Arguments against geoengineering
15 views
Skip to first unread message
Oliver Morton
Oct 29, 2009, 7:08:15 AM10/29/09
to geoengineering
As part of a post on superfreakonomics over at my blog Heliophage, I
put together a list of what seem to me the most common components of
arguments against geoengineering. I thought I might as well post them
here, to see if people felt there were major catagories of such
argument that I have missed. The one that has come to mind so far is
that one could be opposed to any technology that centralised power as
much as some geoengineering technologies might do
---quote begins---
Generosity dictates, though, that we should also look more generally
at the real phenomenon that Levitt points to: people who don’t want
geoengineering discussed at all, or only under the strictest of
limits. I disagree with these people. But I don’t find it very hard to
understand where they are coming from. Here are five components to
their arguments, as I see them.
1. Geongineering adds to the climate risks unconscionably.
Volcanoes, and by implication other stratospheric-veil schemes, screw
with hydrology; cloud brightening can change ocean currents; ocean
fertilization radically rearranges ecosystems: we don’t know how to do
any of these things well, and if we sanction the general idea that
geoengineering is plausible we are prohibitively unlikely to retire
all these risks before going ahead with a scheme. As applied to
geoengineering research this is partly an epistemological argument
(the impossibility of getting knowledge of a high enough quality) and
partly a slippery slope argument. I think in general slippery slope
arguments are overblown, but I can see where this line of reasoning is
coming from. (There is also a linked concern about crowding out
research money for other aspects of climate, but I think that’s a
sceond tier argument)
2. It is reasonable to distrust a priori the motives of anyone who
tries to argue for any approach to global warming other than emissions
reduction. People feel this because they know, from experience and
analysis, that that there are extremely powerful lobbies which want to
slow or derail emissions reduction, and assume that pretty much anyone
saying anything along those lines is doing so as either a dupe or a
tool of those lobbies. There is an element of cognitive miserliness in
this; but where one person says cognitive miser another might say
cognitively prudent, and ask why he or she should bother wasting
cognition on a subject when past experience has given them a pretty
damn good inductive basis for thinking such an investment of thought
will be wasted.
3. I think its clearly true that many environmentalists have a pre-
existing desire for people to live low-impact, low-consumption lives,
often because they sincerely believe that this will make everyone
happier. To some extent, and with various levels of awareness that
they are behaving in this way, some of these people see concern about
global warming as an instrumental way to bring a low-consumption low-
impact work of some sort about. This is not to say they are insincere
in their concern about global warming: merely that it is
overdetermined. I personally would rather people separated out these
two strands of their thought, but I can see as a matter of fact that
they frequently don’t, and I’m sure if Steve Levitt was really trying
to “get” things he could see that to.
4. The first moral argument. At an everything-I-need-to-know-I-
learned-in-kindergarten level people think that when you make a mess
you should clean it up, not paint over it, even if painting over it is
much easier. This is not a particularly good argument, and will have
little if any traction with people who see the world in terms of costs
and benefits — but it is an argument that people can feel easily and
clearly, and feelings about the morality of pollution run deep.
5. The second moral argument: the purpose of environmental action
is to restore nature. This means getting back to a preindustrial sort
of a climate, with lower greenhouse gases and no permanent high-
altitude smogs. For me, this is a flawed argument, a planet-wide
application of the naturalistic fallacy; I think correct environmental
action is much more complex, and that increasing the possibilities for
human happiness matters more than an idealised concern for nature. But
I understand that other people don’t feel this way.
put together a list of what seem to me the most common components of
arguments against geoengineering. I thought I might as well post them
here, to see if people felt there were major catagories of such
argument that I have missed. The one that has come to mind so far is
that one could be opposed to any technology that centralised power as
much as some geoengineering technologies might do
---quote begins---
Generosity dictates, though, that we should also look more generally
at the real phenomenon that Levitt points to: people who don’t want
geoengineering discussed at all, or only under the strictest of
limits. I disagree with these people. But I don’t find it very hard to
understand where they are coming from. Here are five components to
their arguments, as I see them.
1. Geongineering adds to the climate risks unconscionably.
Volcanoes, and by implication other stratospheric-veil schemes, screw
with hydrology; cloud brightening can change ocean currents; ocean
fertilization radically rearranges ecosystems: we don’t know how to do
any of these things well, and if we sanction the general idea that
geoengineering is plausible we are prohibitively unlikely to retire
all these risks before going ahead with a scheme. As applied to
geoengineering research this is partly an epistemological argument
(the impossibility of getting knowledge of a high enough quality) and
partly a slippery slope argument. I think in general slippery slope
arguments are overblown, but I can see where this line of reasoning is
coming from. (There is also a linked concern about crowding out
research money for other aspects of climate, but I think that’s a
sceond tier argument)
2. It is reasonable to distrust a priori the motives of anyone who
tries to argue for any approach to global warming other than emissions
reduction. People feel this because they know, from experience and
analysis, that that there are extremely powerful lobbies which want to
slow or derail emissions reduction, and assume that pretty much anyone
saying anything along those lines is doing so as either a dupe or a
tool of those lobbies. There is an element of cognitive miserliness in
this; but where one person says cognitive miser another might say
cognitively prudent, and ask why he or she should bother wasting
cognition on a subject when past experience has given them a pretty
damn good inductive basis for thinking such an investment of thought
will be wasted.
3. I think its clearly true that many environmentalists have a pre-
existing desire for people to live low-impact, low-consumption lives,
often because they sincerely believe that this will make everyone
happier. To some extent, and with various levels of awareness that
they are behaving in this way, some of these people see concern about
global warming as an instrumental way to bring a low-consumption low-
impact work of some sort about. This is not to say they are insincere
in their concern about global warming: merely that it is
overdetermined. I personally would rather people separated out these
two strands of their thought, but I can see as a matter of fact that
they frequently don’t, and I’m sure if Steve Levitt was really trying
to “get” things he could see that to.
4. The first moral argument. At an everything-I-need-to-know-I-
learned-in-kindergarten level people think that when you make a mess
you should clean it up, not paint over it, even if painting over it is
much easier. This is not a particularly good argument, and will have
little if any traction with people who see the world in terms of costs
and benefits — but it is an argument that people can feel easily and
clearly, and feelings about the morality of pollution run deep.
5. The second moral argument: the purpose of environmental action
is to restore nature. This means getting back to a preindustrial sort
of a climate, with lower greenhouse gases and no permanent high-
altitude smogs. For me, this is a flawed argument, a planet-wide
application of the naturalistic fallacy; I think correct environmental
action is much more complex, and that increasing the possibilities for
human happiness matters more than an idealised concern for nature. But
I understand that other people don’t feel this way.
Glyn Roberts
Oct 29, 2009, 12:23:23 PM10/29/09
to oemo...@googlemail.com, geoengineering
Hi Oliver: A very useful list. I have two comments and an additional argument.
1. Geongineering adds to the climate risks unconscionably. Volcanoes,
and by implication other stratospheric-veil schemes, screw with
hydrology; cloud brightening can change ocean currents; ocean
fertilization radically rearranges ecosystems...
Comment:
Geoengineering comprises: Solar Radiation Management methods (which
have varying degrees of climate risks and other side effects), and GHG
Remediation methods (which have side effects, but do not have a
climate risk).
I believe we should keep these general approaches distinct as much as possible.
2. It is reasonable to distrust a priori the motives of anyone who
tries to argue for any approach to global warming other than emissions
reduction. People feel this because they know, from experience and
analysis, that that there are extremely powerful lobbies which want to
slow or derail emissions reduction, and assume that pretty much anyone
saying anything along those lines is doing so as either a dupe or a
tool of those lobbies...
Comment:
If the coal industry (for example) finds it’s cheaper to have
governments deploy SRMs than it is for themselves to add expensive CCS
equipment, the morally bankrupt of them may be inclined to advocate
and lobby for the SRM ‘option’. This would be terrible. On the other
hand, if those companies were to fund GHG Remediation research as a
superior means in the future to sequester their carbon emissions, this
is positive. Eliminating CO2 from the atmosphere pound-for-pound
doesn’t mater whether it comes from their flue, or remotely (side
effect differences not withstanding). Meanwhile the technology is
being refined for more general use.
This is conceptually similar to the recent argument that the airline
industry should fund algae-based biofuel R&D
A missing, US-centric, less rational argument:
The conspiracy theory: climate change is a lie invented by the
political Left to tax the poor and create ‘big government’. They
distribute the spoils to ‘green’ states and ‘green’ industries (all
'Lefties') in exchange for political power. Geoengineering is just
another new way to expand this model.
Best regards,
Glyn Roberts
1. Geongineering adds to the climate risks unconscionably. Volcanoes,
and by implication other stratospheric-veil schemes, screw with
hydrology; cloud brightening can change ocean currents; ocean
Comment:
Geoengineering comprises: Solar Radiation Management methods (which
have varying degrees of climate risks and other side effects), and GHG
Remediation methods (which have side effects, but do not have a
climate risk).
I believe we should keep these general approaches distinct as much as possible.
2. It is reasonable to distrust a priori the motives of anyone who
tries to argue for any approach to global warming other than emissions
reduction. People feel this because they know, from experience and
analysis, that that there are extremely powerful lobbies which want to
slow or derail emissions reduction, and assume that pretty much anyone
saying anything along those lines is doing so as either a dupe or a
Comment:
If the coal industry (for example) finds it’s cheaper to have
governments deploy SRMs than it is for themselves to add expensive CCS
equipment, the morally bankrupt of them may be inclined to advocate
and lobby for the SRM ‘option’. This would be terrible. On the other
hand, if those companies were to fund GHG Remediation research as a
superior means in the future to sequester their carbon emissions, this
is positive. Eliminating CO2 from the atmosphere pound-for-pound
doesn’t mater whether it comes from their flue, or remotely (side
effect differences not withstanding). Meanwhile the technology is
being refined for more general use.
This is conceptually similar to the recent argument that the airline
industry should fund algae-based biofuel R&D
A missing, US-centric, less rational argument:
The conspiracy theory: climate change is a lie invented by the
political Left to tax the poor and create ‘big government’. They
distribute the spoils to ‘green’ states and ‘green’ industries (all
'Lefties') in exchange for political power. Geoengineering is just
another new way to expand this model.
Best regards,
Glyn Roberts
Ken Caldeira
Oct 29, 2009, 1:07:02 PM10/29/09
to glynlr...@gmail.com, oemo...@googlemail.com, geoengineering
I'll wager (within bounds of legality and credibility of available resources) on even odds anyone who wants to wager in favor of the proposition that CO2 emissions in year 2020 will be lower than CO2 emissions in year 2010. Any takers?
If you don't think CO2 emissions rates will start diminishing in the near term, then how can you rely on this as your only strategy?
Dan Whaley
Oct 29, 2009, 1:11:17 PM10/29/09
to kcal...@carnegie.stanford.edu, glynlr...@gmail.com, oemo...@googlemail.com, geoengineering
I'll take the wager. I believe they will be lower--mostly because I see some extraordinary and quite innovative approaches to collaborative conservation of resources that are presently in a skunkworks stage right now. However, I don't think it makes any difference, we'll need all the tools regardless.
D
D
Stephen Salter
Oct 29, 2009, 1:14:04 PM10/29/09
to oemo...@googlemail.com, geoengineering
Oliver
You write that cloud brightening can change ocean currents. I have to
accept that this is possible.
Steering wheels certainly can change the direction of movement of
vehicles. Should steering wheels be removed from all vehicles?
Perhaps if we can find out how to steer currents in useful directions
this would be a very good thing. But if we ban research how can we ever
learn to steer?
Stephen
Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design
School of Engineering and Electronics
University of Edinburgh
Mayfield Road
Edinburgh EH9 3JL
Scotland
tel +44 131 650 5704
fax +44 131 650 5702
Mobile 07795 203 195
S.Sa...@ed.ac.uk
http://www.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs
--
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
You write that cloud brightening can change ocean currents. I have to
accept that this is possible.
Steering wheels certainly can change the direction of movement of
vehicles. Should steering wheels be removed from all vehicles?
Perhaps if we can find out how to steer currents in useful directions
this would be a very good thing. But if we ban research how can we ever
learn to steer?
Stephen
Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design
School of Engineering and Electronics
University of Edinburgh
Mayfield Road
Edinburgh EH9 3JL
Scotland
tel +44 131 650 5704
fax +44 131 650 5702
Mobile 07795 203 195
S.Sa...@ed.ac.uk
http://www.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
Margaret Leinen
Oct 29, 2009, 1:37:26 PM10/29/09
to oemo...@googlemail.com, geoengineering
Thanks for your list, Oliver. I think that you're right that it's important
to understand all of the arguments that are made and their nuances.
