John, The approach of the IMechE in the UK seems to be pretty sensible. They argue for an approach (I've) nicknamed the 3-legged stool: Mitigation, adaptation and geoengineering. I think we need to be pushing a similarly-integrated policy.
As for John's arguments for 'Geoeng now', I'm afraid I don't agree. Even though the delivery methods might seem trivial, there are all sorts of problems which may arise with sulfur distribution. It would be premature to try a full-scale rollout when no-one's even tested a single balloon or tanker-full of H2S or SO2. Furthermore, we simply don't know if we need Geoengineering immediately. I see no evidence which suggests that we're just about to pass a tipping point with Arctic sea ice, or anywhere else, that can't be stopped unless we geoengineer now as opposed to a few years later. Sure, I buy the argument that we need geoengineering soon, but do we need it tomorrow? I very much doubt it. If we're overly hasty, and lack proper support for our rushed approach, then we'll risk alienating people at a crucial time. Far better to do solid research on the scale and timing of deployment needed, and concurrently engineer a detailed plan for action. Right now, we don't appear to have either, so let's not start the journey before getting the car running nicely. A PS I went to the Wave in London yesterday. That's my climate karma sorted for the week :-) I didn't see anyone from this list 2009/11/27 John Nissen <[email protected]> > > Hi all, > > I am afraid that we have lost one of the wisest of members of our group. I > am copying two of Peter Read's last postings before he died. I think he was > as concerned as anybody for the future of the planet, although he knew he > was leaving it soon. Here he is suggesting some practical things to do > immediately for the Arctic, especially to protect the Greenland ice sheet. > > --- > > [quote 1] > > John > > If it is to impact on policy -- I guess policy-makers are the intended > audience but how to get the message to them is another question -- it is > important to realise there are quite likely a fair number of deniers out > there. It is no good just saying [or implying] they are wrong since > confrontation is not good conflict resolution. > > I think the "simple argument" should be put in terms of risk management. > We may be wrong but the cost of failing to act, if we are right, is > catastrophic whereas the cost of being needlessly prepared, if we are wrong, > is trivial. e.g. > > - Stocking sulphur at places where it can be lifted to the stratosphere > - Designing and testing delivery systems > - Sorting the logistics for mass producing rockets or aircraft or > whatever is to be used; and building an initial fleet of them > - Training pilots or rocket engineers > - Other things that experts can doubtless think of > - And building and testing a few Salter ships > > All peanuts. > > Risk management also bears on how scientifically certain we are. We should > aim to achieve policy-maker recognition of the Art 3.3 commitment to * > cost-effective* precautionary action *in the absence of full scientific > certainty*. > > So we don't need to be certain that the ice-sheet will definitely become > unstable. > > And Kyoto style emissions reductions are not only ineffective but also high > cost compared with many carbon removals options. > > The only way to get scalable low cost emissions reductions is the grow the > fuel and then progressively substitute biomass for fossil fuel. Yes, there > are low hanging fruit in the efficiency and ambient energy directions but > they don't scale up because of the intermittent nature of the supply or the > difficulty of persuading busy people to think about complicated technologies > that impact on a small portion of the household budget. > > Defossilization is easy (low cost) and can be done in a few decades, > decarbonization is hard (costly) and would take a century, replacing most of > the existing energy sector capital stock. > > If you want it, I would be happy to contribute to the honed message that > Ken proposes > > Peter > > --- > > [quote 2] > > > I used sulphate as an example because my understanding is that this is the > only SRM technology that we are confident would work. I think your > interesting recent paper confirms that view, although it mentions a number > of other technologies that look very interesting. > > I much prefer Salter's ships but we don't yet know if they work - or if > they would work better as bubble machines not spray machines > > But if there are any proven non-sulphate technologies available I would > like to see the preparations for deployment in hand with supply logistics > etc sorted out > > And I would like to see some vessels out there NOW putting down a few > square miles of plastic to float on the surface and see whether the icepack > that forms on top of it this winter lasts longer come summer. The Alaskan > Inuits would welcome it I suspect. Or maybe the ice forms by freezing the > ocean surface, and not by accumulated snowfall, so the plastic would result > in less ice not more. Maybe wait for the ice to form and then inject > plastic through the ice to spread out underneath. We need to suck it and > see. > > If Russia and Canada want navigation channels it should not be difficult to > keep them open in summer given the warmer ocean waters. Just put the > plastic down where you want the sea ice, and not where you don't. > > But these speculations should not detract from *the risk management > perspective that reveals an urgent need to be able to deploy a proven > technology quickly*, if/when the situation calls for it > > Peter > > [end quote] > > Does anybody disagree with any of this? Can we use it as a basis for a > plan for immediate action? > > John > > -- > 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]<geoengineering%[email protected]> > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. > -- 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.
