Andrew
As you note, many advocates of CDR are totally opposed to SRM. This is partly due to the widely held view among the general public that SRM is playing God, tinkering with nature, a dangerous intervention, whereas CDR is benign.
As a result of this context, some CDR proponents tactically distance themselves from SRM and the associated terminology of geoengineering. This is either because they really believe the anti-SRM ideology, or just in order to get investment and support and engagement.
Some NGOs reportedly oppose SRM because their finance departments believe supporting it would be bad for their fundraising efforts, due to widespread opposition among their donor base. They also believe that discussing SRM confuses their single message of the need to cut emissions.
This situation reflects the priority of politics over science in the formation of opinion. It means the united front on climate action is seen as including CDR, in line with IPCC acceptance, but not SRM, which was given pariah status in the last IPCC Summary For Policymakers. The confused moral hazard ideology is a main support for this political line.
This hostile attitude involves a refusal to see the earth as a single unified system, an inability to consider that earth system fragility and sensitivity can only be stabilised by brightening the planet.
Greta Thunberg’s recent publication, The Climate Book, contains the assertion that “all geoengineering schemes are attempts to manipulate the Earth with the same domineering mindset that got us into the climate crisis in the first place.” This quasi-religious hostility to technology commands broad support among climate activists, producing a refusal to listen to reason, despite being a recipe for social and economic and ecological collapse.
The philosophical and psychological and political blockages to albedo enhancement as a primary climate objective lead to highly dubious arguments, such as that accelerated emission reduction and CDR could prevent tipping points without any action on albedo.
It is essential to defend the concept of geoengineering, since questioning it demonstrates an inability to understand the climate problem.
These concerns ought to be the subject of much more discussion and debate, as they are actually central to planetary security, with significant moral implications. Thank you for highlighting the problem.
Robert Tulip
--
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/CAJ3C-04_FoiiKfqT9ogcapfacZuSU5VJ%3DjwsE5Bn9G1EC5TYCg%40mail.gmail.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/046901d93640%24a995bd70%24fcc13850%24%40yahoo.com.au.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/CABjtO1fBGTWVNACZWfEiek0ecCz1ztPvPAkrkaBwwC1nVWefWw%40mail.gmail.com.
Hey Chris:
Greta Thunberg has a huge and positive influence on global climate policy; snide remarks about her are not helpful (leave that to MAGA Republicans). With regard to that quote from her book, it’s not ideal but also largely true. I would change one word in it to make it spot on: "all geoengineering schemes are attempts to manipulate the Earth with the same technological mindset that got us into the climate crisis in the first place.” Unfortunately, whether any of us like it or not, it is now necessary to embrace that technological mindset, at least CDR and possibly SRM. Your time would be better spent explaining this to 20-something idealists like Greta than taking cheap shots at them.
Chuck Greene
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/CAG6%3DtRjBDNLho_6qpqZcQp7AvZVs2-QeQAf4todTCN%2BA95CsaQ%40mail.gmail.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/CABjtO1dsrQgZtvj%3DRE_wzCWHW2Lbz0fnN%2BnYzAa1-u6XShL0Hg%40mail.gmail.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/CAJ3C-0645PTGZBXu3amtFweG-ad7QW-EyvicvSUD_9n2nQMQ3Q%40mail.gmail.com.
Dear Michael
I really am surprised that you claim to be unable to see the direct relevance of this topic to CDR policy.
It is very clear that albedo enhancement is essential to prevent dangerous warming. Many CDR proponents are in denial of this basic science. This is a political problem delaying effective action on climate change.
Conversation within CDR circles and more broadly can help improve understanding of the need to integrate direct climate cooling with the slower and indirect cooling methods provided by CDR and emission reduction. Disparaging SRM should be discouraged and challenged when it occurs.
It is understandable that these distorted beliefs against SRM have gained credence, given that much literature presents unbalanced and misinformed views criticising the moral case for geoengineering, ignoring cost benefit analysis and realistic scenarios.
The scientific community has a responsibility to take an evidence based approach to these sensitive complex questions.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/CABjtO1fBGTWVNACZWfEiek0ecCz1ztPvPAkrkaBwwC1nVWefWw%40mail.gmail.com.