Since you also gave a first pass at what you thought about each argument (in
a sense of rebuttal), I'll add on to number 3 (the desire for low-impact
lives). I saw a great lecture by Nate Lewis of CalTech a few months ago on
what it will take for us to get through the next 100 years. (Nate's lecture
is on his website at:
http://nsl.caltech.edu/energy.html
Nate starts with the projected population growth, and allows each person
twice the energy necessary for their food production (definitely a
low-impact level of energy consumption). Even with this distinctly
minimalistic approach, he shows that energy use and emissions soar without
some kind of technology breakthrough to low-carbon energy. Because, of
course, most of the world uses far less energy that the developed world and
those are the regions where the population growth is largest. So another
concern about the "let's just return to a low-impact life" is that while all
of us on this google group could probably reduce our impact substantially,
most of the world cannot.
Margaret
--
Margaret Leinen, PhD.
Climate Response Fund
211 N. Union Street
Suite 100
Alexandria, VA 22314
P 202-415-6545
F 703-842-8031
mle...@climateresponsefund.org
to understand all of the arguments that are made and their nuances.
Since you also gave a first pass at what you thought about each argument (in
a sense of rebuttal), I'll add on to number 3 (the desire for low-impact
lives). I saw a great lecture by Nate Lewis of CalTech a few months ago on
what it will take for us to get through the next 100 years. (Nate's lecture
is on his website at:
http://nsl.caltech.edu/energy.html
Nate starts with the projected population growth, and allows each person
twice the energy necessary for their food production (definitely a
low-impact level of energy consumption). Even with this distinctly
minimalistic approach, he shows that energy use and emissions soar without
some kind of technology breakthrough to low-carbon energy. Because, of
course, most of the world uses far less energy that the developed world and
those are the regions where the population growth is largest. So another
concern about the "let's just return to a low-impact life" is that while all
of us on this google group could probably reduce our impact substantially,
most of the world cannot.
Margaret
--
Margaret Leinen, PhD.
Climate Response Fund
211 N. Union Street
Suite 100
Alexandria, VA 22314
P 202-415-6545
F 703-842-8031
mle...@climateresponsefund.org
Ken Caldeira
Oct 29, 2009, 2:40:56 PM10/29/09
to Eugene I. Gordon, dan.w...@gmail.com, glynlr...@gmail.com, oemo...@googlemail.com, geoengineering
The "wager" was intended to be rhetorical ... but the point is made ...
Most people, even those who work hard to move the planet towards lower CO2 emissions, have a rational expectation that these emissions will go up in the future.
Perhaps others would like to go on record here as predicting that global anthropogenic CO2 emissions will diminish over the next decade. We may all want this to happen, but I reckon few are as optimistic as Dan is.
___________________________________________________
Ken Caldeira
Carnegie Institution Dept of Global Ecology
260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA
kcal...@ciw.edu; kcal...@stanford.edu
http://dge.stanford.edu/DGE/CIWDGE/labs/caldeiralab
+1 650 704 7212; fax: +1 650 462 5968
Most people, even those who work hard to move the planet towards lower CO2 emissions, have a rational expectation that these emissions will go up in the future.
Perhaps others would like to go on record here as predicting that global anthropogenic CO2 emissions will diminish over the next decade. We may all want this to happen, but I reckon few are as optimistic as Dan is.
___________________________________________________
Ken Caldeira
Carnegie Institution Dept of Global Ecology
260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA
kcal...@ciw.edu; kcal...@stanford.edu
http://dge.stanford.edu/DGE/CIWDGE/labs/caldeiralab
+1 650 704 7212; fax: +1 650 462 5968
On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 11:30 AM, Eugene I. Gordon <eugg...@comcast.net> wrote:
I guess this is why they have racetracks, gambling halls, and professional bookies. In any case not very professional.
From: geoengi...@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengi...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Dan Whaley
Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2009 1:11 PM
To: kcal...@carnegie.stanford.edu
Cc: glynlr...@gmail.com; oemo...@googlemail.com; geoengineering
Subject: [geo] Re: Arguments against geoengineering
Eugene I. Gordon
Oct 29, 2009, 2:28:08 PM10/29/09
to kcal...@carnegie.stanford.edu, glynlr...@gmail.com, oemo...@googlemail.com, geoengineering
I don’t think this is a professional way to deal with disagreement.
From: geoengi...@googlegroups.com
[mailto:geoengi...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Ken Caldeira
Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2009 1:07 PM
To: glynlr...@gmail.com
Cc: oemo...@googlemail.com; geoengineering
Subject: [geo] Re: Arguments against geoengineering
Eugene I. Gordon
Oct 29, 2009, 2:30:21 PM10/29/09
to dan.w...@gmail.com, kcal...@carnegie.stanford.edu, glynlr...@gmail.com, oemo...@googlemail.com, geoengineering
I guess this is why they have racetracks, gambling halls, and professional bookies. In any case not very professional.
From: geoengi...@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengi...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Dan Whaley
Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2009 1:11 PM
To: kcal...@carnegie.stanford.edu
Cc: glynlr...@gmail.com; oemo...@googlemail.com; geoengineering
Subject: [geo] Re: Arguments against geoengineering
I'll take the wager. I
believe they will be lower--mostly because I see some extraordinary and quite
innovative approaches to collaborative conservation of resources that are
presently in a skunkworks stage right now. However, I don't think it
makes any difference, we'll need all the tools regardless.
D
Alan Robock
Oct 29, 2009, 6:14:15 PM10/29/09
to Ken Caldeira, geoengineering
Dear Ken,
I would like to accept your wager. And I would like to point out that
claims that mitigation will be unsuccessful can be used as arguments by
those who favor geoengineering, for whatever reason, just like claims
that geoengineering would be a good idea lessen the push toward
mitigation.
I am confident that President Obama will lead the US and the planet into
a world with incentives for the development of new technologies for
using energy more efficiently and using less fossil fuels. My personal
carbon footprint is already going down, thanks to incentives from the
state of New Jersey, which helped pay for the solar cells on my roof and
require the electric company to buy renewable energy certificates from
me, and my Prius, which I try not to drive. New Jersey is leading the
country in such steps, including the first US offshore wind farm,
because of lack of leadership in Washington, but that has all changed
now.
I know mitigation can work, and support Obama's efforts. That is why I
do not predict that he will fail and I do not claim that we will soon
need geoengineering. Predicting mitigation will be slow helps to slow
it down.
I think you will be surprised how fast China and the US start to use
solar and wind power, following Europe's lead. And I don't think that
is irrational.
Alan
Alan Robock, Professor II
Director, Meteorology Undergraduate Program
Associate Director, Center for Environmental Prediction
Department of Environmental Sciences Phone: +1-732-932-9800 x6222
Rutgers University Fax: +1-732-932-8644
14 College Farm Road E-mail: rob...@envsci.rutgers.edu
New Brunswick, NJ 08901-8551 USA http://envsci.rutgers.edu/~robock
Dan Whaley
Oct 29, 2009, 10:09:51 PM10/29/09
to geoengineering
While I'll take the wager, I do find it extraordinary, Alan, that your
statement essentially implies that emissions reductions will get us
where we need to be. Can you explain your math?
Dan
> > kcalde...@ciw.edu; kcalde...@stanford.edu
statement essentially implies that emissions reductions will get us
where we need to be. Can you explain your math?
Dan
Alan Robock
Oct 29, 2009, 10:18:23 PM10/29/09
to Dan Whaley, geoengineering
Dan,
Where do you think we need to be? And when? If it is 350 ppm soon, of
course not. That would take massive carbon capture from the atmosphere
and very rapid reductions in emissions. But if you want to stop
somewhere between 450 and 500 ppm, adapt, and then gradually reduce the
concentration with carbon capture, I think we can do that with carbon
capture from the stacks of coal-fired plants, and rapid transition to an
electric economy with solar and wind generation. It would need a
substantial and regular increase in the price of carbon emissions. Not
being a political scientist, I cannot predict how likely this is, not
that political scientists can either, but it is certainly possible.
If climate change is the greatest threat to world security, the
resources now being spent on the military (and half of the scientists
and the engineers in the US working for them) can certainly be
redirected to this goal. We need not accept the status quo as a
predictor of the future.
Alan
Alan Robock, Professor II
Director, Meteorology Undergraduate Program
Associate Director, Center for Environmental Prediction
Department of Environmental Sciences Phone: +1-732-932-9800 x6222
Rutgers University Fax: +1-732-932-8644
14 College Farm Road E-mail: rob...@envsci.rutgers.edu
New Brunswick, NJ 08901-8551 USA http://envsci.rutgers.edu/~robock
Where do you think we need to be? And when? If it is 350 ppm soon, of
course not. That would take massive carbon capture from the atmosphere
and very rapid reductions in emissions. But if you want to stop
somewhere between 450 and 500 ppm, adapt, and then gradually reduce the
concentration with carbon capture, I think we can do that with carbon
capture from the stacks of coal-fired plants, and rapid transition to an
electric economy with solar and wind generation. It would need a
substantial and regular increase in the price of carbon emissions. Not
being a political scientist, I cannot predict how likely this is, not
that political scientists can either, but it is certainly possible.
If climate change is the greatest threat to world security, the
resources now being spent on the military (and half of the scientists
and the engineers in the US working for them) can certainly be
redirected to this goal. We need not accept the status quo as a
predictor of the future.
Alan
Alan Robock, Professor II
Director, Meteorology Undergraduate Program
Associate Director, Center for Environmental Prediction
Department of Environmental Sciences Phone: +1-732-932-9800 x6222
Rutgers University Fax: +1-732-932-8644
14 College Farm Road E-mail: rob...@envsci.rutgers.edu
New Brunswick, NJ 08901-8551 USA http://envsci.rutgers.edu/~robock
Ron Larson
Oct 30, 2009, 12:49:16 AM10/30/09
to rob...@envsci.rutgers.edu, Dan Whaley, geoengineering
Alan, Dan, Ken etal:
I haven't heard much discussion on this list of last Saturday's many
thousands of events put on by the new 350.org group. I only went to two
events (in Denver) and in both the only technology mentioned by the
organizers was Biochar. I submit/claim that is the least cost
approach, the most decentralized, most easily adapted by the largest
number of people, has the added advantages of supplying energy and
improving soils, ties in well with REDD programs and therefore has the
best chance of being the approach that will carry most of the carbon
sequestration burden (and joys).
Ron
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 8.5.423 / Virus Database: 270.14.39/2468 - Release Date: 10/29/09 19:49:00
>
>
I haven't heard much discussion on this list of last Saturday's many
thousands of events put on by the new 350.org group. I only went to two
events (in Denver) and in both the only technology mentioned by the
organizers was Biochar. I submit/claim that is the least cost
approach, the most decentralized, most easily adapted by the largest
number of people, has the added advantages of supplying energy and
improving soils, ties in well with REDD programs and therefore has the
best chance of being the approach that will carry most of the carbon
sequestration burden (and joys).
Ron
>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 8.5.423 / Virus Database: 270.14.39/2468 - Release Date: 10/29/09 19:49:00
>
>
Dan Whaley
Oct 30, 2009, 4:37:36 AM10/30/09
to geoengineering
Alan,
I agree that 450 or 500 are theoretically achievable with emissions
reductions-- clearly. (Though either would effectively require
immediate and aggressive reductions from everyone, now).
But if we're already seeing impacts we don't like, and we know the
impacts considerably lag the forcing, what leads us to believe these
are "acceptable" levels?
Dan
I agree that 450 or 500 are theoretically achievable with emissions
reductions-- clearly. (Though either would effectively require
immediate and aggressive reductions from everyone, now).
But if we're already seeing impacts we don't like, and we know the
impacts considerably lag the forcing, what leads us to believe these
are "acceptable" levels?
Dan
Alan Robock
Oct 30, 2009, 8:42:35 AM10/30/09
to Dan Whaley, geoengineering
Dear Dan,
"Dangerous anthropogenic inteference" is now commonly defined as 2°C
about preindustrial global average temperatures (about 1°C above current
levels). Certainly it is not a step function, and impacts increase with
temperature change, and we are already experiencing some. So we need a
lot of adaptation, too.
Alan
Alan Robock, Professor II
Director, Meteorology Undergraduate Program
Associate Director, Center for Environmental Prediction
Department of Environmental Sciences Phone: +1-732-932-9800 x6222
Rutgers University Fax: +1-732-932-8644
14 College Farm Road E-mail: rob...@envsci.rutgers.edu
New Brunswick, NJ 08901-8551 USA http://envsci.rutgers.edu/~robock
"Dangerous anthropogenic inteference" is now commonly defined as 2°C
about preindustrial global average temperatures (about 1°C above current
levels). Certainly it is not a step function, and impacts increase with
temperature change, and we are already experiencing some. So we need a
lot of adaptation, too.
