Regarding the Jim Thomas statement and Greg's reply--Actually, addressing CO2 is not enough, not nearly enough. As the UNEP report on black carbon and methane shows, an aggressive emissions reduction program with known and feasible technologies could cut the warming between 2010 and 2050 roughly in half--and that was not even an all-out effort. Yes, we absolutely have to also be doing CO2 to limit long-term change, but we should also be really aggressively going after short-lived species.
Then Greg's point comes to the fore--if those are not enough, and they seem to still allow warming of 2.5 C or so, if the threshold for dangerous impacts (so much loss of Greenland ice sheet and associated SL rise, permafrost and clathrate loss so exciting carbon feedback, loss of Amazon rainforest, etc. is 2 C (or more like 1 C or even less given impacts we are seeing now start to play out), might climate engineering be an additional approach--not to reverse a CO2 doubling, but a climate as controlled as can be through mitigation of short and long lived species for the time it takes to get programs going that pull CO2 out of the atmosphere and sequester it--to try to preserve the planet that we have? Mike On 12/3/12 2:48 PM, "Greg Rau" <[email protected]> wrote: > ³Let¹s play with the one [CO2 emissions reduction] that really matters,² > he [Jim Thomas of ETC] said. ³That¹s > already hard enough.² > > OK, there's that moral hazard again, but what about the moral hazard if > our "playing" (depressingly apt) with CO2 emissions reduction continues to > prove too "hard", for technical, economic, and/or political reasons. Isn't > there also a moral hazard in this scenario if we refuse to even evaluate > all Plan B options because of unconfirmed fears that their costs and > impacts will always outweigh the benefits, even if Plan A fails? > -Greg > ________________________________________ > From: [email protected] [[email protected]] on > behalf of Andrew Lockley [[email protected]] > Sent: Sunday, December 02, 2012 6:58 PM > To: geoengineering > Subject: [geo] 'Soft Geoengineering', panel & presentations. Summary, > video & slides. New Security Beat, Wilson Centre > > http://www.newsecuritybeat.org/2012/11/soft-geoengineering/ > > Considering ³Soft Geoengineering² > By Aaron Lovell // Thursday, November 29, 2012 > > Even as the climate debate has been paralyzed by politics, the concept > of geoengineering has been in the news lately, most notably in October > when Russ George dumped 120 tons of iron particles into the Pacific > Ocean in a scheme to try and score carbon credits. Earlier this month, > the Wilson Center¹s Science and Technology Innovation Program hosted > an event taking a look at ³soft geoengineering² techniques that > might have low or minimal environmental side effects but still address > or reverse climate change. > > The idea of humans engineering the Earth¹s environment remains > controversial but has increasingly drawn interest from policymakers. > Last year alone, the concept of geoengineering garnered reports from > the U.S. Government Accountability Office, the Bipartisan Policy > Center, and the Wilson Center, among others. > > Looking to move forward from the spate of 2011 reports, Robert L. > Olson of the Institute for Alternative Futures, in conjunction with > the Wilson Center, explored the concept of soft geoengineering in an > article in the September/October issue of Environment, which focused > on technologies with a ³gentler touch² than others associated with > geoengineering. > > Olson discussed the article at the event, including the seven criteria > that could be used to evaluate any geoengineering technology that > claimed to be environmentally benign. According to the criteria, soft > technologies should: > > Be able to be applied locally; > Be scalable; > Have low or no negative impacts on the environment (besides climate > change); > Be rapidly reversible; > Provide multiple benefits; > Be analogous to natural processes; and > Be worthwhile on the time/effect scale and cost effective. > The article further looks at five specific technologies and how they > matched up against these criteria. At the Wilson Center, scientists > behind two of these technologies discussed their work. > > Leslie Field of Ice911 talked about her research on using inexpensive > materials to slow loss of ice and snow and encourage the natural > process of ice and snow formation. And Russell Seitz discussed the > possibility of using ³microbubbles² in the ocean in an effort to > reflect ³megawatts² of solar energy back into the atmosphere and > space. > > But despite the purported lower risk of these technologies, many still > have serious concerns. At the panel, Jim Thomas of the ETC Group > raised concerns with the idea of benign geoengineering at a > fundamental level, calling it instead ³soft-sell geoengineering.² > Thomas pointed out that the idea remains fraught with risk. ³We > shouldn¹t get too desensitized to that,² he said. > > Further, Thomas raised concerns with what increased use of > geoengineering could do to international talks on emissions > reductions, particularly when some parties will argue against further > emissions cuts because of geoengineering activities. > > ³Let¹s play with the one that really matters,² he said. ³That¹s > already hard enough.² > > Event Resources: > > Leslie Field¹s Presentation > Bob Olson¹s Presentation > Russell Seitz¹s Presentation > Jim Thomas¹ Presentation > Photo Gallery > Video > Aaron Lovell is a writer/editor for the Wilson Center¹s Science and > Technology Innovation Program. > > Sources: Environment Magazine. > > -- > 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. > -- 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.
