|
David Mitchell <David.M...@dri.edu>: Jan 31 05:51PM
Here are some reflections I've been having concerning the anticipated rebuttal letter:
1. The real target audience of a rebuttal letter should be policy makers and the public, and not the signatories of the non-use letter. Regarding the non-use letter, it might be noted that decisions born of fear generally lead to poor outcomes.
2. There is currently a lot of fear in society which makes people more reactive. The non-use letter can be persuasive by provoking additional fear about climate intervention technology and then offering a mechanism to reduce this apparent threat. A rebuttal
letter could be an opportunity to educate the public about the myth of net zero carbon, the timescales of CDR, and the likelihood over overshooting the Paris Agreement thresholds, empowering them to act more wisely. Uncertainty and the unknown promote fear,
whereas knowing the facts and the options available may reduce fear.
3. I especially like the comments made by Clare James and Herb Simmens.
David Mitchell
________________________________
From: geoengi...@googlegroups.com <geoengi...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Clare James <cl...@kingssquare.co.uk>
Sent: Monday, January 31, 2022 8:07 AM
To: rpba...@gmail.com <rpba...@gmail.com>
Cc: H simmens <hsim...@gmail.com>; John Nissen <johnnis...@gmail.com>; Robert Tulip <rtuli...@yahoo.com.au>; geoengineering
<geoengi...@googlegroups.com>; Planetary Restoration <planetary-...@googlegroups.com>; Shaun Fitzgerald <sd...@cam.ac.uk>;
Hugh.Hunt <he...@cam.ac.uk>; healthy-planet-action-coalition <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [HCA-list] [geo] Solar geoengineering: The case for an international non-use agreement
I know many of you have seen Holly Buck’s thread on twitter about the non-use letter - she addresses many of the vague statements and illogical conclusions and was the peer review on the main article so perhaps someone could reach out to her in relation to
the draft response letter?
One thing I have noticed is that almost all of the original 16 signatories were governance scholars. Any kind of intentional cooling needs a properly interdisciplinary approach to avoid silo preferences and ill advised moratoria demands. Governance, atmospheric
physics, ethics, Law, engineering, risk analysis are just some academic areas that might contribute to a more nuanced pathway to research and maybe deployment.
Moral hazard is two fold as you say and too often used as a club to bat away the uncomfortable truth that given the magical BECCS permeating the IAMs, things are even worse than forecast.
Clare (@clare_nomad_geo)
On 29 Jan 2022, at 00:21, Ron Baiman <rpba...@gmail.com<mailto:rpba...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Thank you John for starting the ball rolling on this.
In addition to Herb's excellent comments, I think an opposition letter should address the "moral hazard" problem raised (as I recall) at the end of the non-use letter and that I think is really the core issue behind the opposition to direct cooling. I would
recommend flipping this concern around by pointing out the moral hazard of pretending that the climate change problem can be solved through national voluntary, mostly rich-country, emission reductions, and financial contributions to poor countries. The moral
hazard here is that, though vitally important, these efforts, especially if they are viewed as the only acceptable response to climate change, have become an excuse to avoid tackling the real problems of urgent direct cooling, and resurrecting a global Kyoto-like
mandatory regime for GHG removal and funding transfers that is necessary for rapid (within decades) global GHG drawdown at the necessary scale.
This is evidenced by the fact that the EU that continued the Kyoto regime (supplemented with individual country carbon taxes) is the only major region of the world to have significantly reduced GHG emissions (by 24%) from 1990 to 2019, as compared, for example,
to 2% growth for the US. Paris accord national voluntary NDCs will also not induce the 25 countries and 1.1. billion people that depend on over $ 4 trillion in revenue from oil related exports that make up 10% or more of their total exports to stop producing
and selling oil, or the (with some overlap with the former) 1.5 billion people (20% of the global population) in 72 Europe and Central Asia or Sub-Saharan Africa countries, both excluding high income, and Other Small States, for which on average (weighted
by population) 26% of total exports are fossil fuel exports that in 2019 generated approximately $ 149 billion of foreign exchange.