Dear Ken,
I’m curious where you found a definition of “geoengineering” that establishes the criteria you set forth here. Here’s a couple of mainstream ones:
Oxford Geoengineering Programme
Robert G. Watts, Engineering Response to Global Climate Change (1997)
Under both of these definitions, I think CDR fits under this rubric:
I get why CDR folks worry about the “g word,” but I don’t buy the distinction you’re making, Ken, based on credible definitions that have been promulgated to date.
wil
|
WIL BURNS Co-Director, Institute for Carbon Removal Law & Policy American University
Visiting Professor, Environmental Policy & Culture Program, Northwestern University
Email: wbu...@american.edu Mobile: 312.550.3079 https://www.american.edu/sis/centers/carbon-removal/
Want to schedule a call? Click on one of the following scheduling links:
|
From: carbondiox...@googlegroups.com <carbondiox...@googlegroups.com>
On Behalf Of Ken Caldeira
Sent: Thursday, February 2, 2023 11:05 AM
To: Andrew Lockley <andrew....@gmail.com>
Cc: Michael Hayes <electro...@gmail.com>; Robert Tulip <rtuli...@yahoo.com.au>; CarbonDiox...@googlegroups.com <CarbonDiox...@googlegroups.com> <carbondiox...@googlegroups.com>; geoengineering <geoengi...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [CDR] Tiresome nomenclature squabbles
Carbon dioxide removal is an activity, or a tool, and can be fully described without reference to intent.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/CAKNUXC0-jt%2B41ORwCqD4ZEXfO2YLWiqPb5JD_kM%3Du3cMr2zemA%40mail.gmail.com.
On Feb 3, 2023, at 1:10 AM, Wil Burns <w...@feronia.org> wrote:
Dear Ken,I’m curious where you found a definition of “geoengineering” that establishes the criteria you set forth here. Here’s a couple of mainstream ones:
- Geoengineering is the deliberate large-scale intervention in the Earth’s natural systems to counteract climate change.
Oxford Geoengineering Programme
- Attempted large scale human control of either biogeochemical cycles or the climate itself.
Robert G. Watts, Engineering Response to Global Climate Change (1997)Under both of these definitions, I think CDR fits under this rubric:
- Under the Oxford definition, CDR is: 1. A large-scale intervention (or certain can be in terms of the scales society now is contemplating), and 2. Seeks to counteract the impacts of climate change that are inevitable should atmospheric concentrations continue to rise;
- Under the Watts definition: 1. Many CDR approaches will exert a profound impact on biogeochemical cycles (kind of the quintessential definition, for example of those that rely on photosynthesis to effectuate sequestration, see: https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_Chapter06_FINAL.pdf;) and 2. CDR is intended to “control” the climate in terms of ensuring radiative forcing is mediated.
I get why CDR folks worry about the “g word,” but I don’t buy the distinction you’re making, Ken, based on credible definitions that have been promulgated to date.wil
WIL BURNSCo-Director, Institute for Carbon Removal Law & PolicyAmerican UniversityVisiting Professor, Environmental Policy & Culture Program, Northwestern UniversityEmail: wbu...@american.eduMobile: 312.550.3079Want to schedule a call? Click on one of the following scheduling links:
- 60-minute phone call: https://calendly.com/wil_burns/phone-call
- 30-minute phone call: https://calendly.com/wil_burns/30min
- 15-minute phone call: https://calendly.com/wil_burns/15min
- 60-minute conference call: https://calendly.com/wil_burns/60-minute-conference-call
- 30-minute conference call: https://calendly.com/wil_burns/30-minute-group
- 60-minute Zoom call: https://calendly.com/wil_burns/60min
- 30-minute Zoom call: https://calendly.com/wil_burns/30-minute-zoom-call
Follow us:
<image004.png>
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/BL0PR04MB4705E4CEF1FE62A0F8CCE295A4D79%40BL0PR04MB4705.namprd04.prod.outlook.com.
Ken is clearly correct to state that CDR is a tool and can be described without reference to its intent. In that respect it's much a gun, a cell phone, morphine, gasoline and any number of other tools that can be put to a range of different uses. Whether a specific use is morally acceptable is a normative question. Ken is wrong, however, to state that any tool can be fully described without reference to its intended use.
Perhaps the question for those moderating the CDR Google Group is whether they have any interest in considering the uses to which CDR is put. In answering that question they might want to reflect on the moral obligations that scientists have to humanity. That's an issue that the lawyers and philosophers in this group will be very familiar with.
I look forward to some clarity here.
Regards
Robert
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/CAKNUXC0-jt%2B41ORwCqD4ZEXfO2YLWiqPb5JD_kM%3Du3cMr2zemA%40mail.gmail.com.
