John-- Statements like
"she certainly seems unaware that the action required to reduce risk of extreme calamity is relatively simple and easily affordable" come off to these eyes as quite naive. Which of the geoengineering solutions you know of are "simple"? I cannot think of one. And "easily affordable"? I'm not sure the question of cost is an effective angle in arguing for more attention. Perhaps amongst the fringe conservatives-- but it is the middle that needs to be swayed, not those looking for easy outs. I understand that economists like Stern and Nordhaus attempt to compute the NPV of action now vs. future risk-- but applied to geoengineering the question of cost becomes (perhaps unfortunately) perceived as a lack of commitment to emissions reductions (since we need to do those anyway). Positioning like this seems likely to distance us further from the goal. Also.. grammatically you might note the somewhat confusing second occurrence of the "actual situation". First it is "very simple", then later it is "much worse". You might stick with one or the other. Dan On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 3:10 PM, John Nissen <[email protected]> wrote: > I plan to send this tomorrow morning, so would appreciate corrections. > > Cheers, > > John > > > > > To: Right Hon Ann Keen, MP – member for Brentford and Isleworth > > > > Your ref: 01082669 NISS01005 > > > > > > Dear Ms Keen, > > > > Thank you for your letter of 11th February, in which you enclosed a reply > from Joan Ruddock together with correspondence I had had with Christopher > Conder of Defra, in May 2008. > > > > Ms Ruddock may be aware of my accusation that the government is being > misinformed of the situation on climate change, which is far more serious > than hitherto accepted by mainstream scientific opinion. On the other > hand, she certainly seems unaware that the action required to reduce risk of > extreme calamity is relatively simple and easily affordable. > > > > *The problem* > > > > I believe the actual situation is very simple. Mankind has injected an > immense pulse of CO2 into the atmosphere, sufficient to tip the Earth’s > climate system into a new much hotter state. Scientists now calculate > that the current emissions trajectory could produce a temperature rise of > over four degrees by the end of the century, which would almost certainly be > catastrophic for humanity. And some scientists calculate that, even if we > could halt emissions overnight, global warming would continue for over a > century and we would still have catastrophic heating. There is the > additional danger that continued high CO2 levels will produce catastrophic > ocean acidification over a shorter timescale. Furthermore there is the > report from Prof John Beddington, chief government scientist, that food and > water shortages could provoke widespread starvation, migration and strife, > by 2030 [1]. > > > > But the actual situation is far worse. These calculations ignore polar > amplification: the fact that the poles are heating much faster than average > (probably due to local “positive feedback” effects, particularly with loss > of sea ice leading to greater absorption of sunshine). This heating, if > allowed to continue unabated, will inevitably trigger ice sheet > disintegration and massive methane discharge, causing respectively many > metres of sea level rise and many degrees of global warming, possibly even > within a few decades. This has got to be prevented. > > > > *The solution* > > > > The solution, besides emissions reduction, has to include both reducing the > CO2 level in the atmosphere and halting the polar warming. This will > inevitably involve geoengineering, hitherto considered a last resort > measure. > > > > Therefore I have been working with other scientists and engineers to > present a case for geoengineering action to the Climate Congress, which met > in Copenhagen in March. We presented an open letter to Dr Pachauri, > chairman of IPCC, which was delivered to him personally at the Congress [2]. > > > > > In this letter, it is argued that the solution to global warming should > have at least three parts: > > > > *Part A*: Emissions reduction > > About: Reducing emissions of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. > > Target: Achieve near-zero carbon economies throughout the world by end > century. > > Difficulties: International agreement, life-style changes, high cost. > > Rationale: Long-term sustainability. > > * * > > * * > > *Part B*: Carbon stock management > > About: Removing CO2 from the atmosphere by various means. > > Target: Reduce levels below 350 ppm over next three decades. > > Difficulties: May involve change in agricultural practice, worldwide. > Side-effects may be difficult to anticipate. > > Rationale: Reduce CO2 climate forcing below its current level, halt ocean > acidification and protect carbon sinks. > > * * > > *Part C*: Heat transfer and radiation management > > About: Mainly about albedo engineering and solar radiation management. > > Priority target: Cool the Arctic sufficient to halt retreat of Arctic sea > ice within three years. > > Difficulties: Seen as tampering with the environment, and therefore > intrinsically dangerous; but cost is low and side-effects should be > manageable. > > Rationale: Reduce risk of massive methane discharge and stabilise the > Greenland ice sheet. > > > > It is the Part C that has the greatest urgency, particularly with the > threatened summer disappearance of Arctic sea ice, possibly by 2030 [3] [4] > or much sooner [5] [6]. This prospect is further threatened by recently > reported thinning [7]. > > > > If the human race were faced by an external threat, we would treat this as > a war situation. But since global warming is anthropogenic, we seem > incapable of seeing the obvious ways of combating the threat. We need a > project like the Manhattan project – with the focus, determination and > urgency to combat the threat with all the means at our disposal – and that > must involve rapid development, testing and deployment of geoengineering > techniques. Fortunately the techniques for cooling the Arctic using > “Solar radiation management” are easily affordable, even in a recession! > > > > Yours sincerely, > > > > John Nissen > > > > College House, > > Chiswick Mall, > > London W4 2PR > > Tel: 020 8742 3170 > > Mobile: 07890 657 498 > > Email: [email protected] > > > > [1] Professor Beddington’s warning: > > > http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/mar/18/perfect-storm-john-beddington-energy-food-climate > > > > [2] A copy of the open letter to Dr Pachauri can be found here: > > http://geo-engineering.blogspot.com/2009/03/open-letter-to-dr-pachauri.html > > > > [3] > http://nsidc.org/news/press/2007_seaiceminimum/20071001_pressrelease.html > > > > [4] > http://climateprogress.org/2007/09/04/arctic-ice-loss-is-stunning-total-loss-possible-by-2030-scientists-warn/ > > > > [5] http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7139797.stm > > > > [6] > http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/12/071212-AP-arctic-melt.html > > > http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/12/071212-AP-arctic-melt_2.html > > > > [7] http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/apr2009/2009-04-06-01.asp > > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
