Dear Alvia, 1. We're not talking about CDR, just SRM, at least in terms of the focus of the article you're discussing; 2. I don't appreciate you accusing me of "making up stuff,": a responsible approach, assuming arguendo, you want to carry on a colloquy and not resort to ad hominem, would be to ask for citations for the 500-1000 year timeframe. Here you go: Naomi E. Vaughan & Timothy M. Lenton, A Review of Climate Geoengineering Proposals, CLIMATIC CHANGE, Online First, Mar. 22, 2011; Victor Brovkin, et al., Geoengineering Climate by Stratospheric Sulfur Injections: Earth System Vulnerability to Technological Failure, 92 CLIMATIC CHANGE 243, 252 (2009); Dumanoski, Resisting the Dangerous Allure of Global Warming Technofixes, 62 Environment 360 (2009); 3. I'm fascinated that some (certainly not all, or most, fortunately) folks in the geoengineering community have embraced it as a religion, i.e. they legitimately point out the serious governance issues associated with climatic policy, but magically place their faith in technologies fraught with massive uncertainties in terms of potential effectiveness and huge potential intergenerational and intragenerational equity issues, strange double standard; 4. Beyond the intergenerational issues that I point out, which you simply swat outside in a conclusory fashion without confronting the legal or ethical issues that are proffered, you ignore the serious intragenerational equity issues that inhere to this approach. Even, assuming you're right, we could utilize SRM "simply" for a century long transition to CDR, suppose it results in massive droughts in Southeast Asia and the Amazon, as some have argued, are you fine with that from an ethical perspective? Yes, some of those regions will face serious climatic impacts under a business as usual scenario, but many ethicists would view the intentional infliction of such impacts via deployment of SRM technologies far differently than incidental impacts related to the use of fossil fuels. The former is also likely to engender far higher levels of animus by affected parties. If you take the time to read the article, which I suspect you did not, you'll see that I acknowledge the exigencies that might counsel in favor of SRM approaches, but there's also a prescriptive section that outlines the circumstances under which I think such deployment would comport with the principle of intergenerational equity. wil
On May 12, 11:53 am, "Alvia Gaskill" <[email protected]> wrote: > "SRM would require 500-1000 year deployments of > technologies that future generations might consider anathema." > > So you have no faith in CDR? Did you just make up the 500-1000 yr time > frame? If you want to assume we have to wait until the CO2 and other GHG > levels return to pre-industrial on their own, then you'll have to wait a lot > longer than a thousand years. The more reasonable assumption about SRM, > whatever form it takes is that it would probably need to be used until the > end of this century. By then, energy sources to regenerate sorbents will be > available, after the needs to supply the grid have been satisfied. As the > CO2 level in the atmosphere is gradually lowered, the intensity of the SRM > application is also reduced. I don't think lawsuits from the unborn are our > greatest worry. It's those people who keep meeting every few months > promising, but never delivering on emissions cuts or money to pay for it. > BTW, these are the same people who would fast track the methane reduction > fantasy that some have fallen prey to of late. So don't blame AEI for > binary thinking. It's others who have defined the choices. > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Wil Burns" <[email protected]> > To: "geoengineering" <[email protected]> > Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2011 1:47 > Subject: [geo] Re: New law review symposium issue on geoengineering > > Hi Michael, > > Thanks for responding again. A few more thoughts above. > > On May 11, 10:47 am, Michael Hayes <[email protected]> wrote: > > Thank you for the response. > > > As to 1); The principal aspects of SRM, in that they are > > both technologically simple and cheap, makes the assumption of "failure" > > seem unrealistic. The brakes system in my car is simple and cheap and so I > > maintain it so as to not kill myself and others. If a deployed SRM effort > > is > > shielding a future generation from outright general destruction, > > maintaining > > and even improving the system should be expected of future generations. > > The > > core understanding, by most knowledgeable people in this area, is that > > global SRM should not be deployed until climate change becomes a direct > > threat to the balance of humanity. It is an emergency response. However, > > waiting for the emergency to happen before developing the means to respond > > is not