Alan
Alan Robock, Professor II
Director, Meteorology Undergraduate Program
Associate Director, Center for Environmental Prediction
Department of Environmental Sciences Phone: +1-732-932-9800 x6222
Rutgers University Fax: +1-732-932-8644
14 College Farm Road E-mail: rob...@envsci.rutgers.edu
New Brunswick, NJ 08901-8551 USA http://envsci.rutgers.edu/~robock
Christopher Mims
Oct 30, 2009, 9:35:21 AM10/30/09
to geoengineering
Emissions in 2020 > emissions in 2010 also assumes that there is
nothing that would limit the material inputs that will lead to those
emissions. You don't have to be a disciple of 'limits to growth' to
recognize that at some point, we'll start bumping our head against a
ceiling determined by the carrying capacity of the planet.
Even the conservative IEA believes that maximum historical production
of liquid fuels ("peak oil") will arrive within the next decade.
If you believe more pessimistic estimates, net production of liquid
fuels has already peaked (2008) and our civilization's near total
dependence on oil for transportation means emissions from the
transportation sector will only shrink going forward.
Whether or not any of this is true is anyone's guess – but it is an
example of an X factor, beyond technology, that is within the realm of
possibility.
(Another, and related, X factor is a second or an ongoing global
recession. Just look at what the one we're in now did to global CO2
emissions.)
In other words, legislation and conservation is not the only thing
that will determine maximum annual CO2 emissions from anthropogenic
sources – in fact these might be the two factors that are *least*
likely to determine the ultimate level of those emissions.
nothing that would limit the material inputs that will lead to those
emissions. You don't have to be a disciple of 'limits to growth' to
recognize that at some point, we'll start bumping our head against a
ceiling determined by the carrying capacity of the planet.
Even the conservative IEA believes that maximum historical production
of liquid fuels ("peak oil") will arrive within the next decade.
If you believe more pessimistic estimates, net production of liquid
fuels has already peaked (2008) and our civilization's near total
dependence on oil for transportation means emissions from the
transportation sector will only shrink going forward.
Whether or not any of this is true is anyone's guess – but it is an
example of an X factor, beyond technology, that is within the realm of
possibility.
(Another, and related, X factor is a second or an ongoing global
recession. Just look at what the one we're in now did to global CO2
emissions.)
In other words, legislation and conservation is not the only thing
that will determine maximum annual CO2 emissions from anthropogenic
sources – in fact these might be the two factors that are *least*
likely to determine the ultimate level of those emissions.
jim woolridge
Oct 30, 2009, 11:32:56 AM10/30/09
to geoengineering
Alan: A somewhat nitpicking point: wouldn't it rather be that the
threshold for 'dangerous anthropogenic interference' is commonly taken
to be an increase of 2deg. C?--'dangerous anthropogenic interference'
is just what the phrase says--i.e. us causing dangerous changes in the
climate.
The phrase itself, of course, comes from the treaty (article 2, if
memory serves.) Is there anyone on this forum who does not think that
we have already caused dangerous changes in the climate? Far North
temperature increases would, IMHO, count as 'dangerous anthropogenic
interference.' Plus the Australian drought and whatever your own
favourites might be.
So another nitpicking point arises: as the purpose of the UNFCCC is
stated to be the prevention of 'dangerous anthropogenic interference'
in the climate, if such interference has already happened then surely
the UNFCCC is out of date? If so, what can be done about that?
(Imagine the diplomats arguing about new wording....)
threshold for 'dangerous anthropogenic interference' is commonly taken
to be an increase of 2deg. C?--'dangerous anthropogenic interference'
is just what the phrase says--i.e. us causing dangerous changes in the
climate.
The phrase itself, of course, comes from the treaty (article 2, if
memory serves.) Is there anyone on this forum who does not think that
we have already caused dangerous changes in the climate? Far North
temperature increases would, IMHO, count as 'dangerous anthropogenic
interference.' Plus the Australian drought and whatever your own
favourites might be.
So another nitpicking point arises: as the purpose of the UNFCCC is
stated to be the prevention of 'dangerous anthropogenic interference'
in the climate, if such interference has already happened then surely
the UNFCCC is out of date? If so, what can be done about that?
(Imagine the diplomats arguing about new wording....)
jim thomas
Oct 30, 2009, 1:01:09 PM10/30/09
to oemo...@googlemail.com, geoengineering
Hi Oliver
Cheers for your list. It reads a like a fairly grudging presentation
of why opponents of geo-engineering are as alarmed as we are at the
rising prominence of the field. Allow me to add a few comments as one
of those true non-believers:
1. "Geoengineering adds to climate risks unconscionably". Well – not
just climate risks.... The missing point is that there are also other
environmental and social risks. We are facing multiple planetary
crises with similar systemic roots. Any real 'solution' has to not
only stabilize the climate and other planetary cycles (water, nitrogen
etc) and make energetic sense but it must at the very least take into
account other related crises: loss of biodiversity, the growing
inequality between rich and poor, the erosion of cultures, sovereignty
and human rights, declining access to clean water and health care ,
the expansion of landlessness, rising food insecurity just for
starters. Climate change is serious but only the latest in a line of
serious problems that can't be dealt with one at a time. Two thirds of
the global population was already living in a state of everyday crisis
before atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases reached today’s
alarming levels and if a 'geo-engineering solution' worsens their
lives to protect the comfortable lives of the better-off, than that is
also unconscionable.
And yes, I know that a worsening climate situation also worsens these
other problems but there is no rational basis for allowing climate
change to trump all of these other co-existing problems.
2. "It is reasonable to distrust a priori the motives of anyone who
tries to argue for any approach to global warming other than emissions
reduction". The key here is naivete. I don't -- always -- distrust
the motives of those who want a research programme on geoengineering,
but I sometimes do distrust their political judgment. It seems to me
the pro-geoengineering camp is becoming an unholy alliance (marriage
of convenience?) between honestly concerned climate scientists
experiencing understandable levels of panic and industrial, financial
and political interests spotting another useful diversionary strategy
to further derail global agreements and a way to keep what they
consider to be their fair share of the pie. I tend to find the latter
camp more politically astute (and yes I do distrust their motives and
ideological biases) and the former camp sincere but naive about power
and politics in climbing into bed with these sorts of agendas. It is
astonishingly naïve to think that politicians who have failed to
deliver on mitigation targets will not jump at the opportunity for a
“techno-fix”, however sketchy, that appears to let them off the hook
until the next election. The problem is not mainly what peoples
motives are, but what the effects of their actions are.
Arguments 3 and 4 - I think you are right here and I appreciate the
recognition of sincerity but the tone is a tad patronizing given that
the arguments have not been refuted. Argument 4 is particularly
relevant with regards to SRM technologies, which essentially mask
rather than reduce high concentrations of GHGs.
5. "The second moral argument: the purpose of environmental action is
to restore nature." There is a corollary to this which is a
historically-derived distrust of techno-science and scientific hubris.
After generations of technological panaceas that turned into
environmental and social disasters (think DDT, thalidomide, Chernobyl,
dioxin poisoning, hormone disruption, the Green Revolution, antibiotic
overuse, CFC's) people are understandably skeptical of new planet-
altering schemes. Why let techno-science move on to even riskier
“solutions” when we know that underlying scientific knowledge,
especially related to climate, is hugely incomplete? "Nature knows
best" therefore is not so much romantic folklore of a pre-industrial
Golden Age as choosing historically tested circumstances for guidance
on what is safe. Its roughly the same reason James Hanson chooses 350
ppm as an appropriate threshold for atmospheric carbon - we've been
there before and we know what it looks like. There are also good
scientific reasons for prioritising the protection of intact
ecosystems for their resilience and ability to adapt as well as
effective carbon sinks.
"One could be opposed to any technology that centralized power as much
as some geoengineering technologies might do". This is key, -- not
an afterthought. By definition, geoengineering has to put a large
amount of technological power in the hands of whoever is deploying the
technology (the "who has their hands on the thermostat' question).
Global decision-making processes overwhelmingly favour the already
powerful (OECD and industrial interests) and they will control the
technology and its deployment. While timid noises are being made
about the need for an international discussion on governance of
geoengineering, that discussion is moving far slower than the
technology itself. Global discussions should, logically, proceed
it. ,Geoengineering will further remove power from those who have
historically contributed little to the problem and who are already
suffering the most impacts. It’s also why militarization of
geoengineering (or at least its geopolitical ramifications) looms
large as a concern.
A further source of opposition is that geoengineering is being
advanced as part of a package of market-based responses to climate
change that have so far proved socially and ecologically damaging,
inequitable and completely ineffective at limiting greenhouse gas
concentrations (offsets, biofuels, carbon trade). The widespread
opposition to recent ocean fertilization schemes has in large part
been fuelled by the presence of for-profit companies such as Climos
and Planktos looking to get rich quick out of the climate change
crisis. Both new technologies and crises situations alike (war,
poverty, environmental degradation) always attract profiteers who
misrepresent and oversell for their own financial ends. Its a good
way to make a quick buck and a terrible way to save the world.
So to summarize, reasons to oppose geoengineering include:
-Geoengineering falsely isolates the climate problem from other
related crisis and is therefore an inadequate response with
potentially devastating social and ecological consequences.
-Geoengineers largely appear either politically naïve or tied to
interests with a strong stake in maintaining the economic status quo
(which we would regard as highly inequitable).
-Geoengineering leads us into a high-risk engineered world with
unpredictable consequences and vulnerabilities rather than building
resilience of existing ecosystems.
- Countless previous risky technologies overpromised as panaceas
have been unleashed onto society and the biosphere without adequate
risk assessment and incomplete scientific knowledge and proved
damaging to the common good. Geoengineering seems firmly in that
inglorious tradition.
-Geoengineering is seen as a centralized technology facilitating
greater concentration of economic and technological power in the hands
of those who already unfairly wield power - eg strengthening OECD
states and further disempowering developing countries.
- Geoengineering can be developed and deployed absent of multilateral
agreement and potentially for military or geopolitical advantage. An
international discussion regarding governance and regulation of
geoengineering should precede further research and development and
should be an absolute pre-condition to developing the technologies.
-Geoengineering is seen as another market-based mechanism, driven by
short term profiteers, that will deliver inequitable outcomes and no
real results.
Best,
Jim Thomas
Jim Thomas
ETC Group (Montreal)
j...@etcgroup.org
+1 514 2739994
Cheers for your list. It reads a like a fairly grudging presentation
of why opponents of geo-engineering are as alarmed as we are at the
rising prominence of the field. Allow me to add a few comments as one
of those true non-believers:
1. "Geoengineering adds to climate risks unconscionably". Well – not
just climate risks.... The missing point is that there are also other
environmental and social risks. We are facing multiple planetary
crises with similar systemic roots. Any real 'solution' has to not
only stabilize the climate and other planetary cycles (water, nitrogen
etc) and make energetic sense but it must at the very least take into
account other related crises: loss of biodiversity, the growing
inequality between rich and poor, the erosion of cultures, sovereignty
and human rights, declining access to clean water and health care ,
the expansion of landlessness, rising food insecurity just for
starters. Climate change is serious but only the latest in a line of
serious problems that can't be dealt with one at a time. Two thirds of
the global population was already living in a state of everyday crisis
before atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases reached today’s
alarming levels and if a 'geo-engineering solution' worsens their
lives to protect the comfortable lives of the better-off, than that is
also unconscionable.
And yes, I know that a worsening climate situation also worsens these
other problems but there is no rational basis for allowing climate
change to trump all of these other co-existing problems.
2. "It is reasonable to distrust a priori the motives of anyone who
tries to argue for any approach to global warming other than emissions
the motives of those who want a research programme on geoengineering,
but I sometimes do distrust their political judgment. It seems to me
the pro-geoengineering camp is becoming an unholy alliance (marriage
of convenience?) between honestly concerned climate scientists
experiencing understandable levels of panic and industrial, financial
and political interests spotting another useful diversionary strategy
to further derail global agreements and a way to keep what they
consider to be their fair share of the pie. I tend to find the latter
camp more politically astute (and yes I do distrust their motives and
ideological biases) and the former camp sincere but naive about power
and politics in climbing into bed with these sorts of agendas. It is
astonishingly naïve to think that politicians who have failed to
deliver on mitigation targets will not jump at the opportunity for a
“techno-fix”, however sketchy, that appears to let them off the hook
until the next election. The problem is not mainly what peoples
motives are, but what the effects of their actions are.
Arguments 3 and 4 - I think you are right here and I appreciate the
recognition of sincerity but the tone is a tad patronizing given that
the arguments have not been refuted. Argument 4 is particularly
relevant with regards to SRM technologies, which essentially mask
rather than reduce high concentrations of GHGs.
5. "The second moral argument: the purpose of environmental action is
historically-derived distrust of techno-science and scientific hubris.
