David / Gene, You may be aware that the American Meteorological Society is working on a statement on geoengineering which many of the individuals you mention as well as others from this community are co-authors on. It should probably be out within a month or so.
D My posted reply to the badger: merrick, your reasoning seems to be that deep cuts in emissions will address the threat of severe climate change. i.e. because it will take as long to test geoengineering as to make deep cuts, we might as well do the latter--because that actually addresses the problem, rather than the symptom. do i have you correctly? however, you seem to ignore the possibility that by the time we address emissions we will have 400-450ppm (godwilling it's that little) CO2 in the atmosphere. this is not simple resignation to our fate, rather the precise scenarios the IPCC has laid out for various programs of 50% or 80% emissions reductions programs. in fact, these are based on the doubling path that we were previously on. since then, the Global Carbon Project has just released that we are on a tripling track for CO2--upending those previous forecasts. Now it is clear that the global economic slowdown will take the edge off that reality, but by how much? And how will the changing mix of emissions intensive fossil fuels that we are headed towards skew it even further before we can make the transition to clean sources? and yet, based on the impacts we are *already* seeing, even the 380 we have may be taking us towards extraordinary hazards. hansen is now out with a paper calling 350 the "safe" level. who knows if he's right-- but that number happens to be *lower* than where we are now. thus, would it not be prudent to understand the potential of alternative techniques to either remove carbon or deflect solar radiation in the eventuality that we might be headed to quite extreme climate warming? i disagree with gadian if he indeed said we'll only need it for 10-20 years, or until emissions are under control. clearly if we need it at all, it will likely be for much longer, and for quite a bit after emissions are under control. how long will it take us to get back to 350? and-- by the way, how are we going to go backwards in any kind of reasonable time frame unless we don't look at ways of removing CO2 from the atmosphere? i disagree that humanity will burn all the fossil fuels it can. i actually believe that we will wean ourselves of fossil fuels-- we must, otherwise we are doomed. but i also disagree with your stipulation (unsubstantiated) that "the geoengineering will, in all likelihood, be used as an alternative to deep cuts". can you please provide one shred of evidence to support that statement? clearly other forms of mitigation, such as forestry are not bartered in the climate negotiations in return for easing of long-term CO2 targets. i see no reason why geoengineering would. certainly, outliers like newt gingrich in the US are examples of individuals who would make those arguments. but to argue that those arguments would actually carry the day in a global negotiation is a statement which i cannot find evidence for-- and yet which you are arguing is likely enough that we should not explore these options as a result. also, you clearly do not understand the nature of cap and trade-- regardless of whether you think it is an effective framework for managing emissions reductions, which is a separate question-- even as implemented now, additional sources of carbon reductions do not expand the pool of allowances issued to emitters. further, offsets by design can only account for at most 15% of total obligations-- and these levels are negotiated at the outset at the same time that the long term targets are. it is expected and desired that offsets are utilized because they allows reductions in uncapped sectors to be financed so that overall atmospheric targets are achieved more rapidly for the same overall economic pain. sources of mitigation are negotiated at the SAME TIME that sources of offset potential are considered-- and the economic and technologic realities of what we can achieve are the final inputs into the overall end targets. it appears you are quite uninformed about the carbon world--save a brooding fear that it cannot achieve its aims. you take aim at the brokers and traders that are profiting from it, but you cannot frame your arguments in the context of present-day or historical examples of how similar programs have or haven't worked, and why. do you understand the difference between voluntary offsets and regulated ones? would you know a quality project from a flawed one, and what steps have been taken in the last 2 years to correct these issues? are you aware of the new steps towards transparency in allocating allowances that will go into effect in the post kyoto framework? "geoengineering is likely to have serious unforeseen ill effects?" another stipulation. you essentially argue against any of the progress in science over the last 20-30 years. you argue against the comparison to naturally or artificially occuring analogues that exist already. are you aware of the work that was done to understand the impact of jet contrails on overall temperature during 9-11 when flights were halted in the US? i.e. that we are already modifying our atmosphere in this way? are you aware of the studies that show what the unintended consequences of large-scale deployment of wind farms will have on removing kinetic energy from surface winds? i am not arguing against wind energy-- only that all domains are complex, and only a deep