Hi Toby, An ESAS Protocal may be a good *experimental debate* as the Eastern Siberian Arctic Sea (ESAS) seems to be one of the best known weak-links in the planet's ecosystem and it will most likely be the area which will produce the first major methane eruption (tipping point). If you need citations on the issue of the ESAS situation, please let me know (there is a rapidly growing library of studies on the issue). An "impending climate emergency" is scientifically undeniable at this time. However, no tipping point "starting date" can be offered. Some on this forum may believe I am over stepping an important line in making that statement. And, to what extent we are looking at a climate emergency may be the first logical place to start a meaningful debate on ethics. I offer a 2008 US DoE study titled
Preliminary Geospatial Analysis of Arctic Ocean Hydrocarbon Resources http://www.pnl.gov/main/publications/external/technical_reports/PNNL-17922.pdf "In this report, conventional oil and gas resources are explicitly linked with potential gas hydrate resources. This has not been attempted previously and is particularly powerful as the likelihood of gas production from marine gas hydrates increases. Available or planned infrastructure, such as pipelines, combined with the geospatial distribution of hydrocarbons is a very strong determinant of the temporalspatial development of Arctic hydrocarbon resources." If you scroll down to Figure 3.4, you can easily see the extent of the thickness of arctic hydrate stability zones. The white areas are the areas of concern for methane release. Figure 3.6 shows submarine permafrost from 0 to 200 m in depth which is of even greater concern. This report does not show the changes in ocean temperature nor areas of ocean anoxia/acidification. This report just gives the reader a good idea of the massive volume of hydrates potentially available for release. The best thinking on directly addressing the needs of that arctic area seems to point to the initial use of Tropospheric Atmospheric Injection using Sulfates (PTAI-S). As you know, other aerosols are under discussion such as diatomaceous earth, aluminum as well as engineered nano particles etc.. However, let's just focus upon sulfates. Stratospheric Injection is possible yet Polar Tropospheric Aerosol Injection-Sulfate (PTAI-S) does seem like the most probable first effort to be taken due to a number of issues. Sulfate use has both positive and negative implications as any aerosol will. However, it is the best understood means at this time and thus is currently "what we would have to work with". I am not ruling out any proposed means of climate engineering. I am just offering the most likely means to be used and thus the most potentially fruitful subject for a focused debate on ethics. Deployment details are in the area of routine engineering. Some have proposed the use of large guns and that is the one means of injection I personally hope is avoided due to the sheer lack of PR sensitivity. High tethers have multiple potential uses and aircraft are a ready resource. As you know, a number of inventive concepts have been suggested. This 1997 paper by Hyde,Teller and Wood is the best overview that I have found https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=forums&srcid=MDE0NTY3NTk0NzY2MTMxMzQ4MjEBMDI5MzkyMDUxOTgxMDI4OTI3OTkBRjg1RkQxOTU3QUE2MkU0MzhBRjc1RkI2MTk5MUMwNzgwMzYyOEJATUJYUDE0LmRzLm1hbi5hYy51awEyAQ&pli=1 However, I have some questions as to how engineering details would fit into a debate on ethics. As to how PTAI-S compares to other potential methods, in short, there are only the few mentioned above that can come close to providing the needed effect(s). If NOAA were to declare a "Global Climate Emergency" today, PTAI-S would be the most likely climate engineering option to be put to immediate use. However, and this is profoundly important, when it comes to tipping points, once they start, there is no human effort that can stop them. I hope this gives you some footing for further debate. Thanks, Michael On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 2:43 PM, Toby Svoboda <tobysvob...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Michael, > > Thanks for your feedback. I think that decisions about whether or not > aerosol geoengineering *ought *to be deployed in some situation would > depend on a host of issues that would need to be examined in detail, such as > whether there is an impending climate emergency, what the specific details > of the deployment proposal are, how that proposal compares to other > available strategies, etc. This would be important to do as more concrete > proposals emerge. So I believe we are in agreement when you note that you > would "like to see the debate continued with focus upon *specific*emerging > science and engineering developments." However, at this early stage > of geoengineering research (and even earlier stage of research on > geoengineering ethics), I'm