A good example is the leftist President of Ecuador who offered to not drill in the rainforest if his country could be compensated for the lost revenue, received no offset, and commenced drilling. The Paris Accord voluntary Green Development Fund has raised
only $ 18.8 billion (2014 - 2021) compared with $ 303.8 billion by the global mandatory Kyoto Clean Development Mechanism (2001 - 2018) that was effectively allowed to lapse in 2012. See references and more discussion in the attached paper.
Does anyone else in the lists above want to work on this? Needless to say, I think a collaborative effort is needed to produce an effective response.
Best,
Ron
On Fri, Jan 28, 2022 at 2:19 PM H simmens <hsim...@gmail.com<mailto:hsim...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Hi John, (I deleted the HCA list in response to Peter‘s request.)
I appreciate you taking the initiative in drafting a response letter.
I think it is important however that the letter respond to the specific arguments that are made by the proponents of this non-use agreement.
And their primary objection even more than the adverse effects is their assertion of the impossibility of developing an effective governance mechanism, particularly one that could represent the interests of the global south.
They also make no attempt at examining the most obvious issue which is what the consequences are to the planet in the absence of cooling. You do address that in your draft letter.
They do not recommend that research be prohibited though it appears that the primary reason for that is their inability to come up with a description of what research that would entail.
I would suggest a letter that offers them a partnership rather than is oppositional in tone.
One that essentially says:
“we agree with you there are risks, we agree with you that governance is challenging, we agree with you that power imbalances and equity issues are difficult and need to be addressed.
(We want the reader to see that we are agreeing at least in part with many of their key points.)
But in light of the existential risks to everyone of us due to the alarming acceleration of harmful climate impacts we believe the approach should be to challenge the leaders of the world in cooperation with business and civil society to develop a fair and
effective governance structure.
And to accelerate research and field testing to better understand the benefits and risks of the increasingly wide variety of proposed approaches towards directly and quickly cooling the planet at local, regional and planetary scales. (They appear to be mostly
or only against approaches that operate at the planetary scale.)
Thus will you join with us in working to create a fair and effective governance structure and in supporting research and field testing to better understand the implications of the variety of forms of direct cooling being proposed.”
It seems to me that that puts them on the defensive because their central argument is that governance is impossible even though there has never been a serious attempt by the world community to develop a governance structure.
By offering them the invitation to join with us to address their objections I have little illusion that it would change the minds of any of the signers. Our goal is not to do that but rather to educate those who are drawn to Geo engineering by this controversy
that there is a reasonable approach that incorporates their concerns rather than simply attempting to dismiss them.
Herb
Herb Simmens
Author A Climate Vocabulary of the Future
@herbsimmens
On Jan 28, 2022, at 2:24 PM, John Nissen <johnnis...@gmail.com<mailto:johnnis...@gmail.com>> wrote:
A draft letter is attached, using much of the email I wrote unchanged.
Cheers, John
On Thu, Jan 27, 2022 at 7:14 PM John Nissen <johnnis...@gmail.com<mailto:johnnis...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Hi Ron,
I will draft a letter within the next 24 hours. We could discuss it at the PRAG meeting on Monday (8 pm UK time) to which everyone is invited. I will send the draft as a Word document, so people can mark up proposed changes and additions before the meeting.
Concerning your “moral hazard”, I think you have a good point that rich countries have been acting without due regard to the interests of poorer countries, many of which are already suffering badly as a direct or indirect result of global warming. Bangladesh
is an obvious example. Global cooling would have been applied years ago if the rich countries really cared and if there hadn’t been so much misinformation or even disinformation about geoengineering from people who should know better, e.g. in the Royal Society
2009 report [1].