Count me as one of those who sees no value (or rather negative value) in any term that lumps CDR with SRM. Though of course that’s what the geoengineering term originally did, and it seems too late to redefine it, so maybe better to just retire it completely. “Solar geoengineering” is tolerable, but seems unnecessary cumbersome to have to modify a term that doesn’t need to exist, but “geoengineering” without a modifier serves no purpose.
But please, it’s ok to know nothing about a subject, but if you do, please don’t just make stuff up.
“SAI has the real ability to … heat the polar regions”
Sure, and seagrass explodes on contact and sprays everyone with boiling lava. Seriously, I think we can manage a more informed discussion about the role of individual tools that might reduce some climate risks depending on how they get used.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/CABjtO1csfAnf4PZ6OLh1%2BwrOyHXstN62a9YVjfK%2BH3ydMMGGBA%40mail.gmail.com.
I'm getting very confused. Perhaps naively, I've always thought that the purpose (i.e. intent) of CDR, GGR and AE (albedo enhancement, my newly preferred term to SRM) was to head off a climate crisis caused by global warming caused by the Earth Energy Imbalance at the TOA. That's why, as a bundle, they were originally grouped under the heading 'geoengineering'. To the extent that any of them are delivered by tools whose intent is not to intervene in global warming, they are not geoengineering. But to the extent that they are not geoengineering, they're of no interest to me because they can't intervene to help in averting the impending climate crisis. For example, CDR solely for the purpose of EOR is of zero interest to me unless it's a test bed for scaling CDR to become climatically significant (and even then I'm being more than a little indulgent).
The problem here is that it seems increasingly that 'geoengineering' is identified with SRM and SRM has become almost synonymous with SAI and everyone loves to hate SAI and therefore, by extension, everyone loves to hate SRM and 'geoengineering'. And because everyone hates geoengineering, everyone's worried that CDR/GGR will be harmed by any association with it. When I say 'everyone', I'm referring to everyone who is not adequately versed in the science. This is fundamentally a problem of communication between scientists and the rest. And that is important for the following reason.
It is now almost certain that warming will exceed 2degC well before 2050, even if we got to net zero emissions next week. There is no realistic possibility that emissions are going to fall dramatically anytime soon, indeed, it's not even clear when they'll peak. Add to this, insights around the imminence of cascading tipping points and it becomes clear that given the scale of risk (extremely high negative impacts with reasonable likelihood) a prudent response requires short-term control of the temperature anomaly. That cannot be delivered by any GHG-centred policy and necessitates AE at scale and urgently. (References to support this para are Hansen et al Warming in the Pipeline and Armstrong-McKay et al on the current assessment of where we're at with tipping points. Tim Lenton's recent presentation to the NAS tipping point workshop is also worth the 23 minutes it lasts - it is based on the Armstrong-McKay paper of which he and Johan Rockstrom were co-authors. These messages are reinforced by this posting from Carbon Brief from last September and Steffen et al from 2018.)
That does not mean that CDR/GGR are not also necessary. It means that if we don't start very soon doing some serious cooling (albedo enhancement) to stop, and even reverse, the surface temperature rise, the younger of those amongst us, and our children and grandchildren will be lucky to be around to enjoy the benefits from the reduced GHGs.
So rather than devote our time to
arguing about whether CDR and GGR should be associated with
geoengineering, perhaps we should focus on how we bring the
simple message in the previous paragraph to the wider world.
Regards
Robert
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/DM6PR04MB7100A77D4EB347A3F3C32A848FD79%40DM6PR04MB7100.namprd04.prod.outlook.com.
I hit the Send button a moment too soon. I should have added that I would be delighted if those who know a lot more about the climate science than I do can convince me that I have seriously misinterpreted the messages from the sources I referred to.
Regards
Robert
I think you’re absolutely correct, Robert, which is why I find Ken’s definition, which again, I don’t see in any of the mainstream literature, as strained. I don’t see the problem in acknowledging that CDR approaches are “geoengineering.” What I advocate is a case-by-case assessment of the effectiveness, and potential risk, of each approach. Have the courage to acknowledge that you believe that large-scale interventions to address climate change are necessary, and defend them. Don’t hide behind issues such as “intent;” it’s too cute by half. wil
Historically, our global culture has defined strategies that
remove contaminants from the environment so we can be safe as
pollution treatment. I don't get the association with
geoengineering and do not support it for this and the other
reasons of perception already stated.
