Re: [geo] Solar geoengineering: The case for an international non-use agreement

[Ron Baiman]

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 facing the reality of enormous and possibly irreversible suffering to humans and nature now and in the immediate future, and that b) without resurrecting a gobal mantatory Kyoto-like cap and trade agreement that addresses the real political economic reality of the need for massive transfers of funding from rich to poor countries, it will take many decades and possibly a century or more to achieve sufficient GHG draw down and a stable and sustainable, climate, ecosystem and economy under the current national voluntary Paris Accord scheme.

Pledging to cut (not achieve net drawn down) GHG emissions by a certain percentage in a decade or two or three, has become a moral hazard excuse for not tackling the difficult (or not so difficult for local direct cooling) choices and work that is really required: immediate direct cooling, and forging a long term binding global agreement that includes massive funding transfers from rich to poor countries. 

Unfortunately, our faltering and morally inexcusable global response to COVID vaccination may be presaging our delusional and inadequate two climate crises response.

Ron Baiman

On Thu, Jan 20, 2022 at 12:26 AM 'Robert Tulip' via geoengineering <geoengi...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

The essay Solar geoengineering: The case for an international non-use agreement by Biermann et al (link below) displays a breathtaking level of political foolishness and indifference to scientific solutions to the climate emergency.  It reflects a dominant false thinking within the climate action movement, whereby political conflict with the fossil fuel industry is totally prioritised over any practical response to improve the future of the world.  If our goal is a stable liveable climate, then banning geoengineering is the most stupid action imaginable.

 

The world reality is that the climate action movement lacks the political power to achieve anything close to the commitments under the Paris Accord. Emissions in 2030 are projected to be higher than in 2015.  So instead they resort to bullying ideological argument typified by this call for a world fatwa against solar radiation management, seeking victory by intimidation rather than by reason.

 

All the bluster of arguments like this article will do nothing to slow emission growth, let alone slow warming.  Meanwhile, extreme weather events continue a rapid escalation, and warming continues to inflict irreversible damage to biodiversity.  But the authors are so caught up in their class-war type of thinking that they do not care about immediate measures to mitigate weather or extinction impacts.

 

The solution according to this article is to do precisely nothing in this decade that would have immediate material impact to mitigate extreme weather or climate-induced biodiversity loss.  They flatly reject the observation that field research for a range of SRM methods could demonstrate easy, cheap, fast and safe activities. We should use scientific evidence rather than hypothetical speculation to answer serious questions about unintended consequences and optimal deployment strategies. 

 

And contrary to the argument about geoengineering promoting conflict, the real likelihood is that activities such as refreezing the North Pole would serve to strengthen international cooperation, confidence, peace, dialogue and security.  The G20 is likely to be the best forum for this debate.  The UN is hopelessly corrupted by the type of ideological thinking seen in this article.  Climate change is the primary material threat to global stability and security.  Engaging the G20 to refreeze the North Pole could directly reduce the destabilising effects of extreme weather while also providing a major program to strengthen mutual respect and political stability.

 

These “governance scholars” express a number of opinions that are grossly ignorant of climate science.  When the North Pole is melting, action to refreeze sea ice by increasing albedo could safely mitigate climate risks, returning toward previous stability.  But no, that must be banned, because... 

 

Their comment about marine cloud brightening recognises its potential to stop bleaching of the Great Barrier Reef.  Field trials of MCB could also show ability to mitigate the strength of hurricanes and tornadoes, significantly reducing climate damage, especially for the poor, supporting climate justice.  MCB could also cool water flowing into the Arctic, slowing down Greenland ice melt, permafrost melt, methane release and sea level rise. 

 

It seems none of this has occurred to these authors in their mindless advocacy of political polarisation.

 

Decarbonising the economy will do precisely nothing to stop the pole from melting. Instead, the argument of this paper is to delay any real mitigation of climate change until long after expected tipping points could have shifted our planet into a hothouse phase.  Opposition to SRM is no solution at all.

