Ken's taxonomy or something similar seems like a good way to organize the meeting. Science/technical issues are the obvious and appropriate focus, but it is encouraging to see the agenda expanded to include policy and governance: "suitability of existing governance mechanisms for managing geoengineering, including social, legal and political factors." These need to be coupled to hard science and engineering from here on out to ensure a good fit in case deployment is ever necessary.
Josh On Jan 3, 3:22 pm, Mike MacCracken <[email protected]> wrote: > While evaluating the status of the technical issues is likely best tackled > separately, it seems to me there are a number of policy and governance > issues that are common‹most important perhaps the public perception that > ties all such ideas together. The Asilomar Conference > presentations/discussion raised a number of others, as have other meetings > on governance and other matters. > > I also think that IPCC is likely to need to have an even broader scope on > what is covered. For example, > seehttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1343470/Have-scientist... > vered-create-downpours-desert.html describes what many people perceive as > affecting the climate, or at least the impacts that climate change is or > might cause. Granted, it is only over a quite limited domain, but such > approaches (not that I agree they work) could be done in many locations. > Thus, SRM might be too narrowly conceived‹it might need to be expanded to > include additional ways to alter the energy balance (vertically mixing the > ocean to potentially moderate tropical being another example‹and there are > other such ideas). > > Mike MacCracken > > On 1/3/11 12:31 PM, "Ken Caldeira" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > Yes, I agree. I think it makes little sense to combine an SRM meeting with a > > CDR meeting and have made this point of view known to the IPCC Technical > > Support Units. > > > It is too late to change this. I am now arguing that, at a minimum, there be > > at least two separate streams that run in parallel through the meeting so it > > is more like 2 (or 3) meetings held simultaneously. > > > I would suggest that distributed CDR methods, especially those that involve > > biological processes, have few issues in common with centralized CDR methods > > that deploy chemical engineering approaches, and that therefore this meeting > > should have three streams running largely in parallel, coming together > > largely > > to report progress and discuss the few cross-cutting issues that do exist > > across these very different approaches. > > > 1. SRM > > 2. CDR - distributed (or biological approaches) > > 3. CDR - centralized (or chemical approaches) > > > The odd ducks out in these things are typically > > > (a) spreading alkaline materials around on land (distributed, but chemical) > > and > > > (b) ocean fertilization (distributed, biological) and spreading alkaline > > materials in the ocean (distributed, chemical) because these impinge on a > > global commons and therefore have some issues in common with SRM. > > > ___________________________________________________ > > Ken Caldeira > > > Carnegie Institution Dept of Global Ecology > > 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA > > +1 650 704 7212 [email protected] > >http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeirala...@kencaldeira > > > On Mon, Jan 3, 2011 at 8:24 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: > >> David and list: > > >> I have read the short description of the Peru meeting at > >> http://www.ipcc-wg2.gov/meetings/EMs/index.html#6 > >> and the proposal at > >> > >>http://www.ipcc-wg3.de/meetings/expert-meetings-and-workshops/files/d... > >> -proposal-EM-on-geoengineering.pdf > > >> I mostly can endorse the need for and value of this meeting. However, I > >> do not see an indication that SRM and CDR will be analyzed differently > >> (better two meetings?), or is this still to be determined? > > >> As a proponent of Biochar, I am concerned that none of the (proposed, > >> still > >> 40?) experts at the Peru meeting will have been active in Biochar analysis > >> - > >> which may be the newest CDR approach, but possibly the most active, and > >> seems > >> to be the only one with out-year and non-climate benefits. > > >> How can one find who the invited biochar experts will be, if any? > >> Have > >> the 25 (?) monitors from developing countries been selected yet?. > > >> Thanks in advance for any more information now available. > > >> Ron > > >> ----- Original Message ----- > >> From: "David Keith" <[email protected]> > >> To: [email protected], [email protected] > >> Cc: [email protected] > >> Sent: Monday, January 3, 2011 6:33:11 AM > >> Subject: RE: IPCC on geo-engineering Re: [geo] geo eng and new Friends of > >> the > >> Earth EWNI report urges very deep and rapid emission cuts > > >> I am on the organizing committee for the IPCC interworking group meeting on > >> geoengineering in Peru this summer. > >> > >> The possibility of a special report will no doubt be discussed at some > >> length > >> at that meeting. > >> > >> My views are pretty well aligned with Ken's here. There are lots of summary > >> reports written in more in the works, what is lacking is sufficient serious > >> analysis of the various methods, their potential, risks and uncertainties. > >> > >> -D > >> > >> From: [email protected] > >> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Ken Caldeira > > >> Sent: Sunday, January 02, 2011 9:35 AM > >> To: [email protected] > >> Cc: [email protected] > >> Subject: Re: IPCC on geo-engineering Re: [geo] geo eng and new Friends of > >> the > >> Earth EWNI report urges very deep and rapid emission cuts > >> > >> It is not clear to me that doing an IPCC report on geoengineering would be > >> an > >> effective use of everybody's time. People are already starting to plan the > >> treatment of geoengineering in AR5 with a meeting coming up in Peru in > >> June. > >> These IPCC processes are notoriously time consuming. > > >> There really is not that much research going on because funding in this > >> area > >> is extremely limited. My own sense is that at this point most scientists > >> involved in this area could benefit by spending more time in their labs and > >> offices doing science and less time going to meetings talking about > >> non-science. > > >> Geoengineering is an area where the ratio of talk to actual new facts is > >> startlingly high. > > >> We recently had the Royal Society report. How much has changed since then? > > >> ___________________________________________________ > >> Ken Caldeira > > >> Carnegie Institution Dept of Global Ecology > >> 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA > >> +1 650 704 7212 [email protected] > >>http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeirala...@kencaldeira > > >> On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 4:15 AM, Emily <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Dear All, > > >> I proposed to Yvo DeBoer in 1008 that he might like to request the IPCC to > >> complete a rapid special report on Active mitigation options such as > >> geo-engineering. This might follow the report series the IPCC have done on > >> renewables etc. > > >> At that point Yvo felt that the IPCC coverage of geo-eng in the AR4 would > >> cover it. > > >> Perhaps we could make a stronger case for IPCC to do something useful on > >> geo-eng. The new UNFCCC leadership and also the post Copenhagen / Cancun > >> context may help gain an IPCC review of options and secure greater dialogue > >> and inclusion in the UNFCCC texts, such as in the KP, LCA, REDD or CDM > >> text. > > >> where would it best be in the UNFCCC text and what would it need to say. > > >> The KP and LCA text already talks about 'reduction of emissions and > >> removal > >> by sinks' How can this be explored further? > > >> best, > > >> Emily. > > >> On 30/12/2010 14:22, John Nissen wrote: > >> Thanks, John for these reduction requirements. They are clearly impossible > >> to achieve, but even if they could be achieved would not guarantee keeping > >> within 2 degrees this century. And 2 degrees is far from safe. We have no > >> option but to remove CO2 from the atmosphere (CDR) at an increasing rate > >> until the removal is faster than the addition from emissions. But what's > >> the > >> timescale? Is global warming the most immediate threat? > > >> Ocean acidification is proceeding at an alarming rate. It will soon reach > >> a > >> level in the Arctic where shells cannot form and the marine food chain is > >> affected [1] [2]. Thus we have only a decade or two to reduce CO2 levels > >> below 350 ppm. CO2 removal becomes imperative, and has to reach the rate > >> of > >> emissions within a decade so that the CO2 level starts falling. > > >> On top of these problems we have the Arctic sea ice retreat, which has to > >> be > >> halted to avoid massive methane discharge from permafrost otherwise all > >> plans > >> to halt global warming would be trashed. CO2 reduction will not have any > >> appreciable effect in the timescales - so we have to cool the Arctic > >> quickly > >> [3]. We have no option but use solar radiation management (SRM), possibly > >> supplemented by other more specific measures to retain the sea ice. > > >> My sincere hope for 2011 is that the necessity for these urgent actions - > >> both CDR and SRM types of geoengineering - will finally be recognised in > >> international negotiations, to put our global society on a new safe path > >> towards a successful future [4]. Please help in lobbying for this. > > >> Best wishes for the New Year, > > >> John > > >> [1]http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/06/100603092018.htm > > >> [2]http://www.bitsofscience.org/ocean-acidification-faster-438/ > > >> [3]http://www.catlin.com/cgl/media/press_releases/pr_2009/209-10-15/ > > >> [4] > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse:_How_Societies_Choose_to_Fail_o...>> > d > > > > > > >> See especially Chapter 14 "Why do some societies make disastrous > >> decisions?" > > >> --- > > >> On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 10:54 AM, John Gorman <[email protected] > >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > >> Thanks, Emily, for finding this FoE report > >> The report (1) looks at the emissions from each country now, and > >> projections for 2020 and 2050. I did the same,from a different > >> perspective, for my document "Why Copenhagen Failed" (2) so I have > >> checked their calculations and they are correct. > >> These are the reductions that would be required from the largest > >> eight emitters by 2020 in order to keep within the 2 degree C > >> rise;(in alphabetical > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - -- 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.
