I have spoken to some, like Nigel Lawson, who appeared to take the position that the risk of climate catastrophe is small but that the cost of a "geoengineering" insurance policy is so tiny compared to the risks that it is nonetheless worthwhile developing "geoengineering" options as a hedge against the remote (in his opinion) possibility of climate catastrophe.
NOTE: My representation of Nigel Lawson's position is no doubt a misrepresentation (filtered through imperfect memory and my own biases) and no doubt his true position differs from what is stated above. On 4/28/09, dsw_s <[email protected]> wrote: > > > The idea that deniers are promoting geoengineering is so loopy it's > hard to believe that anyone can say it with a straight face, let alone > believe it. Are there people out there who honestly believe it, or is > it just being pushed cynically? If the latter, who and why? > > > On Apr 27, 7:58 pm, Andrew Lockley <[email protected]> wrote: > > I wish his conspiracy theory were true, because then we would be awash > with > > denialist dollars for our research. > > I'd happily get into bed with Beelzebub (let alone ExxonMobil) if I > thought > > it would give us the research money - before we all fall over the > waterfall. > > > > Doubtless, a husk of truth, but I think the grain has slipped away. > > > > A > > > > > 2009/4/27 Alvia Gaskill <[email protected]> > > > > > > "Journalists tend to sell the planetary engineering sizzle, rather > than > > > serve the heavily-caveated steak." > > > > > I don't know what journalists he is talking about as nearly all of the > > > articles, reports and quasi-editorials have been extremely > negative. If > > > anything, journalists have a bias against geoengineering. I suppose > Angry > > > Old Alex (AOA) thinks any publicity is good publicity, although as Greg > > > pointed out, he didn't spell his name right. AOA also imagines the > lukewarm > > > endorsements from the right carries the same weight as financial > support. > > > If so, I like some of the rest of you are waiting for my checks from > John > > > Tierney, Jerry Taylor and the Hudson and Heartland Institutes among > others. > > > Also, where was the Newster's impassioned plea to Congress on Friday > for > > > geoengineering research? He works out of AEI. > > > > > "Indeed, almost all of the scientists working on them [geoengineering > > > ideas] believe that the best answer to our climate problem would be a > quick, > > > massive reduction in our greenhouse gas emissions." > > > > > No one in their right mind believes a quick, massive reduction in GHG > > > emissions is possible. And nearly 100% of the people I have read about > or > > > run across involved in geoengineering don't propose it as a substitute > for > > > emissions reduction. AOA also forgets about the legacy CO2 in the > > > atmosphere that emissions reductions won't eliminate. > > > > > "...while climate treaty opponent and "delayer" Roger Pielke, Jr. finds > it > > > encouraging that geoengineering's getting so much buzz." > > > > > If I recall correctly, Pielke, Jr. has only expressed support for air > > > capture. > > > > > "Megascale geoengineering should not yet be part of any national > strategies > > > for addressing climate change, or a part of any offset systems in > carbon > > > trading regimes. [Sorry, Dan.] We need first to drive greenhouse gas > > > concentrations down with proven methods, and then begin preparing to > adapt > > > to the climate change we know we've already set in motion. We should > only > > > turn to megascale geoengineering as a last resort." > > > > > Again, AOA shows his ignorance of mitigation technologies and what they > can > > > accomplish. They aren't going to be used to "drive greenhouse gas > > > concentrations down." At best, we could expect them to slow the growth > of > > > CO2 levels and in the second half of the century they might begin to > fall, > > > but who actually believes that is likely given the slow progress made > to > > > date? Then, IAOA (Ignorant Angry Old Alex) assumes adaptation will be > > > used. So spend 50 years trying to reduce atmospheric CO2, then try > > > adapation (also known as death in some circles--won't reduce the > carbon, but > > > will reduce the carbon based units) and as a final last gasp hail mary, > IAOA > > > says, turn the geoengineers loose. If we follow the IAOA plan, what we > will > > > have isn't World Changing. It will be World Ending. > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > *From:* David Schnare <[email protected]> > > > *To:* [email protected] > > > *Cc:* geoengineering <[email protected]> > > > *Sent:* Monday, April 27, 2009 2:11 PM > > > *Subject:* [geo] Re: New WorldChanging Post on Geoengineering > > > > > Dan, et al. > > > > > The reality is that all climate change is politics and politics as > usual in > > > Washington, D.C., which includes the politics of personal > destruction. Note > > > the ad hominem attack on Lee Lane, a respected member of this group. > > > > > Indeed, lately the notion of "strange bedfellows" has gone out the > window. > > > Thus, anyone not 100% behind 100% reduction in carbon is a bad person - > much > > > like Bush's policy that your are either our friend or our enemy. > > > > > That's the reality. The only counter to the reality is more > reality. This > > > is why I have stated on numerous occasions that the only way support > for > > > geoengineering (and significant research on it) will grow is when we > see > > > millions starve or drown from a climate effect than cannot be > attributed to > > > anything other than greenhouse gases. When people start dying, money > will > > > flow. Alarmism is not sufficient, in part because it is not credible > to > > > what has now become a majority of voters world wide (and a plurality in > the > > > U.S.) > > > > > The reason of scientists is not and never will be enough. Nor is it > > > sufficient anymore to