Unfortunately, I think accepting that emissions reductions won't happen makes this a self-fulfilling prophecy. The agreements at Copenhagen and Cancun, at least in the maximum implementation scenarios, get us to about 70% of what we need to avoid the 2C guardrail; that's dramatically better than where we stood a few years ago when we had only the Kyoto commitment, and lots of empirical evidence that most countries would fail to even meet this target. Given the grave ethical and legal questions associated with both intra and intergenerational equity issues, I don't think it's judicious or ethical to simply scream, "tally ho" and proceed with SRM technology efforts at least. If we are to proceed, we need to seek legally binding agreements to ensure that mitigation reductions proceed in lock step to ensure that we avoid potential termination effects, and to, as Mike suggests, minimize the scale of deployment, potentially avoiding many of the most pressing intragenerational concerns associated with SRM approaches. I'm also intrigued what Andrew thinks the legal system has so little to recommend itself in this context, among its potential roles could include:
1. Prescription of standards for stringent transboundary environmental impact assessment reviews, modeled after the Espoo Convention; 2. Development of liability standards, perhaps embracing the principles that underlie ultrahazardous activities, e.g. operation of nuclear facilities; 3. Development of guaranteed compensatory mechanisms, e.g. environmental assurance bonds. I realize that many of you on the science side of the equation are skeptical of the role of the law, but we have a number of international environmental agreements that, while not perfect, have both built international confidence in unilateral or bilateral programs that potentially affect the global commons and have provided a measure of accoountability for potential impacts. wil On May 11, 2:40 pm, Andrew Lockley <[email protected]> wrote: > I'm much more Gung Ho. We need to stop pretending that emissions reductions > will happen, in particular of co2. We need to prepare for a high co2 world. > > As mike rightly points out in item 5, we need to be controlling methane > excursions (also equivalent to point 2) . However, natural emissions > increases are likely to swamp any cuts in short lived GHGs. Further, methane > lifetimes will likely rise significantly. We will be fighting a rear guard > action, in all likelihood. I don't think we will be geoengineering in time > to cork the methane bottle. > > We need engineering development now, and likely full deployment within years > or a few decades. The scale of our battle will likely increase exponentially > as we delay, and feedbacks overtake us - especially methane. > > The legal system can in practice offer no redress. Without penalizing > winners we can't compensate losers. Taxes and aid may offer a system for > apportioning benefits, but it will all come down to politics in the end (if > we manage to avoid war - which is by no means certain). > > There is no time left. The barbarians may not be at the gates, but they are > on the march. Meanwhile, society parties and does not prepare. Realpolitik > dictates we will have a geoengineering challenge in excess of expectations, > temporally, politically and by magnitude of the intervention needed. > > A > On 11 May 2011 18:45, "Wil Burns" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Hi Mike, > > > As usual, a thoughtful response on this issue. I quite agree with you; > > there may be a need for some level of SRM intervention in the future. > > As I argue in the article, my concern is that any potential deployment > > should be legally tied to step-wise redutions in emissions to > > ameliorate any potential termination effects. I'm not entirely > > sanguine, however, that this can be accomplished given the current > > state of cooperation on climate matters, and thus I have some serious > > reservations about letting the train leave the station. At the very > > least, my effort to highlight intergenerational equity issues attempts > > to keep such considerations in the fore as we contemplate our climate > > policy options in the future; in short, it's an effort to exert a > > counterpoise to the position of Benedick et al. wil > > > On May 11, 10:38 am, Mike MacCracken <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Hi Michael and Wil--It is, of course, not one or the other. If the > Earth's > >> temperature is to be limited to less than some value (2 C per the > Copenhagen > >> Accord, and given what is happening at 0.8 C there is good reason to > think > >> the ceiling should be lower), no one strategy will do--we need all that > are > >> available. In addition to adaptation, it would seem the steps need to be: > > >> 1. Sharply reducing CO2 and other long-lived emissions from fossil fuels > and > >> deforestation is critical to limiting long-term warming (as the NRC > >> Stabilization report makes clear). To the extent we don't do this, it > >> extends and intensifies the requirement for everything else. > > >> 2. Sharply reducing CH4, ozone precursor, black carbon, HFC and other > >> short-lived emissions is critical to slow the rate of warming over the > next > >> several decades, as made clear in the recent UNEP/WMO assessment (and in > an > >> overshoot diagram in the NRC stabilization report). > > >> 3. Carbon Dioxide Removal through a range of processes is critical to > >> reducing damage from ocean acidification and to shorten duration of time > >> with high levels of CO2. > > >> 4. Even with all of these, is seems quite plausible that > >> tropospheric/surface Solar Radiation Management (quite possibly > regionally > >> applied and focused on countering specific impacts) might well be > >> appropriate. For example, it might be useful to invoke to continue the > >> existing cooling offset of sulfate aerosols and to at least moderate > polar > >> warming in order to help limit loss of ice sheets and mountain