Dear John-- Although not nearly a perfect analogy, the situation we are in is a bit like society being asked to jump from the top floor of a skyscraper that is burning amidst a city that is also burning‹and society is being asked to jump relying on a parachute that has gone through only very limited testing. While it might seem the best thing to do, a safe landing depends not only on the effectiveness of the parachute, but also on the fire below being put out, or one will just be consumed a bit later than the situation now. Those reluctant to jump have an impression that the act of jumping with a parachute might be seen by those who are (or need to be) fighting the fire as reducing their urgency and dedication to putting out the fire, as the jumper now has a bit more time before being endangered. With this as the perception, critics of jumping think it best if one not jump quite yet‹let the fire get worse so it is really clear it must be put out. What is a bit troubling is that the effective way out of this dilemma might be to find a way to try to keep aloft indefinitely, a path that would require one to depart the skyscraper in a different sort of contraption‹so one waits to figure out what that alternative might be, hoping there really is such a device as the fire coming up the skyscraper is clearly getting hotter and nearer.
Likening this situation to 9/11 and the World Trade Center, the only ones who made it out safely were those who made a mad dash down the stairs‹so those advocating sharp emission reductions suggest that is the only way to go. Had there been parachutes on the roof, at what point would those with the parachutes have jumped‹and might they have just come down in the great debris cloud or been able to figure out a path to safety amidst all the debris and other hazards? In my view, jumping early is just not generally in society¹s nature‹witness the decisions to rebuild New Orleans and Galveston, choices that seem unsustainable in the longer-term. In seems to me that it will take agreement on a comprehensive, multi-part, long-term agreement to eliminate emissions among all nations to really generate some action, with geoengineering being a part of the effort for of order several decades. That way, the full set of implications and impacts and approaches is dealt with together‹and geoengineering would be seen as a necessary component of the full effort rather than as a short-term ad hoc choice. I just think arguing for geoengineering alone (or nearly alone) will be a hard sell, except to those of us who agree with Hansen that we are already past the appropriate concentration threshold for dangerous change. Mike M On 11/25/08 12:20 PM, "John Nissen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Dear David, > > I proposed that we refer to "climate restoration" rather than "climate > cooling", as I believe that should be our objective in using some of the > proposed geoengineering techniques. But you are concerned by side-effects. > > The side-effects of the proposed climate restoration techniques, using > stratospheric aerosols and marine cloud brightening, are well researched > because we can study the effects of volcanoes (like Pinatubo) and contrails > from ships respectively. It turns out that both techniques are relatively > benign - and benefits (including the protection of both terrestrial and > oceanic carbon sinks, which threaten to decline due to global warming) vastly > outweigh the negative side effects (such as a small amount of ozone depletion > and acid rain in the case of sulphate aerosols). Neither technique is life > threatening. Furthermore neither technique is expensive - we are talking of a > few billion dollars per annum at most. On the other hand, without > geoengineering, the cost of adaptation to global warming, even just the global > warming in the pipeline, is enormous - and millions of lives would be > affected. > > It seems that the media are determined to poke fun at geoengineering, but they > are producing a lot of disinformation which distracts the policy makers from > the task at hand, i.e. to save ourselves from getting caught in a spiral of > global warming and sea level rise, which would most likely follow from loss of > sea ice or massive methane release in the Arctic region. > > However, if it is a scientific advisor to the government who denigrates > geoengineering [1] [2], then I am concerned that they may not be giving good > advice to policy makers, which would be a breach of duty and moral obligation. > > I challenge anyone to come up with a strong argument why we should not deploy > geoengineering, when this appears the only way to guard against the risks of > Arctic sea ice disappearance and massive methane release, either of which > could happen in the next few years. > > Surely geoengineering has to be top priority for government, although it > should be done in conjunction with