Geeze, Austin is a mess. When you hear about climate change and
this ice event, remember the stall. This event was not
unprecedented, but as bad as anything in recent memory of our old
timers. We had smaller events that created similar tree carnage in
the area north of Austin in 1998, and south in 1996. Arctic
amplification can create slower moving storms West to East, and
this prolongs the enhanced weather extremes caused by warming. Not
all systems are slowed, but catastrophes occur because of extremes
and when systems slow the risks of catastrophe increases. But it
doesn't take an Einstein to see that these events are happening
more frequently. Harvey and Sandy were both stalls. The Winter
Storm Uri ice bomb in Austin in 2021 was a stall.
B
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/DM6PR04MB7100A77D4EB347A3F3C32A848FD79%40DM6PR04MB7100.namprd04.prod.outlook.com.
Smokestack scrubber technology is fundamentally different than many of the kind of interventions we’re talking about, including large-scale afforestation, which has been proven to potentially fundamentally alter regional hydrological regimes, dramatically changing alkalinity levels (including aragonite profiles) in the case of ocean enhanced alkalinity, or potentially exerting profound biogeochemical changes associated with ocean upwelling or downwelling. I think those are no less “interventionist” than many SRM approaches, and certainly not merely “ameliorative” in the way that we think of cleaning up a stream or scrubbing out some lead from effluents. We should admit as such, and defend the exigency of doing so. And these are, as Watson and Oxford’s definitions suggested, designed to have impacts on the world’s climate.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/b582bec9-cd84-6f77-bed7-5f292d1ca6c1%40earthlink.net.
I tried to stay out of this and managed for a long time but this discussion is not very helpful for why we're all in this business in the first place.
I assume that all of us agree that with regard to CDR, we're talking about only 10% of the solution and that 90% is CO2 mitigation.
I have to believe that we will manage the latter, but
Therefore, is it so absurd to believe that we may need SRM to cool the planet directly, or at least for a transition period?
If so, it makes sense that we should at least be prepared and
understand how it could help.....
--
all the best,
Jelle
Prof. Dr. Jelle Bijma
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/c7a89c63-a187-af87-f6c7-832141b6c0ae%40gmail.com.
particles have a tendency to cool
the earth on the average, and when
they are injected into the stratosphere
they remain there for several years and
have a more prolonged cooling effect
at the surface. Thus, if we were concerned
about a general rise in temperature
due to carbon dioxide and thermal
pollution, why not inject enough of the
right kind of particles into the stratosphere
to counteract the warming? Perhaps
a fleet of supersonic transports
would help here, since they could create
a kind of "stratospheric smog" at about
the right level (6, 36)."
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/1359378505.25998.1675461326911%40mail.yahoo.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/CAKNUXC0-jt%2B41ORwCqD4ZEXfO2YLWiqPb5JD_kM%3Du3cMr2zemA%40mail.gmail.com.
These distinctions that you attempt to make here appear to be an effort to liberate the CDR community from admitting that what its advocating may have, and is intended to have,
profound biogeochemical and climatic impacts. Virtually all of these approaches, indeed, involve substantial “meddling” in the system that makes the distinction with SRM seem highly questionable. You admit so much in the context of OIF, which is a CDR option.
However, it doesn’t stop there. Recent research also indicates that large-scale afforestation can fundamentally alter hydrological regimes at the regional level, which is hardly “minimal” intervention or one with “minimum” moral considerations. See:
https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document?repid=rep1&type=pdf&doi=a01ee20d34deff361ae78b312c2a292bd62f4d9a, as well as recent research on the impacts of the “green wall” in Africa. Research on the potential impacts of enhancing alkalinity into ocean ecosystems
could also profoundly alter biogeochemical cycles; indeed, again, it’s the INTENT of those who do so. Ocean upwelling, as Oschlies, et al., have pointed out, could pose the specter of a “termination effect” similar to what opponents of SRM often point to.
And seeking to “return” back to a previous era in ocean ecosystems that have adapted to different regimes, and evolved as such, is not necessarily benign, or “minor” as a form of intervention. If we believe in the necessity of CDR, let’s be willing to admit
that its substantial intervention in the climatic system, and defend it as such. Again, I return to these definitions below and ask how one can plausibly argue that CDR doesn’t fit easily within each.
Geoengineering is the deliberate large-scale intervention in the Earth’s natural systems to counteract climate change.
Oxford Geoengineering Programme (2019)
Attempted large scale human control of either biogeochemical cycles or the climate itself.
