What Is Climate Geoengineering? Word Games in the Ongoing Debates Over a Definition
Andrew Lockley
What Is Climate Geoengineering? Word Games in the Ongoing Debates Over a Definition
Wednesday, 12 February 2014 09:23By Rachel Smolker,
Climate geoengineering advocates have long argued over how to actually define the term "geoengineering." The precise details of that definition are important for various reasons, not the least of which is that it will determine what likely is to be subjected to the scrutiny and potentially complex and difficult legal governance processes that such a global scale climate-tweak effort would necessarily involve.Already, as of 2010, the Convention on Biological Diversity, a treaty that 193 UN member countries (all other than the Holy See, Andorra and the United States) have ratified, adopted a de-facto moratorium on climate geoengineering in 2010. That was based in part on previous deliberations and decisions on one particular form of geoengineering, ocean iron fertilization, which also is regulated under theLondon Convention. Those decisions were negotiated and agreed in painstaking process, with each word and its implications carefully weighed in the balance.1 Obviously, there is much need to specify exactly what is geoengineering and, thus, subject to the moratorium or any other legal ruling.For most people, it seems intuitively clear that, for example, spewing sulphate aerosols into the atmosphere - a technology in the category of "solar radiation management" (SRM) clearly would be considered "geoengineering." We would not consider doing that for any other reason or intent - there are known anticipated serious risks and dangers, etc.
Already, as of 2010, the Convention on Biological Diversity, a treaty that 193 UN member countries (all other than the Holy See, Andorra and the United States) have ratified, adopted a de-facto moratorium on climate geoengineering in 2010.
But the distinction is much less clear for other technologies. For example, bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS), large scale afforestation/reforestation, or biochar – these approaches mostly involve using plant biomass and "biosequestration" and fall into the category of carbon dioxide removal (CDR) technologies. They differ in that these technologies also are discussed under the framework of mitigation and adaptation – promoted as beneficial even at smaller scales (arguably). Many view these as less risky and more easily scalable approaches. Scale, Intent and PerceptionDefinition debates have swirled around the importance of scale. For example, planting a few hectares of trees might not be considered geoengineering by most people, but planting a million hectares perhaps would. Especially if those involved vast monocultures of trees genetically engineered and planted specifically to store carbon (for example). Yet if those same million hectares were replanted to restore native forests, most would not consider that geoengineering.Debates also have swirled around the issue of "intention": Is the intent to reduce global greenhouse gas concentrations? Or something else, say offsetting emissions from a facility or an industrial sector or some other source of emissions. Would agroecological farming methods be geoengineering if the farmer is motivated by his understanding of carbon sequestration, but not if his intent were simply to produce decent food? How can "intent" be determined accurately?Some goengineering advocates have argued the terminology is meaningless because we humans have long been intentionally altering the global atmosphere, so why come up with a new term? This argument falls along the lines that we already have messed things up so badly that we shouldn't get into a fuss over whether to engage in something that seems potentially likely to mess them up more.Others, such as James Fleming (author of Fixing the Sky: The Checkered History of Weather and Climate Control"), argue that requiring "intent" as a condition of the definition is slippery because there are plenty of "non climate" reasons that could be used to argue for the use of some geoengineering technologies (military, food security, etc). There are, as well, technologies that involve global-scale "tweaks," but to non-climate systems (e.g. manipulation of nitrogen or water cycles).2The definition debates also have swirled around making climate geoengineering sound more appealing to a public that is clearly repulsed by the idea. That repulsion was articulated humorously by Stephen Colbert in his recent interview with David Keith, and again by Al Gore, who referred to it as "insane, utterly mad and delusional," and yet again by a recent survey study that concluded in an understated manner; "overall public evaluation of climate engineering is negative."Aware of these poor ratings, the term "soft geoengineering" was introduced by the conservative American Enterprise Institute. It states: "In environmental issues, even more than most public policy questions, perception matters. That is why 'soft' geoengineering techniques - less ambitious, less disruptive, and less threatening approaches - are important; they get people used to the basic concepts of geoengineering without scaring them. And in so doing, they expand the scope of the climate policy discussion in important ways."Winning over public acceptance matters, and terminology is key: precisely why we need to be wary and monitor these word games.No ConsensusVirtually every major meeting on the topic of climate geoengineering, it seems, has dedicated time to grappling with the definition. The Royal Society defined geoengineering as "the deliberate and large scale intervention in the Earth's climatic system with the aim of reducing global warming." That definition was adopted by others, for example, including the US Government Accountability Office 2011 report. At the Asilomar conference in 2010, the term "climate intervention" was offered up as a more palatable term than geoengineering. The Bipartisan Policy Center then offered up "climate remediation," defined as "intentional actions taken to counter the climate effects of past greenhouse gas emissions to the atmosphere" (mitigation referring to actions to reduce future emissions). About this, Jeff Goodell (quoted by Joe Romm) states: "The phrase 'climate remediation' is almost as bad as the phrase 'clean coal.' In both cases, it's a phrase that reeks of spin and marketing. And while I can understand why Big Coal wants to push it, I think it was a mistake for this panel to choose this phrase. The idea, of course, is to make geoengineering - or, if you must, climate engineering - sound gentle and comforting. It is not gentle and comforting, it is a big, complex, morally fraught and dangerous idea, and attempts to disguise this with cuddly language are just going to backfire."The Solar Radiation Management Governance Initiative (SRMGI) offers that "SRM" could just as well refer to "sunlight reflection methods." Certainly far more cuddly.3Informally, some very hopeful advocates of geoengineering have even argued that the term "ecological restoration" should be used instead of "climate geoengineering."
Implementation of some technologies would immediately and directly, or eventually and indirectly, very likely have transboundary effects. And then we can ask: were they intended or unintended? How can that be known?
The 2012 IPCC Working Group 1 report described geoengineering in the glossary as follows: "Geoengineering refers to a broad set of methods and technologies that aim to deliberately alter the climate system in order to alleviate the impacts of climate change. Most, but not all, methods seek to either (a) reduce the amount of absorbed solar energy in the climate system (Solar Radiation Management) or (b) increase net carbon sinks from the atmosphere at a scale sufficiently large to alter climate (Carbon Dioxide Removal). Scale and intent are of central importance. Two key characteristics of geoengineering methods of particular concern are that they use or affect the climate system (e.g., atmosphere, land or ocean) globally or regionally and/or could have substantive unintended effects that cross national boundaries. Geoengineering is different from weather modification and ecological engineering, but the boundary can be fuzzy."It is notable that it mentions "unintended effects that cross national boundaries" and "use or affect the climate system globally or regionally." Including terminology regarding transboundary effects is both sensible and nonsensical. On the one hand, it highlights the fact that some approaches are likely to have differential impacts in different regions, raising the potential for quite serious geopolitical concerns and divergent interests. At the same time, the global atmosphere knows no boundaries, even if international laws do.Implementation of some technologies likely would have immediate and direct, or eventual and direct transboundary effects. And then we can ask: Were they intended or unintended? How can that be known? What will the sociopolitical ramifications be? As Jim Thomas from ETC Group points out, this condition regarding transboundary impacts could lead to a case where fertilizing Lake Baikal would not be geoengineering, but fertilizing Lake Malawi would be.A "thought experiment" here is useful: What if Canada decided to engage in very large-scale biochar or BECCS program, in the process wreaking havoc on their forests and biodiversity. Most international law would not consider that a transboundary concern - as they currently do not consider Canada's high rate of deforestation to be any sort of treaty violation. Yet Canada could be considered to be in breach of the Convention on Biological Diversity geoengineering moratorium, because that is, in fact, conditional on biodiversity impacts.
The risks associated with underground "storage" of CO2 are enormous and much of the captured CO2 so far has not been "stored" but rather used for "enhanced oil recovery."
What About Weather?Regarding the issue of weather modification, IPCC correctly indicates the boundaries are fuzzy. A history of research and practice on weather modification already exists, derived in part from military research and development where the ability to stimulate rainfall in particular was found useful to hindering opposing forces in the Vietnam War. Startling and disturbing though it may be, one can today simply google "Weather Modification Incorporated" and find commercial services available ("When most people look up they see clouds. We see potential"). The weather modification industry has its own association and a dedicated journal. Most of its attention is focused on cloud seeding; ETC Group has included it in its rundown of geoengineering technologies - and Fleming similarly supports its inclusion. If weather modification is geoengineering, then we already are engaged. Even now it is becoming a last resort for regions such as the western United States, where drought conditions are severe and worsening.BECCS is among the technologies perhaps most awkwardly poised in debates. IPCC has been a proponent of BECCS, although it does not necessarily - or consistently - identify it as geoengineering. The IPCC special report on renewable energy (2011) claims “Bioenergy technologies coupled with CCS substantially could increase the role of biomass-based GHG mitigation if the geological technologies of CCS can be developed, demonstrated and verified to maintain the stored CO2 over time. These technologies may become a cost-effective indirect mitigation, for instance, through offsets of emission sources that are expensive to mitigate directly.” They continue to incorporate BECCS into their scenario models with curious and undue confidence in its effectiveness. This in spite of the fact that there has been very little real-world experience with BECCS, and that the underlying assumptions regarding climate impacts of large-scale biomass technologies have been challenged very soundly (i.e. emissions and other effects from vastly increased demand for wood/crops are likely to be very large, and the assumption that regrowth will reabsorb those emissions is simply unfounded). Furthermore, the risks associated with underground "storage" of CO2 are enormous, and much of the captured CO2 so far has not been "stored" but rather used for "enhanced oil recovery." How BECCS is treated in the soon-to be-released Working Group 3 report remains to be seen, but it is likely BECCS will feature in scenario modeling, as if viable.Under the Convention on Biological Diversity, Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) specifically was excluded (under pressure from Norway and in spite of resistance from some parties, including Bolivia).4 But large-scale bioenergy is not. Hence the conditions of the de facto moratorium would apply to biodiversity impacts associated with supplying biomass but not those associated with geological carbon storage.Seeing the ForestsMany debates over the definition of climate geoengineering have stalled over the topic of afforestation and reforestation. Some prefer that these remain entirely and forever outside the definition, being situated in the realm of forestry and land-use practices unrelated to geoengineering. Others argue that those should in fact be defined as geoengineering if they are at a very large scale and done specifically with the intent to store carbon. And it has been argued that including the term "technology" in the definition is key. Doing so would at least create some basis for differentiating between, say, a forest restoration project where native species are replanted and an industrial monoculture of genetically engineered trees.
Their aim is to water down the definition and thus dampen resistance to the entire suite of technologies, i.e. they hope that people would not oppose even the most risky geoengineering approaches if, by association that would also mean opposing, say, afforestation and reforestation.
For the more enthusiastic advocates of biosequestration carbon dioxide removal (CDR) technologies, there appears to be mixed feelings as to whether these are best situated within or outside of the definition of geoengineering. On the one hand, some would like to see their pet biosequestration approaches supported and scaled up to global proportions, as any attempt to influence global atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations clearly would require. But, at the same time, they do not want to be associated with the bad press that other proposed geoengineering technologies - such as "spewing sulphuric acid into the atmosphere" - have garnered. They are concerned that such negative association will tarnish and hinder their vision for large-scale biosequestration technology development.And yet others appear to have just the reverse logic - arguing for a hugely inclusive definition to include any approach promoted for sequestering carbon - not just "technological interventions" but even agroecological farming and ecosystem restoration and regeneration. Their aim is to water down the definition and thus dampen resistance to the entire suite of technologies, i.e. they hope that people would not oppose even the most risky geoengineering approaches if, by association, that would also mean opposing, say, afforestation and reforestation.Now a number of recent initiatives have taken up yet another new terminology, "negative emissions technologies" (Oxford Geoengineering Institute, Stanford University Global Climate and Energy Program, Friends of the Earth England, Wales and Northern Ireland and others). Featured approaches are, once again, BECCS and biochar along with some other technologies. According to a review by FOE England, Wales and Northern Ireland, they are "one family of geoengineering techniques that are in general safer and more controllable than the other family of geoengineering technologies, solar radiation management." Once again, it seems the goal is to separate CDR from SRM - the bad from the ugly?Recently Ken Caldeira, a central figure in virtually all of the definition debates, suggested yet another new definition: "Geoengineering refers to activites intended to modify climate that have de minimis effect on an international commons or across international borders through environmental mechanisms other than an intended reduction of excess anthropogenic aerosol or greenhouse gas concentrations." The insertion of "de minimis" effects is of course very tricky given that such a determination is so subjective. Caldeira specifically indicates that his intention is to get BECCS and direct air capture, which he considers to bear "no novel risks," separated from the other approaches.The debates over definitions of geoengineering have gone on and on ad infinitum, and remain contentious. But what has become clear is that boundaries are fuzzy, terms are vague, the implications of different definitions are uncertain and - most importantly - motives run the gamut. As the recent debacle with Russ George's ocean fertilization experiment in Haida, British Colombia, illustrates, geoengineering by another name is ... salmon restoration? By referring to his iron fertilization experiment as a "salmon restoration" project, he managed to slip it past the radar of two international moratoria.There are various agendas at play and potential for trickery in this game of defining, labeling and "messaging" about climate geoengineering. The current direction seems to be toward labeling some CDR approaches such as BECCS and biochar, large-scale afforestation and reforestation, etc. as "soft" and more benign - slipping back and forth seamlessly between discussions of mitigation and climate geoengineering and serving as a means to soften public perception of climate geoengineering as a whole. Our job will be to recognize those for what they are: Like other approaches to geoengineering, they are dangerously risky and unfounded technologies with the potential to cause massive ecosystem degradation and land/water/resource grabs. Meanwhile, we know many real, proven and workable solutions that make common sense: halt deforestation, transition to agroecological farming, reduce the gross overconsumption of resources by the wealthy, stop drilling, mining, extracting and burning fossil and bio fuels - just to name a few. Building the political will and public support for those is challenging, but the only real pathway to a liveable future.
Ronal W. Larson
Andrew and list:
1a. Before getting to my main remarks on yesterday’s new “paper” by Dr. Smolker, I need to draw attention to her claimed quote (below) of a statement by Dr. Ken Caldeira:
“Geoengineering refers to [sic] activites intended to modify climate that have de minimis effect on an international commons or across international borders through environmental mechanisms other than an intended reduction of excess anthropogenic aerosol or greenhouse gas concentrations.”
1b. In fact, she greatly modified Ken’s original, even making it illogical. The only place I could find that Ken said something similar (expressly saying this was a draft and asking for comments) - was on 24 September last year on this list, saying (emphasis added):
"Geoengineering" refers to activities intended to modify climate that have greater than de minimis effect on an international commons or across international borders through environmental mechanisms other than an intended reduction of excess anthropogenic aerosol or greenhouse gas concentrations.
1c. It seems poor scholarship (if not worse) to not have reported the next day the final (fourth?) version by Ken, at the very “Geo” site she directs us to (see below), with Ken explaining to Jim Thomas his updated definition, after explaining that “de minimis” had a legal origin (emphasis again added):
"Geoengineering" refers to activities
(1) intended to modify climate
(2) and that has a greater than de minimis effect on an international commons or across international borders
(3) and where that greater than de minimis effect occurs through environmental mechanisms other than a removal of anthropogenic aerosols and/or greenhouse gases from the atmosphere."
2. Having rebutted Dr. Smolker before, I have to add a bit more on her latest. My overall conclusion is that she has shown only the obvious - that numerous people have been trying hard to make a distinction between SRM and CDR. That the differences between these definitional attempts are small, whereas the differences between SRM and CDR are huge. It is not clear why anyone would find this admirable struggle to reach a consensus definition surprising.
3. In fact, I think she has a different motivation. It is to simply again put down everything related to geoengineering. It is sad that Dr. Smolker can find no distinction between the two parts of Geoengineering. To her they are equally bad - even down to afforestation and reforestation. I doubt one can find anything in the peer-reviewed literature on this topic as extreme as this position.
4. I suggest she has this position because she co-directs an NGO, Biofuelwatch. BFW has lumped the main three CDR options she dwells on (afforestation/reforestation, biochar, BECCS) with biofuels. Should she admit that these three bio-CDR options have merit, this would open a question on biofuels as well. She would be co-heading an organization, and its staff, with a big new problem. Better to just deny any connection between biology, biomass, and climate change solutions.
5. Note that her main citations, again, are in favor of what she opposes. I refer to her references to the Royal Society, US Governmental Accountability Office, Al Gore, Bipartisan Policy Center, IPCC, Oxford, Stanford, and FoE-UK. Note also that her final list of allowable climate-related technologies have none that can get us back to 350 ppm - a topic I have never seen her discuss.
6. In sum, I urge ignoring anyone who offers a climate do-nothing opinion like Dr. Smolker’s that a) is extreme, b) appears to be job-related, and b) does not cite a single peer-reviewed paper in support of the opinion.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Chris Vivian
Ronal W. Larson
Oscar Escobar
"geoengineering schemes seek to mitigate the effect of fossil-fuel combustion on the climate without abating fossil fuel use."
David Keith
Ecyclopedia of Global Change - Environmental Change and Human Society - volume 1 (2002)
Also here:
“Geoengineering Climate - David Keith - Dept. of Chemistry and Chemical Biology - Harvard University - Cambridge, Massachusett
http://keith.seas.harvard.edu/papers/16_Keith_1998_GeoengClimate_s.pdf
I think this is doubly accurate in the case of fossil fuel CCS and enhanced oil recovery with carbon storage. I don't think any level of language sophistry, or legalese, will separate this fact from reality.
I have to say that, I understand that the many climate geoengineering schemes have many different levels of risk, and other issues such as those raised by Dr. Smolker, but I don't oppose them in such a blanketed way.
Best regards,
Oscar E.
Greg Rau
From: Oscar Escobar <oscar200...@gmail.com>
To: geoengi...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Saturday, February 15, 2014 12:24 PM
Subject: [geo] Re: What Is Climate Geoengineering? Word Games in the Ongoing Debates Over a Definition
Ronal W. Larson
How about:"geoengineering schemes seek to mitigate the effect of fossil-fuel combustion on the climate in the event that fossil fuel emissions reductions prove inadequate to avoid dangerous climate change.”
Due to very different risks and benefits, my preference would be to have geoengineering be synonymous with SRM, and to treat CDR separately.
em...@lewis-brown.net
I wonder if geo-engineering aims to
'reduce climate change (or global warming specifically) alongside efforts to reduce ghg emissions.'
This can include srm and cdr.
This captures other ghg emissions sources, so for example, human release direct to air, but we are also weakening natural carbon draw down pumps in the ocean and may be causing carbon stores to release, from, for example, the oceans, forests and methane hydrates.
This also captures the suggestion that geo-eng is expressly intended to be used as well as emissione reductions and not instead and not wait till emissions reductions is declared inadequate because some people are differently optimistic about that and may disagree/ be too late.
Best wishes,
Emily.
O Morton
On Sunday, 16 February 2014 07:46:40 UTC, Emily L-B wrote:
Hi is it only fossil-fuel use it's aiming to deal with, rather than including the effects of land use change, deforestation, burping cows, etc?
I wonder if geo-engineering aims to
'reduce climate change (or global warming specifically) alongside efforts to reduce ghg emissions.'
This can include srm and cdr.
This captures other ghg emissions sources, so for example, human release direct to air, but we are also weakening natural carbon draw down pumps in the ocean and may be causing carbon stores to release, from, for example, the oceans, forests and methane hydrates.
This also captures the suggestion that geo-eng is expressly intended to be used as well as emissione reductions and not instead and not wait till emissions reductions is declared inadequate because some people are differently optimistic about that and may disagree/ be too late.
Best wishes,
Emily.Sent from my BlackBerry® smartphone on O2From: Greg Rau <gh...@sbcglobal.net>Sender: geoengi...@googlegroups.comDate: Sat, 15 Feb 2014 15:03:20 -0800 (PST)
Ronal W. Larson
Rau, Greg
Sent: Sunday, February 16, 2014 4:20 AM
To: geoengi...@googlegroups.com
Cc: em...@lewis-brown.net
Ken Caldeira
Ken Caldeira
Carnegie Institution for Science
Oliver Morton
O=C=O O=C=O O=C=O O=C=O O=C=O
Oliver Morton
Editor, Briefings
The Economist
O=C=O O=C=O O=C=O O=C=O O=C=O
Ken Caldeira
Ken Caldeira
Carnegie Institution for Science
eugg...@comcast.net
From: "Ken Caldeira" <kcal...@carnegiescience.edu>
To: "Oliver Morton" <omeco...@gmail.com>
Cc: "Greg Rau" <ra...@llnl.gov>, geoengi...@googlegroups.com, em...@lewis-brown.net, "Ronal W. Larson" <rongre...@comcast.net>
Sent: Monday, February 17, 2014 10:12:04 AM
Ronal W. Larson
What is the proof that carbon reduction plays any significant role in cooling or geoengineering? Carbon may or may not be a source of warming but no one has proven it. It is totally speculative. Attractive ;perhaps but unproven. If so inclusion of carbon reduction should be qualified as speculative whenever it is mentioned. Since carbon reduction is part of the thinking of this group perhaps the first step should be to prove it. If you don't prove it where does it leave you --- claiming a potential junk idea. Not very bright !!
From: "Ronal W. Larson" <rongre...@comcast.net>
To: "Oliver Morton" <omeco...@gmail.com>
Cc: "Geoengineering" <geoengi...@googlegroups.com>, "Emily Lewis-Brown" <em...@lewis-brown.net>
Sent: Sunday, February 16, 2014 1:50:54 PM
Subject: Re: [geo] Re: What Is Climate Geoengineering? Word Games in the Ongoing Debates Over a Definition
Oliver, Emily etalThe word “decouple” seems too vague. I agree with Emily that if we use “fossil” we should also mention “land use”, but mentioning both doesn’t seem necessary.My first concern about the term “geoengineering” is that the primary emphasis is always on SRM - when that is the most controversial part; not good PR. Second , Ken Caldeira’s placement between mitigation and adaptation seems helpful but I can’t recall a definition that ties them all together in his circular fashion. Third, we don’t here enough on ethics - which the term “rectification” covers. So here is a first try, fixing these three concerns. I don’t expect it to be taken too seriously, but I feel better having gotten this written down. What is missing is how to decide what to do with both - neither, one or the other, or both.Geoengineering consists of two mostly unused types of technologies that follow mitigation (relatively low cost carbon reduction through energy efficiency and renewable energy) but precede high cost adaptation (minimizing future damages) and rectification (financial compensation for the most harmed)). Close to mitigation are the carbon dioxide removal (CDR) technologies, that are low risk and can be started now, but are relatively expensive. Close to adaptation are solar radiation management (SRM) technologies, which are low cost, but do not address ocean acidification, are risky, and will require new time-consuming international treaties, before being able to then react quickly.RonOn Feb 16, 2014, at 5:20 AM, O Morton <omeco...@gmail.com> wrote:
<snip as not relevant to this exchange>
Ronal W. Larson
Ronal W. Larson
Ron:I do not write to the list on any topic that questions the certainty that CO2 is the cause of global warming. The people who run the geo list won't circulate anything that questions AGW a la CO2 so a debate is not possible, I find such absolute close-mindedness without a smidgen of proof to be unscientific or worse, with emphasis on worse. . I am thankful that I am a scientist who understands how proper science is carried out and I earned that insight during 60 years of carrying out good science. It appears to me that the managers of the geo group do not.understand how science is carried out and stick with CO2 without offering any proof. Alternately, they do understand that they have no proof but have an ulterior motive for sticking with CO2 despite absence of proof.. I continue with this group because some of the ideas for dealing with warming, whatever the cause, are interesting.If you think you have any information that constitutes proof that CO2 is the cause of warming, such as it is, I would be interested. However whatever I have seen does not constitute a proof. Such proof according to the acknowledged scientific method requires a good, well controlled, experiment. No such experiment has been done to my knowledge. Again I emphasize that offering a hypothesis instead of a good experimental proof bears on the negative motives of those who offer it. If you know of such an experiment i would be grateful to learn of it. Certainly tracking of CO2 concentration and global temperature is not such an experiment and indeed recent tracking shows no correlation.I am not trying to convince you. You are a dead loss on this topic. You evidently do not understand the scientific method. You constitute a good source of the coutner arguments I have to deal with.MY Bell Tel Labs colleagues find them amusing. I cannot imagine Bell Tel Labs with such 'scientists'.-gene
To: "Eugene Gordon" <eugg...@comcast.net>, "Geoengineering" <geoengi...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Monday, February 17, 2014 1:03:44 PM
Subject: Re: [geo] Re: What Is Climate Geoengineering? Word Games in the Ongoing Debates Over a Definition
Eugene cc listSince I can’t imagine that you can believe you can convince me on any of your topics below, I presume that you meant this to go to the full list.
Ron
What is the proof that carbon reduction plays any significant role in cooling or geoengineering? Carbon may or may not be a source of warming but no one has proven it. It is totally speculative. Attractive ;perhaps but unproven. If so inclusion of carbon reduction should be qualified as speculative whenever it is mentioned. Since carbon reduction is part of the thinking of this group perhaps the first step should be to prove it. If you don't prove it where does it leave you --- claiming a potential junk idea. Not very bright !!
From: "Ronal W. Larson" <rongre...@comcast.net>
To: "Oliver Morton" <omeco...@gmail.com>
Cc: "Geoengineering" <geoengi...@googlegroups.com>, "Emily Lewis-Brown" <em...@lewis-brown.net>
Sent: Sunday, February 16, 2014 1:50:54 PM
Subject: Re: [geo] Re: What Is Climate Geoengineering? Word Games in the Ongoing Debates Over a Definition
Oliver, Emily etalThe word “decouple” seems too vague. I agree with Emily that if we use “fossil” we should also mention “land use”, but mentioning both doesn’t seem necessary.My first concern about the term “geoengineering” is that the primary emphasis is always on SRM - when that is the most controversial part; not good PR. Second , Ken Caldeira’s placement between mitigation and adaptation seems helpful but I can’t recall a definition that ties them all together in his circular fashion. Third, we don’t here enough on ethics - which the term “rectification” covers. So here is a first try, fixing these three concerns. I don’t expect it to be taken too seriously, but I feel better having gotten this written down. What is missing is how to decide what to do with both - neither, one or the other, or both.Geoengineering consists of two mostly unused types of technologies that follow mitigation (relatively low cost carbon reduction through energy efficiency and renewable energy) but precede high cost adaptation (minimizing future damages) and rectification (financial compensation for the most harmed)). Close to mitigation are the carbon dioxide removal (CDR) technologies, that are low risk and can be started now, but are relatively expensive. Close to adaptation are solar radiation management (SRM) technologies, which are low cost, but do not address ocean acidification, are risky, and will require new time-consuming international treaties, before being able to then react quickly.RonOn Feb 16, 2014, at 5:20 AM, O Morton <omeco...@gmail.com> wrote:
Ronal W. Larson
For me, climate geoengineering is distinguished by, and can be defined through, its capacity to decouple climate outcomes from cumulative carbon dioxide emissions.
My concern is with the word “decouple”. I see SRM saying it is going to ignore ocean acidification - which is certainly decoupling but I believe acknowledged to be quite harmful, and perhaps the main reason for opposition to SRM. I see CDR saying it intends strongly to couple (not decouple) with the ocean acidification issue. Can you clarify your word “decouple” as applying to both parts of geoengineering?Ron
Oliver Morton
Greg Rau
From: Oliver Morton <Oliver...@economist.com>
To: Ronal W. Larson <rongre...@comcast.net>
Cc: Geoengineering <geoengi...@googlegroups.com>; Greg Rau <ra...@llnl.gov>; Ken Caldeira <kcal...@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2014 1:29 AM
Ronal W. Larson
Dear RonVery large (eg 2TW - 20TW) wind installation will have effects on the climate system by changing wind patterns, though the scale is not yet I think well agreed; similarly large biomass plantations have albedo and evapotranspiration effects. They could thus be seen as fitting the Royal Society defintition of geoengineering as>>deliberate large-scale intervention in the Earth’s climate system, in order to moderate global warming.
On your second point, I'm trying to be quite precise here; climate geoengineering involves decoupling climate outcomes from cumulative carbon emissions. I don't see ocean acidification as a climate issue. It's an issue that, like the climate issue, can be traced to anthropogenic carbon emissions, but that doesn't mean it's the same thing, or that climate geoengineering has to address it in order to be climate geoengineering. If people want to say of carbon dioxide reduction that it doesn't just offer hope as a climate engineering solution but also has the benefit of reducing ocean acidification, then that is fine by me.
To explain my use of decoupling: solar methods do their decoupling by changing the energy inputs; carbon methods do their decoupling by changing the link between cumulative emissions and atmospheric levels.
As I said in previous post, the purpose of this definition is really just to try and express a bit more analytically the status-quo solar+carbon methods definition that most people were I think using before the Royal Society report and went on to use afterwards. I think there is some advantage in this not least because it links climate geoengineering directly to cumulative carbon emissions, currently seen as a particularly useful proxy for human intervention in the climate system (cf Myles Allen, passim). But it obviously does little to settle the differences between carbon-dioxide-reduction-would-be- practitioners and carbon-dioxide-reduction-policy-people I mentioned in my previous post.
Ken may be right to worry that "geoengineering" ends up an epithet that hurts approaches, such as BECCS, that have little in common with stratospheric sulphates and the like. Worth noting though that if BECCS were to be moved out of the geoengineering camp people who opposed it, as many would, would point to the name change itself as evidence of perfidy: "they used to call it geoengineering but then they changed its name to try and hide what it really is," etc.
Keith Henson
snip
> Regardless, we need further research to
> better understand if we have any globally effective options whose (cost
> +impact+ risk)/benefit passes whatever $, environmental, and ethics smell
> tests the world community wishes to apply. This issue should apply to
> potential actions/technologies that are far broader than whatever currently
> qualifies as GE.
options" is needed. It would be very useful to be able to put numbers
on (cost+impact+ risk)/benefit
There is also the problem of "inadvertent" effects on a global scale,
of which wind power and the surface blackening by solar has been
mentioned.
What I have been talking about falls into that class as well from
dumping hundreds of million of tons of water (mostly as hydrogen) into
the stratosphere along with small amount of oxides of nitrogen. The
first can mess with the radiation balance and the second can chew up
ozone.
Keith
Keith Henson
<R.D.Sc...@uu.nl> wrote:
> Therefore I say: Do as nature has always done it, by weathering basic silicates. Only because we are messing up the CO2 system, the weathering must move up to enhanced weathering, Olaf schuiling
Ah, given the volume of coal and oil burned and the amount of
weathering needed to compensate, this seems implausible to me.
How many tons of rock do you need to crush to take up the CO2 from a
ton of coal? How much energy does this take?
Keith Henson
(Just an engineer, not a scientist)
Greg Rau
From: Keith Henson <hkeith...@gmail.com>
To: "Schuiling, R.D. (Olaf)" <R.D.Sc...@uu.nl>
Cc: Geoengineering <geoengi...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2014 8:50 AM
Subject: Re: [geo] Re: What Is Climate Geoengineering? Word Games in the Ongoing Debates Over a Definition
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineering+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
Ronal W. Larson
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com.