Ken, Greg, List: Few comments below.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Ken Caldeira" <kcalde...@carnegie.stanford.edu> To: rongretlar...@comcast.net Cc: r...@llnl.gov, "geoengineering" <geoengineering@googlegroups.com> Sent: Tuesday, October 4, 2011 3:43:32 PM Subject: Re: [geo] BPC news [Climate Strategy Context Circle] Ron, The figure you refer to is attached (in three different forms). Glad you liked it. I do. 'Mitigation' as the IPCC applies the term is policies undertaken to reduce emissions or increase sinks, and thus could include conservation, efficiency, low-emission energy technologies and air capture. [RWL: And some of us see Biochar (and BECCS, but not biomass burial) in there also - as a "low emission energy technology" . Maybe a division of the full "twelve hours" into two equal parts might allow the word "mitigation" to denote the right hand side. Or if your circle is thought of as a 24- hour clock, the mitigation portion is the "AM". This equal division is meant, of course, to also indicate that there are CDR approaches that are NOT mitigators. The idea of the day ending on the left has merit. Another division that might be worth considering is to have another shading from about 5:00 to 8:00 [or 11AM to 5 PM on a 24 hour clock] to further emphasize where Geoengineering (CDR and SRM) fit into the seven part sequence. I missed at first your color difference for 3 of the 7 circles (or really two arrows) . The red "arrow" was intended to show a negative influence (climate impacts negatively influence pursuit of well-being), whereas black arrows show a positive influence (i.e., more of whatever is at the base of the arrow tends to produce more of whatever is at the tip of the arrow). [RWL: Hmm. I guess accountants will catch that concept. Might also help to have arrows that grow in width except for this last one - which could be inverted. The six blue "stone weapons" all seem to be "impedors" of the increasing tendencies. Perhaps six second reverse arrows could also be added to (or replace) the six blue symbols. They could be smaller arrows and dashed. But when you get to the 7th arrow, the size and "dashing" could be reversed on these two arrows (or missing). This allows me to suggest that there could be a reversal of the only-negative intent of the present circle - that the size of the arrows can (must) change with time. I would like to somehow think that the first four arrows (conservation, efficiency, renewable energy and CDR) can get us to revert to an earlier simpler closed circle.] I guess for me the entry point is the desire to improve our lot (the desire for improved well-being), which is why i put that on top. [RWL: Now that I better understand that point and the subtleties here, let me give some of my thinking on indicator labels for this now-unlabeled seventh phase. I was hoping for something to distinguish between 7. IMPACTS ON HUMANS AND ECOSYSTEMS and 1. DESIRE FOR IMPROVED WELL-BEING And this seventh "reverse arrow" label would hopefully connote something in between "Adaptation" and "Conservation" -- and have either an energy or climate meaning/definition. Perhaps like you - I couldn't come up with one. I now see why you have the red arrow. This is more like getting to the edge of the cliff. It is more akin to the Doomsday countdown clock of the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists. Possible ways to accentuate the non-continuous nature of this circle (and you may want to avoid my use of the term "clock") are: a. The seven circles could grow in size as you move clockwise, showing increasing negative situations. b. They could change color from green to dark red c. There could be a seventh dashed blue "weapon" designator with a label like "No hope". d. There could be an indicator of a "tipping point" somewhere, preventing closure of the circle. e. There could be an earlier, simpler (closed?) circle for 50 years ago (with only positive impacts and different colors and circle sizes) before we understood the negative consequences of the CO2 associated with fossil fuels. Please feel free to try to make a better version of this figure. [RWL: I used to have access to graphics programs, perhaps as good as yours. Instead, now I can only give the ideas above for your consideration. I still like your circle as a good new way of explaining the terms and timing of the various circles and the connecting arrows. I retract my yearning last time for total symmetry. Ron Best, Ken _______________ Ken Caldeira Carnegie Institution Dept of Global Ecology 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA +1 650 704 7212 kcalde...@carnegie.stanford.edu http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab @kencaldeira See our YouTube: Sensitivity of temperature and precipitation to frequency of climate forcing: Ken Caldeira Her lab, mules, and carbon capture and storage: Sally Benson speaks to Near Zero On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 1:52 PM, < rongretlar...@comcast.net > wrote: Greg, Ken (who gave first report earlier today and was on this panel) and List: 1. I have just read this report and think overall it is a positive contribution. I just sent off a short "Report Review" written from a Biochar perspective to the Yahoo Biochar-Policy list. I would be glad to send that to anyone interested. 