John, As usual, you have come up with very good arguments, with very bad supporting evidence!
You need to put $ values on the benefits, and weight the risks for the arguments to be seen as hard-nosed business sense (FT), not bleeding-heart liberal (Guardian). That way you can convince the lazy, skeptical and the ostriches! A 2008/12/12 John Nissen <[email protected]>: > Gentlemen, > > Your arguing makes it seem that SRM is terribly expensive. It is peanuts in > relation to its use in saving the Arctic sea ice, which has acted as a > global thermostat throughout the Ice Ages until we just broke it. The signs > are that the whole climate system is now heading for a new super-hot state, > unless we are careful. Thus the future of civilisation hangs in the > balance. Now can you see that the SRM cost, being no more than a few > billion dollars per annum, is peanuts? > > The enormity of the problem we have to face is difficult to grasp. But for > other more tangible benefits of SRM (stratospheric and tropospheric > techniques working together or individually) which I compiled for my > submission to the Royal Society yesterday: > > > SRM in the Arctic can help to save an entire ecosystem for animals and sea > creatures, with their food chain having repercussions elsewhere; > SRM in the Arctic could restore a way of life for Inuit people. > Marine cloud brightening can be used regionally or for particular > ecosystems, such as corals. > SRM for halting global warming would much reduce the need for extremely > expensive adaptation measures. > SRM for halting global warming could save millions of lives otherwise lost > through the affects of climate change or inability to adapt, regardless of > the Arctic sea ice. > SRM for halting global warming could prevent a mass extinction event. > SRM might be applied in the Antarctic to halt the decline of the WAIS, > detachment of ice shelves and ecosystem stress (for penguins, etc.). > SRM applied to both Arctic and Arctic might prevent a significant sea level > rise this century, and hence avoid mass emigration from low-lying regions, > cost of flood defences, etc. > SRM for halting global warming would protect oceanic and terrestrial carbon > sinks, whose efficacy reduces with temperature. > SRM for halting global warming, or perhaps just for mountainous regions, > could maintain glaciers and associated water supplies for millions of > people, their crops and livestock. > SRM and cloud seeding techniques could be combined regionally for reducing > droughts or countering desertification. > Note that the use of both stratospheric and tropospheric techniques together > offer advantages in terms of balancing cost, the targeting of specific > regions, reduction of side-effects, etc. > > If these aren't "public good", I don't know what is. If anybody pays for > SRM, it is because they have the public interest - and/or their own survival > - at heart. > > If SRM had to be "incentivised", the motives of any funding could be > criticised (as you get for ocean iron fertilisation - OIF). Whereas, at > present, any SRM financial support that materialises from the private sector > can be seen to be ultruistic and self-preserving, rather than of narrow > commercial interest. > > I would see this as a positive advantage of SRM. > > But we need to see ultruistic people with money stepping forward, where > governments fear to tread. Has anybody worked on Bill Gates? Here's a > chance to save the world! > > Cheers, > > John > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: David Schnare > To: Lane, Lee O. > Cc: Geoengineering > Sent: Friday, December 12, 2008 7:27 PM > Subject: [geo] Re: Cap and Trade Haters Recommend Incentivizing Geo > Lee: > > Nicely put. Keep in mind, however, Coase assumes a perfect market for these > tradeoffs. As there is a free-rider problem, I'm not sure the balance > between the parties is sufficiently free from market imperfections as to > allow an appropriate (government free) trade. There is also the problem > that this is not merely about temperature, but CO2 as well (ocean impacts). > Thus, SRM is, at best, only going to deal with the temperature effects, > which is to say, those living by the ocean should not pay full price for SRM > as it does not deal with the loss of ocean chemistry. > > In this case, those who want carbon emission reduction are not willing to > allow anyone to pay for SRM, although a few of them are beginning to put the > potential for catastrophic impacts ahead of their desire for carbon > emissions reductions at a size that they think would be necessary to prevent > the