rational. Also, there is a large difference between surface SRM > > efforts and that of stratospheric injection. Lumping them together is a > > novice's mistake. > > * Somehow I think we know a lot more about the brake systems of cars, > borne out by 100 years of experience, than the effectiveness of SRM > technologies. Beyond the fact that a number of experts have > acknowledged potential diminution of effectiveness (and yes, including > feedback mechanisms) or downright failure, this issue can't be > blithely dismissed. Plus, I think you miss the larger issue, which is > the fact that a future generation might wish to no longer be under the > yoke of SRM given potentially very negative impacts (e.g. impacts on > monsoons or ozone depletion), yet it would be compelled to do so > because of termination effects that far exceed business as usual > warming impacts (that's why your argument below, that we're already > geoengineering the climate via our current policies is not entirely > compelling from my perspective). The point is that intergenerational > equity requires us to provide future generations with free choices in > terms of policymaking. SRM would require 500-1000 year deployments of > technologies that future generations might consider anathema. > > > The notion of un-known/hypothetical feedbacks denuding SRM efforts is > > interesting. In that, it is injecting a double-false conditional into the > > debate. This is more of a media tool than a scientific one. > > > As to 2); We are currently doing just that! The technology which is > > currently "visiting great harm on certain vulnerable populations" is the > > use > > of fossil fuels. The sudden stoppage of that technology would have a grave > > "termination effect". SRM will be needed in providing an > > important transitional phase to greener energy. FF are far worse than SRM! > > * Not true, see analysis above. And, again, that's an infirm argument > from an ethical perspective. It's an argument that gives succor to the > likes of the American Enterprise Institute, who has embraced > geoengineering, arguing that our choices are binary: a future ravaged > by climatic effects from unstinted initiatives or the magic bullet of > geoengineering. There is a third way, which is substantive reductions > in emissions, using both short-term stop gap measures, e.g. a focus on > reducing black carbon, and policies designed to effectuate a longer > term structural decarbonization of the world economy; see McKinsey and > Tellus's analyses in recent years for a highly cost-effect vision of > the way forward. However, the siren song of geoengineering provides > cover for entrenched fossil fuel interests to resist such policy > prescriptions; we shouldn't permit this to happen. > > > As to 3) I believe reductionism is important if I am dealing with a > > concept > > which has a philosophical underpinning requiring the totality of humanity > > being divided into discrete segments of time.Reductionism can only be > > rationalized through reductionism. The premise that generations are > > separate > > entities is false. Humanity is a constantly evolving or devolving > > phenomena. > > There is no fundamental time separations within the concept of humanity. > > One > > "time group" having ethical responsibilities to another "time group" is a > > double-false argument if applied to the concept of humanity as a whole. > > * I'm sorry, I don't accept this analysis. The simple truth is that my > child, and her children, will live a discrete existence from me after > my passing, and it's incumbent upon this generation to both leave the > Earth in a condition that can support their existence in a comparable > fashion to that left by my predecessors, and which does not lock them > into policy prescriptions that they might deem undesirable. > > > With all due respects to your effort on this subject and I do want to make > > it clear that this is not meant to be a personal insult. But, I can only > > conclude that the field of intergenerational ethics is (at this time), by > > definition, an ill-logical and purely subjective belief system of thought. > > I do believe such belief systems are largely viewed as "religion" > > or..."media hype". > > * This casting of intergenerational equity as a "religion" or "media > hype" smacks of the same kind of rhetoric used by climate skeptics, > though I fully acknowledge that principles of ethics and morality and > religion obviously have a common heritage. As far as an atheist such > as myself can embrace the tenets of a religion that recognizes the > rights and interests of future generation, then I guess I found > religion! wil > > > Michael > > -- > 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 > athttp://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.- 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.
