I believe these kinds of statements are best left to well organized and established groups. While AMS is not the first group I would have chosen, it is in line with my earlier recommendation that an academic group form under an existing organization. Hence, I withdraw my earlier suggestion that someone on this group take up the pen.
David. On Sat, Jan 24, 2009 at 10:35 AM, Dan Whaley <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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 » > > > -- 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
