Clive Hamilton's op-ed in the New York Times today

[Alan Robock]

Dear all,

I agree with virtually everything in Clive's op-ed in the New York Times today.  That is because I wrote it several years ago, first in my 20 reasons why geoengineering might be a bad idea, and then in several articles since then.  But he gives no indication that these are not his original ideas. 

You can see all my papers at http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/robock/robock_geopapers.html

Here is the op-ed:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/27/opinion/geoengineering-our-last-hope-or-a-false-promise.html?hp&pagewanted=print

Geoengineering: Our Last Hope, or a False Promise?

By CLIVE HAMILTON

CANBERRA, Australia — THE concentration of carbon dioxide in the earth’s atmosphere recently surpassed 400 parts per million for the first time in three million years. If you are not frightened by this fact, then you are ignoring or denying science.

Relentlessly rising greenhouse-gas emissions, and the fear that the earth might enter a climate emergency from which there would be no return, have prompted many climate scientists to conclude that we urgently need a Plan B: geoengineering.

Geoengineering — the deliberate, large-scale intervention in the climate system to counter global warming or offset some of its effects — may enable humanity to mobilize its technological power to seize control of the planet’s climate system, and regulate it in perpetuity.

But is it wise to try to play God with the climate? For all its allure, a geoengineered Plan B may lead us into an impossible morass.

While some proposals, like launching a cloud of mirrors into space to deflect some of the sun’s heat, sound like science fiction, the more serious schemes require no insurmountable technical feats. Two or three leading ones rely on technology that is readily available and could be quickly deployed.

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. Another prominent scheme, extracting carbon dioxide directly from the air, is harmless in itself, as long as we can find somewhere safe to bury enormous volumes of it for centuries.

But to capture from the air the amount of carbon dioxide emitted by, say, a 1,000-megawatt coal power plant, it would require air-sucking machinery about 30 feet in height and 18 miles in length, according to a study by the American Physical Society, as well as huge collection facilities and a network of equipment to transport and store the waste underground.

The idea of building a vast industrial infrastructure to offset the effects of another vast industrial infrastructure (instead of shifting to renewable energy) only highlights our unwillingness to confront the deeper causes of global warming — the power of the fossil-fuel lobby and the reluctance of wealthy consumers to make even small sacrifices.

Even so, greater anxieties arise from those geoengineering technologies designed to intervene in the functioning of the earth system as a whole. They include ocean iron fertilization and sulfate aerosol spraying, each of which now has a scientific-commercial constituency.

How confident can we be, even after research and testing, that the chosen technology will work as planned? After all, ocean fertilization — spreading iron slurry across the seas to persuade them to soak up more carbon dioxide — means changing the chemical composition and biological functioning of the oceans. In the process it will interfere with marine ecosystems and affect cloud formation in ways we barely understand.

Enveloping the earth with a layer of sulfate particles would cool the planet by regulating the amount of solar radiation reaching the earth’s surface. One group of scientists is urging its deployment over the melting Arctic now.

Plant life, already trying to adapt to a changing climate, would have to deal with reduced sunlight, the basis of photosynthesis. A solar filter made of sulfate particles may be effective at cooling the globe, but its impact on weather systems, including the Indian monsoon on which a billion people depend for their sustenance, is unclear.

Some of these uncertainties can be reduced by research. Yet if there is one lesson we have learned from ecology, it is that the more closely we look at an ecosystem the more complex it becomes. Now we are contemplating technologies that would attempt to manipulate the grandest and most complex ecosystem of them all — the planet itself. Sulfate aerosol spraying would change not just the temperature but the ozone layer, global rainfall patterns and the biosphere, too.

Spraying sulfate particles, the method most likely to be implemented, is classified as a form of “solar radiation management,” an Orwellian term that some of its advocates have sought to reframe as “climate remediation.”

Yet if the “remedy” were fully deployed to reduce the earth’s temperature, then at least 10 years of global climate observations would be needed to separate out the effects of the solar filter from other causes of climatic variability, according to some scientists.

If after five years of filtered sunlight a disaster occurred — a drought in India and Pakistan, for example, a possible effect in one of the modeling studies — we would not know whether it was caused by global warming, the solar filter or natural variability. And if India suffered from the effects of global dimming while the United States enjoyed more clement weather, it would matter a great deal which country had its hand on the global thermostat.

So who would be turning the dial on the earth’s climate? Research is concentrated in the United States, Britain and Germany, though China recently added geoengineering to its research priorities.

Some geoengineering schemes are sufficiently cheap and uncomplicated to be deployed by any midsize nation, or even a billionaire with a messiah complex.

We can imagine a situation 30 years hence in which the Chinese Communist Party’s grip on power is threatened by chaotic protests ignited by a devastating drought and famine. If the alternative to losing power were attempting a rapid cooling of the planet through a sulfate aerosol shield, how would it play out? A United States president might publicly condemn the Chinese but privately commit to not shooting down their planes, or to engage in “counter-geoengineering.”

Little wonder that military strategists are taking a close interest in geoengineering. Anxious about Western geopolitical hubris, developing nations have begun to argue for a moratorium on experiments until there is agreement on some kind of global governance system.

Engineering the climate is intuitively appealing to a powerful strand of Western technological thought that sees no ethical or other obstacle to total domination of nature. And that is why some conservative think tanks that have for years denied or downplayed the science of climate change suddenly support geoengineering, the solution to a problem they once said did not exist.

All of which points to perhaps the greatest risk of research into geoengineering — it will erode the incentive to curb emissions. Think about it: no need to take on powerful fossil-fuel companies, no need to tax gasoline or electricity, no need to change our lifestyles.

In the end, how we think about geoengineering depends on how we understand climate disruption. If our failure to cut emissions is a result of the power of corporate interests, the fetish for economic growth and the comfortable conservatism of a consumer society, then resorting to climate engineering allows us to avoid facing up to social dysfunction, at least for as long as it works.

So the battle lines are being drawn over the future of the planet. While the Pentagon “weaponeer” and geoengineering enthusiast Lowell Wood, an astrophysicist, has proclaimed, “We’ve engineered every other environment we live in — why not the planet?” a more humble climate scientist, Ronald G. Prinn of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, has asked, “How can you engineer a system you don’t understand?”

Clive Hamilton, a professor of public ethics at Charles Sturt University, is the author, most recently, of “Earthmasters: The Dawn of the Age of Climate Engineering.”

-- 
Alan Robock

Alan Robock, Distinguished Professor
  Editor, Reviews of Geophysics
  Director, Meteorology Undergraduate Program
  Associate Director, Center for Environmental Prediction
Department of Environmental Sciences              Phone: +1-848-932-5751
Rutgers University                                  Fax: +1-732-932-8644
14 College Farm Road                   E-mail: rob...@envsci.rutgers.edu
New Brunswick, NJ 08901-8551  USA      http://envsci.rutgers.edu/~robock
                                           http://twitter.com/AlanRobock

[Jim Fleming]

Yes, and Oliver Morton is the source of the Ron Prinn quote, which I use as a chapter epigraph in my book (along with the citation).

Jim

--
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.
 
 

--
James Fleming
STS Program
Colby College
5881 Mayflower Hill
Waterville, ME  04901
Ph: 207-859-5881
Fax: 207-859-5846
Web: http://www.colby.edu/profile/jfleming

[Bill Gail]

Alan and All,

 

An interesting thought experiment is to consider a parallel world to ours: a “sulfate world” in contrast to our “greenhouse world”.  In the sulfate world, high-altitude aircraft have been emitting significant amounts of sulfates for many decades, a process eventually recognized (by most, though not all) to reduce global average temperature.  All power generation and energy use is low carbon, so the atmospheric carbon dioxide level stands at 280 ppm.   Society is heavily dependent on high-altitude aircraft for transportation, and no viable alternatives have been identified.  Global cooling is headed toward levels deemed “dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system”.  Ecosystems are beginning to adapt in irreversible ways.  The summer extent of arctic sea ice is growing and sea level is dropping.  Polar bear populations are exploding.  Side effects, such as changes in precipitation patterns, are beginning to impact society.  With the political process unable to reach consensus on constraining aviation, a geoengineering field emerges that promises technological solutions.  One novel approach is increasing carbon dioxide emissions from power generation to counter the cooling effects of the sulfates. 

 

How would this discussion proceed?  Critics might claim that increasing greenhouse gas levels – perhaps even to 300-350 ppm – involves so many unknowns we can’t afford the risk.  They would point out issues with ocean acidification.  They would note that no small-scale testing is possible.  Some nations would express concern that they lose while others win, stalling progress toward action.  Proceeding “intentionally” with greenhouse gas geoengineering would be enormously difficult for society to accept; proceeding “knowingly” without thoughtful planning has proven far easier.  (Ken Caldeira’s terms “intentionally” and “knowingly” are appropriate here).  Perhaps this adds no insight into whether geoengineering should proceed.  It does suggest how easily society may stumble into subsequent climate change crises after global warming.  Geoengineering in response to global warming may be only the forerunner of the many times future society will be forced to contemplate geoengineering. 

 

This thought experiment may have been used before, but I have not seen it (and I’m glad to attribute it correctly if someone informs me!)

 

Bill

 

 

William B. Gail, PhD | Chief Technology Officer | Global Weather Corporation

3309 Airport Rd, Boulder, CO 80301 USA | 303.513.5474 mobile | bg...@globalweathercorp.com

 

President-Elect | American Meteorological Society | www.ametsoc.org

--

[Fred Zimmerman]

An excellent point.  This is why I have been arguing for a holistic view of anthopocene climate management that includes the full 15,000-year? span of anthopocene modifications beginning with animal & plant domestication (never underestimate the land use / land cover modification ability of sheep ...).  This is also consistent with my suggestion that GE information management needs will eventually far exceed our current assumptions (or capabilities).  Imagine a society 1000 years in the future trying to recreate the history of what climate modification interventions were actually carried out in the 21st century.  We have enough trouble reading 8-track tapes, imagine trying to figure out when exactly ocean iron fertilization began and how much it affected the natural history of ocean primary productivity.

Geoengineering in response to global warming may be only the forerunner of the many times future society will be forced to contemplate geoengineering. 

Bill

>

[Gregory Benford]

ALAN:

Hamilton's shoplifting your ideas without credit gives insight into his qualifications as an ethicist...


Gregory

[Ken Caldeira]

I am not a big fan of Clive but I think it is a bit much to suggest that he needs to provide attribution for each idea expressed in his Op Ed.

Most of the ideas we think are original with us were probably in somebody else's brain at some earlier point in time. (I am sure somebody else has thought this before, but I am not sure to whom it should be attributed.) Often ideas occur nearly simultaneously to several people because the preconditions for the idea are floating around.

I am not concerned about borrowed ideas. My bigger concern is that some people have a tendency to make up facts when the available supply is insufficient to their needs. 

[Russell Seitz]

" If you are not frightened by this fact, then you are ignoring or denying science....a more humble climate scientist... has asked, “How can you engineer a system you don’t understand?”

Since when has lack of understanding  of complex systems been an impediment to unbridled political advocacy?

If anything is scary, it's  Alan and Clive's confidence in adducing social engineering as a substitute for science policy.

[Ken Caldeira]

Jim,

Every decision is made under conditions of uncertainty.

It is all about risk management.  Different course of action are evaluated using the best available information, as we work to deepen our knowledge and understanding. This lack of certainty and paucity of information is why I and many others advocate research.

If I had to wait until I fully understood my wife before I married her, I would still be a single man.

Best,

Ken

PS. And by the way, we do know who is currently modifying the system: It is primarily you and I and others like us, with our consumption of energy that drives greenhouse gas emissions, aerosol emissions, and land-use change (see attachment).

On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 7:01 AM, Jim Lee <rez...@gmail.com> wrote:

Would this be similar to your modeling a "geoengineered world" and claiming the models show it's safe, when you have no clue who is currently modifying the system?  Without a full accounting of weather manipulation efforts worldwide, and an understanding of how those are currently affecting our climate, how can you claim your model has any validity?

~ Jim Lee

http://terraforminginc.com/

[David Appell]

Ken Caldiera wrote:
> If I had to wait until I fully understood my wife before I married
her, I would still be a single man.

Marriage as "relationship engineering".... ;-)

--
David Appell, independent science writer
e: david....@gmail.com
w: http://www.davidappell.com

[Fred Zimmerman]

This comes down to a question of whether you trust "the system" and it is very true that many (most?) people do not.  That is why I am pushing people to take advantage of the enormous forward steps in transparency that have occurred in the Internet era. It's a paradoxical world we live in where what David Brin calls sousveillance (from below) is more effective than ever yet the Panopticon surveillance state is also more dangerous and powerful than ever.  If the geoengineering enterprise is to succeed geoengineers must, I think, err on the side of making a radical commitment to transparency.   In my view transparency must go much further than debating and issuing fuzzy governance standards.  We need to think about it as a globally crowd-sourced project on the scale of the Internet.

To continue the marital metaphor -- after my wife and I were married for a few years//// decades, we invented  "I take over your idea" as short-hand for "not only do I agree with your criticism, but I am even more enthusiastic and committed to your clever new proposal than you are." We need to tell the Clive Hamiltons of the world that "we take over your idea"*: we are committed to transparency and accountability in a pragmatic measureable and visible way, and we need to start building that into our activities without waiting for a decadal governance debate to commence (let alone conclude).

* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_your_base_are_belong_to_us

---

Fred Zimmerman

Geoengineering IT!   

Bringing together the worlds of geoengineering and information technology

GE NewsFilter: http://geoengineeringIT.net:8080 

On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 2:28 PM, Jim Lee <rez...@gmail.com> wrote:

As funny as that analogy was, what's the likelihood your wife is going to kill you? [1]

If you came up with a wife mitigation system, would this decrease the likelihood she would still attempt to kill you?

If you gently push your wife toward the door, are we assured she we leave?

I believe volcanoes do a fine job cooling the planet, and when a big one decides to explode after a couple of years of SRM, in at least some small way, geoengineers share blame for the resulting loss of life. [2]

Then again, this goes back to personal responsibility.

Ken Caldeira will never actually fly in a plane and spray glass microspheres filled with sulfuric acid, and John Latham will never hold a "controller" for his Silver Lining boats, therefore they are detached from the long-term consequences.  In the end, "the system" will determine where "targeted modulation" needs to occur.  As there are few systems that remain corruption free (if any) I foresee no scenario where any man should be trusted with the ability to control the weather.  

The military wants what your community is selling, like it or not.

Interactive weather control timeline: http://terraforminginc.com/weather-control/index.html

I'm sure you all have the best intentions, I however have no faith in those who will assume control of your machinations.

~ Jim Lee

ClimateViewer 3D

http://climateviewer.com/

[Ken Caldeira]

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,

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 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 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.

[David Appell]

Ken Caldeira wrote:
> 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.

OK.
So where can we find a list of all the investors in Silver Lining,
including amounts?

David

--
David Appell, independent science writer
e: david....@gmail.com
w: http://www.davidappell.com

t: @davidappell
b: http://davidappell.blogspot.com
m: Salem, OR

[Ken Caldeira]

David,

I don't think that Silver Lining ever had any investors. I don't think it ever was an entity with any kind of legal existence. "Silver Linings" is just a name for an informal group of friends and collaborators.

This article seems to have a fairly accurate description (http://www.sfgate.com/science/article/Looking-to-sky-to-fight-climate-change-4170475.php):

Since retiring, Neukermans has dedicated his time and money to a series of social and environmental causes, including efforts to develop land-mine-detection technology and inexpensive prostheses for the poor.

He turned his attention to cloud brightening in early 2010, recruiting a team made up mostly of former colleagues, after the Bill Gates-supported Fund for Innovative Climate and Energy Research provided money for an initial viability test.

"He more or less showed it was feasible to my satisfaction," said Ken Caldeira, a prominent climate scientist at the Carnegie Institution on the Stanford campus and co-manager of the fund.

As the group attempts to develop an actual prototype, Neukermans is covering the expenses out of his own pocket - and the group is working pro bono.

The five-man team is an esteemed contingent of Silicon Valley's old guard. Most are in their 60s or 70s; they have playfully referred to themselves as the "Silver Linings."

But they're engineering heavyweights, boasting 250 years of experience and 130 patents among them. They include Lee Galbraith, inventor of a breakthrough tool for inspecting semiconductors, and Jack Foster, a laser pioneer who helped create the first

This is what I mean by "truthiness". John Latham and others were making claims about the ability to do marine cloud brightening, but many thought that it would be impossible to make a fine enough spray. David Keith and I chose to fund Armond Neukermans to try to demonstrate the feasibility of such a fine salt water mist in the lab (which I had thought impossible).

We specified that while we were giving Armond some money, we would have no financial interest in his outcomes. There was no investment. There was a grant, which is essentially a gift.  

When Armond demonstrated that he could make a fine spray, we cut off his funding. He was a victim of his own success. 

We were interested in a feasibility test. When he showed it was feasible, that was the end of his funding. We were specifically not interested in funding development of deployment hardware. We were also specific in not wanting Armond to test anything outdoors, despite that it was just a salt-water spray.

Rather than making money, Armond has sunk his own time and money into the project. 

So, a grant that David Keith and I chose to give a grant to Armond Neukermans for an indoor feasibility test, where we specifically stated that we wanted no financial interest in the outcome, becomes an "investment" by Bill Gates, and the implication that he is trying to profit even if it means damaging the global environment. This is the sort of "truthiness" to which I refer.

Best,

Ken

--
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 geoengineering+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.

[David Appell]

On 5/29/2013 8:51 PM, Ken Caldeira wrote:

David,

I don't think that Silver Lining ever had any investors. I don't think it ever was an entity with any kind of legal existence. "Silver Linings" is just a name for an informal group of friends and collaborators.

Fine. And I certainly don't mean this personally -- but how is anyone to know about Silver Linings? Even you aren't sure if there are any investors, or if it's a legal entity, or what.... Informal groups of friends and collaborators don't usually give themselves a group name....

Having read many of Clive's essays, and now his book, and talked with him, my guess would be he might ask much the same -- how do we really know?

[jim thomas]

Ken, 

There seems to be some discrepancy between how that article describes 'Silver Lining' (an informal " 5 man team" of retirees) and How Silver Lining was described to Jim Giles of New Scientist in March 2010:

"Silver Lining, a non-profit organisation founded by Kelly Wanser, an entrepreneur based in San Francisco, California, has a team of 35 scientists working on a cooling process in which a flotilla of boats fire particles of sea-salt into the atmosphere, where they would whiten clouds. Salt solution

The group is seeking funds for pilot research involving 10 ships and 10,000 square kilometres of ocean. Kelly Wanser says it could take place in three to four years." 

 and then again how Silver Lining described themselves for the brief time they had a website where they listed 14 individuals before rapidly taking down that page (see attached)

  

Perhaps Kelly Wanser, who posted to this list several times as a 'director' of Silver Lining could answer whether this entity has or ever had any kind of legal existence and as a 'non-profit organisation' where we can view the financials. 

It would also be useful for her or any one else in the group of  35, 14 or 5 people to clarify whether the group  still intend to carry out a test involving 10 ships and 10,000 square kilometres of ocean - as they intended in 2010.

best

Jim

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.
 
 

Jim Thomas

ETC Group (Montreal)

j...@etcgroup.org

+1 514 2739994

[Ken Caldeira]

I stand by my statements made above.  Clive Hamilton wrote

"He [Gates] is an investor in Silver Lining, a company pursuing marine cloud brightening methods."

This is false.  Bill Gates made no such investment.  I am not sure, but I do not think there is any such company.

I just gave this as an example of a false and misleading statement promulgated by Clive Hamilton. 

I don't want to spend all my time fact-checking every statement various people, including Jim Giles, make.

A word of advice. Don't believe everything you read in the newspaper or on the web.

----

I am listed as an inventor on patents related to vertically pumping water in the ocean and related to storing carbon dioxide in the ocean by dissolving carbonate minerals. I have repeatedly and publicly stated that if any of these patents are used for climate modification purposes, I will donate my share of the proceeds to non-profit charities and NGOs.  

-----

I was wheat-pasting posters in downtown Manhattan warning people of ice sheet collapse and calling for CO2 emissions reductions in 1979.

I was organizing demonstrations against nuclear weapons in the early 1980's. I got arrested in the early 1980's for trying to close down Wall Street because of their involvement in the arms trade.

In the mid-1980's I worked alongside scientists studying the Mexican rain forest.  I quit my well-paying job on Wall Street to become a graduate student to study climate change. I did this so that I could be more effective in my efforts to protect the environment.

I was co-author on the first paper to calculate the scale of the energy system transition required to avoid dangerous climate change.

I was lead author on a key paper bringing the problem of ocean acidification to the world's attention.

I do not believe we should be using the atmosphere as a waste dump, and have called for it to be illegal to manufacture devices that dump CO2 pollution into the atmosphere

Even if we decided never to build another CO2-emitting device, the planet would continue to warm for many decades. If something bad happens, the outlook is for it to keep getting worse.

I believe that people who take the prospect of catastrophic climate change seriously, must in desperation think about what should be unthinkable.  

Despite that, even today, I spend most of my time working on ocean acidification and other climate issues.

And then I am asked to waste my time dealing with small-minded people who question my motivation.

----

http://www.npr.org/2013/04/22/176344300/this-scientist-aims-high-to-save-the-worlds-coral-reefs

Instead, Caldeira keeps coming back to another big-picture solution — and that is to stop burning fossil fuels. Yes, 
energy will cost more, and because of that there's huge resistance to this idea. But Caldeira is hoping people will
change their views if they simply think of the issue a different way.

"Decades ago, everybody was smoking cigarettes — and it was acceptable to smoke cigarettes indoors," he says. "And there was a phase change in social acceptability, where it is no longer acceptable to dump your cigarette smoke in air that somebody else is going to breathe. And I think we can achieve the same thing with carbon dioxide emissions, where it just becomes socially unacceptable to dump your industrial waste into the atmosphere."

Caldeira is not optimistic that politicians will make this change, and he isn't planning to take to the streets. He tried that back in 1982, when he helped organize a huge protest against the nuclear-arms race in New York City. He has moved on from that strategy.

Now, he says, it's time to pay less attention to the problem and more to the solutions.

"For me the problem is clear," he says, "and the solution is in transforming our energy system. For young people coming into science today, my recommendation would be to work on developing improved energy systems. And I wouldn't advise people to go into climate science. I think it's fundamentally a solved problem."

In fact, Caldeira makes this case to Microsoft founder Bill Gates, who sometimes calls on him for advice. If science and technology can make clean energy cheaper, he says, that would make it easier for people to look at the atmosphere differently — not as a waste dump, but as a vital part of our planet.