Lee et al., I strongly agree with this last point. As I see it, the risk of unilateral SRM deployment is wildly overblown. In fact, there are powerful structural forces militating against unilateral implementation: effective SRM would be contingent on other states' climate engineering actions, global mitigation efforts, and decisions not to deploy countermeasures (this last factor is particularly important). The complexity of the climate system renders the succes of any given intervention dependent on international consensus and cooperation. Conventional wisdom notwithstanding, the world politics of SRM is governed more by a "logic of multilateralism" than by the threat of unilateral deployment. (I recently submitted a paper titled "Geoengineering and the Myth of Unilateralism" for publication, which makes this argument in much greater detail.)
Josh Horton [email protected] On Jul 25, 4:26 pm, "Lane, Lee O." <[email protected]> wrote: > Dear John, > > I very much appreciate your comments, and I share your concern that some > potential consequences of GHG emissions pose quite troubling threats. Your > point that SRM, in itself, is far short of an adequate response is also well > taken, and I hope that my article in no way conveys the opposite impression. > While I am deeply skeptical of the feasibility of schemes for global carbon > taxes, if such levies could be put in place, they would offer great > advantages over cap-and-trade schemes. The latter, I fear, wherever they are > tried, are destined to stumble into countless nettlesome snares and vexing > side-effects. But, in any case, I very much doubt that they will be applied > widely enough to have much impact on climate. > > Let me draw special attention, though, to your last point, which is, I think, > a most important one. You write: "The grave risk is not that some country > might act unilaterally, but that no country acts at all." This comment seems > to me to be exactly right. > > When the first articles about the world politics of SRM appeared, they > stressed the risks of unilateral action. This focus was understandable. SRM > offers a great deal of go-it-alone power to any strong state or coalition > wishing to use it or to explore it. In this feature, SRM stands in sharp > contrast with the power relationships at work in GHG control. As a result, > the political economy of SRM raises questions than differ greatly from those > that had dominated climate policy. > > It was natural, then, that the first analyses of the world politics of SRM > should stress these points of contrast; yet there is another side to the > story. The normal workings of power politics, my article argues, seem likely > to impose fairly tight constraints on actions to foster SRM. By inference, > leaping at this point into a formal SRM governance system is probably a bad > idea. It certainly could slow the acquisition of highly useful knowledge, and > if the rationale is to counter the risk of unilateral action, we need far > more concrete evidence that the threat is anything other than faint and > distant. > > Best regards, > > Lee Lane > > ________________________________ > > From: John Nissen [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Sun 7/25/2010 12:54 PM > To: Lane, Lee O. > Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; > Oliver Tickell; Mark Lynas > Subject: Re: [clim] global governance of srm > > 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-pachaur... > > [2]http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=threatening-ocean-life > > [3]http://unfccc.int/essential_background/convention/background/items/13... > > [4] available here, you've just said: > > http://www.aei.org/article/102321<http://www.aei.org/article/102321> > > --- > > Lane, Lee O. wrote: > > I realize that most people on these lists are primarily concerned > with the scientific and technical side of climate engineering and related > issues. Some of you, though, may have some interest in an article of mine > that appears in the latest issue of the Milken Institute Review. Its subject > is the world power politics of SRM. Greg Benford, I should say, provided some > very helpful advice about one technical issues covered in this piece, but he > bears no responsibility for the heretical policy analysis, which is entirely > my own. > > The article can be downloaded at: > > > http://www.milkeninstitute.org/publications/publications.taf?function... > > Best regards, > > Lee Lane > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups "Climate Intervention" 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 > athttp://groups.google.com/group/climateintervention?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.
