|
Dear Lee, Thanks for your excellent paper [4]. It deserves comment. One of the main arguments for SRM geoengineering, such as stratospheric aerosols or marine cloud brightening techniques (both of which you mention in your paper), is that there is no other option to cool the Arctic, and prevent the eventual release of massive quantities of methane, sufficient to cause a thermal runaway. Thermal runaway would be the ultimate catastrophe for civilisation, and would trash the entire world GDP, at say $66 trillion, if you wanted to put a price on it. The cost of SRM geoengineering with such techniques is estimated at under $1 billion per year ("laughably small" as you say in your paper) - although one should perhaps make a contingency allowance to insure people against possible unwanted side effects or to stave off those effects (e.g. insurance against monsoon failure or extra measures to counter ozone depletion). The SRM geoengineering has never been considered the complete answer - and you point out that it does not address the problem of ocean acidification. Nobody seriously considers SRM as an alternative to emissions reduction. In an open letter to Dr Pachauri, delivered to him in March 2009, it was proposed to have a three part approach to global warming: mitigation, carbon dioxide removal (CDR) and SRM [1]. The ocean acidification is treated extremely seriously in an article in August's Scientific American, page 52, "Threatening Ocean Life from the Inside Out" [2]. The average pH of the Pacific Ocean's surface layer has declined 0.12 unit to approximately 8.1, since the industrial revolution. The target should be to limit further decline to no more than 0.1, i.e. to keep pH above 8.0. The authors point out (page 58) that "scientists have consistently underestimated rates of climate change, from Arctic ice melt to sea-level rise... Targets should be set with ocean acidification in mind... Reducing the atmospheric CO2 level to 350 ppm seems like the rational target." But what the authors fail to note is that a 350 ppm target can only realistically be reached by active removal of CO2 from the atmosphere, i.e. CDR. Emissions reductions are just not going to be enough. How much would this CDR cost, and who would pay for it? The cost could be as much as $1 trillion, or 1.5% global GDP. It could be paid for from a tax on carbon taken out of the ground as fossil fuel. This tax would cover the cost of putting the same amount of carbon back in the ground, essentially by forestation, soil improvement and geoengineering. The tax would preferably be paid at the point of extraction, so that further down the supply chain, all fuel users would have effectively paid the tax. The tax could be ramped up, say 10% per year over ten years, until everybody would be paying for their carbon emissions to be neutralised. The world economy would then automatically be carbon neutral, and the atmospheric CO2 level stable. Subsequently the tax would be ramped for a few more years to bring the atmospheric CO2 level down to 350 ppm or whatever level necessary. This would be an entirely equitable system, if properly enforced, as the polluter would be paying for their pollution to be removed. We have to be brutally honest about the situation, and not pander to those advocacy groups who "view the control of greenhouse emissions as a means to the greater end of defeating materialism and the hubris of attempting to dominate nature", as you aptly put it in your paper. While nobody likes the idea of geoengineering, per se, I would argue that both SRM and CDR types of geoengineering are necessary steps to save the planet for enjoyment by future generations. The SRM geoengineering is particularly urgent to cool the Arctic. As for the governance issue, it is the duty of governments to look after their citizens, and the UNFCCC Article 3, Principle 3, covers action to deal with climate change [3]. Quote: "3. The Parties should take precautionary measures to anticipate, prevent or minimize the causes of climate change and mitigate its adverse effects. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing such measures, taking into account that policies and measures to deal with climate change should be cost-effective so as to ensure global benefits at the lowest possible cost. To achieve this, such policies and measures should take into account different socio-economic contexts, be comprehensive, cover all relevant sources, sinks and reservoirs of greenhouse gases and adaptation, and comprise all economic sectors. Efforts to address climate change may be carried out cooperatively by interested Parties." The grave risk is not that some country might act unilaterally, but that no country acts at all. Climate change already poses a grave threat. The present course, focussed almost entirely on emissions reduction, is suicidal. Best wishes, John [1] http://geo-engineering.blogspot.com/2009/03/open-letter-to-dr-pachauri.html [2] http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=threatening-ocean-life [3] http://unfccc.int/essential_background/convention/background/items/1355.php [4] available here, you've just said: --- Lane, Lee O. wrote: -- 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. |
- [geo] global governance of srm Lane, Lee O.
- RE: [geo] global governance of srm Lane, Lee O.
- [geo] Re: [clim] global governance of srm John Nissen
- [geo] RE: [clim] global governance of srm Lane, Lee O.
- [geo] Re: global governance of srm Josh Horton