mitigation efforts. > > Kind regards, > > John > > John Nissen > Chiswick, London W4 > > [1] You mention David Hawkins. He wrote last November in testimony to a > Senate committee: > http://docs.nrdc.org/globalWarming/files/glo_07111301a.pdf > > "Scholars and economists have only begun a serious assessment of the costs of > inaction but it is clear from their work that it is climate disruption, not > climate protection programs, which will wreck the economy." > > We are proposing geoengineering as a crucially urgent part of a climate > protection program to include mitigation - so Hawkins should be behind us. > Perhaps "climate protection" would be an even better term than "climate > restoration". > > [2] See evidence given to the IUS parliamentary committee, where a low carbon > economy is given immediate priority over geoengineering by the scientific > adviser, Professor Bob Watson: > http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmselect/cmdius/uc1202-i/uc1 > 20202.htm > > "If we go to some of the other areas [of geoengineering], on paper there are > potential offsets [undesirable side-effects], whether it is tropospherical or > stratospherical aerosols, but I would argue the number one priority at the > moment is to actually implement a low carbon economy in both the production > and use of energy and that would be the number one priority." > > >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> >> From: David Schnare <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> >> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >> Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2008 1:20 PM >> >> Subject: Re: [geo] Re: the science and technology of climate cooling ??? >> >> >> >> Brian, John and Ken: >> >> >> >> David Hawkins is reading this and thinking about how to make fun of your >> terms so as to minimize their impact and turn them into something that will >> make you look like a crazed individual. I believe you can leap past his >> purposeful sarcasm if you get a thought-piece paper out (general press, not >> scientific press) discussing these terms and holding them up to public >> examination, and if you make a special email to the reporters on this list >> (there are atleast two) asking them to do a little piece on how to view >> geoengineering from a public policy perspective. >> >> >> >> Either way, your terms don't address the known and unknown potential adverse >> effects associated with the various means of cooling the planet. That will >> be the point of attack, as it has been for some time now. >> >> >> >> Overall, while I use metaphore and analogy all the time, when it comes to >> cooling the planet, I like to use simple words (like cooling) and sound nerdy >> and scientific. Thus, I use "solar radiation management (SRM)" and then >> explain how it prevents warming. Or I use "cloud whitening" and show a >> picture of contrails, explaining how natural it already is. When others >> bring up the potential adverse consequences, I address them directly >> (precipitation changes, ozone layer, acid rain) and indicate the community >> has looked into these things and others as well and has found no adverse >> impact as bad as relying exclusively on high cost carbon emissions >> reductions. >> >> >> >> fwiw >> >> >> >> d schnare >> >> >> >> On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 6:50 AM, John Nissen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> Hi Ken, >>> >>> >>> >>> Finding the right terminology is important in persuading people that what >>> you are doing is sensible. >>> >>> >>> >>> "Cooling" and "refrigeration" could bring fears of overdoing the >>> geoengineering, e.g. accidentally triggering an Ice Age (as some >>> journalists worry!). >>> >>> >>> >>> I prefer the term "climate stabilisation". We may need to cool the Arctic >>> well below its current temperature in order for the sea ice to reform, but >>> for non-polar regions (i.e. most of the rest of the world), our initial aim >>> should be to halt global warming - no more, no less. Basically the idea is >>> to stop things getting worse. >>> >>> >>> >>> But an even better term might be "climate restoration", as we'd like to >>> stop droughts rather than prolong them, restore the Arctic to a former >>> condition, reverse the spread of deserts, etc. Thus, if possible, we could >>> produce regional effects on climate for the benefit of those regions that >>> have been already adversely affected by global warming. BTW, this is where >>> marine cloud brightening could prove invaluable. >>> >>> >>> >>> Politically, I think "restoration" has the better connotations and sounds >>> more valuable. And it leaves open the door to negotiate how far the >>> restoration and to what original state/date (e.g. 80% towards >>> pre-industrial). >>> >>> >>> >>> Cheers, >>> >>> >>> >>> John >>> >>> >>> --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
