GE: Hearts and Minds - Why did the Saami Council oppose Harvard’s SCoPEx experiment?

[Greg Rau]

https://www.c2g2.net/asa-larsson-blind/?utm_source=Carnegie+Climate+Governance+Initiative&utm_campaign=92a857209e-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2023_02_15_06_42&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_d7ddd02ed0-92a857209e-[LIST_EMAIL_ID]

"There is a need for technology development, and there is clearly a need and we see that in climate discussions broadly, the great importance of research.  This is not something that we question at all. 

What we do oppose is the direction toward technologies that do not actually target the root causes of climate change and the great amount of resources that are put into what could be seen as feeding into the idea of a quick fix and the over belief of technology being the main solution, also then taking away the importance of the parallel transition of the society toward a more sustainable way of living.  We cannot downplay the need for change and we need to realize that the solution of this crisis is a change in societal structures. 

Of course we need new technologies and of course we also need research, and we need to listen to the researchers.  We have extensive research saying that we need to cut emissions and that we need to change the economical structures on Earth, scrutinize power balances, and take action, and they have been saying that for quite some time now. 

Our fear is that when we now have researchers saying that we might not need to change that much and that we could actually with new technology monitor and manage the whole Earth to the extent of also controlling the atmosphere.  For me that is not learning from what researchers have been saying what we need to do now, that we need to take a step back, to find a way back to respect the boundaries of Earth, that we have overused the world’s resources, we have overexploited for too long, and that is what has been putting us into this climate crisis.  It is the mindset of humans entitled to control everything on earth and not needing to respect the Earth’s boundaries. 

Whatever we do now should be guided by the principle and the guiding question: Is this a measure that will help get us back on-track in respecting the boundaries of the Earth’s resources, even if it is in the long term?  I don’t see that this kind of technology does that actually.

GR So, by analogy we shouldn't learn how to treat lung cancer because it doesn't address the "root cause" - smoking?  Would be interesting to get their take on CDR.

[Chris Van Arsdale]

Dr 1: The earth patient is bleeding out, give them plasma!

Dr 2: Plasma doesn't address the root cause of gun violence in this country, and its use (or research into) might lead to a delayed adoption of gun control.

... Well, perhaps not wrong, but we don't exactly have a lot of patients to work with here.

--
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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/316839185.1803069.1676490087907%40mail.yahoo.com.

[Clive Elsworth]

Chris, would you be against a quick fix for lung cancer, i.e. one that enabled sufferers to live to a ripe old age, that if they were to give up smoking would enable them to be fit and healthy during their latter years also?

 

I am all for societal awakening of the Earth’s limits to its exploitation. Indeed, Jim Hansen et al in their latest paper point out that humans have been geoengineering the planet for thousands of years with land-use changes, averting what would otherwise have been the next glacial period. But I fear ideas of society-wide imposed, heavily coerced change. Communist countries have shown us how that goes.

 

Today’s political structures evolved at a time when environmental planetary stability was taken for granted. Consequently, with public fear of undoing the destructive geoengineering now underway, politicians do not fund quick fixes, even if such fixes look to be able to stave off tipping points. Instead, they declare a climate emergency and encourage us all to reduce our personal footprints, and companies, their corporate footprints - a totally inadequate response. There is little government support for the basic research needed to find the new technologies needed to solve problems that could apply to everyone, such as direct cooling by rebrightening the planet. (Not that that is sufficient on its own.)

Of course they will retort that they support BECCS and DAC, neither of which are plausibly scalable to the extent needed. But at least in democratic countries they remain open to criticism. That’s a tough call for them, and so they should be acknowledged for that. I’d suggest constructive, helpful criticism is needed from the rest of us, and also presentation of new ideas that have survived close scientific scrutiny, which of course many of us on groups like this are already engaged in.

 

Clive

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/CADzNRbaBXg-jvWapoupLRCeGpgT352rfJEywj5urmEfjrCeHdg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Robert Chris]

Clive, you open up a challenging question - how to effect the changes necessary to sort out global warming.  You note that 'heavily coerced change' as illustrated by Communist countries hasn't worked out well.  The (logically unsound) implication is that because Communism didn't work out well, no system of heavily coerced change will.  I wonder whether that's true.  Might there be a way of imposing change that could work out well?  Isn't that what laws do - impose change?  Wouldn't a carbon tax be a heavily coerced change, at least as far as those suffering its burden are concerned?  And what's the alternative?  Gently encouraged change?  That hasn't done too well either over the last several decades.

Perhaps neither approach works.  Perhaps the system actually has to collapse in order to create the right circumstances for renewal.  Of course, what emerges from that renewal is likely to be radically different from what collapsed, but then, if it collapsed because it wasn't sustainable, it was always bound to collapse sooner or later.

However the change is effected, those with the power to make that change have to want to.  If they just pay lip service to the need for change, it cannot happen by gentle encouragement and reasoned argument.  We know where that leads.

Regards

Robert

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/1752826792.1425116.1676526286182%40email.ionos.co.uk.

[Clive Elsworth]

Robert, again I agree with all your points. And again, I have other pressing work, so had best not continue the discussion further.

 

E.g. As atmospheric methane concentration increases, will its natural (and/or enhanced) oxidation by aerosol particles lift them up into the stratosphere by the heat generated? We think that’s unlikely, because HCl concentration falls rapidly above 3 km altitude. But it would be good to know for sure.

 

Clive

[Michael Hayes]

A WENN/mCDR Survival Colony Perspective:

If a sociatal focus is to be genuine, starting with the most desperate populations should be a high priority. Indigenous populations are often in the most desperate situations, yet desperation can also be triggered by climate disruption, economics, and war. There are now over 107M forcibly displaced persons, around 80% are women and children. Sea level rise is something that likely can not be stopped nor even slowed, and it can multiple the current overall displaced population by a factor. Every person needs a basic daily amount of water, energy, and nutrients, or WENN resources, and any population of 100+M humans has a huge C footprint, likely well over 1GtC/y.

The level of climate disruption is predictable enough to alone warrant the creation of a massive WENN survival colony system for the expected displaced coastal communities, and we may as well give such a vast scale survival systems an ability to use CDR, cooling, emissions reduction/avoidance tech etc. 

Importantly, a type of 'constitution' to guide both the governance and tech advancements is needed for such a potentially huge international WENN/mCDR survival colony system. The debate around SAI should not impact the above work at any level, and actors like the Saami Council, the Small Island Nations, international refugee support actors etc. can and should help get the governance issue resolved for an international scale oceanic survival colony as soon as plausable, and the work needs to be based upon non-controversial mitigation and WENN tech. Collaboration, not controversy, is needed.

 

--

[Reiss Jones]

Hey Michael,

Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this :) Curious where you got the 107M figure from? Would love to reference it in some of my own work!

Best,

Reiss

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/CABjtO1cLE2UCDLM89oOtDxv9Tn637fJNcxy9Jq9__yFw3EBf3Q%40mail.gmail.com.

[Robert Tulip]

Reiss

 

https://www.unhcr.org/en-au/globaltrends.html states “In last year's Global Trends report, UNHCR predicted that "the question is no longer if forced displacement will exceed 100 million people – but rather when". The when is now. With millions of Ukrainians displaced and further displacement elsewhere in 2022, total forced displacement now exceeds 100 million people.” 

 

I suspect deployment of albedo enhancement technologies will be a less controversial and difficult strategy to help mitigate this security crisis than the oceanic survival colonies proposed by Michael Hayes.

 

Robert Tulip

 

From: carbondiox...@googlegroups.com <carbondiox...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of Reiss Jones
Sent: Thursday, 23 February 2023 9:52 PM
To: Michael Hayes <electro...@gmail.com>
Cc: Greg Rau <gh...@sbcglobal.net>; Carbon Dioxide Removal <carbondiox...@googlegroups.com>; Geoengineering FIPC <geoengi...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [CDR] GE: Hearts and Minds - Why did the Saami Council oppose Harvard’s SCoPEx experiment?

 

Hey Michael,

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/15325028-080D-4B78-8C3F-5F619815A5E7%40gmail.com.

[Michael Hayes]

Reiss, the Ukrainian war upped the number:

https://news.un.org/en/story/2022/12/1131957#:~:text=The%20100%20million%20figure%2C%20which,some%2090%20million%20in%202021.

Notably, it gets worse. There are people knowingly signing onto slave fishing ships simply to avoid immediate death on the beach. The total numbers of slaves in fishing are large:

https://www.globalslaveryindex.org/2018/findings/importing-risk/fishing/

Rescued slaves can typically be relied upon as basic crew for any offshore work. I've fished with a few. 

Robert, speaking as an early S Texas disaster relief expert, a past highend military medic, and Bering Sea longline firstmate, hogwash. 

Best regards.