Robert G. Watts, Engineering Response to Global Climate Change (1997)
WIL BURNS Co-Director, Institute for Carbon Removal Law & Policy American University
Visiting Professor, Environmental Policy & Culture Program, Northwestern University
Email: wbu...@american.edu Mobile: 312.550.3079 https://www.american.edu/sis/centers/carbon-removal/
Want to schedule a call? Click on one of the following scheduling links:
|
From: Seth Miller <setha...@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, February 3, 2023 4:01 AM
To: Wil Burns <w...@feronia.org>
These distinctions that you attempt to make here appear to be an effort to liberate the CDR community from admitting that what its advocating may have, and is intended to have, profound biogeochemical and climatic impacts.
Geoengineering is the deliberate large-scale intervention in the Earth’s natural systems to counteract climate change.
Virtually all of these approaches, indeed, involve substantial “meddling” in the system that makes the distinction with SRM seem highly questionable. You admit so much in the context of OIF, which is a CDR option. However, it doesn’t stop there. Recent research also indicates that large-scale afforestation can fundamentally alter hydrological regimes at the regional level, which is hardly “minimal” intervention or one with “minimum” moral considerations. See: https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document?repid=rep1&type=pdf&doi=a01ee20d34deff361ae78b312c2a292bd62f4d9a, as well as recent research on the impacts of the “green wall” in Africa. Research on the potential impacts of enhancing alkalinity into ocean ecosystems could also profoundly alter biogeochemical cycles; indeed, again, it’s the INTENT of those who do so. Ocean upwelling, as Oschlies, et al., have pointed out, could pose the specter of a “termination effect” similar to what opponents of SRM often point to.
And seeking to “return” back to a previous era in ocean ecosystems that have adapted to different regimes, and evolved as such, is not necessarily benign, or “minor” as a form of intervention. If we believe in the necessity of CDR, let’s be willing to admit that its substantial intervention in the climatic system, and defend it as such. Again, I return to these definitions below and ask how one can plausibly argue that CDR doesn’t fit easily within each.Geoengineering is the deliberate large-scale intervention in the Earth’s natural systems to counteract climate change.Oxford Geoengineering Programme (2019)Attempted large scale human control of either biogeochemical cycles or the climate itself.Robert G. Watts, Engineering Response to Global Climate Change (1997)
I will shill for a version of Ken’s distinction of geoengineering as an activity that requires an intent to changethe earth’s climate.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/80B9C038-DED2-48BC-A041-8B7D0222E985%40gmail.com.
We all would like to know the answer to the question of how we move forward is Ken.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/CAKNUXC0Md%2BNZoaYtJGm7SD%3DufNSAqEpXCZqeYK6ZZ%2B0An48Nuw%40mail.gmail.com.
Well, that’s a different consideration, but I don’t think you address that issue by advancing definitions that belie the reality of what we’re attempting to do in terms of large-scale deployment of CDR. In fact, one of the indictments that skeptics of CDR often level is that we’re trying to engage in manipulation by using different terms. I think it’s more honest to acknowledge that CDR is geoengineering, and distinguish it from SRM on axes e.g. reversibility, scope of impacts, ability to control, social license to operate. I look forward to seeing what Oliver comes up with! wil
|
WIL BURNS Co-Director, Institute for Carbon Removal Law & Policy American University
Visiting Professor, Environmental Policy & Culture Program, Northwestern University
Email: wbu...@american.edu Mobile: 312.550.3079 https://www.american.edu/sis/centers/carbon-removal/
Want to schedule a call? Click on one of the following scheduling links:
|
Al, seeing as the Small Island Developing States, the canary in the climate coalmine, representing 32 small islands that control about 20 percent of the ocean’s surface, the SIDS opinion with respect to Geoengineering, Solar Radiation Management and/or Carbon Dioxide Removal would be highly instructive.
Thanks
From: carbondiox...@googlegroups.com On Behalf Of Wil Burns
Sent: February 13, 2023 9:42 AM
To: Ken Caldeira <kcal...@carnegiescience.edu>
Cc: Oliver Morton <oliver...@economist.com>; Seth Miller <setha...@gmail.com>; Andrew Lockley <andrew....@gmail.com>; CarbonDiox...@googlegroups.com <CarbonDiox...@googlegroups.com> <carbondiox...@googlegroups.com>; geoengineering <geoengi...@googlegroups.com>; Douglas MacMartin <dgm...@cornell.edu>
Subject: RE: [CDR] Tiresome nomenclature squabbles
Well, that’s a different consideration, but I don’t think you address that issue by advancing definitions that belie the reality of what we’re attempting to do in terms of large-scale deployment of CDR. In fact, one of the indictments that skeptics of CDR often level is that we’re trying to engage in manipulation by using different terms. I think it’s more honest to acknowledge that CDR is geoengineering, and distinguish it from SRM on axes e.g. reversibility, scope of impacts, ability to control, social license to operate. I look forward to seeing what Oliver comes up with! wil
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/BL0PR04MB47056275C3D8D28799C24115A4DD9%40BL0PR04MB4705.namprd04.prod.outlook.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/BL0PR04MB47056275C3D8D28799C24115A4DD9%40BL0PR04MB4705.namprd04.prod.outlook.com.