Cheers, John
[1] Royal Society, 2009
Geoengineering the climate: science, governance and uncertainty
https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/publications/2009/geoengineering-climate/
On Thu, Jan 27, 2022 at 6:22 PM Ron Baiman <rpba...@gmail.com<mailto:rpba...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Thank you John. I agree that it would be excellent to draft and publish an opposition letter.
Per my prior post, I would also include the "moral hazard" of substituting mostly rich country emissions reduction or "net zero" targets within one or a few decades as either a solution to the short-run emergency, or adequate for necessary long run GHG drawdown.
Emphasizing that we wholeheartedly support rich country emissions reductions, but pretending that these national voluntary emissions reduction targets will rapidly get us to the massive level of global GHG drawdown necessary to try to regenerate a stable and
healthy climate and ecosystem, has become a fig leaf. A way of avoiding necessary work on resurrecting a global binding regime (like Kyoto) that would transfer massive funding (not the Green Climate Fund voluntary donation relative pittance) from rich to poor
countries that is essential to achieve required levels of GHG drawdown within say decades, rather than perhaps a century or longer - if some form of human civilization can last under those conditions. This also I think would make the point that if we can't
get it together to act globally in a decisive and mandatory way we're absolutely going to need direct cooling to stave off disaster.
Repeating myself, but hopefully more clearly in summary form!
Best,
Ron
On Thu, Jan 27, 2022 at 9:27 AM John Nissen <johnnis...@gmail.com<mailto:johnnis...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Hi Ron,
Thanks for your work on drawing attention to the short-term crisis which I see as three crises arising mainly from rapid warming in the Arctic: escalating extremes of weather and climate; accelerating sea level rise; and feedback to global warming (especially
from methane). I would like to see a direct attack on the open letter.
The non-use open letter has been publicised by Mongabay: “News and Inspiration from Nature’s Frontline” [1]. The 60+ authors should be castigated for utter irresponsibility, promoting unwarranted fears about technology for cooling the planet in general, and
the Arctic in particular, when the latest science indicates that this cooling is vital in the short term:
* to reverse the trend towards extreme weather and climate before parts of the world become unliveable;
* to slow sea level rise which is currently accelerating from glacier melt;
* to avoid the possibility, however remote, of the planet becoming a hot-house, e.g. as the result of a huge outburst of methane from permafrost already in a critical condition.
Cooling is a vital band-aid while CO2 emissions are reduced and CO2e ppm is brought down significantly towards its pre-industrial level.
The fear they promote is totally unwarranted. They tacitly choose Stratospheric Aerosol Injection (SAI) as the geoengineering to denounce. The risks from SAI mentioned by one of the lead authors are absolutely without foundation, and anyway are negligible compared
to the harm being done by global warming and the even more rapid Arctic warming, which BTW are affecting ecosystems as well as humans.
* Stratospheric aerosol might whiten the sky by 1% with slightly redder sunsets on average.
* No permanent chemical change to ozone or ocean would occur, assuming any slight ozone depletion would be rectified.
* Photosynthesis is, if anything, improved.
* Biodiversity and agriculture would, if anything, be improved.
* Global weather patterns would tend to stabilise if AA is reduced. Otherwise, a diffuse application of SO2 would not have a direct effect on weather patterns.
If anyone disagrees with anything I’ve said above, let’s discuss it. We need to be unified in our condemnation of the letter.
Cheers, John
[1] Shanna Hanbury in Mongabay
Efforts to dim Sun and cool Earth must be blocked, say scientists
https://news.mongabay.com/2022/01/efforts-to-dim-sun-and-cool-earth-must-be-blocked-say-scientists/
Blocking the sun’s rays with an artificial particle shield launched high into Earth’s atmosphere to curb global temperatures is a technological fix gaining traction as a last resort for containing the climate crisis — but it needs to be stopped, wrote a coalition
of over 60 academics in an open letter<https://www.solargeoeng.org/non-use-agreement/open-letter/> and article<https://wires.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/wcc.754>
released in the WIREs (Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews) Climate Change online publication on January 17.