not sure that would have been the most useful > focus for our paper. > > > Moreover, I do think that broader ethical considerations can be helpful in > their own right. For one thing, they might guide the crafting of specific > proposals that are sensitive to various ethical issues. For example, one > might argue that PSAI-S is ethically preferable to other available options > in a situation in which some tipping point in the climate is imminent, > perhaps because the outcome of PSAI-S would be less unjust than the outcomes > of other options. I view our paper as sketching some potential ethical > problems faced by aerosol geoengineering but also leaving the door open for > concrete proposals that either avoid or substantially diminish these > potential problems. But before one can avoid or diminish those problems > within some specific proposal, one needs to be aware of what the potential > problems are. Finally, I would stress again that, despite the risks of > injustice, aerosol geoengineering might turn out to be the ethically > preferable option in certain cases, depending on what the alternatives are. > > Josh, as for the acronym "SAG," no negative connotations were intended, but > a different acronym would be fine with me as long as it refers to the same > technique. > > Thanks, > Toby > > > > On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 5:05 AM, Michael Hayes <voglerl...@gmail.com>wrote: > >> Toby et al., >> >> D-5-W is a common intravenous (I.V.) fluid given to a trauma patient. It >> is a 5% Dextrose (sugar) solution in water. This solution helps prevent the >> body from converting stored body fat into needed energy (and thus preventing >> a strong acid influx-and thus preventing a cascade of physiological >> problems). Polar Stratospheric Aerosol Injection-Sulfide (PSAI-S) has >> somewhat of an analogy to the use of D-5-W. In that, the use of such a >> (simple) technique can prevent a cascade of global environmental problems. >> Keeping the polar regions cold can prevent the need for >> more...invasive...procedures. >> >> I point this out as a means to help clarify this debate. Geoengineering >> has so quickly evolved, in both scientific and engineering understanding, >> that the broad use of a term such as "SAG" is counterproductive for use in >> detailed discussions. I go to this length of explanation, not as a means of >> correction, but as a means to help sharpen the focus of this debate. >> >> Mike points out the reasonable logic of starting slow (and early) and >> building up climate intervention means as conditions warrant. Others have >> pointed out the potential use of different aerosols in relation to different >> atmospheric circulation patterns to produce even seasonal effects. >> >> Your paper does not take a close look at the physical reality of just how >> close we are to seeing a methane tipping point. You have, however recognized >> that such a situation would rearrange the debate...thank you. I feel that we >> must focus the debate on dealing with the worst case scenario before we have >> the freedom to set out long term and somewhat "Idealized" standards. >> Crawling into a wrecked and smoldering car to simply start an I.V. of D-5-W >> on the bleeding driver is not good quality basic health care. But, it can >> lead to just that.....given time and lots of early, intelligent and >> cooperative work. The core concept of "Geoengineering" is not "good quality >> basic health care" for the planet, but simply a means and way to better care >> for the planet until we can move beyond fossil fuels. >> >> Unfortunately, the concept of "Geoengineering" is so new that few people >> truly understand the means, motives and even objectives of the science and >> engineering. I personally see it as Geo Trauma Care (GTC). Yes, the fossil >> fuel economy has traumatized this planet and I see the potential of PSAI-S >> as potentially being the equivalent of an emergency I.V. procedure. However, >> the long-term prognosis of our existence on this planet is predicated upon >> the universal use of renewable energy, not on the use of climate >> engineering. >> >> Your work (as well as Wil Burns) on raising the different ethical aspects >> of the debate is helping us get there. Ideally, I would like to see the >> debate continued with focus upon *specific* emerging science and >> engineering developments. Polar aerosol injection is different than "global" >> SAG. >> >> We must build the practical knowledge and techniques of climate >> engineering as the effects of the fossil fuel economy will be with us for >> generations. Inventing an I.V., developing D-5-W and testing the two only >> when the car crashes is neither reasonable nor logical. Creating social >> fences against climate engineering can be a close analogy. >> >> Thanks, >> >> Michael >> >> >> >> >> >> > -- *Michael Hayes* *360-708-4976* http://www.voglerlake.com -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