After generations of technological panaceas that turned into
environmental and social disasters (think DDT, thalidomide, Chernobyl,
dioxin poisoning, hormone disruption, the Green Revolution, antibiotic
overuse, CFC's) people are understandably skeptical of new planet-
altering schemes. Why let techno-science move on to even riskier
“solutions” when we know that underlying scientific knowledge,
especially related to climate, is hugely incomplete? "Nature knows
best" therefore is not so much romantic folklore of a pre-industrial
Golden Age as choosing historically tested circumstances for guidance
on what is safe. Its roughly the same reason James Hanson chooses 350
ppm as an appropriate threshold for atmospheric carbon - we've been
there before and we know what it looks like. There are also good
scientific reasons for prioritising the protection of intact
ecosystems for their resilience and ability to adapt as well as
effective carbon sinks.
"One could be opposed to any technology that centralized power as much
as some geoengineering technologies might do". This is key, -- not
an afterthought. By definition, geoengineering has to put a large
amount of technological power in the hands of whoever is deploying the
technology (the "who has their hands on the thermostat' question).
Global decision-making processes overwhelmingly favour the already
powerful (OECD and industrial interests) and they will control the
technology and its deployment. While timid noises are being made
about the need for an international discussion on governance of
geoengineering, that discussion is moving far slower than the
technology itself. Global discussions should, logically, proceed
it. ,Geoengineering will further remove power from those who have
historically contributed little to the problem and who are already
suffering the most impacts. It’s also why militarization of
geoengineering (or at least its geopolitical ramifications) looms
large as a concern.
A further source of opposition is that geoengineering is being
advanced as part of a package of market-based responses to climate
change that have so far proved socially and ecologically damaging,
inequitable and completely ineffective at limiting greenhouse gas
concentrations (offsets, biofuels, carbon trade). The widespread
opposition to recent ocean fertilization schemes has in large part
been fuelled by the presence of for-profit companies such as Climos
and Planktos looking to get rich quick out of the climate change
crisis. Both new technologies and crises situations alike (war,
poverty, environmental degradation) always attract profiteers who
misrepresent and oversell for their own financial ends. Its a good
way to make a quick buck and a terrible way to save the world.
So to summarize, reasons to oppose geoengineering include:
-Geoengineering falsely isolates the climate problem from other
related crisis and is therefore an inadequate response with
potentially devastating social and ecological consequences.
-Geoengineers largely appear either politically naïve or tied to
interests with a strong stake in maintaining the economic status quo
(which we would regard as highly inequitable).
-Geoengineering leads us into a high-risk engineered world with
unpredictable consequences and vulnerabilities rather than building
resilience of existing ecosystems.
- Countless previous risky technologies overpromised as panaceas
have been unleashed onto society and the biosphere without adequate
risk assessment and incomplete scientific knowledge and proved
damaging to the common good. Geoengineering seems firmly in that
inglorious tradition.
-Geoengineering is seen as a centralized technology facilitating
greater concentration of economic and technological power in the hands
of those who already unfairly wield power - eg strengthening OECD
states and further disempowering developing countries.
- Geoengineering can be developed and deployed absent of multilateral
agreement and potentially for military or geopolitical advantage. An
international discussion regarding governance and regulation of
geoengineering should precede further research and development and
should be an absolute pre-condition to developing the technologies.
-Geoengineering is seen as another market-based mechanism, driven by
short term profiteers, that will deliver inequitable outcomes and no
real results.
Best,
Jim Thomas
ETC Group (Montreal)
j...@etcgroup.org
+1 514 2739994
Ron Larson
Oct 31, 2009, 1:16:40 AM10/31/09
to j...@etcgroup.org, geoengineering
Jim:
I like your analysis; I can see that you and etcgroup have given
considerable thought to the possible failings of Geoengineering. Through
this reply note, I want to explore whether you can agree there may be
exceptions. Specifically I want to look at the Biochar exception. At
your website, I found a good bit of short material on Geoengineering and
Biochar - but the main items came back with a message that they could
not be found. Would you be good enough to check or send anything longer
from your group related to Biochar.
I did find the short statement you sent to the Royal Society on
Geoengineering. The two anti-Biochar references that you cited there
(both by BiofuelWatch = BFW) I consider decidedly substandard. If you
still believe in those BFW references I ask that you read any of their
cited references - almost all by Biochar proponents, not detractors -
and tell this group (or me privately) on the one or two of their
citations that you have found most credible.
In your following, you give seven criteria that Geoengineering fails to
meet. I think it is a fair list. I believe that Biochar meets each and
every one. Could you show wherein I am wrong? In highly short hand form
(with the full form given below), your seven are
1. " /.. isolates the climate problem from other related cris[es]/: *RWL: I contend that Biochar not only is directly addressing the excess CO2 problem, but also that of peak oil (national security and prestige re-building), badly degraded soil, biodiversity, inequalities, nitrogen and methane release, water retention, ocean acidification, jobs and (worldwide) rural economic development - and I can give others. Can you name one single non-climate area where Biochar is deficient?*
2. " ... /interests with a strong stake in maintaining the economic status quo"/ - *[RWL: To my knowledge, no major oil, biofuels, forestry, or farm supply company is presently involved in Biochar promotion. There are groups, and many well-respected NGOs, all over the world interested in the added farm income aspects of Biochar. I have now attended three Biochar conferences - and aver that at each, I saw only a grass-roots movement, that would benefit a lot from some big corporate money (having virtually none from any government source).]
*
3. "./. a high-risk engineered world with .. rather than building resilience of existing ecosystems."/ *[RWL: The whole ag-forestry point of Biochar is to strengthen the now badly-functioning biological soil base of microbes and fungus. Biochar is all about improving the resilience of ecosystems that mankind has slowly been ruining.]*
4. "/ ...overpromised as panaceas ... incomplete scientific knowledge and proved damaging to the common good."/ *[RWL: The main historical basis of today's enthusiasm for Biochar are the large parts of the Amazon where ancient "terra preta" is still outperforming the adjacent soils (from which thet were clearly made by humans) by about 3 to 1. The scientific knowledge on the millenia of lasting power (and centuries in Japan) is indisputable - despite claims of BFW that it can't be replicated. I know of no soil scientist who is not ready to get into the field (and there is close to zero government or industry dollars to help.]*
/
5. ".. concentration of economic and technological power ... further disempowering developing countries."/ *[RWL: The UNCCD has endorsed Biochar strongly - along with several dozen developing nations (the only large country doing so is Australia). Biomass growth is so much better as you approach the Equator that it is clear that Biochar is a technology most suited for developing countries.]*
6. "..../ developed and deployed absent of multilateral agreement ... [need for].. international discussion. "/ *[RWL: Exactly what Biochar proponents have been calling for and what BFW (and I am afraid your own etcgroup) have been attempting to derail at Copenhagen. (I blame only BFW, but suggest that etcgroup has overly relied on this one group's mislabeling Biochar as a biofuel.) BFW provides horribly indaequate backup citations for all of their anti-Biochar claims. Biochar is much different from a biofuel - and especially as defined by this discussion group and all of your seven points.]*
7. /".... driven by short term profiteers.. inequitable outcomes and no real results." / *[RWL: I believe there is zero proof that this is even remotely likely to happen. The validation of Biochar credits is trivial (practically impossible to get out of soil once entered). It seems obvious that only s***ustainable, equitable production of the required Biomass resource will lead to the carbon credits that will be required to service the sequestration that this list is discussing. Fortunately, all indications are that Biochar will be by far the cheapest means to accomplish the desired removal of atmospheric CO2. It also can (IMO) supply many wedges of both carbon-neutral and carbon-negative benefits.
I would appreciate having the further dialog with you that is not possible with BFW - the only group that I have found you use to support your apparent distaste for Biochar as a geoengineering option.
Ron
**
This morning I received the following:
> <snipped [as Jim has Summarized well]>
John Nissen
Oct 31, 2009, 9:35:29 AM10/31/09
to j...@etcgroup.org, oemo...@googlemail.com, geoengineering
Whatever you might want to say against geoengineering, there are strong arguments that geoengineering is required to avoid the risk of catastrophe of one kind or another. It is becoming increasingly clear that emissions reductions, however severe, cannot by themselves guarantee a safe future (as many politicians seem to believe and the whole of the COP15 exercise seems to be based). One needs to consider the various geoengineering techniques in the light of the problems to be solved and risks to be reduced. For example, with the particular problems arising from Arctic warming (methane release and sea level rise), it is clear that emissions reductions can have no effect on the necessary timescale, and SRM geoengineering has to be applied (the sooner the better as positive feedback is building up). With ocean acidification it is clear that there has to be action to remove CO2 from the atmosphere by techniques such as biochar, since acidification has already gone dangerously far.
Basically we have to rebalance the whole Earth system, which is a daunting task requiring all the ingenuity and determination we can muster.
Cheers from Chiswick,
John
--
Eugene I. Gordon
Oct 31, 2009, 4:07:13 PM10/31/09
to j...@cloudworld.co.uk, j...@etcgroup.org, oemo...@googlemail.com, geoengineering
Well stated. Moreover, the science of global warming is simply not well established or reliable so one cannot really predict the extent and timescale of global warming; or the global response to CO2 mitigation. We need alternatives to an uncertain and potentially delayed global response. I particularly resonate to the thought that we need all the help we can get and should not simply throw or legislate away potential solutions.
From: geoengi...@googlegroups.com
[mailto:geoengi...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of John Nissen
Sent: Saturday, October 31, 2009 9:35 AM
To: j...@etcgroup.org
Cc: oemo...@googlemail.com; geoengineering
Subject: [geo] Re: Arguments against geoengineering
Ken Caldeira
Oct 31, 2009, 6:58:36 PM10/31/09
to eugg...@comcast.net, j...@cloudworld.co.uk, j...@etcgroup.org, oemo...@googlemail.com, geoengineering
Large scale intentional interference with the climate is a awful way to deal with the carbon-climate problem.
Unfortunately, we may come to a time when not intentionally interfering with the climate system at large scale will be even more awful.
(Some think we have already reached that point.)
Does anticipating the possibility of such an outcome make it more likely?
Humans evolved in an environment where long-term planning meant storing enough nuts to survive the harsh winter, where thinking on large spatial scales meant worrying about the village in the next valley. Our brains are not designed to respond emotionally to problems with large temporal and spatial scales, so worrying about such problems remains endemic to eggheads.
Can humanity as a whole become sensitized to problems where the relevant temporal scales are decades to millennia, where the relevant spatial scale is global?
It is possible, but last night I ate a tasty, but fatty, morsel. Although I knew intellectually that it would likely shorten my life and that I was not optimizing my long-term well being, my personal temporal discount rate was temporarily increased by the sight and smell of that mouthwatering morsel, and I gave in, popping it in my mouth, stimulating the nerve endings in my sensory systems, momentarily activating pleasure centers in my brain, but adding incrementally to the narrowing of my arteries and the widening of my waist -- and, no doubt, shortening my life and my time-integrated pleasure.
I can't even act rationally in my own life, yet I hope that humanity learns to act rationally.
I am irrational enough to hope and work for such rationality, but I am not irrational enough to expect it.
___________________________________________________
Ken Caldeira
Carnegie Institution Dept of Global Ecology
260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA
kcal...@ciw.edu; kcal...@stanford.edu
Unfortunately, we may come to a time when not intentionally interfering with the climate system at large scale will be even more awful.
(Some think we have already reached that point.)
Does anticipating the possibility of such an outcome make it more likely?
Humans evolved in an environment where long-term planning meant storing enough nuts to survive the harsh winter, where thinking on large spatial scales meant worrying about the village in the next valley. Our brains are not designed to respond emotionally to problems with large temporal and spatial scales, so worrying about such problems remains endemic to eggheads.
Can humanity as a whole become sensitized to problems where the relevant temporal scales are decades to millennia, where the relevant spatial scale is global?
It is possible, but last night I ate a tasty, but fatty, morsel. Although I knew intellectually that it would likely shorten my life and that I was not optimizing my long-term well being, my personal temporal discount rate was temporarily increased by the sight and smell of that mouthwatering morsel, and I gave in, popping it in my mouth, stimulating the nerve endings in my sensory systems, momentarily activating pleasure centers in my brain, but adding incrementally to the narrowing of my arteries and the widening of my waist -- and, no doubt, shortening my life and my time-integrated pleasure.
I can't even act rationally in my own life, yet I hope that humanity learns to act rationally.
I am irrational enough to hope and work for such rationality, but I am not irrational enough to expect it.
___________________________________________________
Ken Caldeira
Carnegie Institution Dept of Global Ecology
260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA
Neil Farbstein
Oct 31, 2009, 7:20:58 PM10/31/09
to geoengineering
I used to be surprised when people acted rationalylly now I'm not. The
age of unreason seems to be declining in intensity. I always hear
arguments that preparing for the worst scenario, a runaway greenhouse
effect will lead to a slow down measures like buildinbg solar enrgy
plants in favor of shifting resources to geo engineering instead of
funding all options. People in this generation are much more myopic
about the future than past generations. They care about hedonistic
pleasure and getting ahead and not much else. Every where I go i
notice people becoming conscious of green issues and there are much
less arguments about the existence oif the greenhouse effect. It was
71 in New York this afternoon, probably a new high.