 

Robert Tulip

 

From: geoengi...@googlegroups.com <geoengi...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of Geoeng Info
Sent: Wednesday, 19 January 2022 2:00 AM
To: Geoengi...@googlegroups.com
Subject: [geo] Solar geoengineering: The case for an international non-use agreement

 

https://wires.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wcc.754

 

Solar geoengineering: The case for an international non-use agreement

 

Frank Biermann, Jeroen Oomen, Aarti Gupta, Saleem H. Ali, Ken Conca, Maarten A. Hajer, Prakash Kashwan, Louis J. Kotzé, Melissa Leach, Dirk Messner, Chukwumerije Okereke, Åsa Persson, Janez Potočnik, David Schlosberg, Michelle Scobie, Stacy D. VanDeveer

 

Abstract

Solar geoengineering is gaining prominence in climate change debates as an issue worth studying; for some it is even a potential future policy option. We argue here against this increasing normalization of solar geoengineering as a speculative part of the climate policy portfolio. We contend, in particular, that solar geoengineering at planetary scale is not governable in a globally inclusive and just manner within the current international political system. We therefore call upon governments and the United Nations to take immediate and effective political control over the development of solar geoengineering technologies. Specifically, we advocate for an International Non-Use Agreement on Solar Geoengineering and outline the core elements of this proposal.

--
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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAKSzgpYFzMLKEUR-Eqg%2BLDdXT1jQ8fX2iBquGM08JFUB2WFy7A%40mail.gmail.com.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/00f001d80dc6%2495efdc40%24c1cf94c0%24%40yahoo.com.au.

[Ron Baiman]

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> 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 and article 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. The chemical composition of the ozone layer and oceans may be permanently altered. Photosynthesis, which depends on sunlight, may slow down, possibly harming biodiversity and agriculture. And global weather patterns could change unpredictably.

 

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Healthy Planet Action Coalition" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to healthy-planet-action...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/CAPhUB9DRLHthfByXSy%2BGu7-DvXm%3DnJYFp3bmpWoks04JPtdp0w%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[John Nissen]

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/

 

[John Nissen]

A draft letter is attached, using much of the email I wrote unchanged.

Cheers, John

[H simmens]

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> wrote:



You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Healthy Climate Alliance" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to healthy-climate-al...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-climate-alliance/CACS_Fxr%3Dthfk2RHPWgLND2WO2GaQNwMhH6LzojKunDG%2Bdesmzw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Ron Baiman]

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

[Clive Elsworth]

The pithiest argument I've heard recently is "Moral Hazard vs Moral Imperative".

That came from Methane Action CEO Daphne Wysham.

Clive

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/CAPhUB9AJDssq-nshkCoF0uboa3YFpJFSERWCb-XVLAjTCgy0RA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Daphne Wysham]

Greetings.

I don't follow this list closely, but I do want to make sure that my quote, which was taken out of context, not be misconstrued as having anything to do with SRM, which I know very little about and am, frankly, quite uneasy about. In this quote which Clive shared from one of our methane group meetings, I was referring to methane removal, not SRM, when I said we have a moral obligation to act on rapidly rising methane levels in the atmosphere, while acknowledging that there is a moral hazard we also must admit to in including methane removal in the mix. 

My feeling is that the moral obligation to ensure methane removal is part of the mix, if acted on with good governance, social license, and integrity, would weaken the moral hazard critique. We must be mindful of and avoid all moral hazards, but the moral obligation to act on methane removal while there is still time is greater than the moral hazard in my mind. This is something Bill McKibben touched on much more cogently in his piece for The New Yorker on our work.

Daphne

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/939682660.868937.1643417170371%40email.ionos.co.uk.

[John Nissen]

Hi Herb,

 

I think perhaps we need an even stronger message to directly counter the open letter [1].

 

We call for immediate political action from governments, the United Nations, and other actors to embrace solar geoengineering as a climate policy option. Governments and the United Nations must encourage the rapid development of solar geoengineering technologies at both regional and planetary scale since they are essential to address the climate emergency in the short-term. Specifically, we call for an International Use Agreement on Solar Geoengineering as opposed to the Non-Use agreement being proposed by a group of scientists who are scare-mongering over use of the technology without any scientific foundation.