analysis can tell us what the correct path is. you essentially argue against beginning down the path of understanding the full portfolio of options-- and whether any of these additional measures should ultimately be considered or not. instead of asking questions yourself to increase your level of understanding, it appears that you argue that no questions should be asked by anyone for fear of the unintended consequences that the asking might bring. this is perhaps the essence of the luddite world view. technology is bad, man is flawed, options create chaos, and the only way to enforce objectives is to eliminate alternatives. people were worried about the dangers of recombinant dna testing in the early 70s. however, the nobel prize winner that invented the technique, paul berg, convened a remarkable conference-- the asilomar conference-- to deal with those concerned, which became the ethical model that the industry still operates on. perhaps the same thing is needed here. get informed. On Jan 23, 1:08 pm, "Eugene I. Gordon" <[email protected]> wrote: > David: The concept is newsworthy. However, I would avoid characterizing it > as a consensus. That word smells bad to me. > > I suspect Andy Revkin would be willing to include the statement in one of > his posts and possibly link the post to a regular article. There are at > least two others in the New York Times writers community that might > participate. > > I like the idea that someone who is a recognized participant in the field > take the first draft. It is also reasonable that the group establish a > website and use the statement in its masthead. > > I also suspect that some money could be raised to support a staff person to > manage the website, the e-mails, and, very important, the use of the website > to publish on-line briefs on various related technical topics. I think we > should be low key in contrast to the AGW group and simply tell the story of > what needs to be done, what can be done, and what else is needed for a > successful effort, without trying to scare the public. > > -gene > > _____ > > From: David Schnare [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Friday, January 23, 2009 11:55 AM > To: [email protected] > Cc: [email protected]; [email protected] > Subject: Re: [geo] Re: Badgering Geoengineering > > Gene: > > I've been thinking along the same lines with regard to a definitional > statement and a statement about the relative risks of geoengineering, as > compared to mitigation. I believe it should be simple enough to be > understood by the lay public; specific enough to distinguish between > geoengineering and adaptation; honest enough with regard to relative risks > to be signed by the breadth of the geoengineering science community, to > include David Keith, Alan Robock, Lee Lane, John Nissan, Tom Wigley, Alvia > Gaskill, and Ken Caldiera, to name a few. Certain others will not sign > because it would give legitimacy to geoengineering, which they don't want; > and others should not be invited to sign, myself included, as I don't do > original research on this. I believe the folks doing serious writing on > governance should be included. > > I would post it on this group, perhaps in the head notes, and I would think > some of the members of the media (there are two I'm thinking should be > interested) should put the statement into the public forum as a news item. > One of those owes this community a debt at this point and ought to be happy > to repay it in this manner. The wiki folks could also do their part. > > The statement then could be endorsed by other scientists and engineers as > their working understanding of the subject. We would have to build on the > discussions we've already had regarding what to call this subject (e.g., > climate geoengineering) so as to distinguish it from not only mitigation and > adaptation, but from other forms of geoengineering that have long existed. > > Someone has to draft this, and I'm thinking whomever that is would be wise > to begin with Tom Wigley's discussions, either from his papers or > presentations, as he makes very clear the use of this approach is one that > needs to be integrated into a carbon emissions strategy, as well as David > Keiths seminal work on the history of the subject. At the same time, I > believe it essential to explain the degree of uncertainty in the risk of > geoengineering in the context of the uncertainty of the risk of climate > change itself, and the linkage between those uncertainties (same models, > etc.); and finally the need to clearly delineate the risk-risk trade-off in > the context of the mutually antagonistic moral dilemmas. > > I note as a final thought that the worst way to draft and get consensus on > this is to do it openly on this group. Nevertheless, we might as well as > there is a moral superiority to doing things in a fully transparent manner, > and anyone who does not play can not later complain about the statement. > There are a ton of reasons why an advocate should prepare the first draft, > but I don't have the energy to care about that anymore. > > Someone on this list and qualified to be a signatory - have at it. > > Best, > David > > On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 11:22 AM, Eugene I. Gordon <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Who is Gadian to speak for geoengineering? if there are ethically unsound > people around they are more likely climate scientists who overstate the > situation. In any case, practicality dictates that we not count on the world > to suddenly decrease