Medium Is Geoengineering an Immorality of Last Resort?

10 views
Skip to first unread message

Leon Di Marco

unread,
Mar 16, 2018, 10:48:50 PM3/16/18
to Carbon Dioxide Removal
A discussion of the moral hazard  argument in geoengineering regarding SRM and CDR



Is Geoengineering an Immorality of Last Resort?

Sean J. Hernandez

University of Southern California

Abstract

Geoengineering has been a possible climate policy option since the 1960’s; although its feasibility was known only to a handful of climate scientists. As the probability and expected magnitude of future climate change damages has grown, the number of hypothetical geoengineering schemes has increased. These alleged “techno-fixes” to global warming were, for decades, kept out of the public policy stage because of a widespread fear that popular awareness would lead to an exacerbation of carbon emissions. These mechanisms, by which emissions levels might increase, are collectively known as the “moral hazard” argument. In this paper, I employ Ben Hale’s nomenclature for the various moral hazard pathways to examine whether they are logically sufficient to de-justify geoengineering research and deployment. The small body of empirical evidence collected on public perception of geoengineering and moral hazard is discussed. I conclude that the inadequacy of carbon control regimes significantly weakens the persuasive appeal of moral hazard arguments in all its forms.


With the moral hazard argument aside, researchers interest in the economics of geoengineering should feel more free to explicitly model physical and economic evaluations of geoengineering side effects to prescribe the efficient level of SRM and CDR conditional on how little mitigation takes place during this century.

medium_com.pdf

Leon Di Marco

unread,
Mar 16, 2018, 11:12:27 PM3/16/18
to Carbon Dioxide Removal
Further discussion about this with Sean Hernandez in a new Nori podcast



#15 Sean Hernandez, Energy Economist

March 13, 2018

Economics isn’t all about money. It’s about human action, decisions and choices. In fact, economists and environmentalists could be natural allies in solving climate change. Unfortunately, a good number of environmentalists take a hardline stance on geoengineering, arguing that any further human manipulation of the environment is a bad idea. But with CO2 levels reaching more than 400 PPM, mitigation alone will not solve our problem. So how would an economist approach climate change?

Sean Hernandez is a professional economist, data scientist, and environmental policy expert with a Master’s degree in economics from USC. In his current role at an energy utility, Sean specializes in energy marketing, trading and financial analysis. Today, he joins Ross and Christophe to define what is meant by the phrase ‘moral hazard’ and explain the argument against a technofix for global warming. They discuss the problem with lumping all forms of geoengineering together, pointing out that some techniques are widely accepted while others are much more controversial. 

Sean employs his national champion debate skills to explore the mitigation camp’s moral hazard argument against geoengineering and offer insight around cap and trade as well as carbon market policy in California. Christophe, Ross, and Sean cover the accelerating effect of climate change, the risks around solar radiation management, and the fuel switching issue. Listen in for Sean’s take on a portfolio-based approach to climate change that continues civilization while employing a combination of advanced techniques—including geoengineering.

Resources

Is Geoengineering an Immorality of Last Resort? by Sean J. Hernandez

“Geoengineering, Climate Change Scepticism and the ‘Moral Hazard’ Argument” in Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society 

350.org

“Arctic Temperatures Soar 45 Degrees Above Normal” in the Washington Post

“Dutch Move to Ban Sale of Combustion Engines from 2025” in The Irish Times

The Population Bomb by Paul R. Ehrlich

Guns, Germs and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies by Jared M. Diamond 

Key Takeaways

[2:21] The definition of ‘moral hazard’

  • Attempt to reduce risk leads to incur more risk (i.e.: drive faster with seatbelt)

[4:04] The moral hazard argument against a technofix for global warming

  • Would disincentivize doing right thing (reducing emissions)
  • Addiction, rent-seeking

[9:14] The problem with lumping all forms of geoengineering together

  • Planting trees, any form of agriculture qualifies

[11:50] The counter to the mitigation camp’s disincentivization argument

  • CO2 levels already too high to be safe (>400 PPM)
  • Mitigation won’t remove CO2 from atmosphere

[14:14] The problem with the moral hazard argument in carbon removal

  • Mitigation = prevent emissions
  • CO2 removal and mitigation both result fewer molecules in atmosphere

[16:34] Why a portfolio-based approach to climate change is necessary

  • All emissions to zero tomorrow, would still take 1,000 years for climate to stop changing
  • Can’t rely on ‘spiritual change,’ need effective ways to motivate

[19:33] The accelerating effect of climate change

  • ‘Global warming leads to more global warming’