 

You are correct in your email (see below) that I have only addressed one of their three points (see extract in [1]) and omitted the governance issue.  On all three points they are scare-mongering.

 

Their first point is about scientific uncertainty.  There is a huge amount of evidence that we are in a climate emergency and need rapid cooling of the Arctic to deal with it over the next few years rather than decades.  The risks from cooling technology, especially SAI, have been researched and are well-understood.  Thus their making a meal over uncertainty is effectively scare-mongering.  They are hiding the facts that make absolutely certain that we are in a climate emergency that warrants geoengineering intervention with the greatest possible urgency.

 

Their second point, the moral hazard argument, is about the effect of having solar geoengineering as an option that might put governments off commitments to emissions reduction.  There is no evidence for this; on the contrary an awareness of the possible need for geoengineering focuses people’s minds on the gravity of the climate emergency and the need to do everything possible to address it.  The authors are making it seem as if it is immoral to seriously consider geoengineering, whereas we believe, on the contrary, that it is immoral not to consider geoengineering as something that is urgently required to stave off threats from the Arctic: catastrophic climate change, catastrophic sea level rise, and a catastrophic feedback to global warming from methane release.

 

Their third point is about governance.  Here they are scaremongering about the scenario in which solar engineering might be deployed, with the possibility of it being used deliberately or carelessly to the disadvantage of certain peoples, especially in poorer countries.  Global deployment would have a huge beneficial effect for everyone who is currently suffering as a result of global warming, e.g. from frequent flooding or from water shortages.  Those suffering most are in the poorer countries, unable to defend effectively against the onslaught.  Deployment for cooling the Arctic would have a huge beneficial effect for the Arctic ecosystem and for peoples who have relied on it, e.g. for hunting.  It would have benefit for the peoples whose houses and infrastructures have been built on permafrost which is now thawing.

 

Thus their scare-mongering about governance is the most morally irresponsible of all [2].  They are totally neglecting the suffering that has already been caused through lack of cooling intervention.  Solar geoengineering should have been deployed years ago if the wealthier countries had truly been concerned about the welfare of the countries suffering the effects of global warming, sea level rise and climate change.

 

What do these people think they are doing?  Don’t they realise that the strategy of emissions reduction has failed, and, if we don’t want future generations to have to deal with ever worsening climate change and sea level rise, there is no alternative but to deliberately interfere with the climate system and at least cool the Arctic?  They seem oblivious to what is happening in the real world, and still live in the world of thirty years ago when emissions reduction might have had a chance of success.

 

They are like the people who have all but succeeded in banning ocean iron fertilisation as a method of cooling the planet.  This method could have been employed decades ago, saving millions of lives and hundreds of millions of livelihoods from the ravages of climate change and sea level rise already inflicted on many poorer countries.  This method could have been applied under the auspices of the United Nations.  It would have had huge co-benefits in terms of CO2 drawdown, revitalising the marine food chain, replenishing of fish stocks, and saving coral reefs with their biodiversity.

 

PRAG is promoting an emergency programme of cooling/refreezing the Arctic in conjunction with a longer-term programme for more global cooling, CO2 drawdown and methane suppression.  Bru Pearce has given us an excellent template for this longer-term programme [3].  But if the emergency programme fails to halt the meltdown in the Arctic, we are sunk, physically as well as metaphorically (in the ship, Homo Titanic [4]).

 

If anyone wants to join the PRAG membership, we would be grateful for them to support this emergency programme.  But this should not prevent anyone from attending our fortnightly meetings where the issues are discussed.  The next PRAG meeting is on Monday at 8 pm UK time = GMT [5].