I’m not sure why folks want to be associated with a term like “climate intervention,” which is touted here as a better term because it acknowledges that we might not be able to control said interventions, or do them very precisely, but OK 😊 wil
I find the term “climate intervention” to be extremely expansive, so it tell us very little at the end of the day. Isn’t renewable energy a form of “climate intervention” at the end of the day, for example?
|
WIL BURNS Co-Director, Institute for Carbon Removal Law & Policy American University
Visiting Professor, Environmental Policy & Culture Program, Northwestern University
Email: wbu...@american.edu Mobile: 312.550.3079 https://www.american.edu/sis/centers/carbon-removal/
Want to schedule a call? Click on one of the following scheduling links:
|
From: Greg Rau <gr...@ucsc.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 4:24 PM
As I’ve pointed out before, I’m still baffled as to who came up with this strange idea that the term “engineering” implies greater precision than would be possible with SRM, for example. Is that because people think if it’s engineering we’re supposed to know every last detail to the 10th decimal point or something, or because they think we wouldn’t have the foggiest clue what might happen if, say, aerosols were released into the stratosphere? Reality is of course somewhere in between those extremes, just as it is for anything engineered.
So complain about the “geo” prefix because that means land and solid earth, or complain if you will that CDR and SRM don’t have much in common, but there’s no reason to complain about the “engineering” part. I really fail to see the advantage in going from one term, with all its issues, that people are at least used to, in favour of another that isn’t any clearer as to what it means. Figuring that a term has baggage and negative connotations isn’t a reason to change terminology; people will see through that in a heartbeat. Or change to words that at least are crystal clear, like carbon dioxide removal and sunlight reflection methods.
d
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/BL0PR04MB47056B364054016DA6656EEAA4A29%40BL0PR04MB4705.namprd04.prod.outlook.com.
WIL BURNS Co-Director, Institute for Carbon Removal Law & Policy American University
Visiting Professor, Environmental Policy & Culture Program, Northwestern University
Email: wbu...@american.edu Mobile: 312.550.3079 Want to schedule a call? Click on one of the following scheduling links:
|
Well, that’s a different consideration, but I don’t think you address that issue by advancing definitions that belie the reality of what we’re attempting to do in terms of large-scale deployment of CDR. In fact, one of the indictments that skeptics of CDR often level is that we’re trying to engage in manipulation by using different terms. I think it’s more honest to acknowledge that CDR is geoengineering, and distinguish it from SRM on axes e.g. reversibility, scope of impacts, ability to control, social license to operate. I look forward to seeing what Oliver comes up with! wil
WIL BURNSCo-Director, Institute for Carbon Removal Law & PolicyAmerican University
Visiting Professor, Environmental Policy & Culture Program, Northwestern University
Email: wbu...@american.eduMobile: 312.550.3079Want to schedule a call? Click on one of the following scheduling links:
- 60-minute phone call: https://calendly.com/wil_burns/phone-call
- 30-minute phone call: https://calendly.com/wil_burns/30min
- 15-minute phone call: https://calendly.com/wil_burns/15min
- 60-minute conference call: https://calendly.com/wil_burns/60-minute-conference-call
- 30-minute conference call: https://calendly.com/wil_burns/30-minute-group
- 60-minute Zoom call: https://calendly.com/wil_burns/60min
- 30-minute Zoom call: https://calendly.com/wil_burns/30-minute-zoom-call
This extraordinary thread brings to mind Humpty Dumpty and his conversation with Alice (see below).
Angsting over the right word
without simultaneously considering the audience, is pointless
self-indulgence. The focus we should have is on effective
communication and that requires some appreciation of who's
communicating with whom for what purpose. All the various
options mentioned in this thread may serve a useful purpose in
certain circumstances. The master uses the right one at the
right time. When in doubt, consider using more than one word,
even a whole sentence.
'There’s glory for you!’
‘I don’t know what you mean by “glory,”’ Alice said.
Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. ‘Of course you don’t—till I tell you. I meant “there’s a nice knock-down argument for you!”’
‘But “glory” doesn’t mean “a nice knock-down argument,”’ Alice objected.
‘When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.’
‘The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’
‘The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master—that’s all.’