“Some things we should just restrict at the outset,” said one of the open letter’s lead authors, Aarti Gupta, a professor of Global Environmental Governance at Wageningen University. Gupta placed solar geoengineering in the category of high-risk technologies,
like human cloning and chemical weapons, that need to be off-limits. “It might be possible to do, but it’s too risky,” she told Mongabay in an interview.
The color of the sky could change<https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2012GL051652>. The chemical composition of the ozone layer<https://www.pnas.org/content/113/52/14910>
and oceans may be permanently altered. Photosynthesis, which depends on sunlight, may slow down, possibly harming<https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/08/180808134302.htm> biodiversity
and agriculture. And global weather patterns could change unpredictably.<https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/2020GL087348>
On Wed, Jan 26, 2022 at 9:08 PM Ron Baiman <rpba...@gmail.com<mailto:rpba...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Needless to say I absolutely agree with Robert.
Below is a complementary response (based on the attached updated paper that I've been circulating).
The real "moral hazard" is promoting the delusion that cutting emissions will; a) "solve" the current emergency climate crisis and b) quickly produce a stable and sustainable, climate, ecosystem and economy to the long- term GHG draw down crisis, before potentially
avoidable catastrophic harm is caused to us and our fellow species, particularly the most vulnerable.
The truth is that: a) without implementing immediate direct cooling we are
|
|
Ron Baiman <rpba...@gmail.com>: Jan 31 02:44PM -0600
Good point Clare! This is where I'm thinking that we may be able to make a
difference if we can get a wide array of climate leaders from different
fields including natural science, social science, policy, etc, signing a
letter with an opposing, "all options, including and specifically direct
cooling, need to be considered", viewpoint - as we did in our HPAC letters
to the IPCC.
A small WG has started working on this effort and we welcome participation
- please contact me, if you, David Mitchell, or others reading these posts
are interested.
Our various groups may produce more than one letter, but I think the key
to an effective response, specifically to the no-use letter, is something
that can attract a large and broadly diverse group, including with regard
to discipline and background, of signatories. It might even be good to
make the point you just made in such a letter.
Best,
Ron
On Mon, Jan 31, 2022 at 10:07 AM Clare James <cl...@kingssquare.co.uk>
wrote:
|
|
David Mitchell <David.M...@dri.edu>: Jan 31 10:21PM
Hi John – I just saw your email; sorry I missed the meeting.
One final comment on the Bierman et al. letter: their argument for a non-use agreement is premised on the assumption that we have to accept the status quo; that because there is no existing governance model for SRM, it should banned from the portfolio of climate
options. What they see as a show-stopper can be turned into an opportunity for positive change. In the CCT book chapter I wrote back in 2011 (Cirrus Clouds and Climate Engineering: New Findings on Ice Nucleation and Theoretical Basis | IntechOpen<https://www.intechopen.com/chapters/21120>),
here is what I wrote on this topic:
“If climate engineering in combination with resource conservation, renewable energy systems and GHG reduction are all needed for our survival, then it behooves us to explore what new opportunities climate engineering presents for manifesting positive social
and
political changes in the world. Since it would affect the entire world, climate engineering should be internationally organized and executed, requiring the cooperation of all the nations of the world. Seen in this way, global warming may bring about a situation
mandating the cooperation of the entire human race, asking people and nations to go beyond their immediate self-interest and act for the good of the whole planet. The future climate of the planet may depend on whether nations can cooperate in a spirit of shared
sacrifice, and for democratic nations, it depends on whether the people themselves can act in this way. As it has always been, our collective destiny depends on our collective consciousness and our ability to transform it to meet the challenges of our time.”
Of course I have no background on this subject, and would be curious to know what others think.
David
From: healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of
John Nissen
Sent: Monday, January 31, 2022 11:49 AM
To: David Mitchell <David.M...@dri.edu>
Cc: rpba...@gmail.com;
cl...@kingssquare.co.uk; H simmens <hsim...@gmail.com>; Robert Tulip <rtuli...@yahoo.com.au>; geoengineering <geoengi...@googlegroups.com>;
Planetary Restoration <planetary-...@googlegroups.com>; Shaun Fitzgerald <sd...@cam.ac.uk>; Hugh.Hunt <he...@cam.ac.uk>;
healthy-planet-action-coalition <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [HCA-list] [geo] Solar geoengineering: The case for an international non-use agreement
Thanks, David, good points.
The PRAG meeting starts in 10 minutes, and we can discuss them.
Cheers, John
On Mon, Jan 31, 2022 at 5:51 PM David Mitchell <David.M...@dri.edu<mailto:David.M...@dri.edu>> wrote:
Here are some reflections I've been having concerning the anticipated rebuttal letter:
1. The real target audience of a rebuttal letter should be policy makers and the public, and not the signatories of the non-use letter. Regarding the non-use letter, it might be noted that decisions born of fear generally lead to poor outcomes.
2. There is currently a lot of fear in society which makes people more reactive. The non-use letter can be persuasive by provoking additional fear about climate intervention technology and then offering a mechanism to reduce this apparent threat. A rebuttal
letter could be an opportunity to educate the public about the myth of net zero carbon, the timescales of CDR, and the likelihood over overshooting the Paris Agreement thresholds, empowering them to act more wisely. Uncertainty and the unknown promote fear,
whereas knowing the facts and the options available may reduce fear.
3. I especially like the comments made by Clare James and Herb Simmens.
David Mitchell
________________________________
From:
geoengi...@googlegroups.com<mailto:geoengi...@googlegroups.com> <geoengi...@googlegroups.com<mailto:geoengi...@googlegroups.com>> on behalf of
Clare James <cl...@kingssquare.co.uk<mailto:cl...@kingssquare.co.uk>>
Sent: Monday, January 31, 2022 8:07 AM
To: rpba...@gmail.com<mailto:rpba...@gmail.com> <rpba...@gmail.com<mailto:rpba...@gmail.com>>
Cc: H simmens <hsim...@gmail.com<mailto:hsim...@gmail.com>>; John Nissen <johnnis...@gmail.com<mailto:johnnis...@gmail.com>>;
Robert Tulip <rtuli...@yahoo.com.au<mailto:rtuli...@yahoo.com.au>>; geoengineering <geoengi...@googlegroups.com<mailto:geoengi...@googlegroups.com>>;
Planetary Restoration <planetary-...@googlegroups.com<mailto:planetary-...@googlegroups.com>>; Shaun Fitzgerald <sd...@cam.ac.uk<mailto:sd...@cam.ac.uk>>;
Hugh.Hunt <he...@cam.ac.uk<mailto:he...@cam.ac.uk>>; healthy-planet-action-coalition <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com<mailto:healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com>>
Subject: Re: [HCA-list] [geo] Solar geoengineering: The case for an international non-use agreement
I know many of you have seen Holly Buck’s thread on twitter about the non-use letter - she addresses many of the vague statements and illogical conclusions and was the peer review on the main article so perhaps someone could reach out to her in relation to
the draft response letter?
One thing I have noticed is that almost all of the original 16 signatories were governance scholars. Any kind of intentional cooling needs a properly interdisciplinary approach to avoid silo preferences and ill advised moratoria demands. Governance, atmospheric
physics, ethics, Law, engineering, risk analysis are just some academic areas that might contribute to a more nuanced pathway to research and maybe deployment.
Moral hazard is two fold as you say and too often used as a club to bat away the uncomfortable truth that given the magical BECCS permeating the IAMs, things are even worse than forecast.
Clare (@clare_nomad_geo)
On 29 Jan 2022, at 00:21, Ron Baiman <rpba...@gmail.com<mailto:rpba...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Thank you John for starting the ball rolling on this.
In addition to Herb's excellent comments, I think an opposition letter should address the "moral hazard" problem raised (as I recall) at the end of the non-use letter and that I think is really the core issue behind the opposition to direct cooling. I would
recommend flipping this concern around by pointing out the moral hazard of pretending that the climate change problem can be solved through national voluntary, mostly rich-country, emission reductions, and financial contributions to poor countries. The moral
hazard here is that, though vitally important, these efforts, especially if they are viewed as the only acceptable response to climate change, have become an excuse to avoid tackling the real problems of urgent direct cooling, and resurrecting a global Kyoto-like
mandatory regime for GHG removal and funding transfers that is necessary for rapid (within decades) global GHG drawdown at the necessary scale.
This is evidenced by the fact that the EU that continued the Kyoto regime (supplemented with individual country carbon taxes) is the only major region of the world to have significantly reduced GHG emissions (by 24%) from 1990 to 2019, as compared, for example,
to 2% growth for the US. Paris accord national voluntary NDCs will also not induce the 25 countries and 1.1. billion people that depend on over $ 4 trillion in revenue from oil related exports that make up 10% or more of their total exports to stop producing
and selling oil, or the (with some overlap with the former) 1.5 billion people (20% of the global population) in 72 Europe and Central Asia or Sub-Saharan Africa countries, both excluding high income, and Other Small States, for which on average (weighted
by population) 26% of total exports are fossil fuel exports that in 2019 generated approximately $ 149 billion of foreign exchange.
A good example is the leftist President of Ecuador who offered to not drill in the rainforest if his country could be compensated for the lost revenue, received no offset, and commenced drilling. The Paris Accord voluntary Green Development Fund has raised
only $ 18.8 billion (2014 - 2021) compared with $ 303.8 billion by the global mandatory Kyoto Clean Development Mechanism (2001 - 2018) that was effectively allowed to lapse in 2012. See references and more discussion in the attached paper.
Does anyone else in the lists above want to work on this? Needless to say, I think a collaborative effort is needed to produce an effective response.
Best,
Ron
On Fri, Jan 28, 2022 at 2:19 PM H simmens <hsim...@gmail.com<mailto:hsim...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Hi John, (I deleted the HCA list in response to Peter‘s request.)
I appreciate you taking the initiative in drafting a response letter.
I think it is important however that the letter respond to the specific arguments that are made by the proponents of this non-use agreement.
And their primary objection even more than the adverse effects is their assertion of the impossibility of developing an effective governance mechanism, particularly one that could represent the interests of the global south.
They also make no attempt at examining the most obvious issue which is what the consequences are to the planet in the absence of cooling. You do address that in your draft letter.
They do not recommend that research be prohibited though it appears that the primary reason for that is their inability to come up with a description of what research that would entail.
I would suggest a letter that offers them a partnership rather than is oppositional in tone.
One that essentially says:
“we agree with you there are risks, we agree with you that governance is challenging, we agree with you that power imbalances and equity issues are difficult and need to be addressed.
(We want the reader to see that we are agreeing at least in part with many of their key points.)
But in light of the existential risks to everyone of us due to the alarming acceleration of harmful climate impacts we believe the approach should be to challenge the leaders of the world in cooperation with business and civil society to develop a fair and
effective governance structure.
And to accelerate research and field testing to better understand the benefits and risks of the increasingly wide variety of proposed approaches towards directly and quickly cooling the planet at local, regional and planetary scales. (They appear to be mostly
or only against approaches that operate at the planetary scale.)
Thus will you join with us in working to create a fair and effective governance structure and in supporting research and field testing to better understand the implications of the variety of forms of direct cooling being proposed.”
It seems to me that that puts them on the defensive because their central argument is that governance is impossible even though there has never been a serious attempt by the world community to develop a governance structure.
By offering them the invitation to join with us to address their objections I have little illusion that it would change the minds of any of the signers. Our goal is not to do that but rather to educate those who are drawn to Geo engineering by this controversy
that there is a reasonable approach that incorporates their concerns rather than simply attempting to dismiss them.