[20:37] The challenge around cap and trade

  • Demand can’t grow as large as supply

[23:06] Sean’s insight on carbon market policy

  • Bound marketplace (both floor and ceiling on price)
  • Carbon permits free to certain companies

[25:07] The failings of the California cap and trade market

  • Renewable portfolio standard leads to reduced demand for cap and trade permits
  • Reduced demand results in reduced price of cap and trade permits

[26:18] The flaw in the Netherlands’ plan to ban the sale of internal combustion engines

  • Shifts emissions from pipe to smokestack (fuel switching issue)

[32:02] The risks of solar radiation management (SRM)

  • Nori doesn’t condone SRM, focus on carbon removal
  • Space-based would be safest (shades in orbit)

[36:51] Sean’s take on natural gas and fracking

  • 1% increase in renewables leads to >1% natural gas burning
  • Fracking has environmental problems of its own

[40:14] Sean’s approach to solving climate change

  • Establish global carbon tax, establish price of carbon
  • Geoengineering budget (CDR, SRM and blockchain)
  • Way forward is to continue civilization, advanced techniques

Greg Rau

unread,
Mar 17, 2018, 1:21:48 AM3/17/18
to Leon Di Marco, Carbon Dioxide Removal, Geoengineering, sean.j.h...@gmail.com
Thanks Leon.  Seems to be the definitive work on the subject, with broad referencing. Was puzzled by the report's last sentence, however: "With the moral hazard argument aside, researchers interest in the economics of geoengineering should feel more free to explicitly model physical and economic evaluations of geoengineering side effects to prescribe the efficient level of SRM and CDR conditional on how little mitigation takes place during this century."

This implies that researchers were not free before to explore side effects(?)  Restricted by who or what? Side effects meaning co-benefits or negatives? Isn't the real issue net benefits (=positives - negatives)? Anyway, so glad we're now "more free" to explore this and I don't have to look over my shoulder any more.  What other restrictions are keeping us from saving the world?

Greg


From: Leon Di Marco <len...@gmail.com>
To: Carbon Dioxide Removal <CarbonDiox...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Friday, March 16, 2018 8:12 PM
Subject: [CDR] Re: Medium Is Geoengineering an Immorality of Last Resort?

Further discussion about this with Sean Hernandez in a new Nori podcast



#15 Sean Hernandez, Energy Economist

March 13, 2018

5:03 38:42
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Carbon Dioxide Removal" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to CarbonDioxideRem...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to CarbonDiox...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/CarbonDioxideRemoval.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/dcd625ab-e4c9-49b1-be95-178fcc3b3de8%40googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Greg Rau

unread,
Mar 17, 2018, 7:41:58 PM3/17/18
to Hawkins, David, Sean Hernandez, Leon Di Marco, Carbon Dioxide Removal, Geoengineering
There are diseases that are largely if not entirely preventable via behavior modification, yet $100'sB are spent to develop treatments.  Where is the moral hazard outrage here that the latter may relax prevention efforts? At one point AGW (1.5-2 deg C warming) was 100% preventable via behavior modification (emissions reduction). Experts now tell us that this is now very unlikely and that additional measures are now needed. Why then are the latter still branded as threats and moral hazards if both methods are now ultimately needed and neither one alone will be sufficient, just as in the case with dealing with many diseases? If exploration of all medical prevention and treatment options for individuals is considered rational and essential, why isn't it also for dealing with the health of the planet, the only one we've got? Given a rationale, humans are able to walk and chew gum at the same time, and in the AGW prevention and treatment case it would seem morally imperative that they do. At the end of the day we may have no safe and effective treatment options, but that is guaranteed if we are prevented from searching.
Greg


From: "Hawkins, David" <dhaw...@nrdc.org>
To: Sean Hernandez <sean.j.h...@gmail.com>
Cc: Greg Rau <gh...@sbcglobal.net>; Leon Di Marco <len...@gmail.com>; Carbon Dioxide Removal <CarbonDiox...@googlegroups.com>; Geoengineering <geoengi...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, March 17, 2018 3:28 PM
Subject: Re: [geo] Re: [CDR] Re: Medium Is Geoengineering an Immorality of Last Resort?

Thanks Sean,
I do not believe that the prospect of NETs, etc have been a significant factor yet in our inadequate progress on mitigation. (Though people like Kevin Anderson and Glen Peters are correct to warn that it is easy to slide from the heavy reliance on NETs in IPCC modeling runs to a conclusion by policymakers that this amount of NETs is something we can bank on and tailor today's mitigation efforts accordingly.)
I agree with you that factors other than the prospect of NETs have been overwhelmingly responsible for mitigation delays to date. That said, it would be wrong to dismiss the concerns that NETs' prospects may become an effective new argument against rapid mitigation.  I agree that some voices in the "environmental community" have concluded the only way to deal with this threat is to discredit the very idea of researching these techniques and developing the ability to use them sensibly.  I think that is an error but changing those views is more likely to happen with conversations between people who trust each other than with public broadsides from strangers.
I think there is a coherent stance to take: most effort needs to continue to focus on the imperative of rapid mitigation now but at the same time we need added effort to design and carry out NETs research programs.
I do think it would be helpful for the community of scientists that support research in these areas to craft and socialize a statement of principles that emphasizes the imperative of emission mitigation now and that calls for critical governance safeguards.  I am aware of prior efforts to do something like this but it is worth another attempt.
David





From: Sean Hernandez <sean.j.h...@gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, March 17, 2018 5:54 PM
To: Hawkins, David
Cc: Greg Rau; Leon Di Marco; Carbon Dioxide Removal; Geoengineering
Subject: Re: [geo] Re: [CDR] Re: Medium Is Geoengineering an Immorality of Last Resort?
 

Hi David. In your opinion have geoengineering and other potential substitutes already contributed to a significant delay in mitigation? My starting reaction would be that they have not because awareness is not very great and there are significantly greater political and economic obstacles to mitigation besides geoengineering awareness. For two, mitigation is very costly and it's highly disagreeable internationally. These political factors to me explain more of where we are then the status quo knowledge of geoengineering and substitutes.  Of course the problem could always be exacerbated by greater knowledge of geoengineering. I sometimes think of it in terms of 'At what point is mitigation a complete strategic failure?'  I guess that could be called gas lighting. Is that quite different from directly advocating for a delay? I'm not sure I know of any serious geoengineering researchers who advocate for a delay. Maybe economists like Nordhaus but I'm not sure on that.  But also we wouldn't necessarily need explicit advocates in order for  geoengineering to slide us into a delay world.

Your point is very well taken about preventing a further delay by fighting back against geoengineering-only advocates.  Yet I perceived that the environmental movement as a whole is excessively intrested in that, nearly to the exclusion of potential insurance options. I believe that many would prefer to denounce and prevent geoengineering in order to lock us into a mitigation-only approach because "it's the right thing to do."  How should we wall the line between supporting mitigation and supporting geoengineering as a fail safe? We definitely need a strategic communication approach.

Thank you,
Sean

On Mar 17, 2018 2:32 PM, "Hawkins, David" <dhaw...@nrdc.org> wrote:
Sean and others,
Respecting this statement--
"If researchers and the public can realize that the moral hazard concern is insufficient because mitigation is already dangerously low, then they can have some consolation and develop the resolve to research geoengineering to the fullest extent scientifically possible."

Whether labeled "moral hazard" or something else, I think we all need to recognize the high probability that those who have been effective in stalling serious action on emissions mitigation will seize on the prospect of BECCS, CDR, and SRM as reasons to not proceed with rapid mitigation programs.  
Those of us who believe that we need rapid mitigation programs need to keep thinking and acting to develop effective counters to the inevitable attempts to use SRM and NETs as a reason not to mitigate.  
Attempting to ban research or work on these techniques is unwise because ignorance is dangerous, but also because not researching these techniques will not prevent opponents of mitigation from using the notions of these techniques as an alternative to rapid mitigation.
All of us on this list know the arguments against delaying mitigation because of the existence of these other possible techniques.  But repeating these arguments to each other is not an adequate response.  We need to recognize the political attractiveness of claims that we can afford to delay mitigation because "SRM and NETS might save us with less pain."  We need to develop effective communications programs that will serve as an antidote to these latest reasons for delay.  This is a subset of the communications challenge we have faced and largely failed to meet for the past 30 years or more.

David



From: geoengineering@googlegroups. com <geoengineering@googlegroups. com> on behalf of Sean Hernandez <sean.j.h...@gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, March 17, 2018 4:55 PM
To: Greg Rau
Cc: Leon Di Marco; Carbon Dioxide Removal; Geoengineering
Subject: [geo] Re: [CDR] Re: Medium Is Geoengineering an Immorality of Last Resort?
 