 

Cheers, John

 

[1] Open letter from 60+ scientists

We Call for an International Non-Use Agreement on Solar Geoengineering

https://www.solargeoeng.org/non-use-agreement/open-letter/

 

We call for immediate political action from governments, the United Nations, and other actors to prevent the normalization of solar geoengineering as a climate policy option. Governments and the United Nations must assert effective political control and restrict the development of solar geoengineering technologies at planetary scale. Specifically, we call for an International Non-Use Agreement on Solar Geoengineering.

 

Solar geoengineering – a set of hypothetical technologies to reduce incoming sunlight on earth – is gaining prominence in debates on climate policy. Several scientists have launched research projects on solar geoengineering, and some see it as a potential future policy option.

To us, these proliferating calls for solar geoengineering research and development are cause for alarm. We share three fundamental concerns:

 

·        First, the risks of solar geoengineering are poorly understood and can never be fully known. Impacts will vary across regions, and there are uncertainties about the effects on weather patterns, agriculture, and the provision of basic needs of food and water.

 

·        Second, speculative hopes about the future availability of solar geoengineering technologies threaten commitments to mitigation and can disincentivize governments, businesses, and societies to do their utmost to achieve decarbonization or carbon neutrality as soon as possible. The speculative possibility of future solar geoengineering risks becoming a powerful argument for industry lobbyists, climate denialists, and some governments to delay decarbonization policies.

 

·        Third, the current global governance system is unfit to develop and implement the far-reaching agreements needed to maintain fair, inclusive, and effective political control over solar geoengineering deployment. The United Nations General Assembly, the United Nations Environment Programme or the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change are all incapable of guaranteeing equitable and effective multilateral control over deployment of solar geoengineering technologies at planetary scale. The United Nations Security Council, dominated by only five countries with veto power, lacks the global legitimacy that would be required to effectively regulate solar geoengineering deployment.

 

[2] Example of emotive language:

 

Without effective global and democratic controls, the geopolitics of possible unilateral deployment of solar geoengineering would be frightening and inequitable. Given the anticipated low monetary costs of some of these technologies, there is a risk that a few powerful countries would engage in solar geoengineering unilaterally or in small coalitions even when a majority of countries oppose such deployment.

 

[3] Presentation by Bru Pearce to HPAC on Thursday, 2022-01-27.  Slides available on request.

 

[4] An allegory I wrote, likening our situation to a sinking ship.  Copies are available on request.

 

[5] Next PRAG meeting

 

8pm Monday 31 January UK = 7am Tuesday 1 Feb Eastern Australia = Noon Monday California

 

Please join us.

 

https://us02web.zoom.us/j/87270131801?pwd=OFZvMkRVVnRQUUhpUzJBM0kwZnFjUT09

 

Robert Tulip

 

[John Nissen]

Hi Ron,

I'd written a reply to Herb before I saw your contribution to the debate.  I read the abstract in your attachment, and feel it lacks clarity on the urgent requirement for SRM to cool the Arctic.

The abstract begins:

 

We are facing both a short-term emergency cooling crisis and a long-term GHG drawdown planetary ecological crisis. We must address both. The first requires emergency direct cooling, or temporary “triage” or a “tourniquet, for our bleeding planet”. The second requires rapid GHG emissions reductions and drawdown and natural planetary regeneration that realistically will take at least a few decades and may take a century or more.

 

I agree with the short-term emergency program which should be directed at cooling the Arctic, especially to reverse the trend towards more extreme weather/climate which threatens the whole world.  A longer-term parallel program is required which includes global cooling and cooling of other regions, while the levels of GHGs in the atmosphere are lowered over a few decades.  This is described in the PRAG letter to G20 attached.

 

The abstract ends:

 

The Florin proposal that conditions SAI direct cooling on credible GHG emissions and drawdown is a step in the right direction, but omits other direct cooling methods and effectively makes the deployment of SAI contingent on a global ETS that may not be possible before the deployment of SAI becomes necessary. Rather than conflating our two climate crises, or conditioning the solution of the first on a solution to the second, we need to address both on an emergency basis by putting all options on the table as called for in the HPAC proposal.

