Hi Ken et al.--What would have a major impact in the near-term is a sharp reduction in methane emissions‹just as an increase in methane emissions from the tundra would have a big and rapid effect. Basically, all the international discussion uses the 100-year GWP (and for methane this is 22 or something like that) and the 100-year choice is purely arbitrary. Given our interest in near-term temperature change and keeping below a dangerous threshold (or not going further above it), we should be using the 20-year GWP, and for methane that is something like 75. So, on emissions control, in addition to doing all we can on CO2, we should really be working hard on methane, working to get its excess over preindustrial well below 150%.
Fortunately, there are many cost-effective options to reduce methane emissions (witness President Bush even has a strong program on methane control). This now needs to spread, including to the developed world, for things like capture of methane from coal mine emissions (for climate reasons and coal mine safety), sewage, garbage dumps, even some agricultural actions makes a lot of sense to improve overall well-being, reduce air pollution, etc. (this was point in the UNSEG report suggesting that a lot of actions to improve well-being and sustainability in developing nations would also help to limit climate forcing‹see http://www.unfoundation.org/global-issues/climate-and-energy/sigma-xi.html . Add to that limiting soot emissions and air pollutants that augment tropospheric ozone, and a lot could be done quickly while we also work on the long-lived gases. You can see more about this idea at http://www.climate.org/topics/climate-change/maccracken-proposal-north-south -framework.html and I am working on more to document the value of this approach. One really straightforward policy step that would help make this happen would be to use the 20-year GWP for methane in the carbon permit dealing‹that would create a tremendous incentive to really work hard on methane emissions. Best, Mike MacCracken On 11/21/08 12:08 AM, "Ken Caldeira" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The editors include a lame chapter on geoengineering that largely ignores the > politics of the geoengineering debate > <http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/008091.html> and concludes > "geoengineering schemes have the potential to make things better, but they > could also make things worse." For such an important and charged debate, > milquetoast equivocation is not a helpful contribution to the discussion. > > With several paragraphs discussing what I would consider to be "the politics > of the geoengineering debate", it is hard for me to understand the first part > of this comment. (see attachment). I happen to believe the latter part of this > statement is a statement that can be justified by our current understanding of > the facts. > > I am sure the writer would not have been satisfied with a hearty endorsement > of climate engineering, thus only taking the so-called ethical, principled, > high ground (let the ice caps melt, let's lose arctic ecosystems and arctic > summertime sea ice, and bring on the greenhouse gas emissions from melting > permafrost because climate engineering is intrinsically evil) would have been > enough to avoid this writer's wrath. > > Climate engineering schemes appear to have the potential reduce climate risk, > but that cannot be asserted with certainty given the poorly understood complex > web of Earth system feedbacks and socio-political ramifications. For those who > live in a black and white world, everything is simple and all is known without > doubt. > > Best, > > Ken > > PS. By the way, given that changes in CO2 emissions will not significantly > affect temperatures over the next decade or two in any plausible scenario, it > is hard to image how anything other than climate engineering can significantly > reduce climate risk over this time period (perhaps there are adaptive > strategies that could reduce this risk, but it is hard to see how those would > apply to sea ice, ice sheets, arctic ecosystems, and permafrost). > > =============================== > 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] > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > http://dge.stanford.edu/DGE/CIWDGE/labs/caldeiralab/ > > > > On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 6:44 AM, Alvia Gaskill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/009059.html >> >> >> Resource: Into a Warming World >> Alex Steffen <http://www.worldchanging.com/alex_bio.html> >> November 19, 2008 12:25 PM >> >> >> >> The world is awash in climate change books, many of them bad, boring or both. >> It's all too common to see these books repeating the same ideas and >> arguments, often scattering facts (or supposed facts) around to make >> themselves look researched, often mixing exhortations and haphazardly >> explored solutions. I have piles of these books a few yards high. >> >> So when I got Worldwatch's latest State of the World report, Into a Warming >> World <http://www.worldwatch.org/node/5658> , I feared the worst. This year's >> offering, after all, departs from Worldwatch's tried-and-true survey formula >> to focus in solely on climate change and its implications. I worried that >> instead of great ideas across a range of subjects, I'd find more of the same >> ideas and insights I've read so often before. I feared that Worldwatch was >> grasping at relevance. >> >> I was wrong. State of the World 2009 is a research masterpiece, the single >> most important reference guide to climate change yet published. >> >> SotW2009 is argued comprehensively, moving from an outstanding overview of >> the state of climate science to individual chapters on various solution >> spaces: accelerating the transition to clean energy, providing green jobs, >> transferring technology to the developing world, saving the international >> climate negotiations and so on. Like other Worldwatch work, the book is >> somewhat dry and technical, but that allows for exhaustive footnoting and a >> clear intellectual framework for building an understanding of many of the key >> issues. It's like a terrific interdisciplinary academic seminar, distilled >> into a single volume. >> >> Which isn't to say that it's perfect. Several of the shorter chapters don't >> meet the quality standards of the rest of the book. The editors include a >> lame chapter on geoengineering that largely ignores the politics of the >> geoengineering debate <http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/008091.html> >> and concludes "geoengineering schemes have the potential to make things >> better, but they could also make things worse." For such an important and >> charged debate, milquetoast equivocation is not a helpful contribution to the >> discussion. >> >> And there are some glaring omissions. Several key innovation pathways are >> largely ignored. The vital role of cities and urban planning >> <http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/007800.html> is more or less ignored. >> The critical leverage points offered by information technologies are >> completely missing (though there's some good discussion of smart grids). The >> human components of change -- from new finance models to the importance of >> transparency and battling corruption -- get short shrift. But I was perhaps >> most disappointed by a common element of carbon blindness >> <http://www.worldchanging.com/archives//005019.html> in the chapters. It's >> one thing to focus on climate change; it's another to largely lose sight of >> our other equally critical environmental and social needs, without which no >> sustainability solution will work. Worldwatch has been such a leader in >> comprehensive, holistic visions of sustainability that I expected more. >> >> But no book is perfect, and this one's faults don't ultimately detract from >> its excellence. The Worldwatch team has a hell of a lot to be proud of here. >> If you are looking for a single-volume education in what it means to live in >> a changing climate, you can do no better than the latest State of the Earth. >> >> Front page photo credit: flickr/hyperboreal >> <http://www.flickr.com/photos/bgivens> , Creative Commons license. >> >> >> >> "I'm going to tell you something I probably shouldn't: we may not be able to >> stop global warming. We need to begin curbing global greenhouse emissions >> right now, but more than a decade after the signing of the Kyoto Protocol, >> the world has utterly failed to do so. Unless the geopolitics of global >> warming change soon, the Hail Mary pass of geoengineering might become our >> best shot." --Bryan Walsh, Time Magazine, 17 March 2008 >> >> "The alternative (to geoengineering) is the acceptance of a massive natural >> cull of humanity and a return to an Earth that freely regulates itself but in >> the hot state." --Dr James Lovelock, August 2008 >> >> "The Greens' resistance to geo-engineering sits very uncomfortably with its >> message that the planet is screwed and we're all going to die. It suggests >> that Environmentalism has less to do with saving the planet than it does with >> reining in human aspirations. It suggests that they don't actually believe >> their own press releases, and that they know the situation is not as dire as >> they would like the rest of us to think it is. And that Environmentalists are >> cutting off their noses to spite their faces - "we'll save the planet our way >> or not at all." It suggests that Environmentalists regard science and >> engineering as the cause of problems, and not the solution." --Climate >> Resistance, 24 March 2008 >> >> Posted by: Brad Arnold <http://www.myspace.com/dobermanmacleod> on November >> 20, 2008 12:11 AM >> >> Quoting a journalist, a crackpot and a climate skeptic is not an extremely >> convincing argument. >> >> Indeed, like many arguments for geoengineering, it denies the hard realities >> of the issue: 1) we know what's causing climate change and it is within our >> power to reduce or eliminate those causes; 2) it is (at least we think) not >> to late to do so; 3) the main barrier to doing so is political, not technical >> or economic; 4) we do not know how to successfully geoengineer the planet >> (though it's possible we could successfully learn to do so, it's also >> possible we could screw up even worse); and 5) that some people most >> advancing geoengineering in the public debate are people who are on the wrong >> side of the political debate on stopping climate change and are using it as >> an argument for inaction. >> >> Unless you address these topics, any argument for geoengineering is flawed >> from the start. >> >> Posted by: Alex Steffen <http://worldchanging.com/> on November 20, 2008 >> 4:07 AM >> >> > > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
