Dear Eugene: What you are saying is forget about carbon emissions because geo offset makes it unnecessary. Thus, I presume you would not do carbon capture and storage (CCS) for coal plants. If you have to do CCS for coal plants such plants will not necessarily be the least expensive route to electricity. If CCS is not pursued then acidification of the oceans is a problem. Eventually the concentrations of carbon in the atmosphere will need to be brought back down to perhaps preindustrial levels. Mitigation (reduction of emissions or removing GHG from the atmosphere) will need to go hand in hand with geo as Tom Wigley has modeled. The best, Bill On Oct 4, 2008, at 2:44 PM, Eugene I. Gordon wrote:
> I think all this misses some very critical points that are more > political and economic in nature and cannot be ignored. call this > part Geo-politics. > > Suppose we could implement a geoengineering solution that > compensates for carbon emissions from fossil fuels and the cost to > the world would be $1 trillion annually. The U.S. agrees to stop > buying petroleum and implements two programs: > > ---Electric vehicles using an energy efficient engine (100 miles per > gallon equivalent is readily achievable) to provide supplementary > power for longer trips. This reduces the cost per mile by a factor > of 4 and would be a great boon to the American economy other than > the rich oil companies. The U.S. stops buying foreign oil because it > is not needed and the price crashes to < $50 per barrel.saving > $40 > per barrel on average. The world uses about 30 billion barrels per > year. The annual saving of $40 per barrel would be $1.2 trillion. > The saving to the U.S. economy would be ~$0.25 trillion, So the > saving in cost of oil would pay for the cost to overcome the warming. > > ---The second program would be to increase the number of coal > burning electric power plants to provide most of our electrical > energy needs. wind turbines, solar and nuclear are more expensive. > This means we could greatly reduce oil usage for transportation, > saving additional monies and becoming totally energy independent in > the near future without new technology and massive investments. If > we are energy independent we could vacate the Middle East leaving > the Middle Eastern countries and Russia alone to rot with their > vanishing income from oil. We could forget about terrorists, and > cold wars and focus on solving problems at home. The remaining chore > would be for the U.S. and Russia working together to force countries > like UK, France, North Korea, Pakistan, India, Iran when needed and > Israel to eliminate their nuclear arsenal upon major threat from > destruction, with the US. and Russia alone possessing nuclear > capability the world is relatively safe from that threat. > > Other than those environmentalists interested in reducing human > population, using AGW as the threat, this solution would be a boon > to the rest of the world. > > Please take exception. I predict you won't shoot this down. Coal is > the cheapest source of energy and abundant in the U.S. It will stay > cheap and could be made safer and less polluting. If the U.S. builds > on this to strengthen its economy it will trickle down to the rest > of the world's nations which can then pay their share of the > geoengineering program. > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected] > ] On Behalf Of Ken Caldeira > Sent: Saturday, October 04, 2008 6:17 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; geoengineering > Subject: [geo] Re: Geoengineering Rescue Plan > > For this problem, the difference between zero and a few billion > dollars per year is effectively zero. > > These cost estimates mean that factors other than direct cost of > deployment will determine whether we deploy such systems. > > On Sat, Oct 4, 2008 at 10:42 AM, Alvia Gaskill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > Not a trivial point as most articles give the doubling of CO2 or > some other > end of the century and beyond cost estimate. I think this mostly > stems from > the fact that the models are generally done to estimate the response > to a > doubling of CO2. And it may be the case that they aren't sensitive > enough > to detect changes that would result from, say, a 10 or 50ppmv > increase in > CO2 forcing, which would work out to between 5-25 years at present > emission > rates. > > The hold the fort strategy would indeed cost less than a massive all- > at-once > bailout plan (couldn't resist that one or repeating my earlier point > about > incremental funding). But the all-at-once or large enough to roll > back the > clock X number of decades options must also be considered. Given the > humongous figures signed off on by our departing prez and his pals > this > week, the costs for geoengineering look like mere earmarks. Rum and > wooden > arrows anyone? > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Stephen Salter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: "geoengineering" <[email protected]> > Sent: Friday, October 03, 2008 7:01 PM > Subject: [geo] Re: Geoengineering Rescue Plan > > > > Hi All > > John's estimate of a few billion a year assumes that we have already > got > to double pre-industrial CO2. To 'hold the fort' until the cavalry > arrive would cost only about $100 million a year to cancel the effects > of the present rate of increase. > > Stephen > > John Nissen wrote: > > We should seriously consider the cost/benefit for SRM > geoengineering. > > > > The cost of SRM geoengineering to halt global warming using > > stratospheric aerosols (less than $1 billion per year) or > tropospheric > > cloud brightening (a few billion per year?) is very much less than > the > > cost of adaptation to global warming to save lives, estimated as $50 > > billion per year by Gavin Edwards, Head of Greenpeace's Climate and > > Energy Campaign, in the CNN interview. > > > > If albedo engineering also prevents the disappearance the Arctic sea > > ice, the release of vast quantities of methane, and the collapse of > > the Greenland ice sheet, then it is saving us a near impossible task > > of adaptation. Indeed it would be saving us from risk of the > ultimate > > calamity. What price do you put on preventing the collapse of > > civilisation? Multiply that by the risk, and albedo engineering > is a > > bargain we cannot afford to ignore. > > > > Note that the moral hazard objection to geoengineering - that it > lets > > polluters off the hook - is similar to the argument against bailing > > out Wall Street - that it lets rich blighters off the hook. We may > > all suffer if action is not taken on either score. May I suggest > that > > the result of inaction on geoengineering is rather worse? > > > > Cheers from Chiswick, > > > > John > > > > > > On Oct 2, 11:56 pm, "Alvia Gaskill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/science/10/02/700bn.climate/ > >> > >> "So what would happen if governments ignored the un-capitalist > cries for > >> mercy spilling out from Wall Street and put the money towards > climate > >> change instead? What would $700 billion buy? > >> Let us start at the margins of common sense. You could buy 100 > billion > >> energy saving light bulbs. At the other end of the scale, $700 > billion > >> would contribute a third of the cost towards a geo-engineering > project > >> which imagines deflecting the sun's rays away from earth. > Astronomer > >> Roger Angel believes that the bill for his idea of a vast array > of space > >> mirrors would be around $2 trillion." > >> > >> Of course, none of the geoengineering plans, including the space > LENSES > >> would require all of the money be spent at once, unlike the federal > >> bailout, oops rescue plan for Wall, I mean main street that would > >> probably see most of the money spent over the next few years. So > it > >> really isn't fair to compare space lenses with bad mortgages. > The point > >> of the bailout package, seemingly lost on most people, including > many > >> members of Congress is to get the LIBOR down to where states, > businesses > >> and individuals can get loans. Now that one sounds like a > candidate for > >> Discovery Project Wall Street for sure. > >> > >> Dreaming of a climate bailout > >> a.. Story Highlights > >> b.. How much would $700 billion help climate change mitigation > and > >> adaptation? > >> > >> c.. Greenpeace spokesman says $700 billion would "give us a > good head > >> start" > >> > >> d.. U.S. economist says gains would be "extraordinary" compared > to > >> doing nothing > >> e.. Next Article in Technology ยป > >> > >> By Matthew Knight > >> For CNN > >> > >> LONDON, England (CNN) -- Governments around the world continue to > pump > >> billions of dollars into financial markets, but there is still no > telling > >> whether the "injections of liquidity" will be enough to prevent > "this > >> sucker" -- to quote the President of the United States -- from > going > >> down. > >> > >> Could 700 billion greenbacks be put to better use and kickstart a > green > >> revolution? > >> > >> To many people one of the more fascinating aspects of the unfolding > >> spectacle has been the bewildering amounts of money made > available by > >> governments to avert financial catastrophe. And no one knows yet > whether > >> it will all be worth it. > >> The same could be said of climate change. No one really knows how > bad it > >> will get, but as the Stern Report concluded in 2006 doing nothing > about > >> it now is going to massively increase the costs of mitigation > further > >> down the line. > >> > >> But the amounts being talked about and spent on climate > initiatives by > >> governments is dwarfed by the bail out package. > >> > >> Take, for example, a statement issued by the World Bank at the > end of > >> September which revealed that 10 leading industrialized nations -- > >> including the United States, Japan and the UK -- have pledged a > total of > >> $6.1 billion to help "Climate Investment Funds". That's around $675 > >> million per nation. > >> > >> This sense of skewed priorities was recently put into perspective > by rock > >> star Bono. Speaking at the Clinton Global Initiative, the U2 > front man > >> made a damning comparison. "It's extraordinary to me that the > United > >> States can find $700 billion to save Wall Street and the entire > G-8 can't > >> find $25 billion dollars to save 25,000 children who die every > day from > >> preventable diseases," he said. > >> > >> So what would happen if governments ignored the un-capitalist > cries for > >> mercy spilling out from Wall Street and put the money towards > climate > >> change instead? What would $700 billion buy? > >> > >> Let us start at the margins of common sense. You could buy 100 > billion > >> energy saving light bulbs. At the other end of the scale, $700 > billion > >> would contribute a third of the cost towards a geo-engineering > project > >> which imagines deflecting the sun's rays away from earth. > Astronomer > >> Roger Angel believes that the bill for his idea of a vast array > of space > >> mirrors would be around $2 trillion. > >> > >> A slightly more plausible idea might be to oversee a comprehensive > >> insulation program for 700 million homes or perhaps fund domestic > solar > >> panels. A $10,000 photovoltaic solar array could be installed > atop 70 > >> million homes. > >> > >> Much of the responsibility for our future energy needs rests on the > >> fortunes of large-scale renewable solar and wind projects. Why > not role > >> out a comprehensive program now? For example, the 40 megawatt > Waldpolenz > >> Solar Park in Bolanden, Germany is due to be switched on in 2009 > at a > >> cost of $180 million. The Wall Street bailout would pay for > nearly 3,900 > >> such solar farms. > >> > >> Don't Miss > >> a.. Principal Voices: Climate change: Debating solutions > >> b.. Principal Voices: Gore calls for coal protests > >> c.. Principal Voices: Farewell Greenland > >> If wind power was the only item on your shopping list then you > could > >> afford to build 3,700 farms similar to the 90 megawatt facility > being > >> built offshore at the Kentish Flats Wind Farm in the UK, which > would > >> collectively generate an impressive 330 gigawatts. > >> > >> Alternatively, nuclear energy -- now back from the dead and a big > >> favorite with energy ministers worldwide -- would see 175 new > plants at > >> $4 billion each. > >> > >> But as Gavin Edwards, Head of Greenpeace's Climate and Energy > Campaign, > >> points out: "There are two sides of the coin in tackling climate > change. > >> One is to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions, the other is > adaptation," he > >> told CNN. > >> > >> Using figures from the Stern Report, the IPCC and renewable energy > >> industries Edwards gave CNN his assessment of how Greenpeace > would spend > >> the money. > >> > >> "If you put $30 billion a year towards protecting forests, then > that > >> could cut greenhouse gas emissions by one fifth," he said. > >> > >> "Another $20 billion per year is enough to spur an energy > revolution and > >> a massive uptake of green energy. And approximately another $10 > billion > >> per year would make sure we are using energy much more efficiently. > >> > >> "That's about $60 billion right there for mitigating climate > change." > >> > >> For adaptation, Edwards put the figure at around $50 billion per > year for > >> saving lives in developing countries and continents such as Africa. > >> > >> "So that's about $110 billion per year," he said. "So if the U.S. > >> Congress diverted money from the financial bailout we could have > a really > >> good head start on climate change in the next six years, if we > applied > >> the $700 billion in this way." Read about Greenpeace's Energy > Revolution > >> here. > >> > >> An Economist's view > >> > >> Earlier this year, Gary Yohe, Woodhouse/Sysco Professor of > Economics at > >> Wesleyan University in Connecticut participated in Bjorn Lomborg's > >> Copenhagen Consensus exercise where global issues are rigorously > debated > >> and then ranked in terms of importance. > >> > >> Yohe headed a team of three economists whose task it was to > calculate a > >> workable fiscal plan for global warming. "Almost by coincidence," > Yohe > >> told CNN, "$700 billion is close to the discounted budget for the > >> Copenhagen Consensus exercise. $800 billion, actually." > >> > >> "Allocating $50 billion to research and development (R&D) on carbon > >> friendly technology produced a discounted payback of nearly three > times > >> that amount. > >> > >> "Adding reflections of aversion to risk, as well as optimally > allocating > >> effort over time, increased the payback to more than six times the > >> investment." Download Gary Yohe's challenge paper here. > >> > >> But he cautions against spending $50 billion on R&D without > economic > >> incentives. "We would be wasting a lot of effort," he said. > >> > >> "We should be thinking about risks and the degree to which you are > >> reducing risks as you make these investments," Yohe said. > >> > >> "That's a reasonable question about the bailout as well. $700-800 > billion > >> dollars wouldn't guarantee that you are going to avoid climate > change. > >> Nor does that figure guarantee you are going to avoid significant > >> financial trouble. But the benefits avoided are likely to be > really quite > >> substantial." > >> > >> Yohe says that the $800 billion figure he drew up in his Copenhagen > >> Consensus paper isn't necessarily the right number, but it would > produce > >> "an extraordinary gain relative to doing nothing." He concludes > that a > >> mixture of adaptation and mitigation approaches coupled with > greater > >> research and development into greener technology would yield the > best > >> returns on the money allocated. > >> > >> The bailout bill passed by the U.S. Senate now stands at $810 > billion -- > >> strikingly similar to the budget Yohe himself has been theorizing > about. > >> When the dust settles on the financial crisis his analysis may well > >> provide politicians with a useful framework from which to start > >> developing a meaningful large-scale climate change strategy. > >> > >> But climate change is going to require a lot more than just plain > hard > >> cash. "This is going to sound North American centric," Yohe said. > "But I > >> think the world is looking for U.S. leadership and if, in > January, it > >> picks up a leadership role -- accepting the notion that there is > a void > >> in leadership -- there will a great deal of response." > >> > >> How would you spend $700 billion to combat climate change? Let us > know in > >> the sound off box below. > >> > >> 1x1pixel.gif > >> < 1KViewDownload > >> > >> corner_dg_BL.gif > >> < 1KViewDownload > >> > >> corner_dg_TL.gif > >> < 1KViewDownload > >> > > > > > > > > > -- > The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in > Scotland, with registration number SC005336. > > > > > > > > > -- > =============================== > Ken Caldeira > Department of Global Ecology > Carnegie Institution > 260 Panama Street > Stanford, CA 94305 USA > +1 650 704 7212; fax: +1 650 462 5968 > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > http://dge.stanford.edu/DGE/CIWDGE/labs/caldeiralab/ > > > > *** Please don't read this line of text unless you really need to *** > > > > > Bill Fulkerson, Senior Fellow Institute for a Secure and Sustainable Environment University of Tennessee 311 Conference Center Bldg. Knoxville, TN 37996-4138 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 865-974-9221, -1838 FAX Home 865-988-8084; 865-680-0937 CELL 2781 Wheat Road, Lenoir City, TN 37771 --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
