I am deeply suspicious of centrally directed decisions unless they are necessary. I believe that dangerous climate change is likely enough that a central decision must be made to limit it. But a way must be found to ensure that the details of the decisions not be made centrally by a command and control approach. That makes me very worried about almost all the EMISSIONS control proposals now on the political tables in USA and Europe. I and many other scientists, think that they are far too indirect.
Thus why miles per gallon on cars not miles? Why miles not gallons? Why one user of gallons (cars) rather than another user (home and office heating)? Who is to make decisions between sectors where the information is lacking? We already have the crazy debacle of ethanol. When Archer Daniels Midland was outside the house of representatives in about 1980 I was asked about it in a congressional hearing inside. We already knew then it was a bad idea, and I said so firmly. The superior numbers we have now confirm it. This is not the only problem oreated by or accepted by politicians, and unfortunately some academic scientists caving in to special interests All to many political proposals are for special interests. I do not trust politicians to make sensible choices I do not trust environmental groups and in particular their lawyers to make sensible choices I do not trust starry eyed academics either Why is coal, without sequestration, supported in the recent budget? (I admit here to bias or at least to specialized knowledge. I was born near a large coal fired power plant. I went to school in the London fog when I could not see across the street and the bus conductor got out and walked th bus across intersections. My grandmother in Halifax scrubbed her front door step clean twice a day. I shoveled coal into the coal scuttle and from the coal scuttle to the (open) fireplace for much of my early life. It was better when I was in control. I then shoveled it into an "efficient" closed stove) Why does the Naughty N world (nuiclear) never escape these days from a politician's mouth? We now talk about cap and trade with a soft cap. What does that mean? All small users, you and me, will have rigid controls. But the big emitters of CO@ , the coal burners are politically powerful enough to get the cap moved! The World Federation of Scientists in a statement from Erice in August 2007 addressed this and suggested control at well head, oil mine, gas field or port of entry. Preferably with no grandfathering or special concessions. That does not seem to be on the table or even in any NY Times or Wall St Journal article or letter that they are willing to publish. It should be. It has wide support among scientists and people to whom I have explained it. Steve Koonin about to be deputy secretary of energy. I discussed it 35 years ago with Roger Revelle and if I remember his comments aright, we both thought it was and is obvious. Because it was obvious we never wrote it down. I did 10 years ago (with Klais Lackner). Alas not all Roger's students understood what he was saying in his "gut" course at Harvard! Not all my students understood what I was saying in my "gut" course at the same time on "economics of energy" which I taught with AJMeyer who in AUB had taught half the oil ministers in the Arab World. Colloquially our course was called "oil Wells". How does Geoengineering shape up under this type of criticism that I make about emissions control? In principle I prefer the directness of the geoengineering approach to emissions control. It addresses CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere not CO2 emissions,. It addresses carbon in the atmosphere not carbon remaining in mines or sequestered in sea or rocks. Control of the latter is only to achieve the desired concentration in the former. It might even be more direct than control of carbon leaving subsurface reservoirs. If we try to get this across will politicians find a way of making the special interests rich? I dont know but it is worth a try. But let us all get these things clear in our minds before we let the politicians run too hard with it! I, like Bill Fulkerson, am probably willing to sign the suggested letter. The WFS in August 2007 came out in favor of research on geoengineering and on adaptation as well as on upstream carbon control. . The more I see the irrelevant mucking around in Washington the more I feel that these two deserve more thought than previously given. Dick wilson --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
