Hello Dr. Benford et al., The term is cumbersome but is technically precise. I believe that an effort to move from discussing the general means of climate engineering to the specific means is important as it may help in nailing down what is actually possible and thus probable. The cost factor can be viewed through a number of different perspectives depending upon what type of "value" is to be expected for a given "objective". The Mulberry Harbour was the least cost effective long term harbor ever built. Yet, it was cheap for what it did and was priceless during it's short life.
If, for example, tropo injection can possibly prevent the need for a more robust means (strato injection) and the accompanying complications of directly effecting non polar regions (both physically and politically) can be limited, the upfront added expense of tropo injection would seem like a good value relative to the objective. The main objective being actually achieving the earliest steps in preventing an imminent wide area arctic GHSZ breaching and doing so with the widest possible level of cooperation. The short wave aerosol effectiveness can be viewed as a positive aspect on a number of levels relative to an initial real world emergency effort. Simply limiting the initial down range extent of the aerosol can quickly provide controlled areas of study and data collection. This, as we know, would need to cover everything from the sea floor biota to the Ozone Layer. And, on a very practical note, we would only have a few months to collect the ocean centric data due to the onset of the arctic winter. Adjusting the technical aspects for the best possible effect could then be incorporated in short order. The initial time aspect is not long term but an emergency response which could then be adjusted for long term (more efficient) means. With all that said and for the purpose of this exploration of ethics, Stratospheric Injection can very well be adopted as the prime technical focus. However, which of the 2 are the most likely to be actually allowed to initially go forward...even in a broadly accepted emergency? I would bet on tropo over strato. I just believe that there is a need to work through the ethical considerations of a "*focused * scientific/technical *emergency protocol*". If that can be done for tropo, a road map for a similar eithical workup for the more complicated issue of strato injection would be in hand. If a meaningful debate can be developed, based upon the assumption that a "widely accepted imminate global climate emergency" is at hand, it may help make clear and important distinction(s) between the realities of an emergency and that of a long term effort. We will most likely need both levels of effort. It is not an issue of "if" an immanate emergency will develop but simply "when". I did choose to use the DoE study in my previous post for a dual purpose. One was to show the massive volume of methane which we are threatened with. The other was to show the remarkable extent to what our global society will go to to retain a fossil fuel economy....We are addicted to fossil fuels and reducing emissions simply will not happen any time soon. The end of that report gives a brief but clear warning as to just how fragile the Arctic methane physical reality is. Yet, none of us have any doubt that, if that area can be industrialized, it will be. Keep in mind that the BP Gulf blowout was a result of hydrates. Also, keep in mind the primary means to deal with the spilled oil was to burn the oil (and methane). We will eventually see that happen in the arctic. An Emergency Climate Engineering Response Protocol would seem to be worth working towards. As to the question of "what system of ethics" should be used, it is important to explore (even through a meta study if needed) that one question. Toby and Wil have started along that path as have others. The overly broad nature of the word "Geoengineering" has made any practical focus difficult. By taking a highly restricted and highly probable real world situation and subjecting that to an informed debate on ethics, we may see the broadest cooperation.... at least for that emergency situation. I expect that the broader issue of long term global environmental stability will require an evolution of philosophical thought in the area of human cooperation. We, as a species, have questions.... and to some degree knowledge....which humans have never been exposed to before. And, fully developing answers to the deeper philosophical questions will take generations. However, without an acceptable emergency response method, we will probably not have the time to reach for those answers. Yes, the complexities of finding a universally acceptable ethical base (beyond Spencer) can seem pointless. And, singing Kumbaya around the campfire does not work. History does, however, show us that rapid intellectual/ethical evolutions (or de-evolutions) primarily happen in response to large and unique social stresses. Yet, human history has no close analogy to a methane tipping point. I have noticed that those interested in using ethical grounds to block Climate Engineering seem to not realize the extent to which we, as a species....life as we know it, are threatened. I do hope that by getting an in depth yet focused debate upon the survival issue, we will see progress on that issue. We, as a species, truly do need to accept that the boat is in fact sinking and that it is to everyone's benefit to get past the initial ethical issues and start bailing water. Once we have some chance at long term survival, we can decide upon the best.....ethical.....means to plug the hole in the boat. If that basic level of cooperation can not be achieved....soon, Herbert Spencer just may end up being the lead philosophical icon. As a related note on plugging the hole (ie. long term energy issue), the National Ignition Lab seems to be involved with some interesting fusion experiments. Here is their home page. https://lasers.llnl.gov/about/missions/energy_for_the_future/life/ It seems that within the next 18 months, their work may produce a measure of sustainable fusion. Even if this is accomplished and the era of fusion has finally dawned, we will need close to 10 yrs to make any dent in the use of fossil fuels. I just wonder if we have 10 yrs. Thanks, Michael On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 8:47 AM, Gregory Benford <xbenf...@gmail.com> wrote: > Michael: > > Using Tropospheric Atmospheric Injection using Sulfates (PTAI-S; we need a > better term!) implies far higher expense, as the aerosols fall out within > days vs weeks or months for strato deposition. > > That too is an ethical issue: cost and labor. But when we discuss ethical > issues: what system of ethics? Most seem to assume everybody knows what the > governing ethical principle is. My experience is this varies wildly. What > ethical philosopher to follow? Kant? Rawls? Dewey? Even the historians > (Fleming) seem oblivious that there are many different ethical standards. > Trying to accomodate them while doing engineering at this early phase seems > pointless. > > Gregory Benford > > On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 3:10 AM, Michael Hayes <voglerl...@gmail.com>wrote: > >> 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. >> > > -- *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.