On Oct 31, 6:58 pm, Ken Caldeira <kcalde...@carnegie.stanford.edu>
wrote:
> kcalde...@ciw.edu; kcalde...@stanford.eduhttp://dge.stanford.edu/DGE/CIWDGE/labs/caldeiralab
> > geoengi...@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *John Nissen
> > *Sent:* Saturday, October 31, 2009 9:35 AM
> > *To:* j...@etcgroup.org
> > *Cc:* oemor...@googlemail.com; geoengineering
>
> > *Subject:* [geo] Re: Arguments against geoengineering
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
age of unreason seems to be declining in intensity. I always hear
arguments that preparing for the worst scenario, a runaway greenhouse
effect will lead to a slow down measures like buildinbg solar enrgy
plants in favor of shifting resources to geo engineering instead of
funding all options. People in this generation are much more myopic
about the future than past generations. They care about hedonistic
pleasure and getting ahead and not much else. Every where I go i
notice people becoming conscious of green issues and there are much
less arguments about the existence oif the greenhouse effect. It was
71 in New York this afternoon, probably a new high.
On Oct 31, 6:58 pm, Ken Caldeira <kcalde...@carnegie.stanford.edu>
wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 31, 2009 at 1:07 PM, Eugene I. Gordon <euggor...@comcast.net>wrote:
>
>
>
> > Well stated. Moreover, the science of global warming is simply not well
> > established or reliable so one cannot really predict the extent and
> > timescale of global warming; or the global response to CO2 mitigation. We
> > need alternatives to an uncertain and potentially delayed global response. I
> > particularly resonate to the thought that we need all the help we can get
> > and should not simply throw or legislate away potential solutions.
>
> > *From:* geoengi...@googlegroups.com [mailto:
>
>
>
> > Well stated. Moreover, the science of global warming is simply not well
> > established or reliable so one cannot really predict the extent and
> > timescale of global warming; or the global response to CO2 mitigation. We
> > need alternatives to an uncertain and potentially delayed global response. I
> > particularly resonate to the thought that we need all the help we can get
> > and should not simply throw or legislate away potential solutions.
>
> > geoengi...@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *John Nissen
> > *Sent:* Saturday, October 31, 2009 9:35 AM
> > *To:* j...@etcgroup.org
> > *Cc:* oemor...@googlemail.com; geoengineering
>
> > *Subject:* [geo] Re: Arguments against geoengineering
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Hawkins, Dave
Oct 31, 2009, 7:32:53 PM10/31/09
to kcal...@carnegie.stanford.edu, eugg...@comcast.net, j...@cloudworld.co.uk, j...@etcgroup.org, oemo...@googlemail.com, geoengineering
Quoting Mark Twain:
"The way to keep your health is to eat what you don't want,
drink what you don't like, and do what you'd rather not."
From: geoengi...@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengi...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Ken Caldeira
Sent: Saturday, October 31, 2009 6:59 PM
To: eugg...@comcast.net
Cc: j...@cloudworld.co.uk; j...@etcgroup.org; oemo...@googlemail.com; geoengineering
Veli Albert Kallio
Oct 31, 2009, 9:45:29 PM10/31/09
to pro...@worldnet.att.net, Geoengineering FIPC
Neil & Ken, many thanks for your very beautiful and philosophic messages earlier. May I add some more spice, cinnamon and pepper.
Comment >> Neil, not in NYC only. Heat waves are occurring almost everywhere - people are starting to see it - just about everywhere.
At the 62nd United Nations General Assembly session in New York City in September, I received invitation to Egypt to discuss about the sea level rise and the First Nations concerns and how it could affect Egypt. When I returned last week Tuesday from Alexandria, the temperature there was hovering between +30-40C, rather usual in July-August but not at the end of October. People said they were typically wearing pullovers in late October, not sweating in a heat wave. So, I thought I was extremely lucky to talk them about climate change in a heat wave and thought that it is not only Arctic that is changing. Now I think these spells are noticeably more frequent in most places in the world.
Going back to the United Nations 45th General Assembly, I want to take one brief word on geoengineering from the perspective of the proposition UNGA 101292 nations, the First Nations, who challenged the powerful group of the Western Nations with their native histories.
If, and only if, their proposition of the ice age ending not by the ice sheets melting peacefully in situ over 15 millennia from the Last Glacial Maximu to Youngest Dryas, but by the warmed and wet ice sheets loosing their footing on elevated grounds and sliding suddenly into sea, this causing the claimed sudden sea level jumps and the rapid "Dryas" coolings as disintegrated sheets melted into sea (and in process cooling the water and the climate almost instantaneously within weeks of the ice sheet land containment failure).
The worry of the First Nations was that tremendous mayhem comes just like the ice age ended with the end of ice age occurring in Greenland:
the sea flooding and climate enormously cooling. What would people demand about geoengineering if this happens? No geoengineering please, its too cold. IN MY VIEW JUST THE OPPOSITE NEEDS TO BE DONE. (I suggest it in advance on purpose, as anything is easy as afterthought.)
If Greenland ice sheet ever destabilised the way Indigenous Peoples World Summit stipulated to the United Nations General Assembly*, the answer for the cooling, is simply: we need more cooling. Not warming. WHY? If Greenland collapsed, then the obvious is that as soon as the warming resumes, then another glaciers will do the same. IF SO, THE RIGHT ANSWER IS MORE COOLING FOR "THE LAST DRYAS" COOLING. -Unless you want to see another ice sheet like the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, to do the same. It is important to remind that if this event was there, Greenland did collapse due to abundance of anthropogenic greenhouse gases not for the lack of them. The historic cold released at once in the Dryas ice sheet discharge events will make public unduly worried about nonsense like the onset new ice age and resist efforts to intensify cooling. But this to me would be the last opportunity (despite of all the coastal chaos) to catch up with the losened threat.
Be forewarned on this and do not get trapped by the populist left-to-right, right-to-left fear of ice age if this eventuality ever materialised.
Please note His Excellency President Evo Morales Ava who as a statesman (and the first American Indian head of state for 432 years) acts as an unofficial speech at the meeting in Podznan preparing for the Copenhagen climate summit. Despite of their huge spatial separations of 10,000 kilometres or more, the collapse of the Laurentide Ice Sheet in North America, the Weischelian Ice Sheets in Europe, also saw the collapse of the Patagonian Ice Sheet on tip of South America. Thus, the President Morales saw it likely if Greenland Ice Sheets collapses almost certainly the ice losses are replicated in the Antarctica, thus his pessimism of 60% world's population losing their homes to the rising seas.
Things in science are also political. The western scientist have told to the developing nations they will suffer first from climate change. When they come back with what the western nations told them about it, it is nothing more than a playback of western science. When the sailors told Galileo Galilee that moon was so big and clear in their telescopes (used for navigation, not for star-watching), Galileo wanted to build a really big one to see the stars big. He made many interesting discoveries, but alas no astronomy professor in leading European universities had time to listen him and spend a couple of nights with him to see 4 Jovian moons revolving round Jupiter and the rings around Saturn. Alas, they tried to shun him and say that there is no place for telescope in astronomy. The idea of moons revolving Jupiter was too scary. The First Nations feel this same betrayal of their ancient recollections wanted for closer inspections and scrutiny. Was it 400 years ago this year?
Recognising the following shortcomings of the human mind, the advisor of the former leader, Lheonid Brezhnev, to the U.S.S.R. who is himself a geoengineer, the author of the last U.S.S.R. push to turn Siberia's rivers to south (partly stopped on fears of shortening growth seasons and perhaps inducing ice age). It isn't Galileo 400 years ago, just 20 years ago Russian economists and American economist could not agree anything how economy should be run. As a familiar of these wars between these the schools of thought, he is supporter of our investigations to challenge the Western Nations (and Russia's current own view of ice age which is an effective play-back and import from the west).
There is a risk that 270 indigenous nations do recall something what happened before Holocene stability. Professor Sir Ghillean Prance, ethnobotanist and the retired director of Royal Botanical Gardens at Kew supports some of our causative hypothesis elements, and nominated me on my efforts for the last year's international Guru Nanak Peace Prize (for sea level rise risks for global security and economic stability).
(*Please note that this kind of matter cannot be hidden, it will come up as this "heresy" was once put onto the floor of the United Nations General Assembly by another major world nations body, however unconventional or heretic idea it is, it will not disappear for good or bad.)
My last word on this subject (I do not want to steal discussion on basis of some little-known hypothesis from the First Nations) is that, IF, Greenland Ice Sheet land containment did occur, it would be the right time to cool climate even more to get a deep freeze, otherwise, we will just see the temporarily cooled ocean re-warming and then the next ice sheets go the same way as per President Morales. Most likely the sudden sea level jump would create teleconnection to Ronne and Ross and other Antarctic Ice Shelves, unable to be bent metres upwards, more ice from glaciers behind would follow and strongly coupled southern cooling due to many ice shelve break ups as sea bends ice shelves.
I am not willing to discuss these indigenous heresies put to the UN General Assembly anymore, but I do find it plausible that Greenland and other ice sheets might behave same way as the snow on top of my house roof when its starts melting, a few drips of water, and ice down.
Ever so challenging of the conventions and comfort zones...
With kind regards,
Veli Albert Kallio, FRGS
> Date: Sat, 31 Oct 2009 16:20:58 -0700
> Subject: [geo] Re: Arguments against geoengineering
> From: pro...@worldnet.att.net
> To: geoengi...@googlegroups.com
Comment >> Neil, not in NYC only. Heat waves are occurring almost everywhere - people are starting to see it - just about everywhere.
At the 62nd United Nations General Assembly session in New York City in September, I received invitation to Egypt to discuss about the sea level rise and the First Nations concerns and how it could affect Egypt. When I returned last week Tuesday from Alexandria, the temperature there was hovering between +30-40C, rather usual in July-August but not at the end of October. People said they were typically wearing pullovers in late October, not sweating in a heat wave. So, I thought I was extremely lucky to talk them about climate change in a heat wave and thought that it is not only Arctic that is changing. Now I think these spells are noticeably more frequent in most places in the world.
Going back to the United Nations 45th General Assembly, I want to take one brief word on geoengineering from the perspective of the proposition UNGA 101292 nations, the First Nations, who challenged the powerful group of the Western Nations with their native histories.
If, and only if, their proposition of the ice age ending not by the ice sheets melting peacefully in situ over 15 millennia from the Last Glacial Maximu to Youngest Dryas, but by the warmed and wet ice sheets loosing their footing on elevated grounds and sliding suddenly into sea, this causing the claimed sudden sea level jumps and the rapid "Dryas" coolings as disintegrated sheets melted into sea (and in process cooling the water and the climate almost instantaneously within weeks of the ice sheet land containment failure).
The worry of the First Nations was that tremendous mayhem comes just like the ice age ended with the end of ice age occurring in Greenland:
the sea flooding and climate enormously cooling. What would people demand about geoengineering if this happens? No geoengineering please, its too cold. IN MY VIEW JUST THE OPPOSITE NEEDS TO BE DONE. (I suggest it in advance on purpose, as anything is easy as afterthought.)
If Greenland ice sheet ever destabilised the way Indigenous Peoples World Summit stipulated to the United Nations General Assembly*, the answer for the cooling, is simply: we need more cooling. Not warming. WHY? If Greenland collapsed, then the obvious is that as soon as the warming resumes, then another glaciers will do the same. IF SO, THE RIGHT ANSWER IS MORE COOLING FOR "THE LAST DRYAS" COOLING. -Unless you want to see another ice sheet like the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, to do the same. It is important to remind that if this event was there, Greenland did collapse due to abundance of anthropogenic greenhouse gases not for the lack of them. The historic cold released at once in the Dryas ice sheet discharge events will make public unduly worried about nonsense like the onset new ice age and resist efforts to intensify cooling. But this to me would be the last opportunity (despite of all the coastal chaos) to catch up with the losened threat.
Be forewarned on this and do not get trapped by the populist left-to-right, right-to-left fear of ice age if this eventuality ever materialised.
Please note His Excellency President Evo Morales Ava who as a statesman (and the first American Indian head of state for 432 years) acts as an unofficial speech at the meeting in Podznan preparing for the Copenhagen climate summit. Despite of their huge spatial separations of 10,000 kilometres or more, the collapse of the Laurentide Ice Sheet in North America, the Weischelian Ice Sheets in Europe, also saw the collapse of the Patagonian Ice Sheet on tip of South America. Thus, the President Morales saw it likely if Greenland Ice Sheets collapses almost certainly the ice losses are replicated in the Antarctica, thus his pessimism of 60% world's population losing their homes to the rising seas.