 

You show signs of giving way to the fear of SAI which is unjustifiably promoted by the non-use letter.  I profoundly disagree that SAI should have any conditions laid upon it.  SAI may be the only powerful enough method to cool the Arctic, when its warming from albedo loss alone could be 0.5 petawatt focussed in the Arctic, compared to 1.0 petawatt for CO2 spread across the planet.  SAI might not prove enough, so that I am all for pulling out all the stops to save the Arctic sea ice: SAI, MCB, sea ice thickening, methane suppression and winter cloud removal.  Saving the sea ice is crucial to a decent future for our children and grandchildren.

 

Cheers, John

 

 

[Clive Elsworth]

Daphne

My intention was not to associate ‘moral hazard versus moral imperative’ with stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI), but rather to highlight it as a usefully succinct way to describe a common dilemma. It could apply just as well to the dilemma faced by border forces. Should they save poor souls from perishing in the desert or drowning at sea, or leave them to die to dissuade others from making the same trip? (Note that I’m not trying to associate you with that either.)

SAI is more complex because it involves physical hazard as well. The addition of solid particles into the ozone layer provides increased surface area for catalytic release of halogens that then go on to deplete ozone.

That is why Franz and I hope that if it really must be done then it will be applied below the stratosphere in the Arctic during summer months only. The downward flow of air from Brewer Dobson circulation should bring the particles down to sea level with minimal amounts entering the stratosphere.

Clive

[SALTER Stephen]

Clive

 

Here is something about the Brewer Dobson velocity.

 

Stephen

 

From: healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of Clive Elsworth
Sent: Saturday, January 29, 2022 8:52 PM
To: Daphne Wysham <dap...@methaneaction.org>
Cc: Ron Baiman <rpba...@gmail.com>; 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] Re: [geo] Solar geoengineering: The case for an international non-use agreement

 

This email was sent to you by someone outside the University.

You should only click on links or attachments if you are certain that the email is genuine and the content is safe.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/1625883465.749653.1643489513622%40email.ionos.co.uk.

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

The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in Scotland, with registration number SC005336. Is e buidheann carthannais a th’ ann an Oilthigh Dhùn Èideann, clàraichte an Alba, àireamh clàraidh SC005336.

[oswald....@hispeed.ch]

Hello John, Ron,

 

as you know I am not a friend of SAI, but still I am interested in the debate.

 

The three «arguments» which have been brought up against SAI can be described in short form as

 

• Risk of the unknown consequences
• Moral hazard
• Missing Governance

 

Risk: In this general form it could be answered as follows.

 

Humans face climate change and risk catastrophic consequences if global warming cannot be stopped. The risk of non-action must be weighed against the risk of any action which can cool the planet. We simply do not have the option any more to leave climate management to a hopefully benign god. Any option, action on non-action, is « geoengineering ». Humans of the 21st century manage the global climate, if they like it or not.

 

Moral hazard :

 

This argument is like saying that we should not extinguish a fire because we want to build a new house anyway. In case of a house which has been evacuated this may be a worthy proposition. However in our case we are all inside that burning house.

 

Missing Governance:

 

This is like saying that we shall give up the planet because we are unable to save it. This is probably the most cynical of all three arguments. It is simply idiotic, sorry, I have no better word for it.

 

The three arguments are extremely general, they could also be named against EAMO or any other cooling method, practically without changing the wording. I am not sure if we should waste a lot of time on such a low-level debate.

 

However I would like to engage in a debate were we start comparing the different cooling methods and their respective consequences. Instinctively I prefer EAMO over all other techniques, but that’s obvious given my role as CEO of AMR. Still I hope you will not assume that I am unable to think independent of this role.

 

Regarding SAI I see two strong arguments against it.

