No, that's about the position of the former Chancellor of the Exchequer under Maggie Thatcher. Lawson is a climate change denier, which makes taking a position in favor of geo hard to understand and probably explains why the hard core deniers won't take a more active role in promoting geoengineering. It would require them to admit there is a problem. Explains why Bush never did anything about geo, while spending the country broke on everything else. ----- Original Message ----- From: Ken Caldeira To: [email protected] Cc: geoengineering Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2009 9:26 PM Subject: [geo] Re: New WorldChanging Post on Geoengineering
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 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