2. I found a new-to-me "Climate Strategy Context" circular diagram on p 7, which I like and for which credit is given to Ken. I have these questions for Ken: a. The circle, which connects 7 smaller circles, shows a beginning and end (at the 12:00 position) with a circle labeled: "DESIRE FOR IMPROVED WELL-BEING". I think it might be stronger to say one could enter the larger circle at any point in the outer circle, and that we are always going around this context circle. Was there a specific reason for your start-stop "Noon-Midnight" choice? b. The word "Mitigation" is missing. How/where would you recommend that word be applied to your diagram (so as to compare with the included "Adaptation"? c. Symmetry is missing because you only have labels for six of the seven possible angular arcs. Any recommendation for the missing-label "red-arc" preceding the top-most, "ending" circle? Might it be OK to somehow combine 6 and 7, or are they distinctly different to you? d. For SRM, you show "Sunlight Reflection Methods", rather than the usual "Solar Radiation Management" almost (?) everywhere else in the panel report. Your estimation of the likelihood of your SRM preference taking over? 3. The article introduced by Greg below implies that almost nothing is happening of a Climate Remediation research character anywhere in the world. However, I guesstimate that there are several hundreds of true research Biochar projects going on with a doubling time of about a year (and maybe 10 times that many "backyard type". At a recent conference, I learned there are at least 5 "official" Biochar subgroups in China that are talking to each other (maybe there was one a year ago). I think there are about as many subgroups in the UK and the US (one in the US three years ago). I doubt any of them think they are doing anything at all risky. Is there anyone on this list who is concerned Biochar is moving too fast and that the precautions of this BPC report need to be better heeded by the still-very-small Biochar world? Ron From: "Greg Rau" < r...@llnl.gov > To: "geoengineering" < geoengineering@googlegroups.com > Sent: Tuesday, October 4, 2011 12:10:10 PM Subject: [geo] BPC news Still unable to link to webcast, but must be loads of fun. - G The idea of engineering the planet is “fundamentally shocking,” David Keith, an energy expert at Harvard and the University of Calgary and a member of the panel, said. “It should be shocking.” As shocking as rapidly increasing air CO2 with no end in sight? -G October 4, 2011 Group Urges Research Into Aggressive Efforts to Fight Climate Change B y C ORNELIA DEAN W ith political action on curbing greenhouse gases stalled, a bipartisan panel of scientists, former government officials and national security experts is recommending that the government begin researching a radical fix: directly manipulating the E arth’ s climate to lower the temperature. Members said they hoped that such extreme engineering techniques, which include scattering particles in the air to mimic the cooling effect of volcanoes or stationing orbiting mirrors in space to reflect sunlight, would never be needed. But in its report , to be released on Tuesday, the panel said it is time to begin researching and testing such ideas in case “the climate system reaches a ‘tipping point’ and swift remedial action is required.” The 18-member panel was convened by the Bipartisan Policy Cente r, a research organization based in Washington founded by four senators — Democrats and Republicans — to offer policy advice to the government. In interviews, some of the panel members said they hoped that the mere discussion of such drastic steps would jolt the public and policy makers into meaningful action in reducing greenhouse gas emissions, which they called the highest priority. The idea of engineering the planet is “fundamentally shocking,” David Keith, an energy expert at Harvard and the University of Calgary and a member of the panel, said. “It should be shocking.” In fact, it is an idea that many environmental groups have rejected as misguided and potentially dangerous. Jane Long, an associate director of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and the panel’s co-chairwoman, said that by spewing greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, human activity was already engaged in climate modification. “We are doing it accidentally, but the Earth doesn’t know that,” she said, adding, “Going forward in ignorance is not an option.” The panel, the Task Force on Climate Remediation Research, suggests that the White House Office of Science and Technology P olicy begin coordinating research and estimates that a valuable effort could begin with a few million dollars in financing over the next few years. One reason that the United States should embrace such research, the report suggests, is the threat of unilateral action by another country. Members say research is already under way in Britain, Germany and possibly other countries, as well as in the private sector. “A conversation about this is going to go on with us or without us,” said David Goldston, a panel member who directs government affairs at the Natural Resources Defense Council and is a former chief of staff of the House Committee on Science. “We have to understand what is at stake.” In interviews, panelists said again and again that the continuing focus of policy makers and experts should be on reducing emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. But several acknowledged that significant action remained a political nonstarter. Last month, for example, the Obama administration told the federal Environmental Protection Agency to hold off on tightening ozone standards, citing complications related to the weak economy. According to the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Clima te Change, greenhouse gas emissions have contributed to raising the global average surface temperatures by about 1.3 degrees Fahrenheit in the past 100 years. It is impossible to predict how much impact the report will have. But given the panelists’ varied political and professional backgrounds, they seem likely to achieve one major goal: starting a broader conversation on the issue. Some climate experts have been working on it for years, but they have largely kept their discussions to themselves, saying they feared giving the impression that there might be quick f ixes for clima te change. “Climate adaptation went through the same period of concern,” Mr. Goldston said, referring to the onetime reluctance of some researchers to discuss ways in which people, plants and animals might adjust to climate change. Now, he said, similar reluctance to discuss geoengineering is giving way, at least in part because “it’s possible we may have to do this no matter what.” Although the techniques, which fall into two broad groups, are more widely known as geoengineering, the panel prefers “climate remediation.” The first is carbon dioxide removal, in which the gas is absorbed by plants, trapped and stored underground or otherwise removed from the atmosphere. The methods are “generally uncontroversial and don’t introduce new global risks,” said Ken Caldeira, a climate expert at Stanford University and a panel member. “It’s mostly a question of how much do these things cost.” Controversy arises more with the second group of techniques, solar radiation management, which involves increasing t he amount of solar energy that bounces back into space before it can be absorbed by the Earth. They include seeding the atmosphere with reflective particles, launching giant mirrors above the earth or spewing ocean water into the air to form clouds. These techniques are thought to pose a risk of upsetting earth’s natural rhythms. With them, Dr. Caldeira said, “the real question is what are the unknown unknowns: Are you creating more risk than you are alleviating?” At the in fluential blog C limate Progress, Joe Romm, a fellow at the Center for Am erican Progress, has made a similar point, likening geo-engineering to a dangerous course of chemotherapy and radiation to treat a condition curable through diet and exercise — or, in this case, emissions reduction. The panel rejected any immediate application of climate remediation techniques, saying too little is known about them. In 2009, the Royal Society in Britain said much the same, assessing geoengineering technologies as “technically feasible” but adding that their potential costs, effectiveness and risks were unknown. Similarly, in a 2010 review of federal research that might be relevant to climate remediation, the federal Government Accountability Office noted that “major uncertainties remain on the efficacy and potential consequences” of the app roach. Its report also recommended that the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy “establish a clear strategy for geoengineering research.” John P. Holdren, who heads that office, declined interview requests. He issued a statement reiterating the Obama administration’s focus on “taking steps to sensibly reduce pollution that is contributing to climat e change.” Yet in an interview with The Assoc iated Press in 2009, Dr. Holdren said the possible risks and benefits of geoengineering should be studied very carefully because “we might get desperate enough to want to use it.” In a draft plan mad e public on Friday, the U.S. Global Cha nge Research Program, a coordinating effort administered by his offic e, outlined its own climate ch ange research agenda, including studies of the impacts of rapid climate change. The plan said that climate-related projections would be crucial to future studies of the “feasibility, effectiveness and unintended consequences of strategies for deliberate, large-scale manipulations of Earth’s environment,” including carbon dioxide removal and solar radiation management. Many countries fault the United States for government inaction on climate change, especially given its longtime role as a chief contributor to the problem. Frank Loy, a panelist and former chief climate negotiator for the United States, suggested that people around the world would see past those issues if the United States embraced geoengineering studies, provided that it was “very clear about what kind of research is undertaken and wha t the safeguards are.” This article has been revised to reflect t h e following correction: Co rrection: October 4, 2011 An earlier version of this article mistakenly referred to Frank Loy as the nation’s chief climate negotiator. He is a former chief climate negotiator. -- 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 . -- 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.