harm. (e.g., Hansen). > > David. > > On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 2:04 PM, Lane, Lee O. <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Dear David and Mike, >> >> >> >> I wonder about part of this discussion. As Nobel laureate Ronald Coase >> pointed out long ago, what are referred to as external costs are more >> clearly thought of as negative interactions among various activities. The >> doctor's demand for quiet in his consulting room could impose noise control >> costs on the nearby factory just as clearly as the noise from the factory >> could impose costs on the doctor's practice. (This was, as I recall, an >> actual court case cited in the famous Coase article, "The Problem of Social >> Cost".) >> >> >> >> Attempts to categorize some actors as perpetrators and some as victims >> miss the whole point. That point is, Coase teaches, that it is the >> interaction that causes the costs. Move the doctor's office to another >> location or move the factory, and the social cost disappears. Therefore, it >> may be possible to reduce these costs by changing the behavior of either of >> the actors (or both of them). The policy maker's job is to define the >> property rights, or other social rules, so as to minimize the losses that >> stem from the negative aspects of some interactions. >> >> >> >> In the case of climate change, we can reduce the potential harm by keeping >> people from building flimsy structures in hurricane-prone areas. And we can >> also reduce it by curtailing emissions from coal-fired power plants. Both of >> these activities are raising the total social costs from climate change. The >> net cost-minimizing solution is almost certainly to do some of both. Trying >> to cast the problem in moral terms does not just cause confusion. It may >> lead us to miss less expensive opportunities to reduce the total social harm >> from climate change. >> >> >> >> This error seems to me to be one of the main harms likely to spring from >> the current tendency to treat near-term greenhouse gas emission controls as >> the only tool, or overwhelmingly the preferred tool, for curbing the >> potential damage from climate change. This narrow attitude encourages an >> under estimate of the potential value of adaptation. Indeed, the neglect of >> SRM is, in a real sense, merely an extension of the neglect of adaptation. >> >> >> >> Thank you both for raising interesting points. >> >> >> >> Best regards, >> >> >> >> Lee Lane >> >> ________________________________ >> >> From: [email protected] on behalf of David Schnare >> Sent: Fri 12/12/2008 12:26 PM >> To: Geoengineering >> Subject: [geo] Re: Cap and Trade Haters Recommend Incentivizing Geo >> >> >> Gents: >> >> I think you are on the wrong track. Incentives are intended to change >> behavior. One does not pay victims to continue to be victims. One pays the >> perpetrator to quit perpetrating the bad act. So, one penalizes a person >> who lives in the flood plain the increased amount needed in the insurance >> pool to pay for his damages when the flood comes. An incentive to prevent >> his home from flooding would be to give him a low cost loan to build above >> the flood plain. >> >> Hence, who's behavior do you want to alter. Surely the person living in >> the flood plain is not the person who's behavior you want to alter, at least >> with regard to carbon emissions. He may suffer the consequences, but he is >> not (in the main) the cause of the problem. >> >> The correct question is: Who would make money out of geoengineering, and >> is now causing the problem? Not merely who would benefit from it, but who >> would actually have an incentive to create wealth out of it. That would be >> the folks working on planetary scale carbon sequestration. I don't see >> anyone making money out of SRM. Hence, if you want an incentive for SRM, >> you need to link it to something else that will make money. >> >> Begin from this point for your discussion. >> >> David. >> >> >> On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 11:50 AM, John Nissen <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> >> Hi Mike, >> >> Perhaps we should try insurance companies, or even better, >> reinsurance. They are interested in avoiding disasters, however they are >> caused. Does anybody have good contacts? >> >> I have a particular interest in avoiding sea level rise, tidal >> surges and high precipitation floods, living by tidal Thames. Hey, what >> about the former mayor, Ken Livingston? (The new mayor wouldn't be >> interested.) >> >> Cheers from Chiswick >> >> >> John >> >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: Mike MacCracken <mailto:[email protected]> >> To: [email protected] ; Alvia Gaskill >> <mailto:[email protected]> >> Cc: Geoengineering <mailto:[email protected]> >> Sent: Friday, December 12, 2008 4:22 PM >> Subject: [geo] Re: Cap and Trade Haters Recommend >> Incentivizing Geo >> >> Hi David-Your proposal is just the reason why there is >> resistance to geoengineering. The idea is to not have geoengineering slow >> the needed rapid reduction in GHG emissions, but to be in addition to it-for >> given how rapidly the environment is changing we will need to have >> geoengineering as well as aggressive mitigation. >> >> We really need to find another alternative to incentivizing >> geoengineering-for example, having funding for it come out of what would >> otherwise need to be going to defending the coasts against sea level rise-so >> like an insurance premium of coastal homeowners-you only get insurance if >> you live along the coasts if you pay an additional amount for >> geoengineering. >> >> Mike MacCracken >> >> >> On 12/12/08 9:13 AM, "David Schnare" <[email protected] >> <http://[email protected]/> > wrote: >> >> >> >> You would link it to carbon emissions , allowing >> greater emissions in direct trade with investment on mass scale carbon >> sequestration and a premium (lesser but still real emissions allowances) for >> X years for SRM. >> >> >> >> >> On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 7:30 AM, Alvia Gaskill >> <[email protected] <http://[email protected]/> > wrote: >> >> >> How would you "incentivize" investment in >> geoengineering? >> >> >> http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/BU0812/S00286.htm >> >> Coalition Warns Governments Against >> Emissions Cap >> Friday, 12 December 2008, 3:33 pm >> Press Release: New Zealand Business >> Roundtable >> >> EMBARGOED UNTIL 1:00PM FRIDAY 12 DECEMBER >> >> Climate Change Coalition Warns Governments >> Against Global Cap on Emissions >> >> As the eleven thousand participants in the >> United Nations Climate Change Conference descend on Poznan, Poland, this >> week, a coalition of 50 civil society organisations from 38 countries is >> warning governments against opting for strategies that would "do little to >> protect humanity against the threat of climate change but would drastically >> increase the threat of global economic catastrophe." >> >> The Civil Society Coalition on Climate >> Change (www.csccc.info <http://www.csccc.info/> <http://www.csccc.info/> ) >> of which the New Zealand Business Roundtable is a member, has today released >> a new report with a stark message to governments about the economic flow-on >> effect, particularly on poorer countries, of adopting a global cap on >> emissions. >> >> Describing the idea as "economic lunacy", >> the report's author, Professor Julian Morris, said a global cap would divert >> resources into "low carbon" technologies and away from more productive uses. >> >> "This would slow economic growth and harm >> the ability of the poor to address the real problems they face every day, >> such as diseases, water scarcity, and inadequate nutrition", said Professor >> Morris. >> >> The report canvases policy options >> available to governments and concludes that adaptation, coupled with >> improving the institutions that enable economic growth, is likely to be the >> best response to gradual warming. It further suggests that one approach to >> addressing the remote but possible threat of catastrophic warming would be >> to incentivise investment in geoengineering, and advises governments 'hell >> bent' on limiting carbon emissions to consider a tax on emissions rather >> than a cap and trade scheme. >> >> Business Roundtable executive director >> Roger Kerr said the report, titled Which Policy to Address Climate Change? >> was a timely and valuable addition to the debate on what constitutes an >> appropriate response to climate change. >> >> "We have long held the view, as set out in >> the attached submission, that a cap and trade scheme of the type being >> considered in New Zealand would impose heavy costs on households, businesses >> and the economy. It is also likely to discourage investment and lead to >> losses in business confidence and jobs. >> >> "It is to be hoped that common sense will >> prevail in Poznan and that a few European ministers will not succeed in >> imposing further pain on countries already struggling with much more serious >> problems", said Mr Kerr. >> >> >> ENDS >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > -- > David W. Schnare > Center for Environmental Stewardship > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