Regards
Robert
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/AF57797C-1D08-443B-88E9-8AD9D566E66F%40rodagroup.com.
I think that’s a reasonable argument, Jim, but I think it argues in favor of not drawing a distinction between SRM and CDR in terms of ability to control, or predict outcomes, which I fear some are attempting to do. I work primarily in the field of marine-based CDR currently, and we know that many questions of the ultimate impacts of large-scale deployment of ocean iron fertilization or enhanced ocean alkalinity, for example, remain opaque, and in some cases, these “interventions” could irreversibly alter ocean ecosystems biogeochemically. I would be fine with using the term “climate intervention” for both CDR and SRM, but not “privileging” from a rhetorical perspective, CDR based on alleged precision or ability to control. We have not reached that point, in my mind.
|
WIL BURNS Co-Director, Institute for Carbon Removal Law & Policy American University
Visiting Professor, Environmental Policy & Culture Program, Northwestern University
Email: wbu...@american.edu Mobile: 312.550.3079 https://www.american.edu/sis/centers/carbon-removal/
Want to schedule a call? Click on one of the following scheduling links:
|
From: Jim Fleming <jfle...@colby.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2023 7:32 AM
To: claudia...@gmail.com
Cc: Wil Burns <w...@feronia.org>; Greg Rau <gr...@ucsc.edu>; Ken Caldeira <kcal...@carnegiescience.edu>; CarbonDiox...@googlegroups.com <CarbonDiox...@googlegroups.com> <carbondiox...@googlegroups.com>; geoengineering <geoengi...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [geo] RE: [CDR] Tiresome nomenclature squabbles
When I proposed "climate intervention" to the NAS 2015 study group*, I simply meant that "engineering," at the geo scale, connoted unwarranted precision for processes that were quite uncertain.
I have similar sentiments about terms such as solar radiation management and climate repair.
As Kathleen Blodget at General Electric said to Irving Langmuir in 1947: "Irving, you can intervene in a cloud, but you can't control it."
* Climate Intervention, 2 vols. National Research Council of the National Academies, 2015.
On Tue, Feb 14, 2023 at 6:50 PM Claudia Wieners <claudia...@gmail.com> wrote:
In my view part of the problem is that many terms - mitigation, climate intervention / climate engineering / geoengineering, adaptation - are a sort of continuum. Each have a "core" but the question is where to put the boundaries. Also, they are all everyday words with more or less vague meanings used in a (hopefully) more defined, but somewhat artificial way when used as climate jargon.
Nobody would argue that, in the language use of climate change science:
-- replacing a coal power plant by a wind farm is mitigation
-- SAI is climate intervention (or whatever term you prefer)
-- building higher dikes because of sea level rise is adaptation
But each of them could in principle be used far from their "core meaning" (in climate science) especially when you look at their everyday meaning. In principle, building a dam could be called mitigation (you reduce/mitigate the harm arising from global warming); introducing a carbon tax could be called climate intervention (you intervene in the economy to preserve the climate). But I think we agree that this is not commonly meant by those terms.
If you plot various measures on two axes, namely 1) local vs global, 2) target being upstream vs downstream in the causal chain (emission -> concentration -> warming -> physical impacts -> social impacts) it looks like:
-- mitigation is usually thought of as being upstream in the causal chain and not very scale sensitive
-- climate intervention (which ever term you prefer) is in the middle of the causal chain and somewhat more large-scale, but boundaries are fuzzy, as we see in this discussion
-- adaptation is downstream the causality line and rather local
But one can easily argue about where the boundaries are, whether there is overlap, and so on, as I tried to illustrate in the sketch below. (Only meant as a very rough illustration based on personal view.)
There is no clear "right" and "wrong" about how to use these terms.
So either some body such as IPCC (or, over time, a developing convention) at some stage simply gives a definition which might not make everyone happy but becomes accepted, or we agree that some of these terms are fuzzy and live with it (hopefully tolerating each other's view) or we start using more, though not perfectly, precise descriptions, such as "CDR and SRM" if we mean both and "SRM" if we mean only that.
And meanwhile I hope the community can have a fruitful and balanced discussion about the relative benefits and risks, similarities and differences, as well as (in)compatibility and potential synergies of SRM and CDR - whatever we call it.
Best
Claudia
Op di 14 feb. 2023 om 23:29 schreef Wil Burns <w...@feronia.org>:
--
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/BL0PR04MB47056A0379EC5D1B5BFD40C1A4A29%40BL0PR04MB4705.namprd04.prod.outlook.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/CAJUUK5fGO%2B5v2YEbH-HNJS3Wtrx6BYb38XNiwY_3mjn00hW5SA%40mail.gmail.com.