Hi Greg and Leon et al.,

Thanks so much for looking into the paper and for your kind comments and questions. Thank you for pointing out the last sentence - I can see how that would be confusing and sort of rushed through. But there, I mean to say that researchers were previously restricted by their own fears of the moral hazard argument. If researchers and the public can realize that the moral hazard concern is insufficient because mitigation is already dangerously low, then they can have some consolation and develop the resolve to research geoengineering to the fullest extent scientifically possible. I really mean that the restrictions are from within. The same people who are the climate scientists looking at geoengineering are often the same ones sounding the alarms for mitigation, so you can understand how there has been internal conflict brewing. By side effects I do mean negatives. Absolutely I agree the real issue is net benefits - and it is quite clear that potential negative environmental consequences of SRM or CDR need to be weighed against the advantage of stalling climate change in an emergency. In fact, I think that several of the 16 moral hazard arguments become a lot more interesting when you look at them as side effects rather than moral hazard. For example, a side effect of living in an SRM world could be higher ocean acidification (cooler planet + higher CO2 level). We could either assess that as a side effect and try to find the net benefit, or we could reject geoengineering on "moral" grounds by vaguely asserting it makes climate change worse.

Thank you again.
All the best,
Sean


On Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 10:18 PM, Greg Rau <gh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Thanks Leon.  Seems to be the definitive work on the subject, with broad referencing. Was puzzled by the report's last sentence, however: "With the moral hazard argument aside, researchers interest in the economics of geoengineering should feel more free to explicitly model physical and economic evaluations of geoengineering side effects to prescribe the efficient level of SRM and CDR conditional on how little mitigation takes place during this century."

This implies that researchers were not free before to explore side effects(?)  Restricted by who or what? Side effects meaning co-benefits or negatives? Isn't the real issue net benefits (=positives - negatives)? Anyway, so glad we're now "more free" to explore this and I don't have to look over my shoulder any more.  What other restrictions are keeping us from saving the world?

Greg


From: Leon Di Marco <len...@gmail.com>
To: Carbon Dioxide Removal <CarbonDioxideRemoval@googlegr oups.com>
Sent: Friday, March 16, 2018 8:12 PM
Subject: [CDR] Re: Medium Is Geoengineering an Immorality of Last Resort?
Further discussion about this with Sean Hernandez in a new Nori podcast



#15 Sean Hernandez, Energy Economist

March 13, 2018

5:03 38:42
Economics isn’t all about money. It’s about human action, decisions and choices. In fact, economists and environmentalists could be natural allies in solving climate change. Unfortunately, a good number of environmentalists take a hardline stance on geoengineering, arguing that any further human manipulation of the environment is a bad idea. But with CO2 levels reaching more than 400 PPM, mitigation alone will not solve our problem. So how would an economist approach climate change?
Sean Hernandez is a professional economist, data scientist, and environmental policy expert with a Master’s degree in economics from USC. In his current role at an energy utility, Sean specializes in energy marketing, trading and financial analysis. Today, he joins Ross and Christophe to define what is meant by the phrase ‘moral hazard’ and explain the argument against a technofix for global warming. They discuss the problem with lumping all forms of geoengineering together, pointing out that some techniques are widely accepted while others are much more controversial. 
Sean employs his national champion debate skills to explore the mitigation camp’s moral hazard argument against geoengineering and offer insight around cap and trade as well as carbon market policy in California. Christophe, Ross, and Sean cover the accelerating effect of climate change, the risks around solar radiation management, and the fuel switching issue. Listen in for Sean’s take on a portfolio-based approach to climate change that continues civilization while employing a combination of advanced techniques—including geoengineering.
Resources
We are standing up to the fossil fuel industry to stop all new coal, oil and gas projects and build clean energy for all.

We are standing up to the fossil fuel industry to stop all new coal, oil and gas projects and build clean energy for all.

We are standing up to the fossil fuel industry to stop all new coal, oil and gas projects and build clean energy for all.

We are standing up to the fossil fuel industry to stop all new coal, oil and gas projects and build clean energy for all.

We are standing up to the fossil fuel industry to stop all new coal, oil and gas projects and build clean energy for all.


Welcome to Medium, a place to read, write, and interact with the stories that matter most to you. Every day, thousands of voices read, write, and share important stories on Medium.

Sean J. Hernandez




Mar 13

Is Geoengineering an Immorality of Last Resort?

Sean J. Hernandez
University of Southern California
Abstract
Geoengineering has been a possible climate policy option since the 1960’s; although its feasibility was known only to a handful of climate scientists. As the probability and expected magnitude of future climate change damages has grown, the number of hypothetical geoengineering schemes has increased. These alleged “techno-fixes” to global warming were, for decades, kept out of the public policy stage because of a widespread fear that popular awareness would lead to an exacerbation of carbon emissions. These mechanisms, by which emissions levels might increase, are collectively known as the “moral hazard” argument. In this paper, I employ Ben Hale’s nomenclature for the various moral hazard pathways to examine whether they are logically sufficient to de-justify geoengineering research and deployment. The small body of empirical evidence collected on public perception of geoengineering and moral hazard is discussed. I conclude that the inadequacy of carbon control regimes significantly weakens the persuasive appeal of moral hazard arguments in all its forms.

