It is interesting that Clive associates the paper only with Lee and AEI, when, in fact, I was also an author on the paper. It could be that it is harder to claim that everyone at the University of Texas at Austin is part of the right-wing conspiracy to destroy the planet.
Clive’s claim about the paper’s message is provably false. Lee and I do not “purport to show that sulphate aerosol spraying is the cheapest and best response to global warming” or that SRM is “preferred” to emissions reductions. Rather we argue that the potential benefits of SRM appear to be large, but that the indirect costs are uncertain and could be large. Thus, we should pursue RESEARCH.
A more careful reading of our paper may be in order. In terms of SRM vs emissions reductions, here is a quote from the second paragraph:
“The reader should not interpret our focus on climate engineering as implying that other responses to climate change are unneeded. The proper mix and relative priority of various responses to climate change is in the purview of the expert panel, to which our paper is one input. One might also note that, with but one exception, every scenario considered in this paper is accompanied by greenhouse gas control measures.” (Bickel and Lane, p. 9)
Our paper attempted to quantify the DIRECT benefits of SRM because those estimates were more readily available in early 2009. We noted that:
“…the state of knowledge about both the benefits of [climate engineering] and its costs is primitive. Even base case estimates for many important benefit and cost parameters are unknown. Thus, where the existing literature contains quantitative estimates, this chapter will select what we regard as the best available. It will do so with the caution that today’s estimates are very much subject to change. Where possibly important factors have not been quantified, this analysis will point to their nature and discuss their potential significance.” (Bickel and Lane, p. 10)
We then stated:
“The costs of SRM fall into three broad categories. These include the DIRECT costs, such as the expense of developing and deploying SRM technology. They also encompass the INDIRECT costs, which might be thought of as the harm that might result from using these technologies. Finally, they include the transaction costs entailed by SRM. These costs might include the resources consumed in bargaining to secure agreement to use SRM or the costs of conflict that its use might occasion. Transaction costs also include routine considerations such as the costs of monitoring and measuring the system’s performance or nations’ contributions to it.” (emphasis added, Bickel and Lane, p. 21).
Lee and I then attempted to quantify the benefit of reducing warming via differing levels of SRM use (1 W/m^2, 2 W/m^2, and 3 W/m^2) under No Controls and economically efficient controls (Bickel and Lane, p. 30-31). We also analyzed the benefit of using SRM to hold temperature changes to no more than 2 degrees C.
We conclude our paper by stating:
“Any assessment of SRM and [air capture] will be limited by the current state of knowledge, the rudimentary nature of the concepts, and the lack of prior R&D efforts. As noted in the introduction, this analysis relies on numbers found in the existing literature and existing climate change models. These inputs to our analysis are admittedly speculative; many questions surround their validity, and many gaps exist in them. This paper has also stressed the potential importance of transaction costs and “political market failures”. Finally, many important scientific and engineering uncertainties remain. Some of these pertain to climate change itself, its pace, and its consequences. Still others are more directly relevant to SRM. How will SRM impact regional precipitation patterns and ozone levels? To what extent can SRM be scaled to the levels considered here? What is the best method for aerosol injection? Are there other side effects that could invalidate the use of SRM? These are just a few of the questions that a well-designed research program should be designed to answer. …
This analysis, then, can claim to be only an early and partial look at the potential benefits and costs of CE. Even so, the large scale of the estimated direct net benefits associated with the stratospheric aerosol and marine cloud whitening approaches are impressive. …
While our analysis is preliminary, we believe it makes a strong case that the potential net benefits of SRM are large; the question is whether or not the indirect costs will change the calculus. Only research can answer this question.” (Bickel and Lane, p. 47)
Thus, Clive’s claim that Lee and I purport to show that SRM is the cheapest and best response to climate change is simply false.
Clive also dismisses the fact that our paper was reviewed by a panel of esteemed economists, including three Nobel Laureates. This panel agreed that SRM merits research and allocated about 1% of their fictitious budget towards this goal. They ranked energy R&D second.
J. Eric Bickel
The University of Texas at Austin
To post to this group, send email to geoeng...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoeng...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
--
Clive Hamilton
Professor of Public Ethics
Charles Sturt University
www.clivehamilton.com
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoeng...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Andrew Lockley
I'm responding because of the criticism of my moderation.
Clive has previously been unable to defend himself, as for technical reasons he's been unable to post to the group. Accordingly, I allowed him fairly free rein to respond as he saw fit. Members can draw their own conclusions about his arguments and conduct.
I note that, on occasion, people on both sides of this debate haven't conducted themselves particularly well. I'm aiming for a light touch moderation strategy, but a firmer hand may soon be needed. If the present squabbling continues, I'll be putting a large number of people on moderation without warning, and without thinking too carefully in any particular individual's case. I hope this won't be necessary.
I suggest that there's been adequate exploration of this incident, and of Clive's recent arguments and conduct. To protect everyone's nerves and your inboxes, it may be time we put this particular issue to bed.
A
To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com.
John Latham
I think you do a very difficult job extremely well, handling tricky
issues fairly and with great sensitivity. Thank you!
John (Latham)
John Latham
Address: P.O. Box 3000,MMM,NCAR,Boulder,CO 80307-3000
Email: lat...@ucar.edu or john.l...@manchester.ac.uk
Tel: (US-Work) 303-497-8182 or (US-Home) 303-444-2429
or (US-Cell) 303-882-0724 or (UK) 01928-730-002
http://www.mmm.ucar.edu/people/latham
________________________________________
From: geoengi...@googlegroups.com [geoengi...@googlegroups.com] on behalf of Andrew Lockley [andrew....@gmail.com]
Sent: 01 June 2013 19:33
To: ebi...@mail.utexas.edu; geoengineering
Subject: Re: [geo] Re: Reply to Ken Caldeira
I'm responding because of the criticism of my moderation.
Clive has previously been unable to defend himself, as for technical reasons he's been unable to post to the group. Accordingly, I allowed him fairly free rein to respond as he saw fit. Members can draw their own conclusions about his arguments and conduct.
I note that, on occasion, people on both sides of this debate haven't conducted themselves particularly well. I'm aiming for a light touch moderation strategy, but a firmer hand may soon be needed. If the present squabbling continues, I'll be putting a large number of people on moderation without warning, and without thinking too carefully in any particular individual's case. I hope this won't be necessary.
I suggest that there's been adequate exploration of this incident, and of Clive's recent arguments and conduct. To protect everyone's nerves and your inboxes, it may be time we put this particular issue to bed.
A
On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 5:56 PM, Ross Salawitch <r...@atmos.umd.edu> wrote:
Disheartening to read criticism of Clive Hamilton, upon publication of his op-ed piece in the 26 May 2013 edition of the New York Times.
Clive is eminently qualified to write on the topic of geo-engineering of climate, following the 22 April 2013 publication of his book "Earthmasters: The Dawn of the Age of Climate Engineering":
http://www.amazon.com/Earthmasters-The-Dawn-Climate-Engineering/dp/0300186673
This book is very well referenced with citations to enumerable papers written by those active in this group. Since when has an op-ed piece contained citations to the peer reviewed literature? (in case it is not obvious, this is a rhetorical question). Several prior commentors seem to have lost sight of the fact a NY Times op-ed piece is written for the public, rather than a highly specialized audience of academics. IMHO, Clive's piece is outstanding and he should be lauded for such a thorough, succinct summary of this important societal issue.
This forum is maintained by Google groups. Presumably, anything written will be preserved for many generations to follow. At the moment, this forum is close to delving into a pit of snarkiness. I urge those who chose to write to consider the permanency of your remarks before hitting the "post" button.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoeng...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoeng...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
--
Clive Hamilton
Professor of Public Ethics
Charles Sturt University
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoeng...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
--
Clive Hamilton
Professor of Public Ethics
Charles Sturt University
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group.
To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com<mailto:geoengi...@googlegroups.com>.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com.
Rau, Greg
________________________________________
From: geoengi...@googlegroups.com [geoengi...@googlegroups.com] on behalf of John Latham [john.l...@manchester.ac.uk]
Sent: Saturday, June 01, 2013 12:42 PM
To: andrew....@gmail.com; ebi...@mail.utexas.edu; geoengineering
Subject: RE: [geo] Re: Reply to Ken Caldeira
rongre...@comcast.net
1. The subject of ethics and morality have been key to this list discussions, especially over the last week. .As I was further researching this list's discussion on this topic, I came on a short message string introduced by Andrew Lockley on April 11. Andrew, as is his welcome style, alerted us to a short review article of three books on ethics and geoengineering (by Broome, Hamilton, and Gardiner). The article appeared in the April MIT Technology Review, written by the Magazine's editor: David Rotman. The 6 short pages can be down loaded easily at
http://www.technologyreview.com/review/513526/climate-change-the-moral-choices/
2. Rotman's 3rd and 4th sentences read (emphasis added):
"Over the last few years, researchers have calculated that some of the resulting changes to the earth's climate, including increased temperature, are more persistent still: even if emissions are abruptly ended and carbon dioxide levels gradually drop, the temperature will stubbornly remain elevated for a thousand years or more. The earth's thermostat is essentially being turned up and there are no readily foreseeable ways to turn it back down; even risky geoengineering schemes would at best offset the higher temperatures only temporarily."
3. I have not yet read any of the three books, and Mr .Rotman may not be up on both the SRM and CDR parts of Geoengneering, but I believe one can't possibly get the ethics of either geoengineering or SRM correct if you believe CDR has this presumed dismal future . This does seem to conform to the quote I used last week re Prof. Hamilton's view of biochar's assumed future clmate/geoengineering insignificance.
4. I had not realized that the ethics profession could get the fundamentals so wrong - of huge importance to Jim Hansen and the 350.org groups. Or does the fault lie only with Mr. Rotman? Either way, large numbers have received a very disheartening (and I believe inaccurate) future climate message -one that helps only one side of geoengineering..
Ron
rongre...@comcast.net
1. I don't think I misinterpreted the quote. I said below
I am in perfect agreement with your sentence below:
"This is what led my co-authors and me to conclude that CDR and the most aggressive CO2 emission reductions possible are the only way to limit CO2 concentrations to ~350 ppm and anthropogenic warming to 2 degrees by the end of the century. "
2. I have read your paper cited below, one sentence of which (like other sentences in your note below) reads:
"The problem with this approach is that climate warming from an elevated CO2 concentration is largely irreversible after only a few decades.8
where [8] is a paper by Solomon, whose "irreversbility" views we have discussed (and seem also to rely on doing no CDR - not that CDR won't work), I think we all should avoid sentences like this when your theme is the exact opposite.
3. So your paper looks only at one CDR approach, and never uses the word "biochar". I hope you will talk to your associate at Cornell - Prof.Johannes Lehmann, the one single person I feel best understands the world of biochar.
4. Do you have specific views on biochar working or not working to get to 350 ppm?
Ron
From: "Charles H. Greene" <ch...@cornell.edu>
To: "<rongre...@comcast.net>" <rongre...@comcast.net>
Cc: "geoengineering" <geoengi...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, June 2, 2013 12:19:09 AM
Subject: Re: [geo] Rotman, CDR, and morality
Dear Ron:
rongre...@comcast.net
Apologies in advance to Dr.Green, but I think he won't mind too much my passing on his personal response (below). Nothing personal in there and I consider this a matter of very high list priority. "This" refers to "irreversibilty" and the 26 April article by Drs. Matthews and Solomon recently referenced by Dr. Green. In early May, Dr. Rau and I had both list and off-list conversations on this paper. Last month I sent the following letter to Science (and to Drs.Matthews and Solomon).. Six days later I received a reply rejjecting the letter format and suggesting a "comment" instead. I missed seeing that letter from Science until today, so i have just also posted the following there. I was informed (computer wise, no human yet) that my comment would be reviewed and so it might or might not appear. Today there was only a single other comment, which did not address "irreversibility"..
Perhaps Dr. Rau (cc'd) can add his further thoughts on this Matthews-Solomon article and "irreversibility"
The reason I suggest this topic is of high priority is that I am afraid too many climate analysts (such as Dr.Green and his co-authors) really have gotten the message that CDR has no (repeat no) future. I am sure Drs. Matthew and Solomon do not believe that, nor should anyone reading this.
Re the last part of Dr. Green's message to me about biochar being a silver bullet, I of course am not going to claim that. But the most quoted biochar article (Wolff, Ammonette etal) specfically states they are doing a conservative analysis. Analysts for BECCS show massive new additions (5-10 wedges) of probably annual harvest-able energy crops, that somehow (illogically) are deemed not similarly applicable to biochar. So in my opinion, because biochar provides instead of consumes energy and because it can provide out-year continuing carbon neutral and carbon negativity values for at least centuries, biochar gets pretty close to the term "silver".
Lastly, I have seen no argument that removing excess atmospheric carbon does not also reduce temperatures. That would indeed by discouraging - so I hope to hear from anyone on proof of that.
Ron (Dr.Green's note follows the next "official" Comment - just (maybe) posted at Science below the 26 April Matthews - Solomon piece on "Irreversibility" (I found it easy to submit the comment).
Letter for submittal to Science May 10, 2013
Ronal W. Larson, PhD, Golden Colorado 80401 (AAAS Congressional Fellow, 1973-75)
Clarifying CO2's “Irreversibility”
Drs. Matthews and Solomon (26 April 2013, p. 438) provide new useful model information on how our global society can minimize future global temperature rise. This is an important paper; I endorse their work. However the statement is made there that past emissions are “irreversible on a time scale of at least 1000 years”. This shorthand needs clarification, which Drs. Matthews and Solomon have thoughtfully provided in two of their references.
In the first paragraph of reference 5 (dated 2009), Dr. Solomon and her three co-authors had the words “largely”, “illustrative”, and “essentially” preceding “irrevers-ibility”. Further, they wrote there (emphasis added)” “... we do not consider geo-engineering measures that might be able to remove gases already in the atmosphere ...”
Also,
their reference 12 (dated 2012), co-authored with Dr.
Pierrehumbert, includes an important timely scenario with
reversibility (a scenario showing how 350 ppm could be achieved soon
with a peak negative annual emission of about 4 Gt C/yr). In this
paper they said (with emphasis again added) : “
Stabilizing CO2
below 400
ppm
this century required
prolonged periods of net
negative emissions,
...”
There are many thousands of persons working around the world on at least a half dozen ways to implement “reversibility” (no “ir”) through CDR (Carbon Dioxide Removal). This note is to ask that Drs. Matthews and Solomon be allowed to assure Science readers that their title word “Irreversibility” comes with the important modifiers identified in their references 5 and 12.
Subject: Re: [geo] Rotman, CDR, and morality
Science 26 April 2013:
Vol. 340 no. 6131 pp. 438-439
DOI: 10.1126/science.1236372
- PERSPECTIVE
Irreversible Does Not Mean Unavoidable
+Author Affiliations
- 1Department of Geography, Planning and Environment, Concordia University, Montreal, Quebec H3G 1M8, Canada.
- 2Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA.
- E-mail: damon.m...@concordia.ca; so...@mit.edu
Understanding how decreases in CO2 emissions would affect global temperatures has been hampered in recent years by confusion regarding issues of committed warming and irreversibility. The notion that there will be additional future warming or “warming in the pipeline” if the atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide were to remain fixed at current levels (1) has been misinterpreted to mean that the rate of increase in Earth's global temperature is inevitable, regardless of how much or how quickly emissions decrease (2–4). Further misunderstanding may stem from recent studies showing that the warming that has already occurred as a result of past anthropogenic carbon dioxide increases is irreversible on a time scale of at least 1000 years (5, 6). But irreversibility of past changes does not mean that further warming is unavoidable.
RAU greg
From: "rongre...@comcast.net" <rongre...@comcast.net>
To: Charles H. Greene <ch...@cornell.edu>; Geoengineering <Geoengi...@googlegroups.com>; Greg Rau <ra...@llnl.gov>
Sent: Tue, June 4, 2013 11:20:14 AM
rongre...@comcast.net
I fail to see your logic.
From my perspective there is already plenty of evidence that a suite of CDR options is cheap (compared to doing nothing) and many can be started next week.
Ron
From: "Fred Zimmerman" <geoengin...@gmail.com>
To: gh...@sbcglobal.net
Cc: "Ronal Larson" <rongre...@comcast.net>, "Charles H. Greene" <ch...@cornell.edu>, "Greg Rau" <ra...@llnl.gov>
Sent: Tuesday, June 4, 2013 6:20:39 PM
Subject: Re: [geo] Rotman, CDR, and morality
Charles H. Greene
Aren't we overdramatizing the "irreversibility" issue a bit? It seems to me that if we act on the assumption that warming is irreversible,we are playing it safe, and if we later confirm (under pressure!) that CDR is economically viable, that will be good news, right?
---
Fred Zimmerman
Geoengineering IT!Bringing together the worlds of geoengineering and information technologyGE NewsFilter: http://geoengineeringIT.net:8080
On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 4:01 PM, RAU greg <gh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote: