Dear Andrew and everybody,
Dividing the warring factions into five groups (see emails
under subject of Stewart Brand's
Op-Ed, appended below), allows a simple analysis of what is
happening at Copenhagen. We have the DENIALISTS, backed by arguments of
the SKEPTICS, doing battle against CALAMATISTS, backed by arguments of
the WARNERS. Meanwhile RATIONAL ACTIVISTS are sitting on the
side-lines, impatiently waiting for common sense to prevail with the
adoption of their own plan of action.
At Copenhagen, the fighting is about emissions reduction and the fight
is between different factions. But it is the wrong war against the
wrong enemy. The enemy is not people, or even what people are doing,
but what is happening to the Earth system. And emissions reduction by
itself will not prevent catastrophe, so we have been fighting the wrong
war.
Let me explain, by question and answer.
First of all, what are we trying to achieve? Surely it is a stable and
comfortable environment for future generations, living in peace and
prosperity.
Secondly, what is the problem we are facing? It is the fact that the
Earth system is out of balance, having been stable for the past 8000
years or more - which has allowed our civilisation to flourish. It is
out of balance, largely because of an excess of 100 ppm of the
greenhouse gas, CO2, in the atmosphere.
Thirdly, what is critical? It is critical in the short term that we do
not let any element of the Earth system tip into a state which would
necessarily cause a disaster. These elements are called "tipping
points", and what has to be avoided is reaching a "point of no return",
when the element cannot be tipped back again. Some tipping points can
trigger other tipping points in a chain reaction or "domino effect".
An example is the Arctic sea ice. If that disappears, it is liable to
trigger both massive release of greenhouse gases from permafrost, with
a devastating contribution to global warming, and the disintegration of
the Greenland ice sheet, with a devastating contribution to sea level
rise.
It is also critical to avoid the creeping disaster. One example is
ocean acidification, which has already lead to the demise of 20%
corals, and, if allowed to continue, could disrupt marine food chains
affecting the lives of a fifth of the world who rely on fish for their
protein. Another example is major glacier retreat. Tibetan glaciers
supply water that is critical for food production for well over a
billion people, and glacier retreat is cause of great concern.
Fourthly, how disastrous could such a disaster be? There are certain
disasters that would cause food shortages and/or flooding on such a
scale that there would be famine and/or mass migration. Conflict would
be almost inevitable, which could possibly lead to a decimation of the
world population and/or the total collapse of society.
So finally, how do we prevent disasters of this magnitude, or at least
reduce the risk to an acceptable level? The answer is not through
emissions reduction! Emissions reduction by itself is necessary for
long term sustainability, conserving fossil fuel resources and
obtaining an eventual balance of the Earth system over coming
centuries. But it does not help with short term problems, such as
saving the Arctic sea ice which threatens to disappear over a few
decades if not a few years. For that we need to use technology on such
a scale that it can be considered as deliberate intervention with the
Earth system, also known as geoengineering. This is not as frightening
or dangerous as it sounds. We can use "solar radiation management"
technology, for example using stratospheric aerosol to imitate the
cooling effect of volcanoes such as Pinatubo, which erupted in June
1991, cooling the planet almost 0.5 degrees over two years. And we can
use "carbon stock management" technology to remove CO2 from the
atmosphere, for example using beneficial agricultural processes which
not only trap carbon in the soil but improve crops in so doing.
We are fighting the wrong war. Instead of fighting one another, as at
Copenhagen, we should be putting all our efforts into a plan of action:
a "plan B" which includes geoengineering for risk management - reducing
the chances of major disasters, especially those which could take out
civilisation.
And, by the way, we might be pleasantly surprised how such a plan could
solve many of our current problems at reasonable cost and in an
equitable way.
I hope I have convinced you that we've been fighting the wrong war
against the wrong enemy at Copenhagen. Let us hope common sense can
prevail in our actions to preserve this wonderful planet for future
generations to enjoy.
Kind regards,
John
---
John Nissen wrote:
Dear Andrew,
Some further thoughts on our five groups: DENIALISTS, SKEPTICS,
WARNERS, CALAMATISTS and now
RATIONAL ACTIVISTS.
I am going to modify Stewart's definitions slightly, in the light of
well-established science. (Given the amount of CO2 we have put in the
atmosphere, one should expect the global warming that we have
experienced. It would be quite extraordinary if this were not the
case.)