With the moral hazard argument aside, researchers interest in the economics of geoengineering should feel more free to explicitly model physical and economic evaluations of geoengineering side effects to prescribe the efficient level of SRM and CDR conditional on how little mitigation takes place during this century.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Carbon Dioxide Removal" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to CarbonDioxideRemoval+unsubscri b...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to CarbonDioxideRemoval@googlegro ups.com.
Google Groups allows you to create and participate in online forums and email-based groups with a rich experience for community conversations.


For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/op tout.





--
Sean J. Hernandez
--
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.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/ group/geoengineering.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/ optout.
Google Groups allows you to create and participate in online forums and email-based groups with a rich experience for community conversations.




Michael MacCracken

unread,
Mar 18, 2018, 11:35:46 AM3/18/18
to dhaw...@nrdc.org, Sean Hernandez, Greg Rau, Leon Di Marco, Carbon Dioxide Removal, Geoengineering

Another way not to get into trap of NETs delaying mitigation is not agree that 1.5-2 C will be an acceptable long-term situation, which seems to be the position that is conveyed in the IPCC SOD of its 1.5 special report. If instead it is made clear that it is vital (based on evident and prospective impacts--on economic,  public safety, risk and other grounds) to get back to below 0.5 C or so temperature increase over preindustrial, then we need all approaches--full mitigation plus NETs (and indeed SRM to shave off peak warming given that a number of important consequences will likely be determined primarily the peak temperature reached, and right now we are on track for an overshoot to above 3 C warming).


If instead we have a temperature goal that is above where we are now, then one can see how NETs might be seen as a possible substitute for mitigation. So, it seems to me what the goal is really matters.


Mike


Sent: Saturday, March 17, 2018 4:55 PM
To: Greg Rau
Cc: Leon Di Marco; Carbon Dioxide Removal; Geoengineering
Subject: [geo] Re: [CDR] Re: Medium Is Geoengineering an Immorality of Last Resort?

Hi Greg and Leon et al.,

Thanks so much for looking into the paper and for your kind comments and questions. Thank you for pointing out the last sentence - I can see how that would be confusing and sort of rushed through. But there, I mean to say that researchers were previously restricted by their own fears of the moral hazard argument. If researchers and the public can realize that the moral hazard concern is insufficient because mitigation is already dangerously low, then they can have some consolation and develop the resolve to research geoengineering to the fullest extent scientifically possible. I really mean that the restrictions are from within. The same people who are the climate scientists looking at geoengineering are often the same ones sounding the alarms for mitigation, so you can understand how there has been internal conflict brewing. By side effects I do mean negatives. Absolutely I agree the real issue is net benefits - and it is quite clear that potential negative environmental consequences of SRM or CDR need to be weighed against the advantage of stalling climate change in an emergency. In fact, I think that several of the 16 moral hazard arguments become a lot more interesting when you look at them as side effects rather than moral hazard. For example, a side effect of living in an SRM world could be higher ocean acidification (cooler planet + higher CO2 level). We could either assess that as a side effect and try to find the net benefit, or we could reject geoengineering on "moral" grounds by vaguely asserting it makes climate change worse.

Thank you again.
All the best,
Sean

On Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 10:18 PM, Greg Rau <gh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Thanks Leon.  Seems to be the definitive work on the subject, with broad referencing. Was puzzled by the report's last sentence, however: "With the moral hazard argument aside, researchers interest in the economics of geoengineering should feel more free to explicitly model physical and economic evaluations of geoengineering side effects to prescribe the efficient level of SRM and CDR conditional on how little mitigation takes place during this century."

This implies that researchers were not free before to explore side effects(?)  Restricted by who or what? Side effects meaning co-benefits or negatives? Isn't the real issue net benefits (=positives - negatives)? Anyway, so glad we're now "more free" to explore this and I don't have to look over my shoulder any more.  What other restrictions are keeping us from saving the world?

Greg


From: Leon Di Marco <len...@gmail.com>
To: Carbon Dioxide Removal <CarbonDioxideRemoval@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Friday, March 16, 2018 8:12 PM
Subject: [CDR] Re: Medium Is Geoengineering an Immorality of Last Resort?
Further discussion about this with Sean Hernandez in a new Nori podcast



#15 Sean Hernandez, Energy Economist

March 13, 2018

5:03 38:42
Economics isn’t all about money. It’s about human action, decisions and choices. In fact, economists and environmentalists could be natural allies in solving climate change. Unfortunately, a good number of environmentalists take a hardline stance on geoengineering, arguing that any further human manipulation of the environment is a bad idea. But with CO2 levels reaching more than 400 PPM, mitigation alone will not solve our problem. So how would an economist approach climate change?
Sean Hernandez is a professional economist, data scientist, and environmental policy expert with a Master’s degree in economics from USC. In his current role at an energy utility, Sean specializes in energy marketing, trading and financial analysis. Today, he joins Ross and Christophe to define what is meant by the phrase ‘moral hazard’ and explain the argument against a technofix for global warming. They discuss the problem with lumping all forms of geoengineering together, pointing out that some techniques are widely accepted while others are much more controversial. 
Sean employs his national champion debate skills to explore the mitigation camp’s moral hazard argument against geoengineering and offer insight around cap and trade as well as carbon market policy in California. Christophe, Ross, and Sean cover the accelerating effect of climate change, the risks around solar radiation management, and the fuel switching issue. Listen in for Sean’s take on a portfolio-based approach to climate change that continues civilization while employing a combination of advanced techniques—including geoengineering.
Resources
We are standing up to the fossil fuel industry to stop all new coal, oil and gas projects and build clean energy for all.

We are standing up to the fossil fuel industry to stop all new coal, oil and gas projects and build clean energy for all.

We are standing up to the fossil fuel industry to stop all new coal, oil and gas projects and build clean energy for all.

We are standing up to the fossil fuel industry to stop all new coal, oil and gas projects and build clean energy for all.

We are standing up to the fossil fuel industry to stop all new coal, oil and gas projects and build clean energy for all.

Welcome to Medium, a place to read, write, and interact with the stories that matter most to you. Every day, thousands of voices read, write, and share important stories on Medium.

Sean J. Hernandez




Mar 13

Is Geoengineering an Immorality of Last Resort?

Sean J. Hernandez
University of Southern California
Abstract
Geoengineering has been a possible climate policy option since the 1960’s; although its feasibility was known only to a handful of climate scientists. As the probability and expected magnitude of future climate change damages has grown, the number of hypothetical geoengineering schemes has increased. These alleged “techno-fixes” to global warming were, for decades, kept out of the public policy stage because of a widespread fear that popular awareness would lead to an exacerbation of carbon emissions. These mechanisms, by which emissions levels might increase, are collectively known as the “moral hazard” argument. In this paper, I employ Ben Hale’s nomenclature for the various moral hazard pathways to examine whether they are logically sufficient to de-justify geoengineering research and deployment. The small body of empirical evidence collected on public perception of geoengineering and moral hazard is discussed. I conclude that the inadequacy of carbon control regimes significantly weakens the persuasive appeal of moral hazard arguments in all its forms.

With the moral hazard argument aside, researchers interest in the economics of geoengineering should feel more free to explicitly model physical and economic evaluations of geoengineering side effects to prescribe the efficient level of SRM and CDR conditional on how little mitigation takes place during this century.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Carbon Dioxide Removal" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to CarbonDioxideRemoval+unsubscrib...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to CarbonDioxideRemoval@googlegroups.com.
Google Groups allows you to create and participate in online forums and email-based groups with a rich experience for community conversations.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.





--
Sean J. Hernandez
--
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.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Google Groups allows you to create and participate in online forums and email-based groups with a rich experience for community conversations.


--
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 https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.

Greg Rau

unread,
Mar 18, 2018, 4:26:02 PM3/18/18
to mmac...@comcast.net, dhaw...@nrdc.org, Sean Hernandez, Leon Di Marco, Carbon Dioxide Removal, Geoengineering
How about this: It is necessary to demonize GE because to do otherwise is to admit that we have been immoral in failing to adequately stabilize climate/CO2 by more obvious and conventional means(?) I believe the psychological term is “projection”; blame others for your own failure. Other diagnoses welcome.
Greg

Sent from my iPhone
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups. com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/ group/geoengineering.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/ optout.
Google Groups allows you to create and participate in online forums and email-based groups with a rich experience for community conversations.


John Nissen

unread,
Mar 18, 2018, 6:28:22 PM3/18/18
to Greg Rau, mmac...@comcast.net, dhaw...@nrdc.org, Sean Hernandez, Leon Di Marco, Carbon Dioxide Removal, Geoengineering
Hi Greg,

I think there is a lot of truth in your idea that our all-too-ready demonisation of GE is due to the projection of our own feeling of guilt over failure to curb emissions, for which we are individually as well as collectively responsible.

However I also take Mike's point that we should be aiming much higher in our ambition by including temperature reduction.  For my own children (and grandchildren if they come) I would like to see complete climate restoration: getting greenhouse gases down to near pre-industrial levels, refreezing the Arctic and also reducing the global mean surface temperature back to about 0.5C above pre-industrial. 

Note that, under global warming, the water at depth in the oceans will not yet have reached water surface temperature, which will itself be less than land temperature.  So if we quickly cool ocean surfaces, the temperatures deeper in the water may not rise significantly further than they have already.

Cheers, John

 

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.


--
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.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Carbon Dioxide Removal" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to CarbonDioxideRemoval+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to CarbonDioxideRemoval@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/CarbonDioxideRemoval.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/25646856.1885387.1521404690977%40mail.yahoo.com.

Leon Di Marco

unread,
Mar 18, 2018, 7:49:50 PM3/18/18
to Carbon Dioxide Removal
From a practical point of view post the IPCC  SR1.5 Report, it will be very difficult to achieve much better than RCP4.5 without NETs , and RCP2.6 requires some form of negative emissions.   Advocates of deep mitigation such as Kevin Anderson ( who is a mechanical engineer)  have yet to propose how this engineering program will be implemented globally.     The IPCC AR6  working group 3 is supposed to be looking at this in depth and it will be helpful for them to indicate next year what their findings are likely to be as governments will have to take a view on what to  do and how to organise that process before its publication in 2021.   This is a techno economic task of the first order which only government can do.

Although further R&D is needed on NETs at scale, it is simply not practical to  suggest that we just carry on with R&D  -  to get to scale at anything like the rate that will be required,  NETs  will  have to be implemented in pilot form soon.  In less than a decade decisions will have to be made about scale / cost / implementation of the pathways involving types and combinations of mitigation steps and NETs.  This is just practical reality.

As a reminder, here is what John Shepherd ( a member of the recent EASAC NETs Report committee)  said in New Scientist in September 2009 following the publication of the Royal Society Report on Geoengineering-


Take note: the back-up plan for saving the world is no joke. A major scientific institution has published a comprehensive review of possible ways to engineer the climate to reverse global warming.

The UK Royal Society‘s review of geoengineering will make it difficult for governments to ignore the issue. It says that while reducing emissions of greenhouse gases “absolutely” must remain a priority, there is a serious chance that this will not be enough to stave off global warming of 2 °C.

“My guess would be that there is a 50-50 chance that we can achieve something with emissions reductions,” says John Shepherd of the University of Southampton in the UK, chair of the Royal Society group behind the report.

If humanity wants to avoid the worst effects of climate change, it must be ready to safely deploy geoengineering methods as and when necessary, the report says. “We are already staring 1.6 °C in the face,” says Shepherd.

He believes we should know some time in the next two decades whether or not efforts to curb emissions will be enough to avoid 2 °C of warming. If not, his personal view is that we should be prepared for a two-step plan B.

Sun shield

Step one: deploy some sort of sun shield to deflect solar energy away from Earth. Reflective technologies could cool the planet within a year, and according to the Royal Society’s findings the most promising method in terms of cost and effectiveness would be to pump sulphate particles into the stratosphere (see illustration). However, this will not curb ocean acidification and other side effects of greenhouse emissions, and could disrupt weather patterns, so another method is required.

Step two: enact a means of sucking carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere. Several methods are already being investigated, which fall broadly into two categories: “tech-heavy” solutions, such as artificial trees that filter air and extract CO2 for storage, and “biological” methods, such as planting trees, using biofuels and fertilising the oceans.

According to Shepherd, tech-heavy methods are preferable because they are less likely to interfere with complex ecosystems. “Most of the things that have gone wrong in the past have happened when we’ve tampered with biological systems,” he says.

Geoengineering methods have so far been on the fringe of climate discussions and research. Few, if any, could be developed tomorrow or even tested on a large scale. The Royal Society report calls on the UK government to invest £10 million a year towards an international research effort into geoengineering. This amounts to roughly 10 per cent of the UK climate research budget.



  



 

On Saturday, March 17, 2018 at 2:48:50 AM UTC, Leon Di Marco wrote:
GlobalCarbonProject_s09_AR5_scenarios_trimmed2000.png

Adam Cherson

unread,
Mar 19, 2018, 9:25:17 AM3/19/18
to Carbon Dioxide Removal
Here's another curious moral hazard: if we pour money into applied planetary science aimed at human migration away from Earth, is there then a danger of ignoring carbon mitigation and remediation options here at home-- since we'll just move out when things get bad?

Shepherd's two-step plan seems common-sensical to me. I would include some manner of subduction carbon storage (SubCS) as a tech-heavy option. Of all the storage options, SubCS seems to be the one that least interacts with the biome. I prefer SubCS to geological injection carbon storage (GICS) because of the apparent complications from fracking technologies (seismic disturbance, groundwater contamination, etc...whether real or not, they are on the public's not-in-my-backyard radar). Of interest to this discussion is the Iron Salt Aerosol (ISA) strategy which combines SRM, OIF. and SubCS into one process (doi:10.5194/esd-8-1-2017). I find ISA worthy of further discussion and improvement, but how about the moral hazard of using electricity-generating-coal-fired-furnaces as the iron dispersal methodology? Perhaps another dispersal method is preferable, one that does not involve coal combustion and does not risk a possible health hazard to various life-forms from breathing-in iron particles over long periods of time? Even if another form of ISA dispersal removes the SRM aspects of the strategy, I would still seriously consider it. Another, perhaps simpler option SubCS option, would be to release carbon in a durable, negatively-bouyant, solid-state directly to subduction zones. This would avoid the ecosystem complexities inherent in OIF.

A good week to everyone!

Leon Di Marco

unread,
Mar 23, 2018, 12:24:42 PM3/23/18
to Carbon Dioxide Removal
http://www.climatechangenews.com/2018/03/23/eu-leaders-order-long-term-climate-strategy-early-2019/

EU leaders order long-term climate strategy by early 2019

Campaigners welcome move to update low-carbon emissions roadmap, saying it sends an important political signal


By Megan Darby

EU leaders have directed the European Commission to produce a long-term climate strategy “by the first quarter of 2019”.

They set the deadline for a 2050 greenhouse gas emissions cutting plan at a European Council meeting finishing on Friday. It will update the 2050 low-carbon economy roadmap drafted in 2011.

Climate commissioner Miguel Arias Canete tweeted there was “no time to lose” as the EU forges ahead with the low-carbon transition.

EU steps up climate action as we forge ahead with the low-carbon transition. No time to lose, @EU_Commission will deliver. 💪🏻🇪🇺Longer perspective, more action, more jobs and investments, more innovation, better societies. #EUCO #ParisAgreement https://t.co/ytxk8YBjeepic.twitter.com/j4H38819Ld

— Miguel Arias Cañete (@MAC_europa) March 23, 2018

Campaigners welcomed the move.

“It’s hard to succeed on the climate transition unless you know where you’re going,” tweeted Jonathan Gaventa, director at environmental think-tank E3G, adding that the previous 2050 roadmap was “already badly out of date on technology costs”.

The EU has a target to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 80% by 2050, agreed when the international goal was to limit global warming to 2C.

In the Paris Agreement, governments upped ambition, saying temperature rise should be held “well below 2C” and to 1.5C if possible. Noting that voluntary national commitments were collectively inadequate, it created a framework for periodically ratcheting up efforts.

The European Council decision sent “an important political signal,” said Gaventa. “Some within EU institutions had begun to see big climate questions as too difficult and too divisive, and so started to drag their feet. Today’s unanimous conclusions shows the top-level political appetite is there.”

A good long-term strategy will expose the choices that Europe faces. How quickly do we need to transform our infrastructure, our buildings, our industries? What signals do investors need?

— Jonathan Gaventa (@jonathangaventa) March 22, 2018

Wendel Trio, director of Climate Action Network (CAN) Europe, said: “This is an important step that will set the wheels in motion for raising the EU’s climate target. The new strategy needs to outline what efforts the EU will pursue to keep temperature rise within the 1.5C limit set in the Paris Agreement. This will prove beyond doubt that the current climate target for 2030 is insufficient and trigger its review and increase.”

The latest analysis from the International Energy Agency this week showed EU emissions rose slightly in 2017, for the second year in a row, as renewables deployment slowed.

Greenpeace EU climate and energy policy adviser Tara Connolly said: “Governments are effectively admitting that Europe’s climate change policy needs a reality check. This is good news, but real change needs more than just words. To be a climate leader, Europe must act fast, ditch fossil fuels and fully embrace renewables and energy efficiency.”






On Saturday, March 17, 2018 at 2:48:50 AM UTC, Leon Di Marco wrote:
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages