Eugene, I actually really like Peter's target of 2035 of zero emissions. I think it's a useful thought experiment. i.e. what if we did begin to really "get" the urgency of AGW? If we made it not a 5% of GNP priority, but a 10 or 15% priority of GNP priority? I think people forget the complete mobilization scenario that society is capable of, where factories are simply shifted over to new kinds of production by decree, etc. (yes, many are more specialized today... but certainly, if we say, this is planet earth's #1 priority, I think we would surprise ourselves.)
I think part of the objection to geoengineering is that we're not seeing the "scared" response to AGW yet. And if we're not scared yet, should we really be looking at "work-arounds"? So 2035 accepts the argument of some (most notably Alex Steffen in his recent 'lifeboat' article http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/009753.html) that we're not doing all that we could today, not really taking it seriously. Alex proposed 90% in the next 20-30 years. Peter's 0% by 2035 is essentially the same thing. By accepting that argument, you clear the overgrowth away from the unstated assumption that underpins most of the opposition arguments to geoengineering today. i.e. that emissions reductions will get us there--- that 2C is "safe". (even though 2C is essentially off the table and we're already seeing troubling signs now--at .8C--even though we likely have 50-1000 years of warming built in w/ emissions the way they are now) At the same time you communicate to others quietly reading / observing from the sidelines that "we proponents" of research into geoengineering do not intend it as a "distraction"-- far from it-- rather that we actually suggest much more aggressive emissions cuts in combination with it. Another example is this piece in the Huffington Post piece that came out yesterday... http://www.huffingtonpost.com/johann-hari/the-last-green-taboo-shou_b_190621.html Johann says "Yet if we don't slash emissions now, in just a few decades' time we will be inescapably smacking into these geo- engineering choices." Where on earth are thinking individuals getting this idea that we have 20 years to get our act together? Dan On Apr 25, 3:43 pm, "Eugene I. Gordon" <[email protected]> wrote: > Frankly the reduction to zero by 2035 is imnpossible if you mean worldwide. > How does one put in place the means to produce electric power without fossil > fuel in every country. What means does one use? How does one get approvals, > building permits, find the funds, etc. You can't build enough nuclear power > plants in that time. > > Maybe by 2035 for oil and vehicles but certainly not earlier and even that > date is exceedingly ambitious just for the developed nations. What about the > rest of the world? > > _____ > > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Peter Read > Sent: Saturday, April 25, 2009 2:02 PM > To: [email protected] > Cc: geoengineering; [email protected]; Davies, John > Subject: [geo] Re: The emissions reductions gospel is failing - we need > something more > > Many thanks for this comment Andrew - it is a matter of judgement what to > take as the alternative emissions reductions scenario, but I avoided an > abrupt stop as I felt that that would alienate readers. I took a reduction > to zero between 2010 and 2035 to be the outcome of an imaginable Manhatten > Project style drive to reduce emissions > > That leads to the tripling of my proposed cumulative heating metric by 2060 > with no end in sight). That assumes that pre-industrial levels represent > safety, by no means certain. If you take Hansen's 350 ppm to represent > safety then the metric is increased by more than three since raising the > safe level cuts out a larger proportion of the pre-2010 integral than it > does of the 2010-2060 integral (eye-ball integration, areas A and B in fig 2 > in "Global Gardening with a Leaky Bucket: Addressing climate catastrophe > through Art 3.3 of the UNFCCC" which can be accessed > athttp://seat.massey.ac.nz/personal/p.read/GGLBnqf25ix08.pdf) > > However, I would welcome comments in response to my question " If anyone > sees anything wrong with this suggestion could they please comment". Lenton > does recognize cumulative heating as a possible metric but, in his 2008 > paper, only in relation to the slow process of ocean thermal expansion. If > accepted as reasonable in relation to the much quicker process of ice sheet > destabilization then it has dramatic implications for policy. Can anyone > see a fault in the argument I have made for this metric in relation to that > threat? > > Cheers > Peter > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Andrew Lockley <mailto:[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > > Cc: geoengineering <mailto:[email protected]> ; > [email protected] ; Davies, <mailto:[email protected]> > John > Sent: Sunday, April 26, 2009 3:56 AM > Subject: [geo] Re: The emissions reductions gospel is failing - we need > something more > > As a general comment, I think it's best to consider an immediate cut to zero > emissions when analysing climate effects. Whilst totally unrealistic, it > gets across the message that we may have already fallen over the waterfall, > and no amount of emissions reduction can save us from catastrophic effects. > > Based on this 'zero-option': > From my personal understanding of the research, we've got at least 40 years > of further warming in the pipeline, whilst we wait for the oceans to warm up > (100rs is probably more likely). Then, we've got the feedbacks from Amazon > burn and permafrost melting (not to mention clathrates). We've also got the > summer ice-albedo feedback in the North pole. Added to that, we've got the > impending collapse of ice sheets, shelves and glaciers - together with the > resulting albedo changes. > > In my view, it's only when the media start reporting on studies that show > +ve feedbacks and catastrophic effects EVEN WITH ZERO EMISSIONS that we will > see a sea-change in attitudes to geoengineering from politicians and the > public. The current fashion for mitigation has lead to a research focus > that's not based on detailed consideration of this zero-option, so people > are largely unaware of its consequences. > > A > > 2009/4/25 Peter Read <[email protected]> > > Hi folks > > John does me too much credit with the word 'modest'. Thought I had > circulated, actually, but as it seems not, the word is 'forgetful'. > > Be that as it may, and given : > A that time may be running out > B that the last time I had something substantial to say it took three > years to reach the light of day through the formal peer review process [ > <http://www.springerlink.com/content/100247/?p=a149716f589d4744b87cb8c... > 26a&pi=0> Climatic Change, 87/3-4 (2008) > <http://www.springerlink.com/content/rt798740226381q8/?p=4888011a778b4... > da93fffcfc49e&pi=0> Biosphere carbon stock management: addressing the threat > of abrupt climate change in the next few decades: an editorial essay > <http://www.springerlink.com/content/?Author=Peter+Read> Peter Read > 305-320 > > ) ] > and > C that I don't have the modelling capacity at my disposal to turn the > idea into a formal paper, beyond what I presented to the IPCC meeting in > Berlin, Nov 2007, > > <http://ecf.pik-potsdam.de/past-events/ipcc-conference-1/documents-1/P... > ead-Berlin+IPCC+statement.pdf/view>http://ecf.pik-potsdam.de/past-events/ipcc-conference-1/documents-1/P... > ad-Berlin%20IPCC%20statement.pdf/view which I find difficult to access but > is also viewable athttp://ips.ac.nz/publications/publications/show/219. > would it be possible to use this blog for peer review of the language in my > guardianonline article reproduced by John? > > viz: "A measure of the threat is the accumulation of warmth from successive > summers, which is making the glaciers' undersides increasingly mushy. Even a > deeply implausible reduction of emissions to zero in 25 years sees that > measure treble over the next half-century with no end in sight." > > This metric is discussed at slightly greater length in sections 4 and 5 of > my long essay "Global Gardening with a Leaky Bucket: Addressing climate > catastrophe through Art 3.3 of the UNFCCC" which can be accessed > athttp://seat.massey.ac.nz/personal/p.read/GGLBnqf25ix08.pdf. If anyone sees > anything wrong with this suggestion could they please comment, but note > there are several danger metrics discussed in Tim Lenton's paper last year > and others may turn out to be correct. When discussing threats all > possibilities need to be considered unless demonstrably incorrect. > > Ken once mentioned to me that there is a more academic blog for less > informal discussion of geo-engineering issues and maybe he could circulate > this message there also. > > If anyone wants to use the concept I would quite like to be cited. I > mention that because I find my ideas - or something like them - being used > without acknowledgement, e.g. in scenarios involving substantial carbon > removals developed recently by Hansen's group and not so far different from > results that I published in the 1990's and reproduced at pp273 (I think it > was, I' ve lost my copy) of the IPCC's 2000 LULUC report. > > Attempting to communicate, possibly to collaborate, with Hansen, I got this > message from one of his colleagues (Pushker Kharecha) whom I suppose didn't > want Jim to know that some of his analysis was not exactly new. > > I fully understood what you were requesting, and I was trying to be > reasonably polite about the whole thing, but let me now be more blunt. > > Completely setting aside my assessment of your essay and draft paper, your > email messages alone contain too many erroneous statements to even count at > this point, much less attempt to correct. I don't know what your academic > background is, but it's unfortunately clear that you not only have a > fundamental lack of understanding about much of our paper, but you also > don't seem to grasp some key aspects of general carbon cycle science. Given > all of this it simply wouldn't make sense for Jim to endorse your > presentation. Again, I sincerely regret to tell you these things, since > ultimately you do seem well-intentioned and genuinely concerned about the > issues. > > Dirty work at the academic crossroads? > > Cheers > Peter > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: John Nissen <mailto:[email protected]> > To: geoengineering <mailto:[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected] ; Davies, John > <mailto:[email protected]> > Sent: Friday, April 24, 2009 3:01 AM > Subject: [geo] The emissions reductions gospel is failing - we need > something more > > Contribution from our geoengineering comrade, Peter Read (since he's > probably too modest to post it himself): > > http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/cif-green/2009/apr/15/geoengine... > missions-reduction > > Interviewed last week, > <http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/apr/08/geo-engineering-joh... > ren> John Holdren, President Obama's chief scientific adviser, said that > drastic measures should not be "off the table" in discussions on how best to > tackle <http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/climate-change> climate > change and that <http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/geoengineering> > <http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/geoengineering> geo-engineering could > not be ruled out. Making clear these were his personal views, he said: "It's > got to be looked at. We don't have the luxury of taking any approach off the > table." > > He's right. We don't have that luxury - not only because the Kyoto > protocol's first phase, running to 2012, is manifestly failing, but because > the emissions reduction approach that it embodies cannot succeed. It is > manifestly failing because emissions are going ahead faster than even the > worst scenarios considered by the IPCC, which provides scientific > assessments to the UN Climate Convention and because many rich countries are > on course to fall short of their emissions reductions commitments. > > Research since the IPCC's last assessment reveals that 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