greenhouse gas emissions. Trying to trick the world > into reducing by overstating the problem is ethically unsound. > > It seems to me that a clear statement from this group that gets published > broadly is much in order. > > _____ > > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Alvia Gaskill > Sent: Friday, January 23, 2009 7:51 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: [geo] Badgering Geoengineering > > http://bristlingbadger.blogspot.com/2009/01/geoengineering-ethically-... > -says.html > > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:AmericanBadger.JPG> American Badger > > geoengineering 'ethically unsound' says geoengineer > <http://bristlingbadger.blogspot.com/2009/01/geoengineering-ethically-... > d-says.html> > > Last month I went to a <http://www.cafescientifique.org/> Cafe Scientifique > talk by Dr Alan Gadian. He's part of a > <http://www.see.leeds.ac.uk/research/ias/index.htm> team with Mike Smith at > the University of Leeds and John Latham who are experimenting with > cloud-seeding. > > Their idea is that if you whoosh up great quantities of sea water into the > air then the salt crystals will encourage clouds that reflect solar energy, > thereby reducing the amount of heat trapped by greenhouse gases. > > The big problem with this and other climate > <http://www.headheritage.co.uk/uknow/features/index.php?id=91> > geoengineering projects is that they allow an escape route for the carbon > emitters. Desperate to do anything other than reduce our energy consumption > and attendant emissions, they fired off the decoys of climate denial, > followed by carbon offsets and biofuels. Anything to distract us, to give us > the hope that there'll be some swift, simple magic bullet. > > NOT REDUCING CO2 > > The geoengineering schemes that reflect the sun have a very serious problem. > They mean that the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will keep > rapidly increasing. This will have serious impacts on plantlife but > seemingly more serious is the impact on the oceans. It will cause them to > <http://ioc3.unesco.org/oanet/FAQeco.html> acidify, killing the coral reefs > and making many species unable to properly form shells. This isn't taking > out one or two species, this is hacking out a huge length of the food chain. > The knock-on effects scarcely bear thinking about. > > Dr Gadian said that the scheme, should it work, would require £1.5bn worth > of whooshy boats. All things going well they'll make the desired sort of > clouds, although the might make the wrong ones and actually dissolve the > present level of reflective clouds and make the situation worse. > > He told us that it's not that dangerous a plan because sometimes 'clouds are > naturally like that'. Hmm, taking something that naturally occurs and > increasing the amount of it in the atmosphere, that's not a problem is it? > Can anyone say 'carbon dioxide?' > > Dr Gadian says his scheme is less risky than other reflection schemes as if > anything untoward is discovered it's rapidly switch-offable. All > artificially-induced clouds should be gone within two weeks of the boats > stopping their work. > > The problem is that by then it may be too late. Not only are there the > unforeseen side-effects and having to get someone who's invested over a > billion dollars to admit they're wrong and take a massive loss squarely on > the chin, but more importantly there's what hasn't happened. We haven't cut > our emissions because we were banking on this scheme. To stop making the > clouds is to allow more sun in and let all the emissions from the time when > we chose the scheme to the swithc-off date heat the climate. > > Even if it doesn't affect weather in the least and even if altered cloud > cover has no adverse ecological effects, this will be used to delay real > action. It means if it doesn't work well enough we're stuffed. It means we > permit - we actually choose to cause - all the other effects of spiralling > quantities of CO2 in the atmosphere. > > THE BREVITY LIE > > Dr Gadian said it mightn't be that much really, because that his scheme > mightn't be long-term, it could be 'just for ten years or so until we > change'. > > This is the central lie of the geoengineering lobby. They cannot argue that > their ideas are safer or more effective than carbon cuts, so they argue that > they're just a stopgap until we make such cuts. > > The time it takes to develop, test for effectiveness and the very high > degree of safety, and then scale up and deploy any of their schemes is at > least as long as it'd take to make serious carbon cuts. And who do we think > would invest billions of dollars in a scheme that's trying to be as short > term as possible? > > The investors will want something back for their money, and the benefits of > any climate geoengineering will almost certainly be sold as 'carbon credits' > to the polluting industries and nations. It will not be done in tandem with > emissions cuts but instead of them. Geoengineering will not be a tool of > mitigation but of exacerbation. > > THOSE WHO WANT IT DON'T KNOW ENOUGH > > Dr Gadian's grasp of the threat from carbon emissions was graphically > illustrated by the astonishing declaration that 'my biggest fear is that we > will run out of fossil fuels in two or three centuries'. > > If we get to the point of actually running out of fossil fuels as opposed to > abandoning them then the mere running out will not be our biggest problem. > > If it gets to that stage then, given 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