1. The DENIALISTS don't want to believe the science, and want to
continue to live in a comfortable life-style, supported by economic
growth. They think that CALAMATISTS are hair-shirt wearers and
nutters. They prefer not to think about the inconvenient truth as per
Al Gore. They prefer not to think of the rest of the world. They take
succour from the SKEPTICS. They clutch at any straws that might prop
up their own mistaken beliefs.
2. The SKEPTICS secretly believe the science, but are encouraged (if
not actually paid) by the oil and coal industries to deny the science
and throw doubt on the integrity of the WARNERS, in order that
consumption of fossil fuels can grow. They are cynics, more concerned
for their own self-aggrandisement than what might happen to the world -
even their own children. They show particular indignation and
self-righteousness when attacked by the WARNERS or CALAMATISTS.
3. The WARNERS are senior academics who understand the science, but
don't want to believe how serious the situation is. They secretly
fear that we are all doomed, but don't want to tell their students. So
they have focused on emissions reduction "as the top priority",
although they know it won't be enough to save us. Nevertheless, they
show more concern for their own reputations than what happens to the
world, because they are very fearful of the SKEPTICS. They refuse to
admit global warming is nearly as serious as they secretly believe.
For them the worst possible thing is to be branded a doom-monger by
their own colleagues.
4. The CALAMATISTS stress how dangerous global warming is, in order to
try and force a change in lifestyle of the DENIALISTS and SKEPTICS who
they despise for their attitude to the environment. They take the
evidence from different WARNERS to show that we are heading for
disaster, though secretly they may not believe it. They pretend we are
doomed without a change in lifestyle and contraction of economy (in
rich countries). They want a whole new world order and equitable
society.
5. The RATIONAL ACTIVISTS are a growing band of scientists and
engineers who accept that there are a number of possible catastrophes,
some of which could lead to the collapse of civilisation as we know
it. To prevent certain fatal catastrophes requires short-term action -
emissions reduction alone cannot prevent them. In particular, some
limited geoengineering action is required almost immediately to reduce
the risk of catastrophes arising from Arctic warming and melting ice.
The RATIONAL ACTIVISTS fear that we could be doomed, if the other
groups continue fighting one another over emissions reduction, and
geoengineering is ignored as a means to prevent certain catastrophes.
Their greatest concern is that geoengineering will be left too late.
Kind regards,
John
--
John Nissen wrote:
Hi Andrew,
Please pass these comments on to your colleague, Stewart Brand.
I agree with the four categories but would add a fifth band - call them
RATIONAL ACTIVISTS.
This is a growing band of mainly scientists and engineers who argue with
the WARNERS that emissions reductions will not alone reduce the global
temperature in time to avoid tipping points. They have produced simple,
rational arguments to show that geoengineering must be part of any
solution having a reasonably high chance of success to avoid some of the
worst calamities that has been warned about - e.g. ocean acidification
upsetting marine ecosystems, glacier retreat ruining water supplies,
Greenland ice sheet disintegration raising the sea level by 7 metres,
and permafrost melt releasing vast quantities of methane and causing
global temperatures to spiral out of control.
They argue that, if we wait for the kind of catastrophe that would
convince everybody that climate change was getting worse, it could be
too late to apply geoengineering with a reasonable chance of success.
Thus geoengineering has to be started as soon as practicable to reduce
the risk of some of the worst calamities. A few extremists from this
band would even go as far as saying the future of civilisation is at
stake, taking their reasoning from the history of past civilisations,
e.g. as described by Jared Diamond [1].
Diamond argues that "societies which excel in problem solving having
mental fixations that prevent their later problems from being
recognized". RATIONAL ACTIVISTS argue that, at Copenhagen, there is a
fixation on emissions reduction, which is preventing the recognition
that geoengineering is needed to solve problems of ocean acidification,
glacier retreat, sea level rise, and permafrost melt during the coming
years.
The nations at Copenhagen, such as Bolivia [2][3], who are most
concerned about sea level rise and glacier-fed water supplies, should
take heed of the RATIONAL ACTIVISTS, because the WARNERS do not have an
effective solution for the most urgent short-term problems.
Kind regards,
John Nissen
Chiswick, London W4
[1] Jared Diamond "Collapse. How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse_(book)
[2] BBC Radio 4, Today Programme, 8.42 am, 16th December. Interview with
Bolivian minister.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00p7qhm#synopsis
[3] Vanishing glaciers threaten Bolivia. David Shukman:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8387348.stm
---
Dan Whaley wrote:
... geoengineering mention by Brand...
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/15/opinion/15brand.html?_r=2&ref=opinion
NYT Op-Ed Contributor
Four Sides to Every Story
By STEWART BRAND
Published: December 14, 2009
San Francisco
Times Topics: Copenhagen Climate Talks (UNFCCC)
CLIMATE talks have been going on in Copenhagen for a week now, and it
appears to be a two-sided debate between alarmists and skeptics. But
there are actually four different views of global warming. A taxonomy
of the four:
DENIALISTS They are loud, sure and political. Their view is that
climatologists and their fellow travelers are engaged in a vast
conspiracy to panic the public into following an agenda that is
political and pernicious. Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma and the
columnist George Will wave the banner for the hoax-callers.
“The claim that global warming is caused by manmade emissions is
simply untrue and not based on sound science,” Mr. Inhofe declared in
a 2003 speech to the Senate about the Kyoto accord that remains
emblematic of his position. “CO2 does not cause catastrophic disasters
— actually it would be beneficial to our environment and our
economy .... The motives for Kyoto are economic, not environmental —
that is, proponents favor handicapping the American economy through
carbon taxes and more regulations.”
SKEPTICS This group is most interested in the limitations of climate
science so far: they like to examine in detail the contradictions and
shortcomings in climate data and models, and they are wary about any
“consensus” in science. To the skeptics’ discomfort, their arguments
are frequently quoted by the denialists.
In this mode, Roger Pielke, a climate scientist at the University of
Colorado, argues that the scenarios presented by the United Nations
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change are overstated and
underpredictive. Another prominent skeptic is the physicist Freeman
Dyson, who wrote in 2007: “I am opposing the holy brotherhood of
climate model experts and the crowd of deluded citizens who believe
the numbers predicted by the computer models .... I have studied the
climate models and I know what they can do. The models solve the
equations of fluid dynamics, and they do a very good job of describing
the fluid motions of the atmosphere and the oceans. They do a very
poor job of describing the clouds, the dust, the chemistry and the
biology of fields and farms and forests.”
WARNERS These are the climatologists who see the trends in climate
headed toward planetary disaster, and they blame human production of
greenhouse gases as the primary culprit. Leaders in this category are
the scientists James Hansen, Stephen Schneider and James Lovelock.
(This is the group that most persuades me and whose views I promote.)
“If humanity wishes to preserve a planet similar to that on which
civilization developed and to which life on earth is adapted,” Mr.
Hansen wrote as the lead author of an influential 2008 paper, then the
concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would have to be
reduced from 395 parts per million to “at most 350 p.p.m.”
CALAMATISTS There are many environmentalists who believe that
industrial civilization has committed crimes against nature, and
retribution is coming. They quote the warners in apocalyptic terms,
and they view denialists as deeply evil. The technology critic Jeremy
Rifkin speaks in this manner, and the writer-turned-activist Bill
McKibben is a (fairly gentle) leader in this category.
In his 2006 introduction for “The End of Nature,” his famed 1989 book,
Mr. McKibben wrote of climate change in religious terms: “We are no
longer able to think of ourselves as a species tossed about by larger
forces — now we are those larger forces. Hurricanes and thunderstorms
and tornadoes become not acts of God but acts of man. That was what I
meant by the ‘end of nature.’”
The calamatists and denialists are primarily political figures, with
firm ideological loyalties, whereas the warners and skeptics are
primarily scientists, guided by ever-changing evidence. That
distinction between ideology and science not only helps clarify the
strengths and weaknesses of the four stances, it can also be used to
predict how they might respond to future climate developments.
If climate change were to suddenly reverse itself (because of some yet
undiscovered mechanism of balance in our climate system), my guess is
that the denialists would be triumphant, the skeptics would be
skeptical this time of the apparent good news, the warners would be
relieved, and the calamatists would seek out some other doom to
proclaim.
If climate change keeps getting worse then I would expect denialists
to grasp at stranger straws, many skeptics to become warners, the
warners to start pushing geoengineering schemes like sulfur dust in
the stratosphere, and the calamatists to push liberal political
agendas — just as the denialists said they would.
Stewart Brand is the author of “Whole Earth Discipline: An
Ecopragmatist Manifesto.”
--
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.
|
