We had a discussion of Alex's post.... http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering/browse_thread/thread/dc2f49dc86f484b6?hl=en
On Apr 30, 8:16 am, Greg Rau <[email protected]> wrote: > http://www.worldchanging.com/archives//009784.html > > 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 why they put such emphasis on attempting to portray the > science of climate change as inconclusive or hotly debated (despite > the fact that their own scientists told them in 1995 that the science > on climate "is well established and cannot be denied"). If they could > make people feel uncertain, they could make it safe for politicians > to actively oppose new regulations and treaties (a strategy laid out > in the famous leaked "Luntz Memo"). Lying about the science made > people uncertain; that uncertainty let the Carbon Lobby stall U.S. > action; and by stopping the world's biggest polluter from > participating, they stymied any real global deal on greenhouse gasses. > The strategy worked, up to a point. But now most Americans understand > that climate change is real and that it demands action. Our new > president advocates strong action on climate; business leaders from > many industries back him, as do most labor and religious groups; and > foreign nations are eager to negotiate (European conservatives are > even competing to show leadership on tackling climate emissions, > rather than denying that those emissions are a problem). This > emerging consensus on the need for regulatory action and effective > treaties threatens to accelerate the transition away from fossil > fuels much more quickly than anyone expected, so the Carbon Lobby is > scrambling to find new reasons for delay. > How Geoengineering Becomes an Argument for Delay > Their new justifications for delay are simple. Taking advantage of > the economic crisis, they call climate action a job killer. If the > Right's anger and vehemence against the very idea of green jobs has > shocked and confused you, well, understand that it's important that > climate change be framed as a threat to the economy, and never an > opportunity: the growing importance of clean tech industries and jobs > to the American economy must be downplayed in order for this strategy > to work (never mind that wind power already employs more Americans > than coal mining). Look for this argument to increase in volume as > Copenhagen draws near. > But to really make their case for more delay, they can no longer be > seen as outright opponents of climate action. They've got to have > their own plan. And that's where geoengineering comes in. > The biggest argument for strong actions taken quickly is that delay > or weak responses may put us in a position of facing rapid, perhaps > even runaway climate change. The longer we wait, the more dangerous > our position becomes. The only certain route to safety would be rapid > emissions reductions, including programs for ecosystem restoration > and other forms of sustainable sequestration to help draw CO2 levels > down. > But if we can be made to believe that megascale geoengineering can > stop climate change, then delay begins to look not like the dangerous > folly it actually is, but a sensible prudence. The prospect of > geoegineering is the only thing that can make that delay seem at all > morally acceptable. > In other words, combining dire warnings about climate action's > economic costs with exaggerated claims about geoengineering's > potential is the new climate denialism. > The Carbon Lobby Spins Geoengineering Instead of Emissions Reductions > The new climate denialism is all about trying to make the continued > burning of fossils fuels seem acceptable, even after the public has > come to understand the overwhelming scientific consensus that climate > change is real. That's why denialists present geoengineering as an > alternative to emissions reductions, and couch their arguments in > tones of reluctant realism. > One of the earliest political calls for geoengineering was Gregory > Benford's essay Climate Controls, written for the Reason Foundation > (you can find out more about their links to the Carbon Lobby and > their role in climate denialism here). Benford was explicit that he > saw geoengineering as a way to avoid reducing CO2 emissions: > "Instead of draconian cutbacks in greenhouse-gas emissions, there may > very well be fairly simple ways--even easy ones--to fix our dilemma. > ...take seriously the concept of "geoengineering," of consciously > altering atmospheric chemistry and conditions, of mitigating the > effects of greenhouse gases rather than simply calling for their > reduction or outright prohibition." > Benford is far from alone. One of the major proponents of > geoengineering is the American Enterprise Institute. AEI has a long > history of working to deny the scientific consensus on climate > change. They have strong ties to the Carbon Lobby (ExxonMobil CEO Lee > Raymond served on the AEI board of trustees, and $1,870,000 from > ExxonMobil helped fund their anti-climate work). > Now AEI is working both sides of the new climate denialism street. > They claim that climate action is too expensive (In a January paper, > AEI's