Dear Andrew,
What costs are you including? Oliver Wingenter On Dec 12, 2:53 pm, "Andrew Lockley" <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > > ... > > read more » --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