Herb
Herb Simmens
Author A Climate Vocabulary of the Future
@herbsimmens
On Jan 28, 2022, at 2:24 PM, John Nissen <johnnis...@gmail.com<mailto:johnnis...@gmail.com>> wrote:
A draft letter is attached, using much of the email I wrote unchanged.
Cheers, John
On Thu, Jan 27, 2022 at 7:14 PM John Nissen <johnnis...@gmail.com<mailto:johnnis...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Hi Ron,
I will draft a letter within the next 24 hours. We could discuss it at the PRAG meeting on Monday (8 pm UK time) to which everyone is invited. I will send the draft as a Word document, so people can mark up proposed changes and additions before the meeting.
Concerning your “moral hazard”, I think you have a good point that rich countries have been acting without due regard to the interests of poorer countries, many of which are already suffering badly as a direct or indirect result of global warming. Bangladesh
is an obvious example. Global cooling would have been applied years ago if the rich countries really cared and if there hadn’t been so much misinformation or even disinformation about geoengineering from people who should know better, e.g. in the Royal Society
2009 report [1].
Cheers, John
[1] Royal Society, 2009
Geoengineering the climate: science, governance and uncertainty
https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/publications/2009/geoengineering-climate/
On Thu, Jan 27, 2022 at 6:22 PM Ron Baiman <rpba...@gmail.com<mailto:rpba...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Thank you John. I agree that it would be excellent to draft and publish an opposition letter.
Per my prior post, I would also include the "moral hazard" of substituting mostly rich country emissions reduction or "net zero" targets within one or a few decades as either a solution to the short-run emergency, or adequate for necessary long run GHG drawdown.
Emphasizing that we wholeheartedly support rich country emissions reductions, but pretending that these national voluntary emissions reduction targets will rapidly get us to the massive level of global GHG drawdown necessary to try to regenerate a stable and
healthy climate and ecosystem, has become a fig leaf. A way of avoiding necessary work on resurrecting a global binding regime (like Kyoto) that would transfer massive funding (not the Green Climate Fund voluntary donation relative pittance) from rich to poor
countries that is essential to achieve required levels of GHG drawdown within say decades, rather than perhaps a century or longer - if some form of human civilization can last under those conditions. This also I think would make the point that if we can't
get it together to act globally in a decisive and mandatory way we're absolutely going to need direct cooling to stave off disaster.
Repeating myself, but hopefully more clearly in summary form!
Best,
Ron
On Thu, Jan 27, 2022 at 9:27 AM John Nissen <johnnis...@gmail.com<mailto:johnnis...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Hi Ron,
Thanks for your work on drawing attention to the short-term crisis which I see as three crises arising mainly from rapid warming in the Arctic: escalating extremes of weather and climate; accelerating sea level rise; and feedback to global warming (especially
from methane). I would like to see a direct attack on the open letter.
The non-use open letter has been publicised by Mongabay: “News and Inspiration from Nature’s Frontline” [1]. The 60+ authors should be castigated for utter irresponsibility, promoting unwarranted fears about technology for cooling the planet in general, and
the Arctic in particular, when the latest science indicates that this cooling is vital in the short term:
* to reverse the trend towards extreme weather and climate before parts of the world become unliveable;
* to slow sea level rise which is currently accelerating from glacier melt;
* to avoid the possibility, however remote, of the planet becoming a hot-house, e.g. as the result of a huge outburst of methane from permafrost already in a critical condition.
Cooling is a vital band-aid while CO2 emissions are reduced and CO2e ppm is brought down significantly towards its pre-industrial level.
The fear they promote is totally unwarranted. They tacitly choose Stratospheric Aerosol Injection (SAI) as the geoengineering to denounce. The risks from SAI mentioned by one of the lead authors are absolutely without foundation, and anyway are negligible compared
to the harm being done by global warming and the
|
