Hi, Andrew - In Ken's 'white paper' on arctic geoengineering, the quantity of SO2 used was hardly larger than one single large US coal plant (about 33% bigger than the largest US plants, I think).
I entirely agree that what you are bringing up should be looked into thoroughly, as too often things that have looked hopeful in the past have turned out to have serious problems upon closer examination, but saying that no study has excluded such potential harm (when no such study has yet been undertaken, isn't that right?) doesn't really suggest that there's any particular reason to expect that such harm is likely, either...... All best, Nathan On Apr 12, 9:16 pm, Andrew Lockley <[email protected]> wrote: > Ken > > Whilst I broadly agree with you on the issue of food security under global > geoengineering, I'm not sure that this carries to regional schemes. What > has been proposed on this list, with some degree of serious consideration, > is the regional geoengineering of the Arctic in isolation - with either > direct sulphur or MCB approaches being used to effect this. > > My understanding is that there has not, as yet, been a sufficient range of > studies done which would allow us to address with confidence the food > security situation resulting from this kind of intervention. The threat to > the food supply may come specifically from failures in the monsoon caused > by a movement of the ITCZ, or perhaps from other, as yet unexplored > teleconnections. > > AFAIK, the studies which have been done to date do not exclude the > possibility that a *regional* geoengineering scheme may indeed 'threaten > the food supply of billions'. Even if global food supply were to rise, > distribution cannot be assured - especially to subsistence rural > communities with no real infrastructure for food retail and distribution. > This is further exacerbated by the potentially sudden changes to weather > which may happen as a result of AGW. Can we really react to sudden > droughts, etc. from a geopolitical point of view? > > Even very temporary disruption to the food supply can kill many people > rapidly. The famine in E. Africa is testament to this. Comparatively few > people live in E. Africa, whereas a change to the productivity of Asian > farming could be much more likely to cause a globally-significant famine. > > I am not trying to be alarmist, but I personally wouldn't 'bet the farm' on > there not being potentially dangerous disruption to the global food supply > from regional geoengineering. Maybe I'm just ignorant of the science, but > my personal view remains that we need to more robustly model the climate > teleconnections, vegetation changes and resulting supply-chain impacts > before we can be confident that we've taken reasonable steps to exclude > these risk. > > Finally, I'd generally urge caution on over-reliance on modelling. The > loss of Arctic sea ice itself suggest that we have a poor general ability > to model secondary climate effects > > A > On Apr 12, 2012 2:57 PM, "Ken Caldeira" <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > Every study that has used a reasonable metric of climate damage and a > > 'reasonable' amount of deflection of sunlight has concluded that climate > > overall is brought much closer back to the pre-industrial state but that > > you are left with increased CO2-fertilization. > > > The only study done to date explicitly focusing on crop yields has > > concluded that crop yields would likely go up and not down. > > > See, for examples: > > >http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab/Caldeira_research/Pongratz_L... > > >http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab/Caldeira_research/BanWeiss_C... > > >http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab/Caldeira_research/Govindasam... > > > Also, Kate Ricke's work has concluded that for most reasonable climate > > change metrics, if any party acted in their own self-interest every party > > would be better off than if no party had acted. > >http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v3/n8/full/ngeo915.html > > > We have made YouTube videos about some of these studies: > > > - Climate sensitivity and effectiveness of solar radiation management: > > Dr. Katharine L. Ricke > > (3:09)<http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab/Caldeira_Videotranscripts/Ri...> > > - Crop yields in a geoengineered climate: Dr. Julia Pongratz > > (4:02)<http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab/Caldeira_Videotranscripts/Po...> > > - Crop yields in a geoengineered climate: Ken Caldeira > > (2:28)<http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab/Caldeira_Videotranscripts/Po...> > > > This "threatens food supply of billions" stuff is completely unsupported > > by any rigorous analysis whatsoever. If anyone's food supply is > > threatened, it will be a result of institutional failures associated with > > food distribution, not because of lack of food supply. > > > _______________ > > Ken Caldeira > > > Carnegie Institution Dept of Global Ecology > > 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA > > +1 650 704 7212 [email protected] > >http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab @kencaldeira > > > *Currently visiting * Institute for Advanced Sustainability Studies > > (IASS)<http://www.iass-potsdam.de/> > > > *and *Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Resarch > > (PIK)<http://www.pik-potsdam.de/> > > *in Potsdam, Germany.