 

Content: The climate crisis has not been caused by increased solar radiation, and henceforth dimming the sun is not the adequate answer. We know how the climate was 150 years ago. The atmosphere contained less CO2, less methane and less other GHG, and that is the reason why we have a problem with Global Warming. Any remedy should work on the cause of illness. Even though I am not an advocate of the term «climate restoration» I still think that we should concentrate our efforts on lowering GHG emissions and/or removing GHG. This path is safer, because it brings us closer to a climate which we have enjoyed for thousands of years. Net-zero emissions is the goal, and SAI does not contribute to it. SAI changes a central parameter of life on earth, solar radiation. We do not know the consequences, and I would keep my hands of it.

  

Tactical : The position above is, of course, not only mine but that of IPCC / established science. It would be good if we concentrate all our efforts on the best solution, rather than fighting for a lost cause. SAI will not happen, it will not get the necessary social license, and we have better options. I would give up on it.

 

Thanks for reading so far, I look forward to your comments,

 

Regards

 

Oswald Petersen

AMR AG

Atmospheric Methane Removal AG

Lärchenstr. 5

CH 8280 Kreuzlingen

Tel: +41-71-6887514

Mob: +49-177-2734245

https://amr.earth

https://cool-planet.earth

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/CACS_Fxo9atoqn5XfW%2BJzwrgF7a_Ua-6YbxfVpmmw3q59SpVVWQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Michael MacCracken]

Dear Oswald--And cutting emissions and removing past emissions is certainly the approach to prefer--there is no question on this. The reason for consideration of SAI is that the emissions reductions and CDR are not being done, and likely cannot be done, rapidly enough to keep the global average temperature from reaching levels that would cause serious and quite likely irreversible consequences of various kinds (e.g. sea level rise of tens of meters, loss of biodiversity, increasingly extreme extremes, etc.). And so SAI (or similar approaches) is needed to shave off peak warming/peak climate change while the other approaches are phased up and serve as the essential exit strategy of SAI. And the faster emissions reductions and CDR can get the CO2 (and other GHG) forcing down, the better.

Mike MacCracken

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/002101d81559%24d503fa70%247f0bef50%24%40hispeed.ch.

[Clive Elsworth]

Stephen

I confess I'm not sufficiently familiar with atmospheric physics to say whether aerosol particles released under the Arctic stratosphere would substantially move up into it.

Either way, Marine Cloud Brightening seems the safer option to me for the reasons you have given on numerous occasions. The question is if it can be ready in time and with sufficient social license.

I think you're aware of the University of Washington's MCB work: https://faculty.washington.edu/robwood2/wordpress/?page_id=954

The video on that page is high quality and only about a month old. I wonder if some collaboration might help speed things up?

Clive

[Ron Baiman]

Thank you Oswald.  You raise some good points.  My view is that we all need to agree to the HPAC "direct cooling"  all options on the table position, and try to produce a document that reflects this and counters the no-use letter.  As with our HPAC letters I think we want to maximize signatories and a "big tent" approach to direct cooling.

Can we meet sometime in the next 7 days to discuss how to proceed with this?

I've listed my availability in 1 hour time slots in this doodle poll:

https://doodle.com/poll/e755xmz6mi4mwzvg?utm_source=poll&utm_medium=link

If all who are interested could indicate their availability asap, perhaps we can set a convenient meeting time sometime in the next 7 days?

(I've tried to restrict the choices to what I believe are reasonable times for our different time Zones - but I may have pushed it for some!)

Best,

Ron

PS - John, just so you know - my posts to the PRAG list are bouncing back, but I'll keep trying!

[Ron Baiman]

Follow Up to Clive's post:  The folks at Cornell U. are apparently leaning in this direction: regional SAI for the Arctic where the Tropopause is lower, during the early summer or late spring - as I recall - months.  Their climate models suggest that this is more efficient than uniform year around global SAI, and it could be less of a lift politically - though for balance this might have to be done at the south pole as well. Walker Lee discusses this in this podcast with Andrew Lockley: https://open.spotify.com/episode/2HVbDS3tp4sHruZ79kTfup

Best,

Ron

[oswald....@hispeed.ch]

Hello Ron,

 

I have indicated my availability on your Doodle.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/CAPhUB9DKLQ3UD0ykyFd1%2Bogk5RD-61DhWimmuK9nyNHRaerWUg%40mail.gmail.com.

[oswald....@hispeed.ch]

Hello Michael,

 

is that so? Normally we do not get this welcome answer. Methane Removal is not on the agenda of IPCC / established science. If it was, we would be cracking forward.

 

I wish you were right!

 

Oswald

[SALTER Stephen]

Clive

How do you think that stuff got up to the Ozone hole?

Stephen

 

From: healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of Clive Elsworth
Sent: Saturday, January 29, 2022 11:22 PM
To: SALTER Stephen <S.Sa...@ed.ac.uk>
Cc: Ron Baiman <rpba...@gmail.com>; Sev Clarke <sevc...@me.com>; Peter Wadhams <peter....@gmail.com>; Chris Vivian <chris....@btinternet.com>; 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>; Daphne Wysham <dap...@methaneaction.org>; healthy-planet-action-coalition <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com>; Dermott Reilly <dermott...@nanolandglobal.com>
Subject: Marine Cloud Brightening

 

This email was sent to you by someone outside the University.

You should only click on links or attachments if you are certain that the email is genuine and the content is safe.

Stephen

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Healthy Planet Action Coalition" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to healthy-planet-action...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/588600881.789124.1643498544728%40email.ionos.co.uk.

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

[Clive Elsworth]

Stephen

As I understand it SO2 gets rained out more readily than CFCs, which eventually drift into the stratosphere. CFCs are stable in the troposphere and only get destroyed in the stratosphere by the more intense UV.

Clive

[SALTER Stephen]

Clive

There is not much rain in the stratosphere where SO2 will be injected.

Stephen.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/290431342.804145.1643543925630%40email.ionos.co.uk.

[Clive Elsworth]

But John is saying they could cool the Arctic with SAI injected below the stratosphere.

[Michael MacCracken]

And studies/analyses I've done a good bit back suggest the same thing. See

MacCracken, M. C., H-J. Shin, K. Caldeira, and G. Ban-Weiss, 2013: Climate response to solar insolation reductions in high latitudes, Earth Systems Dynamics, 4, 301-315, 2013; www.earth-syst-dynam.net/4/301/2013/; doi:10.5194/esd-4-301-2013.

 MacCracken, M. C., 2016: The rationale for accelerating regionally focused climate intervention research, Earth’s Future 4, 649-657, doi:10.1002/2016EF000450.

Glad to hear of recent work in this area.

Mike

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAPhUB9AoLZW9Zhcd%2Bu8EHJaE9f_E3KUSn-uW1yMS4Jj-OOU%3DKQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Michael MacCracken]

Dear Stephen--The atmospheric transport of gases and aerosols differs. For gases, atmospheric mixing dominates any consideration of different molecular weights up to altitudes of five to ten tens of kilometers. For aerosols, their mass and size introduce a fall rate that, depending on size, generally takes over in the upper troposphere/lower stratosphere, so say by ten kilometers or so. So CFCs get up to the stratospheric ozone layer by atmospheric mixing, generally in air in low latitudes. Getting aerosols into the stratosphere (unless they are chemically formed there, such as in the stratospheric ozone hole region) generally takes some sort of major injection mechanism like a volcanic eruption (or very major firestorm).

Mike

The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in Scotland, with registration number SC005336. Is e buidheann carthannais a th’ ann an Oilthigh Dhùn Èideann, clàraichte an Alba, àireamh clàraidh SC005336. --

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Healthy Planet Action Coalition" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to healthy-planet-action...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/DB7PR05MB56929C58CD3447C4D900D6DCA7249%40DB7PR05MB5692.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com.

[SALTER Stephen]

Clive

Yes but if the life is shorter you need more aircraft.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/2074838049.806415.1643546090325%40email.ionos.co.uk.

[Michael MacCracken]

Hi Clive--

Because the Sun is only up in the Arctic for a few months during the year, there is no need to have the aerosol stay up through the whole year--and in the winter the stratosphere gets so cold that the particles contribute to ozone depletion, so one does not want to be increasing the particle concentrations in winter. But doing so in the spring (probably only needed in the months after the surface snow starts to melt) and early summer when sunlight is strong, has the potential to increase the albedo.

And yes, in the troposphere, particles are primarily removed by precipitation, but that really is only mainly occurring where there is convection, and for convection to occur, the surface has to be quite warm adn the atmosphere unstable. While that occurs in lower latitudes, in the Arctic as it comes out of winter, convection is not normally occurring, so particles injected there into the upper troposphere, assuming the circulation does not take them out of the region (and predictions of this could be used to determine when and where it would be optimal to make or not make an aerosol injection), won't get removed by precipitation (coalesence and condensation of water vapor might lead to  particles growing so large they fall out of the atmosphere, but that is generally a slow process and so the lifetime of the particles might stretch out for several weeks, reducing how much has to be injected to keep a certain loading).

And one reason of increased effectiveness of the reduction of sunlight (calculated, as I recall, in the case I did as amount of effect per amount of aerosol needed) in these latitudes is a result of doing the reduction right where the snow and (sea) ice albedo feedbacks are strongest, so just as warming leads to an amplified warming in the high latitudes, so will a reduction in warming lead to an amplified effect.

So, a lot would need to be considered to put together an operational plan, but, thinking a bit idealistically about only the physics and engineering of it, conceptually possible, at least in my view.

Mike

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/2074838049.806415.1643546090325%40email.ionos.co.uk.

[Ron Baiman]

Dear Colleagues,

The article  below by Shaun Fitzgerald and Robert Chris of the CCRC, published after the no-use letter, is I think a good example of a response to the no-use letter that turns the "moral hazard" argument on its head.

 

https://illuminem.com/energyvoices/35e225de-11e0-4899-aeed-77bba5c33b5a

 

Best,

Ron

[John Nissen]

Hi everyone,

I have produced a new version of the rebuttal document (see attached), explaining why SRM is needed so urgently and how SAI might be deployed safely to cool the Arctic.  We can discuss it at the PRAG meeting tomorrow [1].  All are welcome.

Cheers, John

[1] Next PRAG meeting

 

8pm Monday 31 January UK = 7am Tuesday 1 Feb Eastern Australia = Noon Monday California

 

Please join us.

 

https://us02web.zoom.us/j/87270131801?pwd=OFZvMkRVVnRQUUhpUzJBM0kwZnFjUT09

 

Robert Tulip

[David Mitchell]

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)

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAPhUB9AJDssq-nshkCoF0uboa3YFpJFSERWCb-XVLAjTCgy0RA%40mail.gmail.com.
<Our Two Climate Crises Challenge_11.pdf>

--
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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/A2852BBE-B7CE-462E-BFA0-017BE41C0E39%40kingssquare.co.uk.

PUBLIC RECORDS NOTICE: In accordance with NRS Chapter 239, this email and responses, unless otherwise made confidential by law, may be subject to the Nevada Public Records laws and may be disclosed to the public upon request.

[John Nissen]

Thanks, David, good points.

The PRAG meeting starts in 10 minutes, and we can discuss them.

Cheers, John

[Ron Baiman]

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

[David Mitchell]

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), 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

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/CACS_FxoFxkayFqJk7B0ELkLJYBH_spqP_TA8BfROx9ebGA5_vQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[John Nissen]

Hi everyone,

Attached is a completely revised rebuttal of the open letter proposing a ban on SRM.  I have called it a "response to the ban" rather than a "fight against the ban", in order to sound less belligerent.  I have tried to make it as comprehensive as possible, but welcome comments and additions.

I have included Aarti Gupta and Shanna Hanbury on the cc list.  Aarti noticed that I had misquoted her in my previous rebuttal of 30th January.  So I have omitted this.

I hope people will feel more comfortable about the use of Stratospheric Aerosol Injection to cool the Arctic.  I believe SAI is our best chance to reverse the accelerating trend towards more extreme weather and climate which threatens the whole world.

Cheers, John