say that you don't get money from big oil/big > carbon. > > > The alarmists will still call you a collaborator, and you will not get > a > > > chair at the table. Look at how the Nation's chief science advisor got > > > handed his head. Even today, he will say that we can't take > geoengineering > > > off the table, unless the table is inside the White House. > > > > > I still haven't given up on seeing some money flow, although it will be > > > easiest to get if the purpose for the research is to show > geoengineering > > > causes unacceptable risks. Nevertheless, I would continue to hope that > > > geoengineering get one-percent of the funding going to climate > change. That > > > would be a massive influx in research dollars. It's just that I don't > have > > > much hope until the "alarmists" find a way to support "Plan B > Research". > > > Several such alarmists lurk on this list. Not one has ever put up > support > > > for this kind of research on their websites. > > > > > David. > > > > > > On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 12:58 PM, Dan Whaley <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > >> Interesting evolution of POV here from Steffen. Given where he's come > > >> from, this is real progress. David Schnare may have a slightly > > >> different perspective of course... ;) > > > > >> I think most of his suggestions are already standard w/ most of us. I > > >> would question his 'prioritization' below, since that depends on how > > >> urgent one feels the problem is. I'd say we need to move on all > > >> fronts simultaneously. > > > > >> D > > > > >> Geoengineering and the New Climate Denialism > > > > >> Alex Steffen > > >> April 27, 2009 1:59 AM > > > > >> This is a draft essay, and obviously still rough in patches. I'd > > >> appreciate feedback! - Alex > > > > >> GEOENGINEERING AND THE NEW CLIMATE DENIALISM > > >> by Alex Steffen > > > > >> The Idea of Geoengineering is Being Used Dishonestly > > > > >> Though we spend our time here at Worldchanging focused on solutions to > > >> the planet's most pressing problems, sometimes the politics around an > > >> issue become so twisted that it's necessary to address the politics > > >> before we can have a real discussion about the problems and how to > > >> solve them. That's the case with geoengineering. > > > > >> Some scientists suggest that certain massive projects -- like creating > > >> artificial volcanoes to fill the skies with soot, or seeding the > > >> oceans with mountains of iron to produce giant algal blooms -- might > > >> in the future be able put the brakes on climate change. These > > >> "geoengineering" ideas are hardly shovel-ready. The field at this > > >> point consists essentially of little more than a bunch of proposals, > > >> simulations and small-scale experiments: describing these hypothetical > > >> approaches as "back up options" crazily overstates their current state > > >> of development. Indeed, almost all of the scientists working on them > > >> believe that the best answer to our climate problem would be a quick, > > >> massive reduction in our greenhouse gas emissions. > > > > >> None of this has stopped geoengineering from becoming part of a new > > >> attempt to stall those very reductions, though. The same network of > > >> think tanks, pundits and lobbying groups that denied climate change > > >> for the last 30 years has seized on geoengineering as a chance to > > >> undermine new climate regulations and the U.N. climate negotiations to > > >> be held at the end of the year in Copenhagen. They're still using > > >> scare tactics about the economic costs of change, but now, instead of > > >> just denying the greenhouse effect, they've begun trying to convince > > >> the rest of us that hacking the planet with giant space-mirrors or > > >> artificial volcanoes is so easy that burning a lot more coal and oil > > >> really won't be a problem. > > > > >> Delay is The Carbon Lobby's Strategy > > > > >> It's a central, yet often forgotten, fact in the climate debate that > > >> pumping greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere is incredibly > > >> profitable. For a small group of giant corporations (the coal, oil and > > >> car companies which we can collectively call the Carbon Lobby), > > >> business as usual is big bank. The difficulties of addressing climate > > >> change have much more to do with the political power of these > > >> corporations than with the technical challenges of building a carbon- > > >> neutral economy (a carbon-neutral economy being an engineering and > > >> design challenge that we already have the capacity to meet). > > > > >> For the last thirty years, the Carbon Lobby's strategy on climate > > >> change has been to delay. Almost every informed observer knows, and > > >> has known for decades, that the days of fossil fuels are numbered, but > > >> how quickly and how completely we shift away from them makes all the > > >> difference to these industries. They have a huge investment in oil > > >> fields and coal mines and dirty technologies, and each decade they > > >> delay the transition away from coal and gas means literally trillions > > >> of dollars more profits. Delay = big bucks. > > > > >> The best way for the Carbon Lobby to delay that transition has been to > > >> make regulations and treaties that limit the amount of CO2 emissions > > >> politically impossible, especially in the U.S., where the Lobby's > > >> influence is the greatest because of their hold over the Republican > > >> party. > > > > >> That's > > > > > ... > > > > read more ยป > > > > -- ___________________________________________________ Ken Caldeira Carnegie Institution Dept of Global Ecology 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA [email protected]; [email protected] http://dge.stanford.edu/DGE/CIWDGE/labs/caldeiralab +1 650 704 7212; fax: +1 650 462 5968 --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