glaciers, > to > >> sustain permafrost and limit methane release (other applications might be > >> seeing if one could slightly redirect storm tracks by adjusting sea > surface > >> temperature gradients, or limiting tropical cyclone intensification by > >> cooling critical regions, etc.). The level of SRM here would, assuming > the > >> first three approaches, not need to be near the equivalent of reversing a > >> CO2 doubling (as most calculations have been focused on), and so it would > >> seem, so still to be tested, likely to have not nearly the unintended > >> consequences of global stratospheric SRM. [And in this category as well > >> might be the buffering of ocean waters in critical sub-regions as > discussed > >> in other emails.] > > >> 5. It seems to me that global stratospheric SRM, which has received the > most > >> attention, and seems to be envisioned by most as being invoked on an > >> emergency response basis after all of the above (plus adaptation) have > been > >> pursued and there is still some crossing or near crossing of a key > threshold > >> (e.g., permafrost and clathrate methane seem very near massive release, > >> etc.) right ahead. At that point, even with there being some significant > >> losers (e.g., storm track or monsoon shifting), there would be > substantial > >> global interest and basis for proceeding. In going forward, however, > >> suggesting that the only cost would be to get the sulfate up there really > >> omits the likely much larger cost of compensating the losers in some way. > >> Not thinking about this and accounting for it is a bit like the fossil > fuel > >> industry at present, saying it is providing the least expensive energy > while > >> at the same time it is not counting the externalities. > > >> While all of these together might well provide a path through the 21st > >> century that would not be overly costly and not unduly impose on future > >> generations, it is a narrowing path with precarious footing, and if we > don't > >> get started immediately on all steps (some emphasizing implementation, > some > >> emphasizing research), having to run faster in the future seems sure to > lead > >> to some serious slips and bumps in the road--at least. > > >> Mike MacCracken > > >> On 5/11/11 12:10 PM, "Dr. Wil Burns" <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> > Hi Michael, > > >> > Several responses here: > > >> > 1. A future generation might have no choice in terminating an SRM > >> > approach should it technologically fail; this is certainly not beyond > >> > the pale. For example, various climatic feedback processes might > >> > ultimately denude the effectiveness of cloud brightening or particle > >> > dispersants in the stratosphere; > >> > 2. A future generation might deem the use of such technologies > >> > unethical should they be visiting grave harms on certain vulnerable > >> > populations, such as the potential for substantially denuding > >> > precipitation in southeast Asia. A nation in that region might also > >> > threaten military retaliation, compelling suspension. The point is > >> > that the consequences then would be potentially very grave in terms of > >> > the termination effect; > >> > 3. I find your view that it's this generation saving itself vs. the > >> > needs of future generations excessively reductionist. There is a third > >> > alternative, which is substantive measures by this generation to > >> > reduce its greenhouse gas emissions. As the article points out, some > >> > measures, e.g. massively reducing black carbon, might be able to > >> > prevent us from crossing the critical thresholds that are often cited > >> > as a rationale for geoengineering. I want those options explored in a > >> > meaningful fashion before we are lured by the siren song of > >> > technologies that pose a substantial moral hazard, and perhaps an > >> > extremely palpable societal hazard should the termination effect be a > >> > realistic consequence of SRM deployment. wil > > >> > On May 10, 11:01 pm, Michael Hayes <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> Thanks for posting this link. This was a very interesting read. > > >> >> I read your contribution concerning intergenerational equity and have > a > >> >> question on one concept. I quote: > > >> >> "Unfortunately, while a commitment to SRM geoengineering approaches in > lieu > >> >> of > >> >> effective mitigation responses might prove effective and politically > >> >> palatable for our > >> >> generation, future generations may not feel the same way because of > the > >> >> threat posed by > >> >> the ³termination² effect." > > >> >> I need help in understanding what would motivate a future generation > to > >> >> discard an active SRM effort due to the threat of the effects of > discarding > >> >> an active SRM effort. From a philosophical stand point, such a future > >> >> generation, with that view, would simple be collectively suicidal. As > such, > >> >> should we be constrained by their irrational views (suicide is > >> >> mainly considered irrational)? Your definition of intergenerational > equity > >> >> states "fairness in the utilization of resources between human > generations * > >> >> past*, *present* and *future*.". We, today, will be the "*past*" > generation > >> >> to this hypothetical *future* suicidal generation. Thus, the question > comes > >> >> to mind, in that: Do they not owe us, as a "*past*" generation, > fairness in > >> >> the utilization of resources (ie. SRM) if SRM is deemed by us as > crucial to > >> >> our generations' survival? Do we not owe them our survival so that > they may > >> >> even come into existence? > > >> >> Is there a flaw in my logic? This issue does seem to me like > Schrodinger's > >> >> Cat is vigorously chasing a lifeless tail! > > >> >> I do need help in understand the rational nature of your argument. > > >> >> Thanks,- 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 > > ... > > read more » -- 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.