Willem P. Nel and Christopher J. Cooper argue that "The extent > of Global Warming may be acceptable and preferable compared to the > socio-economic consequences of not exploiting fossil fuel reserves to > their full technical potential." In other words, "It's more > profitable to let the planet roast."). They also house one of the few > funded policy centers on geoengineering, the AEI Geoengineering > Project. > The Geoengineering Project is run by Lee Lane. Lane is smart, and so > he doesn't say outright that we should dump climate negotiations and > trust in geoengineering, but you don't need to read too far between > the lines to hear that's what he's saying. > In 2006, Lane specifically advised the Bush Administration to urge a > greater focus both on debating carbon taxes (we know how Republicans > like to "debate" taxes) and on geoengineering as "strategic measures" > to "block political momentum toward a return to the Kyoto system." He > continues to put forward geoengineering as an alternative to real > emissions reductions anytime in the near future. As he said at AEI's > recent geoengineering conference: > "I think in response to all of those difficulties that certainly I am > not the only person to see, a growing number of experts are becoming > increasingly concerned about the need to broaden the debate on > climate policy. What I mean by broaden it is to expand what we > consider as serious climate policy options from what has been a very > narrow focus on greenhouse gas emissions limitations, and indeed > rather steep and rather rapid greenhouse gas emissions limitations, > to consider a much broader range of policies that go way beyond > simply attempting to make short run reductions in greenhouse gases." > In other words, Lane wants us to believe that emissions reductions > are politically impossible (never mind that he works at an > institution which has labored mightily to sabotage emissions > reductions treaty negotiations, and that he himself explicitly > advised the Bush Administration on how to do the same), so we ought > to be considering geoengineering as the "serious" option instead. > The Distortion of Geoengineering has Become Widespread > Turn over denialist rocks and you'll find political advocates for > geoengineering a-plenty. For instance: > *The Cato Institute (denialists), whose senior fellow and director of > natural resource studies, Jerry Taylor, says that if we end up forced > do something about global warming, "geo-engineering is more > cost-effective than emissions controls altogether." > *The Heartland Institute (denialists), whose David Schnare now > advocates geoengineering as quicker and less costly to the economy > than greenhouse gas reductions: > "In addition to being much less expensive than seeking to stem > temperature rise solely through the reduction of greenhouse gas > emissions, geo-engineering has the benefit of delivering measurable > results in a matter of weeks rather than the decades or centuries > required for greenhouse gas reductions to take full effect." > *The Hudson Institute (denialists) advocates geoengineering as > substitute for reductions: > "Successful geoengineering would permit Earth's population to make > far smaller reductions in carbon use and still achieve the same > retarding effect on global warming at a lower cost. The cuts in > carbon use proposed by international leaders and presidential > candidates would have a drastic effect on the economy, especially > since substitutes for fossil fuels will be expensive and limited for > a number of years." > *The Hoover Institution (denialists) is home to not only to senior > fellow Thomas Gale Moore, author of "Climate of Fear: Why We > Shouldn't Worry About Global Warming" but also nuclear weapons > engineer and original SDI "Star Wars" proponent Lowell Wood. Wood has > become an outspoken geoengineering proponent and co-authored a recent > WSJ op-ed in which he warns "But beware. Do not try to sell climate > geo-engineering to committed enemies of fossil fuels," thus revealing > that the point is to be friendly to fossil fuels. > And, of course, denialists' allies in the media and the blogosphere > have been quick to take up the call. Conservative columnist (and > climate "contrarian") John Tierney thinks geoengineering makes > superfluous emissions reductions ("a futile strategy") and wants "a > geoengineering fix for global warming," to provide an alternative to > the idea that "the only cure [is] to reduce CO2 emissions." Wayne > Crews of the denialist site globalwarming.org (a project of the > Carbon-Lobby-funded Competitive Enterprise Institute) likes > geoengineering strategies as possible "options apart from carbon > constraint," while climate treaty opponent and "delayer" Roger > Pielke, Jr. finds it encouraging that geoengineering's getting so > much buzz. > It would be easy to go on. But the point is obvious: the Carbon > Lobby, no longer able to deny the reality of climate change, is > hoping to use the idea of geoengineering to undermine political > progress towards reducing climate emissions through sensible, > intelligent regulations and international treaties. Big Oil, Big Coal > and the auto companies want you to believe that reducing emissions is > too expensive to work, climate negotiations are too unrealistic to > succeed, but we can keep burning fossil fuels anyways because > geoengineering gives us a plan B. If you think that, you've been spun. > How to De-Spin Geoengineering > None of this is to say that megascale geoengineering should be a > taboo subject. We need a smart debate here, where we explore the > subject honestly and without industry spin. Here are six suggestions > for returning reality to the geoengineering debate in these critical > months leading up to Copenhagen: > First, Demand that bold emissions reductions be acknowledged as the > only sound foundation for any climate action plan. The Carbon Lobby > thrives on half-truths and obfuscation. Ethical people -- whether > geoengineering proponents, opponents or doubters -- all need to be > extremely clear in saying that a strong, rapid movement away from > fossil fuels and toward climate neutrality is non-negotiable. Many > leading thinkers on geoengineering (such as Paul Crutzen and Ken > Caldeira) already make clear that immediate action on reducing > greenhouse pollution (on both the national and global levels) is the > first step, period. We should follow their lead. > Second, Point out that a climate-neutral world is realistic. One of > the public debate's biggest failures is the extent to which we've let > people be convinced that a climate-neutral planet is some distant, > improbable fantasy world. It's not. We know, already, right now, how > to dramatically slash emissions using currently available > technologies, and make a profit. Economists (like Lord Nicholas > Stern, former Chief Economist at the World Bank) estimate that the > total cost of pursuing climate neutrality could be as little as 1% of > GDP (far lower than the anticipated costs of allowing climate change > to worsen). But there may not even be a cost: a great many of the > actions we need to take (like rebuilding our cities and using energy > more efficiently) return greater economic benefits than they demand, > and when something pays you money, it's not a cost, it's an > investment. > Third, Be extremely clear about geoengineering's real possibilities > and actual limitations. Journalists tend to sell the planetary > engineering sizzle, rather than serve the heavily-caveated steak. > Advocates need to continue to emphasize that geoegineering proposals > are still extremely early-stage, experimental and surrounded with > unknowns. (On the other side, even determined opponents of > geoengineering need to acknowledge the good intent and sound > reasoning of scientists who are doing their best to add new insight > to an extremely important debate.) > Fourth, Get the order right: zero-out first, adapt next, engineer > last.. We need to be clear that because of the experimental nature of > geoengineering projects, their use should be a last resort, not a > primary option. 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. 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. > Fifth, Keep a wary eye on the Arctic ocean and other tipping points. > Last year, scientists conducting research in the Arctic made a > startling discovery: what might perhaps be formerly-frozen methane > was bubbling to the surface of the warming ocean in alarming amounts. > Their work demands corroboration, but if confirmed, this should cause > us all to worry. Methane is an incredibly potent greenhouse gas and > huge amounts of it are trapped beneath frigid waters and frozen > permafrost, waiting perhaps to be released by rising > temperatures.That methane could set off runaway climate change. Even > if their findings are refuted, though, potential tipping points need > to be watched. If we find we've blundered into rapid runaway climate > change, some forms of geoengineering, however poorly understood, may > quickly move from "last resort" to "needed option." > Sixth and last, Continue outing the Carbon Lobby and its cronies, and > reject their intervention in the debate. Legitimate debates about the > possible uses of megascale geoengineering should not include people > whose institutions have been consistently and intentionally dishonest > about science and science policy. > The next two decades will have an almost unparalleled importance in > human history, and the decisions we make during this time could have > almost unthinkable impacts for millennia. The world in which scores > of future generations will live -- its climate, the plants and > animals that make up its biosphere, the material possibilities of its > cultures -- will to an astonishing degree be influenced by the > choices we make in the next score of years. > How we interpret the possibilities of (and understand the limitations > to) large-scale geoengineering projects will help shape the clarity > and velocity with which we act on reducing emissions and building a > new, climate-neutral economy. These questions matter too much to > allow them be twisted by a bunch of shills for fossil fuel industries. > We need to reclaim the debate about our planet's future, together. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