Things in science are also political. The western scientist have told to the developing nations they will suffer first from climate change. When they come back with what the western nations told them about it, it is nothing more than a playback of western science. When the sailors told Galileo Galilee that moon was so big and clear in their telescopes (used for navigation, not for star-watching), Galileo wanted to build a really big one to see the stars big. He made many interesting discoveries, but alas no astronomy professor in leading European universities had time to listen him and spend a couple of nights with him to see 4 Jovian moons revolving round Jupiter and the rings around Saturn. Alas, they tried to shun him and say that there is no place for telescope in astronomy. The idea of moons revolving Jupiter was too scary. The First Nations feel this same betrayal of their ancient recollections wanted for closer inspections and scrutiny. Was it 400 years ago this year?
Recognising the following shortcomings of the human mind, the advisor of the former leader, Lheonid Brezhnev, to the U.S.S.R. who is himself a geoengineer, the author of the last U.S.S.R. push to turn Siberia's rivers to south (partly stopped on fears of shortening growth seasons and perhaps inducing ice age). It isn't Galileo 400 years ago, just 20 years ago Russian economists and American economist could not agree anything how economy should be run. As a familiar of these wars between these the schools of thought, he is supporter of our investigations to challenge the Western Nations (and Russia's current own view of ice age which is an effective play-back and import from the west).
There is a risk that 270 indigenous nations do recall something what happened before Holocene stability. Professor Sir Ghillean Prance, ethnobotanist and the retired director of Royal Botanical Gardens at Kew supports some of our causative hypothesis elements, and nominated me on my efforts for the last year's international Guru Nanak Peace Prize (for sea level rise risks for global security and economic stability).
(*Please note that this kind of matter cannot be hidden, it will come up as this "heresy" was once put onto the floor of the United Nations General Assembly by another major world nations body, however unconventional or heretic idea it is, it will not disappear for good or bad.)
My last word on this subject (I do not want to steal discussion on basis of some little-known hypothesis from the First Nations) is that, IF, Greenland Ice Sheet land containment did occur, it would be the right time to cool climate even more to get a deep freeze, otherwise, we will just see the temporarily cooled ocean re-warming and then the next ice sheets go the same way as per President Morales. Most likely the sudden sea level jump would create teleconnection to Ronne and Ross and other Antarctic Ice Shelves, unable to be bent metres upwards, more ice from glaciers behind would follow and strongly coupled southern cooling due to many ice shelve break ups as sea bends ice shelves.
I am not willing to discuss these indigenous heresies put to the UN General Assembly anymore, but I do find it plausible that Greenland and other ice sheets might behave same way as the snow on top of my house roof when its starts melting, a few drips of water, and ice down.
Ever so challenging of the conventions and comfort zones...
With kind regards,
Veli Albert Kallio, FRGS
> Date: Sat, 31 Oct 2009 16:20:58 -0700
> Subject: [geo] Re: Arguments against geoengineering
> From: pro...@worldnet.att.net
> To: geoengi...@googlegroups.com
Peter Read
Nov 1, 2009, 12:34:27 AM11/1/09
to kcal...@carnegie.stanford.edu, glynlr...@gmail.com, oemo...@googlemail.com, David Keith, J...@etcgroup.org, geoengineering
Certainly I'm not a taker for that wager Ken --
China, India, South Africa all with vast coal reserves and offered no
significant help from the 'North' to deploy CCS will certainly ensure you would
win. Which makes it all the more urgent to start thinking about getting C
out of the atmosphere and putting it somewhere safer.
This makes the recent issue of ERL particularly
disappointing - the editorial vision seems to be limited to SRM which Glyn says
would be 'terrible'. Why ? Not stated but maybe he shares my view that
increasing ocean acidification is terrible. But why not put it up out of
power stations and suck it down elsewhwere if that is the cost effective
strategy? What matters is how much is in the atmosphere and for how long,
not how it gets in or out - if I don't misinterpret I think that's what you are
saying Glyn.
So we must hope that the further papers on the
topic promised by the ERL editors provide some insight into carbon stock
management (CSM), or GHG Remediation as it seems to be called on this
list. If not, the agreed most cost-effective and safe way of dealing with
climatic change seems likely to fall between the two stools of the emissions
reductions true believers and technocratic SRM. Agreed that is by the
Royal Society and Lenton and Vaughan, despite the RS blind spot as regards
biochar.
Not that I object to SRM, a priori, and certainly
not to researching it -- it is useful to distinguish between don't know
(ignorance) and pure bloody minded won't know (stupidity). There seems to
be substantial grounds for being prepared for urgent deployment of SRM in
the event that fears of positive feedback effects at high latitudes are
confirmed (hopefully before it is too late to do anything about
it).
Before commenting on Oliver's list, augmented by
Glyn, it may be useful to recall a distinction made by the unlamentedly
off-scene Rummy, recalled in some writing I am doing, viz:
What we don’t know can be divided into ‘what we know we don’t know’ and ‘what we don’t know we don’t know’.
For ‘what we don’t know we don’t know’ about potentially dangerous aspects of earth system behaviour, we must accept that these may exist. In that case, a return to conditions that, as regards CO2 concentrations, provided climatic safety for the 8000 years prior to the industrial revolution, provides some uncertain hope – uncertain because we must live with the legacy of the last 200 years, while seeking to unwind it.
As unknown unknowns have, by definition, not been proposed, still less studied, we can only rely on analogy with experience in other areas. For this the ozone hole provides a cautionary tale. Only after the damage was done was theory put together to explain why, at the end of Antarctic winter, ice crystals that formed in very cold conditions at high altitudes over Antarctica could catalyze the action of CFC’s in destroying ozone. Reports from British Antarctic scientists that ozone was depleting fast over their heads were dismissed as instrument error by the NASA coordinators of the global ozone monitoring programme, whose theoretical understanding was of a possible uniform world-wide effect of CFC on ozone. So for decades we must endure a much more severe ozone depletion than would have occurred had the evidence on the ground from the British scientists been given credence over NASA’s incorrect theory. If the Arctic sea ice is disappearing fast, we should be preparing to do about it what seems best, without waiting for full scientific certainty as to why it is happening or how to stop it.
Now a return to pre-industrial CO2 levels
within a few decades might seem both impossible and highly costly to the true
believers, and indeed to the technocrats, both having insulated themselves from
the realities of the natural carbon cycle, which fixes terrestrial biomass
and then lets decay, 10 times as much C as is emitted from fossil
fuels (with additional vast potential over the oceans that cover 80% of the
earth's surface, which I have not studied in any detail) . Augmenting
the fixing and impeding the decay are simply matters of good management and
improved livelihoods for those living on/off the land, requiring no rocket
science. So for as long as the two camps fire salvoes at each other,
ignoring the obvious and potentially widely beneficial carbon stock management
options, our children and grandchildren (if any survive the
climate-cum-land-cum-food-cum-water wars foreseen by Gwynne Dyer) will have good
reason to curse this "Age of Stupid".
That it is both feasible and likely low
cost is apparent from "Holistic Greenhouse Gas Management" downloadable from http://ips.ac.nz/publications/publications/show/205 which also contains the comments of
reviewers 7 and 8 [sic] and my rejoinder (one reviewer
thought that spelling 'principle' as 'principal' was good reason for
rejection). Submitted to Climatic Change in 2005, this was
eventually replaced by my editorial essay "Biosphere carbon stock management"
(http://www.springerlink.com/content/rt798740226381q8/fulltext.pdf) and published as an IPS working
paper.
A second editorial essay "Reducing CO2
levels - so many ways, so few being taken" published electronically in 26ix09
and in print next month, downloadable from Springerlink (DOI
10.1007/s10584-009-9723-y - sorry don't have the URL) gets
us to this "Arguments" thread. And, if I may
say so Jim, it is very nice to have you up front with a viewpoint that can be
debated rather than issuing ill-researched and tendentious analyses such as do
Biofuelswatch.
The first point that "Reducing CO2 levels"
makes, using heuristic arguments, is that even given wildly optimistic
success with emissions reductions, getting to zero emissions in 25 years, the
threat of catastrophic collapse of polar ice masses due to basal lubrication
from surface meltwater is multiplied several-fold over the next half century,
and there are reports of increasingly frequent 'ice nquakes' on Greenland.
It's about a sixfold increase if basal lubrication triggered by the albedo flip
that occurs when lakes of meltwater form and then flow away down crevasses began
in 1980 when we passed Hansen's 350ppm; it's about fourfold if the trigger
was the 320ppm of 1960. It can be cut to a doubling through energetic
deployment of negative emissions systems such as afforestation, BECCS (bioenergy
linked to carbon capture and storage), biochar and agricultural management
designed to raise soil organic matter. Monitoring polar ice masses may
show that doubling to be too much, which is good reason for having the SRM
options well researched and ready for deployment before too late.
Secondly, it recites a selection from the
wide range of things that could be done to simultaneously reduce CO2 levels and
improve environmental conditions and human environments, such as replacing black
carbon emissions from open fire cooking with modernized low cost clean bioenergy
systems. Many of these technologies act also to raise productivity and
soil health in regions that are not currently involved in food production, thus
providing an adaptation strategy in response to the prospective salt water
intrusion of much fertile coastal and delta land. And, by producing
sustainable biomass co-product with enhanced food supplies, the CSM makes
practicable the rapid reductions in emissions that is needed, but which is
inconceivable on the basis of ambient energy technologies such as windmills and
solar.
Not to put too fine a point on it, the
Copenhagen negotiation is about an economic nonsense, as also discussed in the
paper. Peak oil, sustainable economic development and 9 billion
mouths to feed dictate we find a way to direct investment into sustainable land
use improvements. The money has to come from somewhere and policy that
drives energy sector investment into cultivating rather than excavating can do
the trick so long as the policy involves effective North-South partnerships to
ensure the bioenergy is 'done right' and not 'done wrong' to use the words of a
recent Science paper by Tilman et al. The oil industry (excluding the
nationally owned oil firms) invests about $300billion on exploration and
development annually -- should be possible to do quite a lot with that sort
of money.
Turning to Oliver's five
arguments
1 Geo-engineering (SRM)
preparedness may be the only option in the face of mounting risks from
rising CO2 levels. Whether it is going to be needed in additional to CSM
will likely become apparent before 2020. Not to be prepared is folly and a
betrayal of younger generations. As regards
slippery slopes, we are on one and can't get off it by emissions reductions
alone. As regards crowding out research money, very little research is needed of
CSM -- the need is to get on with the job.
2 A priori distrust. If people
have not yet tumbled to the reality that reducing emissions -- decarbonization
-- is extremely difficult and very high cost then they are very slow
learners. They could try reading some of Vaclav Smil's stuff.
Defossilization, and substitution with biofuel is quite easy, which disturbs
these mistrusters whose real motivation seems to be societal reconstruction
rather than dealing with the pressing environmental problems that face us
in a holistic way.
3 Living low impact lives -- try
telling that to the Chinese - or to the rural poor of Africa who are already
leading low impact lives and dying of diseases brought on by cooking over open
fires. Yes, I quite agree these strands need to be separated, and those
who wish to reduce their impact allowed to do so. Meantime let's work out
some plan for those who want, or indeed need, to lead higher impact lives to do
so without disrupting the climate system and related hydrological, biological,
oceanic etc systems. Given 2 above, that entails supplying the energy
system with sustainably produced biofuels.
4 CSM is cleaning up the mess.
Emissions reductions cannot clean up the mess
5 Nature has been substantially
disrupted already - for instance the loss of 2 billion Ha of natural forest
since industrialization. As Laurel might say to Hardy (or was it the other
way round?) - "another fine mess you've got us into". Planting 1 billion
Ha of commercial forest over the next 25 years does not restore biodiversity but
it is nearer to 1750 than simply avoiding deforestation (REDD - which is an
emissions reductions concept, not a CSM concept). If we can manage carbon
successfully, and if we can develop and deploy decarbonized energy systems later
this century, then there will be opportunity to restore biodiversity, colonizing
no longer needed plantation landscapes from reservations of natural ecologies.
As you say Oliver, and given the fine mess, correct environmental action is
complex. Simplistic calls to return to nature are simply silly
6 Glyn's conspiracy theory - I
suppose the exploitation of Mid-East oil and other developing country oil
resources has all along been a left wing plot to impoverish USans, to keep Texas
out of business, and to promote Al Qaeda.
Cheers
Peter
----- Original Message -----From: Ken Caldeira
Sent: Friday, October 30, 2009 6:07 AMSubject: [geo] Re: Arguments against geoengineering
Dan Whaley
Nov 1, 2009, 1:03:58 AM11/1/09
to geoengineering
Watch out... ETC group fights dirty. Read their slanted and
emotionally charged press releases. A number of people in this
community have been bitten by opening up to them and then cut off at
the knees later-- in particular Victor Smetacek.
Dan
> ...
>
> read more »
emotionally charged press releases. A number of people in this
community have been bitten by opening up to them and then cut off at
the knees later-- in particular Victor Smetacek.
Dan
>
> read more »
Dan Whaley
Nov 1, 2009, 1:13:15 AM11/1/09
to geoengineering
To all...
Many apologies for this last post. It was meant as a private note to Ron above.
It is clearly not in keeping with the gentlemanly demeanor of this group.
Dan
Many apologies for this last post. It was meant as a private note to Ron above.
It is clearly not in keeping with the gentlemanly demeanor of this group.
Dan
Ron Larson
Nov 1, 2009, 5:29:58 AM11/1/09
to dan.w...@gmail.com, j...@etcgroup.org, geoengineering
Dan: Thanks for the (intended) private warning. I have (fortunately
only once) had the same experience of an unintended public release of an
intended private message. No fun.
only once) had the same experience of an unintended public release of an
intended private message. No fun.
Jim: I know much too little about your etcgroup, but assume you want
to reverse Dan's opinion. I look forward to your response to my
personal (but public) 7-point Friday response message to you. I need to
repeat to you and all that the BFW anti-Biochar messages looks
reasonable until you delve into them. I think etcgroup will regret
assuming that this (never peer-reviewed) BFW material is accurate.
Please do your own independent study of the Biochar topic and/or if so,
please send me and this full list the URL link.
Ron
Dan Whaley wrote:
> To all...
>
> Many apologies for this last post. It was meant as a private note to
> Ron above.
>
> It is clearly not in keeping with the gentlemanly demeanor of this
> group.
>
> Dan
>
> On Sat, Oct 31, 2009 at 11:03 PM, Dan Whaley <dan.w...@gmail.com
> <mailto:dan.w...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>
> Watch out... ETC group fights dirty. Read their slanted and
> emotionally charged press releases. A number of people in this
> community have been bitten by opening up to them and then cut off at
> the knees later-- in particular Victor Smetacek.
>
> Dan
>
> On Oct 30, 10:16 pm, Ron Larson <rongretlar...@comcast.net
> <mailto:rongretlar...@comcast.net>> wrote:
> > Jim:
> >
> > I like your analysis; I can see that you and etcgroup have given
>
<snip remainder>
David Keith
Nov 2, 2009, 1:07:46 PM11/2/09
to christop...@gmail.com, geoengineering
I think the idea that fossil resources will provide a meaningful constraint on CO2 emissions does not pass a fact checker's laugh test. We have enough carbon within the growing reach or our extraction technologies to push CO2 concentrations beyond 5,000 towards 10,000 ppm.
For my own lay-language debunking of this idea in a popular book see:
Keith, David. (2009) Dangerous Abundance. IN: Homer-Dixon, T. & Garrison, N. (Eds.) Carbon Shift: How The Twin Crises Of Oil Depletion And Climate Change Will Define The Future, Toronto: Random House of Canada, pp26-57.
Available at: http://people.ucalgary.ca/~keith/Preprints.html.
-David
-----Original Message-----
From: geoengi...@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengi...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Christopher Mims
Sent: October 30, 2009 7:35 AM
To: geoengineering
Subject: [geo] Re: Arguments against geoengineering
For my own lay-language debunking of this idea in a popular book see:
Keith, David. (2009) Dangerous Abundance. IN: Homer-Dixon, T. & Garrison, N. (Eds.) Carbon Shift: How The Twin Crises Of Oil Depletion And Climate Change Will Define The Future, Toronto: Random House of Canada, pp26-57.
Available at: http://people.ucalgary.ca/~keith/Preprints.html.
-David
-----Original Message-----
From: geoengi...@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengi...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Christopher Mims
Sent: October 30, 2009 7:35 AM
To: geoengineering
Subject: [geo] Re: Arguments against geoengineering
Emissions in 2020 > emissions in 2010 also assumes that there is
nothing that would limit the material inputs that will lead to those
emissions. You don't have to be a disciple of 'limits to growth' to
recognize that at some point, we'll start bumping our head against a
ceiling determined by the carrying capacity of the planet.
Even the conservative IEA believes that maximum historical production
of liquid fuels ("peak oil") will arrive within the next decade.
If you believe more pessimistic estimates, net production of liquid
fuels has already peaked (2008) and our civilization's near total
dependence on oil for transportation means emissions from the
transportation sector will only shrink going forward.
Whether or not any of this is true is anyone's guess - but it is an
nothing that would limit the material inputs that will lead to those
emissions. You don't have to be a disciple of 'limits to growth' to
recognize that at some point, we'll start bumping our head against a
ceiling determined by the carrying capacity of the planet.
Even the conservative IEA believes that maximum historical production
of liquid fuels ("peak oil") will arrive within the next decade.
If you believe more pessimistic estimates, net production of liquid
fuels has already peaked (2008) and our civilization's near total
dependence on oil for transportation means emissions from the
transportation sector will only shrink going forward.
example of an X factor, beyond technology, that is within the realm of
possibility.
(Another, and related, X factor is a second or an ongoing global
recession. Just look at what the one we're in now did to global CO2
emissions.)
In other words, legislation and conservation is not the only thing
that will determine maximum annual CO2 emissions from anthropogenic
sources - in fact these might be the two factors that are *least*
possibility.
(Another, and related, X factor is a second or an ongoing global
recession. Just look at what the one we're in now did to global CO2
emissions.)
In other words, legislation and conservation is not the only thing
that will determine maximum annual CO2 emissions from anthropogenic
Glyn Roberts
Nov 2, 2009, 2:13:02 PM11/2/09
to Peter Read, kcal...@carnegie.stanford.edu, oemo...@googlemail.com, David Keith, J...@etcgroup.org, geoengineering
In Ken's 2008 presentation "geoengineering earth's climate"
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vzMVfJKJK_c)
he nicely captures the 4 steps to stabilize the earth's climate as:
1 Diminish end-use energy demand
2 Produce energy without carbon emission
3 Remove radiatively active gasses from atmosphere
4 Reduce amount of solar radiation absorbed
where:
1 + 2 = GHG Mitigation (2 includes CCS technology)
3 = GHG Remediation (aka CSM, CDR)
1 + 2 + 3 = long wavelength management
4 = SRM = climate intervention = short wavelength management
'long wavelength management' addresses the root cause, whereas SRM
addresses one of the symptoms -- temperature (though simulations seem
to suggest precip. is 'repaired' too).
My feeling is we need to exhaust (pardon the pun) all long wavelength
options as aggressively as possible until it becomes clear that we've
lost the battle and so we need to revert to climate intervention. And
we need to do so also because it may ultimately be impossible to heard
the world's geopolitical cats to agree to a meaningfully large scale
SRM program -- especially when it needs agreements/plans to
fund/maintain/manage indefinitely into the future (who owns the
thermostat?) And the world may be on the brink of war --
geopolitically destabilized by the symptoms of the very climate crisis
which we need to respond to.
I think if the right carbon market incentives were put in place
(admittedly no small task) to activate the private sector to compete
and innovate, we may find the cost of GHG remediation drops like
Moore's Law, or like the exponential drop in DNA sequencing time as
experienced in the Human Genome Project. It could eventually add only
a relatively small cost of doing business for carbon intensive
industries to become carbon neutral/negative.
But that will take a decade or two to build momentum and the task may
ultimately prove to be as frustratingly difficult as it has been in
getting fusion reactors to work. So I think SRM research is still a
very high priority; as a back-up if the global temperature begins to
destabilize. Maybe all the effort in Remediation means a more gentle
application of SRM will be viable (a dash of Arctic albedo enhancement
for example)
Hi Peter: thanks you've captured my points exactly.
One comment: you say "What matters is how much is in the atmosphere
and for how long, not how it gets in or out." At first glance a
company that puts say 1Mt-C/mo and then buys GHG Remediation
credits/offsets to remove this footprint will still have a net warming
due to the time delay between the emission & remediation. This is
fixed simply by shifting the market mechanism to where the company
must buy credits/offsets for future rights to emit. The goal would be
to structure it to have zero net forcing effect.
I look forward to reading your paper.
Cheers,
Glyn
Peter Read <pre...@attglobal.net>
kcal...@carnegie.stanford.edu, oemo...@googlemail.com, David Keith
<ke...@ucalgary.ca>, J...@etcgroup.org, geoengineering
<geoengi...@googlegroups.com>
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vzMVfJKJK_c)
he nicely captures the 4 steps to stabilize the earth's climate as:
1 Diminish end-use energy demand
2 Produce energy without carbon emission
3 Remove radiatively active gasses from atmosphere
4 Reduce amount of solar radiation absorbed
where:
1 + 2 = GHG Mitigation (2 includes CCS technology)
3 = GHG Remediation (aka CSM, CDR)
1 + 2 + 3 = long wavelength management
4 = SRM = climate intervention = short wavelength management
'long wavelength management' addresses the root cause, whereas SRM
addresses one of the symptoms -- temperature (though simulations seem
to suggest precip. is 'repaired' too).
My feeling is we need to exhaust (pardon the pun) all long wavelength
options as aggressively as possible until it becomes clear that we've
lost the battle and so we need to revert to climate intervention. And
we need to do so also because it may ultimately be impossible to heard
the world's geopolitical cats to agree to a meaningfully large scale
SRM program -- especially when it needs agreements/plans to
fund/maintain/manage indefinitely into the future (who owns the
thermostat?) And the world may be on the brink of war --
geopolitically destabilized by the symptoms of the very climate crisis
which we need to respond to.
I think if the right carbon market incentives were put in place
(admittedly no small task) to activate the private sector to compete
and innovate, we may find the cost of GHG remediation drops like
Moore's Law, or like the exponential drop in DNA sequencing time as
experienced in the Human Genome Project. It could eventually add only
a relatively small cost of doing business for carbon intensive
industries to become carbon neutral/negative.
But that will take a decade or two to build momentum and the task may
ultimately prove to be as frustratingly difficult as it has been in
getting fusion reactors to work. So I think SRM research is still a
very high priority; as a back-up if the global temperature begins to
destabilize. Maybe all the effort in Remediation means a more gentle
application of SRM will be viable (a dash of Arctic albedo enhancement
for example)
Hi Peter: thanks you've captured my points exactly.
One comment: you say "What matters is how much is in the atmosphere
and for how long, not how it gets in or out." At first glance a
company that puts say 1Mt-C/mo and then buys GHG Remediation
credits/offsets to remove this footprint will still have a net warming
due to the time delay between the emission & remediation. This is
fixed simply by shifting the market mechanism to where the company
must buy credits/offsets for future rights to emit. The goal would be
to structure it to have zero net forcing effect.
I look forward to reading your paper.
Cheers,
Glyn
Peter Read <pre...@attglobal.net>
kcal...@carnegie.stanford.edu, oemo...@googlemail.com, David Keith
<ke...@ucalgary.ca>, J...@etcgroup.org, geoengineering
<geoengi...@googlegroups.com>
Glyn Roberts
Nov 2, 2009, 3:56:15 PM11/2/09
to Peter Read, kcal...@carnegie.stanford.edu, oemo...@googlemail.com, David Keith, J...@etcgroup.org, geoengineering
Peter, all:
I didn't scan all the way down to the bottom of Peter's email and
missed the interpretation of "Glyn's conspiracy theory" Yikes! It's
all messed up!
Not to worry, I'll be more clear.
You interpreted my meaning to be: "I suppose the exploitation of
Mid-East oil and other developing country oil resources has all along
been a left wing plot to impoverish USans, to keep Texas out of
business, and to promote Al Qaeda."
'Ouch' no, no, no. Let me approach this differently...
In America many people are skeptical about the reality of climate
change. A year ago I did a lot of research trying to understand why,
in the face of overwhelming evidence, they don't believe -- and the
numbers are growing. The answer I came up with is complex, but a big
part of it is:
The poor are scared. In a land of wealth, too many are struggling to
get by; to keep their families comfortable, and to stay employed in a
prolonged economic downturn with high unemployment. In fact, in many
southern states the poverty rates are above 16% [1] and it seems fair
to assume that an even larger number are doing only slightly better
than technical 'poverty'. They resent government and worse yet they
hate the UN. They blame their government for making them carry too
high of a tax burden. And they feel that the government keeps
dreaming up new reasons to tax them more. They've stopped believing
in anything that means more taxes or higher costs. "It's all just big
government that wants to tax and spend." The Royal Society report
throws out the 'T' word (i.e., $trillions of dollars to fix climate
change) -- it's a lot cheaper and easier to believe it's a lie.
Why is this skepticism accelerating? A critical mass tipping point?
The political angle is too fraught with minefields so I'll just stick to facts:
According to Pew Research Center (October 25th, 2009 [2])
"Percent not believing warming is happening"
Republicans: ~56%
Democrats: ~18%
cheers,
Glyn
[2]
Disturbing Trends in What Americans Believe about Climate Change
http://sustainablog.org/2009/10/25/disturbing-trends-in-what-americans-believe-about-climate-change/
Peter Read
Nov 2, 2009, 4:58:07 PM11/2/09
to glynlr...@gmail.com, kcal...@carnegie.stanford.edu, oemo...@googlemail.com, David Keith, J...@etcgroup.org, geoengineering
Apologies
My comment re Mid east oil and Texas was intendedly ironic
But irony always a dangerous way to go unless in eyeball contact
I don't doubt you have the measure of increasing denialism correctly
portrayed
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Version: 8.5.424 / Virus Database: 270.14.45/2476 - Release Date: 11/02/09
07:51:00
olo
My comment re Mid east oil and Texas was intendedly ironic
But irony always a dangerous way to go unless in eyeball contact
I don't doubt you have the measure of increasing denialism correctly
portrayed
Version: 8.5.424 / Virus Database: 270.14.45/2476 - Release Date: 11/02/09
07:51:00
olo
Glyn Roberts
Nov 2, 2009, 5:09:37 PM11/2/09
to Peter Read, kcal...@carnegie.stanford.edu, oemo...@googlemail.com, David Keith, J...@etcgroup.org, geoengineering
Whew. I'll be ready for you're twisted wit next time!
cheers,
Glyn
cheers,
Glyn
jim thomas
Nov 2, 2009, 5:41:15 PM11/2/09
to rongre...@comcast.net, geoengineering
Dear Ron (et al)
Sorry this will be a too-short reply as I am currently in the middle
of of all day meetings. I have no expectation of reversing Dans
opinion - there is a significant values gulf between us and I strongly
disagree with his company's core business and operating assumptions. I
don't believe we "fight dirty" in any way. Yes we issue press
releases where we say it as we see it. these are important issues. We
don't have the millions of dollars in venture funding that Dan has at
his disposal to buy up scientists, fund professional lobbyists and
attempt to skew the debate that way.
You are correct that ETC Group have only touched briefly on biochar in
our own publications and have relied a lot on the research and
analysis of Biofuelswatch who we have worked closely with as allies on
issues beyond geoengineering. We find them reasonable and trustworthy
and for what its worth it seems so did the Royal Society working
group. My personal view is that some small scale use of certain
pyrolised biomass mixtures as soil ammendments for fertility might
prove useful and safe to some farmers within their own farm
management plans- but thats hardly the geo-scale industrial-driven
'biochar' model we are seeing being constructed and sold under the
aegis of the IBI. Our view on biochar is something like the following:
- ETC group is highly skeptical of any approach that assumes there can
be found significant quantities of additional biomass available for
greenhouse gas sequestration purposes- whether to bury in soils, dump
in oceans, shoot into outer space or whatever. The starting point
from a biodiversity view has to be that there is no extra biomass to
play with. Whichever figure for current human appropriation of net
primary productivity (HANPP) you choose to accept its fairly clear
that we have collectively already bust the bank on sustainably
appropriating plant matter and are now deeply into the process of
destroying the basic ecosystem functions of most ecosystem types not
to mention the underlying resilience of those ecosystems to deal with
climatic and other shocks. Rolling out biochar on a large enough scale
to be a viable geoengineering technology means a significant expansion
of the agrofrontier - either expanding large scale plantation
agriculture and/or massive appropriation of so-called "marginal
lands" (actually lands where marginalised, poor and indigenous
communities live and farm), As is well understood in the literature
(eg Millenium Ecosystem Assesment, recent work by Searchinger et al
etc..), land use change of this sort is amongst the largest
contributors of greenhouse gas emissions, one of the most significant
drivers of biodiversity loss (more so than climate change) and the
source of historical and ongoing injustices, particularly landlessness.
- We are similarly skeptical of political claims for biochar-as-a-
class promising to be the miracle fertilizer that can enhance primary
production beyond its already high levels. The actual 'Biochar' that
we are seeing in the market is such a wide range of different
pyrolised materials, most with unproven efficacy and mixed
toxicities, that its hard to believe the sweeping claims being made
for them and and particularly laughable to see them compared to terra
preta ( how Eternagreen biochar made from municipal waste products
can in any way compare with what amazonian indigenous communities
might have added to their soils several thousand years ago is beyond
me). I understand that there are indigenous communities who take
great exception to their traditional knowledge being hijacked and
misrepresented in this way to further the agenda of what are
basically a set of glorified incineration companies inventing a new
market for themselves. I don't blame them.
- The real world application of biochar as I've seen it reported here
in Quebec (dynamotive/blue leaf trials) appears to release a
worryingly large quantity of fine particulate black carbon into the
atmosphere - black carbon of this sort has serious climate forcing
implications that i've not yet seen addressed or modelled by biochar
proponents yet. If carried out on a geo-engineering scale this sort of
release of black carbon could as likely worsen rather than help the
climate situation.
- I think you and I might have a different take on what constitutes a
grassroots movement - I've never been part of a grassroots movement
with folks like Shell, Alcoa and ADM as co-travellers.. The
grassroots movements we spend time with (peasants, forest communities,
indigenous communities) see biochar as another driver of plantation
agriculture and industrial monoculture that will steal land and
livelihoods from the poor to assuage the climate guilt of the rich. I
know there are very well-meaning northern environmentalists engaged in
trying to tame the biochar hype and make it a 'sustainable' product
but at root the Biochar community as promoted by IBI looks mostly like
a collection of commercially driven charcoal and incineration
companies looking to enhance the value of their product by making
unsubstantiated links to terra preta and then jamming a foot in the
door in the carbon markets ... fertile ground for selling snake oil.
As you may know ETC have been actively opposing the inclusion of
biochar and other soil carbon sequestration strategies in the current
UNFCCC negotiations. Its poor and slanted acounting, wide open to
abuse and involving technologies that haven't even left the nursery
let alone proved themselves in the big wide world.
Sorry this isn't as detailed as you might have liked - its written
quickly. Happy to meet your biochar friends in Montreal but I start
deeply skeptical.
best
Jim
Sorry this will be a too-short reply as I am currently in the middle
of of all day meetings. I have no expectation of reversing Dans
opinion - there is a significant values gulf between us and I strongly
disagree with his company's core business and operating assumptions. I
don't believe we "fight dirty" in any way. Yes we issue press
releases where we say it as we see it. these are important issues. We
don't have the millions of dollars in venture funding that Dan has at
his disposal to buy up scientists, fund professional lobbyists and
attempt to skew the debate that way.
You are correct that ETC Group have only touched briefly on biochar in
our own publications and have relied a lot on the research and
analysis of Biofuelswatch who we have worked closely with as allies on
issues beyond geoengineering. We find them reasonable and trustworthy
and for what its worth it seems so did the Royal Society working
group. My personal view is that some small scale use of certain
pyrolised biomass mixtures as soil ammendments for fertility might
prove useful and safe to some farmers within their own farm
management plans- but thats hardly the geo-scale industrial-driven
'biochar' model we are seeing being constructed and sold under the
aegis of the IBI. Our view on biochar is something like the following:
- ETC group is highly skeptical of any approach that assumes there can
be found significant quantities of additional biomass available for
greenhouse gas sequestration purposes- whether to bury in soils, dump
in oceans, shoot into outer space or whatever. The starting point
from a biodiversity view has to be that there is no extra biomass to
play with. Whichever figure for current human appropriation of net
primary productivity (HANPP) you choose to accept its fairly clear
that we have collectively already bust the bank on sustainably
appropriating plant matter and are now deeply into the process of
destroying the basic ecosystem functions of most ecosystem types not
to mention the underlying resilience of those ecosystems to deal with
climatic and other shocks. Rolling out biochar on a large enough scale
to be a viable geoengineering technology means a significant expansion
of the agrofrontier - either expanding large scale plantation
agriculture and/or massive appropriation of so-called "marginal
lands" (actually lands where marginalised, poor and indigenous
communities live and farm), As is well understood in the literature
(eg Millenium Ecosystem Assesment, recent work by Searchinger et al
etc..), land use change of this sort is amongst the largest
contributors of greenhouse gas emissions, one of the most significant
drivers of biodiversity loss (more so than climate change) and the
source of historical and ongoing injustices, particularly landlessness.
- We are similarly skeptical of political claims for biochar-as-a-
class promising to be the miracle fertilizer that can enhance primary
production beyond its already high levels. The actual 'Biochar' that
we are seeing in the market is such a wide range of different
pyrolised materials, most with unproven efficacy and mixed
toxicities, that its hard to believe the sweeping claims being made
for them and and particularly laughable to see them compared to terra
preta ( how Eternagreen biochar made from municipal waste products
can in any way compare with what amazonian indigenous communities
might have added to their soils several thousand years ago is beyond
me). I understand that there are indigenous communities who take
great exception to their traditional knowledge being hijacked and
misrepresented in this way to further the agenda of what are
basically a set of glorified incineration companies inventing a new
market for themselves. I don't blame them.
- The real world application of biochar as I've seen it reported here
in Quebec (dynamotive/blue leaf trials) appears to release a
worryingly large quantity of fine particulate black carbon into the
atmosphere - black carbon of this sort has serious climate forcing
implications that i've not yet seen addressed or modelled by biochar
proponents yet. If carried out on a geo-engineering scale this sort of
release of black carbon could as likely worsen rather than help the
climate situation.
- I think you and I might have a different take on what constitutes a
grassroots movement - I've never been part of a grassroots movement
with folks like Shell, Alcoa and ADM as co-travellers.. The
grassroots movements we spend time with (peasants, forest communities,
indigenous communities) see biochar as another driver of plantation
agriculture and industrial monoculture that will steal land and
livelihoods from the poor to assuage the climate guilt of the rich. I
know there are very well-meaning northern environmentalists engaged in
trying to tame the biochar hype and make it a 'sustainable' product
but at root the Biochar community as promoted by IBI looks mostly like
a collection of commercially driven charcoal and incineration
companies looking to enhance the value of their product by making
unsubstantiated links to terra preta and then jamming a foot in the
door in the carbon markets ... fertile ground for selling snake oil.
As you may know ETC have been actively opposing the inclusion of
biochar and other soil carbon sequestration strategies in the current
UNFCCC negotiations. Its poor and slanted acounting, wide open to
abuse and involving technologies that haven't even left the nursery
let alone proved themselves in the big wide world.
Sorry this isn't as detailed as you might have liked - its written
quickly. Happy to meet your biochar friends in Montreal but I start
deeply skeptical.
best
Jim
William Fulkerson
Nov 2, 2009, 7:55:07 PM11/2/09
to j...@cloudworld.co.uk, j...@etcgroup.org, oemo...@googlemail.com, geoengineering
Hi folks:
Let's face it. We are entering the age of climate management. We are doing it inadvertantly now through emissions, The negative consequences are forcing us to look at purposeful management of climate to assure the well-being of humans and the environment. As I count them we have only three strategies to apply. The first is mitigation involving reducing emissions and removing GHG's from the atmosphere abiotically or biotically. The second is solar radiation management or earth engineering or geoengineering that one applies to cool the planet or parts of it to avoid great risk such as tipping points (perhaps, for example, the loss of Arctic summer sea ice) because mitigation can't be applied quickly enough. Geographically limited applicaation of solar radiation management is an important possibility as described recently by Mike MacCracken, http://environmentalresearchweb.org/cws/subject/tag=geoengineering The final strategy is adaptation to manage negative consequences not otherwise avoided. We should invest in developing all three including the science of unintended consequences and of global environmental governance. How much should we invest? Ah. there's the question. Economists would say it depends on the ratio of the cost and timing of the bads to the expense and timing of management. We don't know the ratio. It will vary by geography, ecology, economic development and social and cultural conditions. I will bet, however, that the great majority those reading in these Google Group postings would opine that human kind is spending too little by a large factor. But how would "Joe SixPack" vote? Much differently, I would guess. Interestingly, each of these three strategies can be applied more or less independently of the others. They are in a sense orthogonal. Geoengineering can be applied more or less independently of mitigation or adaptation although the intensity of geoengineering can influence the extent of adaptation and the rate of mitigation needed. Assuring human and environmental well-being is the management objective function, and it can even be measured approximately. Can climate change management be optimized to improve well-being? It is easy to be skeptical, but this is the challenge.
Regards,
Bill
Bill Fulkerson, Senior Fellow
Institute for a Secure and Sustainable Environment
University of Tennessee
311 Conference Center Bldg.
Knoxville, TN 37996-4138
865-974-9221, -1838 FAX
Home
865-988-8084; 865-680-0937 CELL
2781 Wheat Road, Lenoir City, TN 37771
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages