Make Sunsets - useful act of civil disobedience or irresponsible and like counter-productive silicon valley hubris?

[Ron Baiman]

Dear Colleagues,

For those wondering what this is all about see: https://makesunsets.com/ and links and existing thread cited below.  

I'm opening up another thread on this as I don't feel comfortable sharing the comments on the existing thread (please view at: geoengi...@googlegroups.com) with the other google groups added to this post.

I too have numerous natural and social science issues with the representations made by Make Sunsets.

Most salient for me on the scientific side is comparing potential one year of radiative forcing with with a ton of CO2 removal - as Pete and Jesse repeatedly emphasize here:https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/27-luke-iseman-on-his-for-profit-solar-geoengineering/id1593211714?i=1000593365923 this is nonsense - as the radiative forcing regime would have to be continued for hundreds or thousands of years to obtain even rough equivalence turning the $10 for 1 ton CO2 removal into more like the NPV of what Make Sunsets is offering a $1,000 - $10,000 or more per ton offset that is not really an offset as the other effects of the increased CO2 like ocean acidification etc. would remain in place. Also of course the lack of the most elementary MRV (monitoring, reporting, and verification) for the two launches made - albeit before the for-profit company was formed - emphasized by Andrew here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/important-pioneers-or-pirates-make-sunsets-sell-launch-sai/id1529459393?i=1000591767167  and here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/can-you-stop-srm-viviani-galpern/id1529459393?i=1000594246859 .

On the social science side (as I've mentioned in a NOAC thread on cooling credits), unlike CO2 (or CO2 equivalent) GHG removal, Direct Climate Cooling (DCC) broadly (not just SRM, see:  https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TowThwi6j6cX3iLGBRrj22D30cYhKa_9/edit ) is not a pure global public good. That is, it DOES matter where and when you do it. This is even true of SAI as experts on the lists above can testify ( see for example SAI discussion and footnote 95 here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TowThwi6j6cX3iLGBRrj22D30cYhKa_9/edit and https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1wYxY8V_XLjwkbOBtgGXV92wUnUgjriP_ ). So the details of setting up even an SAI private radiative forcing, or even carefully designed and regulated, public, radiative forcing, decentralized offset system (if desirable) would be much more complicated than existing decentralized GHG offset systems - as GHG offset is a pure global public good. It seems that it would be much more efficient, responsible, and effective (especially  as SAI costs are minimal compared to GHG reduction and drawdown - per Gurnot Wagner's "free driver" point) to fund and implement this publicly - as Luke and Andrew (Make Sunsets founders) themselves emphasize in the podcasts above.

However, having said this (perhaps because I feel more free to do this as I am not (like Jesse, Pete, and Andrew and others in the prior thread) a prominent player in this space, I'm going to go out on a personal limb on this ( though I am a member of the HPAC SC my views below have not been discussed with my HPAC colleagues).  My thinking is that what Luke and Andrew have done may prove to be an act of civil disobedience that may indeed move the ball forward on Direct Climate Cooling and particularly on SAI. Luke's statements at the end of Climate Challenge podcast with Pete and Jesse resonated with me as the cry of very conscious and aware young people who are (within the space that he and Andrew are most familiar with - Silicon Valley startups) making a statement to the world - and to us more responsible and cautious "elders" that something drastic has to be done, and if responsible  parties like governments, non-profits, and academics, are unwilling or unable, to move cooling forward quickly, other agencies (individuals and for-profit startups) will try to do something in whatever way they can.

My hope is that instead of this turning into a OIF Russ George CBD (perceived) prohibition on geoengineering (per Jesse's point at the end of the Challenging Climate podcast) - this and other similar actions will be the impetus that lights a fire for public authorities demonstrating that if responsible action on DCC and SAI is not rapidly expedited - individuals and nations may act irresponsibly.  Hopefully the analogy  will be more like Robinson's Ministry of the Future Uttar Pradesh wet bulb event leading to unilateral Indian SAI than the George OIF debacle!

Best,

Ron Baiman

 

[Robert Tulip]

Ron

 

Thanks for this cost comparison you raise between Solar Radiation Management and Greenhouse Gas Removal.  The economics and politics and science of comparing something that is big and fast but impermanent (SRM) versus something that is small and slow but permanent (GGR) are complicated.  The following numbers are rough, but they seem within the order of magnitude.  Happy to be corrected.

Let’s say SRM could cut the temperature by 2°C for an ongoing annual cost of USD $40 billion (cf Wake Smith).  Achieving that same temperature cut with GGR at a cost of $10 per tonne of CO2e – with long term removal – would have to remove about two trillion tonnes of CO2e, at a cost of $20 trillion.  That would equal the SRM cost for 500 years. 

 

My view is this is a conservative comparison, and the reality is likely to be more in favour of SRM.

 

The GGR result might take 100 years to achieve, whereas MacMartin argues SAI could deliver this temperature cut in 50 years, not including Marine Cloud Brightening and other technologies. With political agreement, cooling by SRM could be deployed quickly, preventing tipping points, a key point that is ignored by opponents of SRM.  If a sudden Arctic methane release caused ten billion tonnes of CO2e to enter the atmosphere, that would outweigh all practical GGR, causing accelerating feedbacks. This and other tipping points could possibly be prevented by the annual investment in SRM, which therefore has a major security and stability benefit.

 

Relying just on the carbon-based cooling methods of GGR seems a bit like leaving your house wide open, whereas SRM provides a precautionary security prevention, a bit like locking your doors.  Medically, the analogy could be that SRM is like pills for blood pressure or cholesterol, whereas GGR is like diet and exercise.  If you are in bad shape, it is no use complaining that you ignored recommended drug treatments after you have a heart attack. 

 

Does this comparison help provide a valid basis to calculate Radiative Forcing Credits?

 

Regards

 

Robert Tulip

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAPhUB9A7Q%2BF0yOWbKA%3DvMr5vh4nCuLTD_KchjStw_KHWbuhrBg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Ron Baiman]

Hi Peter,

I'm not a climate scientist and I'm not sure what you're getting at.  However in the HPAC paper here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TowThwi6j6cX3iLGBRrj22D30cYhKa_9/edit and slides here: https://www.healthyplanetaction.org , we cite research suggesting that we may have already passed 2.0 C in long-term committed warming and that even the completely unrealistic "pathway"  of cutting GHGs by 50% by 2030 to stay below 1.5 C is based on misleading data (see footnote 9 in full cooling paper link above).  We also cite recent modeling results that suggest that if and when we get to net-zero (including off-setting now increasing natural emissions like increased methane release ) the planet will stay at that level of warming plateau for at least another 50 years in the absence of direct climate cooling or massive GHG draw down to well below 350 ppm (see texts related to footnotes 35 - 38 in the cooling paper).  So I'm confident in saying that we're going to face extreme climate calamity without urgent direct climate cooling in whatever way we can do it, in the next several decades (my own personal take on this is here: https://www.cpegonline.org/post/our-two-climate-crises-challenge).

Best,

Ron

On Sun, Jan 15, 2023 at 8:05 PM Admin <peterc...@shaw.ca> wrote:

Hi Ron

What do you think committed equilibrium global warming is, from this 2021 data ? It’s relevant 

Atmospheric CO2 eq. 516 ppm

Radiative forcing 3.4 W/m2

Best regards

Peter C

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "NOAC Meetings" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to noac-meeting...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/noac-meetings/CAPhUB9A7Q%2BF0yOWbKA%3DvMr5vh4nCuLTD_KchjStw_KHWbuhrBg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Admin]

Hi Ron

What do you think committed equilibrium global warming is, from this 2021 data ? It’s relevant 

Atmospheric CO2 eq. 516 ppm

Radiative forcing 3.4 W/m2

Best regards

Peter C

On Jan 15, 2023, at 4:08 PM, Ron Baiman <rpba...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Admin]

Agreed Ron

 

Yes, we are committed to more than planet catastrophic 2C for sure

The contention that we can still limit to 1.5C is absurd- but only James Hansen acknowledges that (that I am aware of). 

And clearly Governments are only going to push permit and subsidize more fossil fuels.

IPCC AR6 put warming on continued policies at 3.2C this century

The shocking situation is that 2021 radiative forcing commits the world to 2.8C equilibrium warming- and that’s by the low ball IPCC climate sensitivity of 3C 

Note on this image that CO2 eq. (all the GHGs together, predominantly CO2) and radiative forcing are increasing as fast as they ever have. 

Fast as this that is.   

 'The annual rate of increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide over the past 60 years is about 100 times faster than previous natural increases, such as those that occurred at the end of the last ice age 11,000-17,000 years ago' NOAA  June 2022

The policy talk of 1.5C and 2C stems from a change in the policy goal posts - the long term equilibrium warming limits have been eased to only by 2100. Nice for the fossil fuel industry but deadly for Humanity and most Life.

In any case the 1992 UN FCCC climate convention requires the safe limit of atmospheric greenhouse concentrations (CO2 eq.) not only global warming

Best regards

Peter

On Jan 15, 2023, at 6:59 PM, Ron Baiman <rpba...@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi Peter,

I'm not a climate scientist and I'm not sure what you're getting at.  However in the HPAC paper here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TowThwi6j6cX3iLGBRrj22D30cYhKa_9/edit and slides here: https://www.healthyplanetaction.org , we cite research suggesting that we may have already passed 2.0 C in long-term committed warming and that even the completely unrealistic "pathway"  of cutting GHGs by 50% by 2030 to stay below 1.5 C is based on misleading data (see footnote 9 in full cooling paper link above).  We also cite recent modeling results that suggest that if and when we get to net-zero (including off-setting now increasing natural emissions like increased methane release ) the planet will stay at that level of warming plateau for at least another 50 years in the absence of direct climate cooling or massive GHG draw down to well below 350 ppm (see texts related to footnotes 35 - 38 in the cooling paper).  So I'm confident in saying that we're going to face extreme climate calamity without urgent direct climate cooling in whatever way we can do it, in the next several decades (my own personal take on this is here: https://www.cpegonline.org/post/our-two-climate-crises-challenge).

Best,

Ron

On Sun, Jan 15, 2023 at 8:05 PM Admin <peterc...@shaw.ca> wrote:

Hi Ron

What do you think committed equilibrium global warming is, from this 2021 data ? It’s relevant 

Atmospheric CO2 eq. 516 ppm

Radiative forcing 3.4 W/m2

Best regards

Peter C

<Rad Ozz.png>

[Achim Hoffmann]

Hi Ron:

A provocative headline asking the reader to take a side of 2 non MECE (Mutually exclusive, cumulative exhaustive) options, i.e. leaving a lot of other options out there.

 

I recently joined and am listening in to a few groups, including HPAC, NOAH and PRAG (apologies for tonight, cannot make it). As part of the google group discussion I had also come across Luke’s posts about Making Sunset.

 

I applaud their actions, as it is a first example that I have come across that connects the drive for cooling with a revenue stream, the cooling credits (please point out if there are others I missed). This is by far the best tool that gives this a chance of success, the same way Carbon Credits do for CDR.

 

Given the urgency we are looking at, we need engagement from all sides: industry, governments, ideally global institutions, such as the UN. How do you create attention and make people act and more importantly spend money to support large scale projects?

 

In my view the answer lies with solutions that have a business model, an income stream as no funder (private, commercial, or governmental) wants to be left alone carrying this through, especially given the scale and the free rider problem. You will create attention and interest when you build a sustainable business case for cooling tech. If there is no such solution out there, or ideally a set of solutions, no regulatory authority will start looking into this. Chicken and Egg. Good science publications will only get you so far and will be very slow to create momentum.

 

The answer to this is (in my view) not necessarily the most precise science (VHS beat Betamax and I am giving my age away here) and it does not help that scientists/engineers who are all on the same side, i.e. have the same goal of helping the planet and even agree on the fact that cooling is necessary, fight each other. These groups are already a minority subset of those who want to help, and we need to stick together as there are plenty of opponents of cooling/geoengineering activities out there in addition to the many, many uninformed who are not even aware of this solution.

 

We need to define the joint goals, identify joint tools that help promote/enable all of this and work together and accept

1. There is not just one cooling solution.
2. Nobody active in this space intentionally wants to harm the planet. Risk assessments and mitigation strategies are standard tools in business, you don’t get funding if you cannot present that.
3. Mistakes will be made – accept that and learn from it. If you are not making mistakes, something is wrong, you are certainly going too slow. Some educated guesses and calculation/theoretical predictions must be made, hypotheses made and then action needs to be taken to test these. Theory and practice will always differ, you will never be able to fully predict all outcomes and side effects, you will have a few surprises from experimental work that will drive science forward – guaranteed!
4. These mistakes will not be made at global/massive scale from the start.
5. What we cannot do, is NOT to take action. Beware of “Paralysis through Analysis” – there is balance that needs to be found and at the moment the balance is more on the analysis side than the action side (IMHO).
6. There are a number of lessons to be learned from the Start-up space and from others who have transitioned science from academia successfully into the real world. Silicon valley and digital start-ups can teach a few things as well, keeping in mind that we need “hard tech” here which is a lot harder to fund and commercialise, but there are still lesson about MVPs, expect/accept and plan for mistakes, reach out early to ‘customers’ (to be defined), Blitzscaling, etc. From my own experience in this space, we will need industrial/big corporate engagement on this, given the urgency, otherwise the hard-tech timeline will be too slow. We need to learn from the COVID vaccine development lessons, where a process that takes many years was compressed into under 9 months through collaboration between start-ups, Academia, corporates and governments.

 

Hope I did not step on too many toes.

 

Achim

 

 

Dr Achim Hoffmann Founder/Director, www.woxon.com Mobile: +44 (0) 7768 022 805   linkedin.com/in/achimhoffmann/

 

 

 

 

 

From: noac-m...@googlegroups.com <noac-m...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of Ron Baiman

Sent: 16 January 2023 00:09
To: healthy-planet-action-coalition <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com>; 'Eelco Rohling' via NOAC Meetings <noac-m...@googlegroups.com>; Planetary Restoration <planetary-...@googlegroups.com>; geoengineering <geoengi...@googlegroups.com>; Healthy Climate Alliance <healthy-clim...@googlegroups.com>
Cc: lu...@lukeiseman.com; and...@makesunsets.com; Andrew Lockley <andrew....@gmail.com>; Jesse Reynolds <jess...@gmail.com>; p.ir...@ucl.ac.uk

--

[klin...@cox.net]

Dear restorers,

I've suggested a water-only method of marine brightening.  The very existence of this option poses a problem for those who want to ban "geoengineering":  must they ban water also?  The sticky question opens their minds to study the actual merits and side issues of each proposal.

Yours in Hope,

Paul Klinkman

[Ron Baiman]

Thanks Robert. I'm thinking that the key is in your second sentence. There is no doubt that SAI (if it can be done without major adverse unintended consequences) would be much faster, less costly, and (likely) much less disruptive of existing political and economic arrangements. But I don't think a) cooling, and b) reducing and c)removing, can be easily compared, and (as I've stated) not sure this (at least in terms of high leverage global methods like SAI) would ultimately be a good idea, as this method cries out for coordinated public (not decentralized private) implementation and funding. Per the HPAC position we need all three and they can't be substituted for each other! However (as I've said) in terms of moving up the urgency of cooling I'm hoping that the Making Sensets initiative will have a positive impact.  Fingers crossed!

Ron Baiman