--
James R. Fleming
Charles A. Dana Professor of Science, Technology, and Society, Emeritus, Colby College
Email: jfle...@colby.edu
Series Editor, Palgrave Studies in the History of Science and Technology, https://www.palgrave.com/us/series/14581
"Everything is unprecedented if you don't study history."
Might there be some merit in
drawing a distinction between methods that affect short-wave
radiation and those that affect long-wave radiation (not
necessarily using the word 'radiation')? This distinction is
important because while LWR methods are essential in the
medium to long-term and remain urgent to scale because of
their lengthy climate response time, they are now unlikely to
be capable of keeping surface temperature below tipping point
thresholds. For that only SWR methods can work. The
difference between approaches capable of delivering climate
stability and those that will keep us in the game long enough
to enjoy that future climate stability, is perhaps one that
needs emphasising at every opportunity.
Trying to find a single term that unambiguously and universally describes the nature of the technology, its climatic impact, and its controllability and risk profile across the multiple dimensions of the intractably complex climate system (including the biosphere and human society), seems to me to be asking rather a lot of a couple of words.
It might also be worth noting
that we are having this debate in English but most of the
world don't speak English. Are we expecting to take control
of this usage in every language?
CDR, SRM, intervention,
management and so on, all these words and terms have become
imbued with nuanced, imprecise and variable meanings. Those
contributing to this thread have comprehensively demonstrated
that there is no single answer to what is the best terminology
- if this group of luminaries haven't been able to come up
with it, then no one will. If there is perceived to be such critical
sensitivity in how we communicate ideas focused on averting a
climate crisis, perhaps we should consider those sensitivities
in more depth. From that would likely emerge a language that
offers greater power and flexibility.
Regards
Robert
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/BL0PR04MB47051786A88BED0C0356712EA4A39%40BL0PR04MB4705.namprd04.prod.outlook.com.
I think we’re on the same page here. The reason that I don’t really care if all these approaches get put under the broad rubric of “geoengineering,” which I think they can fit under, but some others disagree, is that, at the end of the day, we need to defend their benefits and costs discretely. That’s why I’m fine with dispensing with the argument as to whether they all fall under the “g-term,” and focus on arguing why some of these approaches are worth pursuing. I fear, however, that when one starts trying flee from the “g-term” many see it as an effort to engage in sleight of hand. So why risk that perception?
|
WIL BURNS Visiting Professor Environmental Policy & Culture Program Northwestern University
Email: william...@northwestern.edu Mobile: 312.550.3079
1808 Chicago Ave. #110 Evanston, IL 60208 https://epc.northwestern.edu/people/staff-new/wil-burns.html |
Want to schedule a call? Click on one of the following scheduling links:
|
I acknowledge and honor the Ojibwe, Potawatomi, and Odawa, as well as the Menominee, Miami and Ho-Chunk nations, upon whose traditional homelands Northwestern University stands, and the Indigenous people who remain on this land today.
|
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/3f606820-017e-6322-5afc-45ec9c1c16be%40gmail.com.
Doug “thermodynamics” is the term that is missing. Global warming is by definition a problem of thermodynamics. Wil Burns says we need to defend the benefits and costs discretely for all solutions. With the aid of Ron Baiman, an economist, We have worked out with the deployment of 31,000 one gigawatt Thermodynamic Geoengineering we would : a) displace 0.8 W/m2 of average global surface heat from the surface of the ocean to deeper water for 226 years; b) produce 31 terawatts of electricity per year (67% more than total world use), and c) absorb about 4.3 GtCO2 per year from the atmosphere by cooling ocean surface waters. At an estimated cost of $2.9 trillion per year, it would take 30 years to ramp up to 31,000 plants. , , , Economies of scale have been estimated to potentially reduce the cost of electricity to abut 1.1 cents per KWh.
The current cost of energy is displayed below.
Global GDP was about $101 trillion in 2022.
The heat moved into the deep can be recycled after 226 years – 12 more times – until all of the heat of warming has be converted to work and the waste of those conversions has been dissipated to space.
Wil Burns is concerned with intergenerational equity but show me any generation that won’t want more energy that mitigates every consequence of climate change at less cost?
Ken Caldeira has expressed a concern about the cost, which I believe Ron should have dispelled?
Best
Jim
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/DM6PR04MB7100E238A72AC674CDBD32938FA39%40DM6PR04MB7100.namprd04.prod.outlook.com.