* > > > On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 8:36 PM, Gregory Benford <[email protected]>wrote: > > >> It's worth noting that the modeling result of a diminished monsoon isn't > >> a highly reliable prediction. > > >> Also, the monsoon is not in any way optimal for agriculture or anything > >> else. The biggest damage it causes is through flooding, ie, too much rain > >> in a short while. Having been through some of them, I'd favor a lesser such > >> storm. > > >> Gregory Benford > > >> On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 1:15 PM, Ben Hale <[email protected]> wrote: > > >>> ** ** > > >>> On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 9:31 AM, Ben Hale <[email protected]> wrote:*** > >>> * > > >>> Well, again, there are many reasons to be concerned about geoengineering > >>> as a solution or response even to catastrophic outcomes, including those > >>> with a reasonable risk, “however small.” The “however smallness” of the > >>> risk mostly serves to defeat the argument that geoengineering ought to be > >>> pursued on grounds that we will be averting catastrophe. I do not > >>> follow how a GE technology, with "however small" and reasonable risk and > >>> one which is capable of responding to an environmental catastrohy, is > >>> defeated by its bignin nature. There are many courses of action that > >>> carry risks of catastrophe, however small—genetic modification, CERN > >>> research, nuclear testing, military escalation, and even geoengineering > >>> itself. Ought we to take extraordinary steps to pursue these projects, or > >>> to avoid pursuing them, given that the threat of catastrophe is real, > >>> though the risk small? Clearly, the likelihood of the outcome matters, and > >>> it will not suffice to say that any risk, however small, authorizes > >>> geoengineering. This seems to be nothing more than a personal view of > >>> the risk value. I personaly believe that the Arctic Methane Risk as being > >>> a > >>> vary high order of thing(s) to worry about. You seem to view the risk of a > >>> tipping point as something which has a low probability and will go away if > >>> we paint our roofs white. Unfortunatly, there is little consensious as to > >>> the true level of risk and so there is little clearity as to the strenght > >>> of needed action. Until we have a better understanding of the true risk > >>> level, we only have personal views. It is not defensable to put such > >>> personal views out as a basis for* ethical* *authority*. And, I am as > >>> guilty on that count as many other are. **** > > >>> No. It’s an counterfactual conditional. If it’s the case, then… I > >>> personally don’t believe the risk is small.**** > > >>> A similar concern applies even to cases of “significant risk.” In the > >>> case of geoengineering, the significant risk is only a *ceteris > >>> paribus*risk. Fortunately for us, everything is not > >>> *ceteris paribus*. The future is not only uncertain, but also > >>> indeterminate. It is not as though we have geoengineering and only > >>> geoengineering as options at our disposal. We have many options, including > >>> aggressive mitigation, aggressive adaptation, and even aggressive omission > >>> (just rolling the dice and allowing the significant risk of catastrophe to > >>> play out). Theoreticaly, these are all forms of GE. In the extream > >>> case, if we "roll the dice" and allow the possability of a tipping point > >>> to > >>> just play out, we will simply be GE the planet (perfectly for) bacteria > >>> and > >>> algae. Little more will be on this planet. Why pursue the most dramatic > >>> and totalizing course of action when there are so many other options? We > >>> don’t have an argument for choosing the most dramatic and totalizing > >>> course > >>> of action. Therefore, the position can’t be defended on grounds either > >>> that > >>> there is even a “significant” risk. Is this (do every thing > >>> but GE position) not just as much a 'dramatic and totalizing course of > >>> action' as geoengineering? Also, I can not understand how the potential > >>> extenction of most life forms on this planet, through a tipping point, is > >>> not grounds for defense of GE developement and eventual deployment. **** > > >>> If you think these are all forms of GE, then you’ve got a cavernously > >>> wide view of GE. If you have such a wide view of GE, then there is no > >>> ethical question about GE. It’s either permissible or obligatory or > >>> forbidden or a foregone conclusion (depending on your view of such > >>> actions). In other words, you’re begging the question. Ought we to > >>> geoengineer? Your answer to this question cannot be: geoengineering is > >>> permissible because everything we do is geoengineering. **** > > >>> We also oughtn’t to assume that just because some course of action is > >>> authorized that therefore all courses of action are thereby authorized. > >>> Just because maybe some geoengineering technology may be permissible, for > >>> instance, does not and cannot authorize all forms of geoengineering. More > >>> concretely and for example, just because it may be permissible to paint > >>> our > >>> roofs and highways white, doesn’t mean that it is therefore also > >>> permissible to shoot aerosols into the troposphere to achieve the same > >>> effect. These are different technologies, with different deployment > >>> features, and must be assessed differently. That is fully understood by > >>> most folks researching this field of thought.**** > > >>> Doesn’t sound like it to me.**** > > >>> Sorry to disappoint, but you’ll > > ... > > 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.
