List (cc Andrew and adding three co-authors): 1. Thanks Andrew for finding this resource. This is to ensure that we have some discussion of the interesting SRM-intergenerational paper you identified (see below) 2 days ago. A direct link is at http://archiv.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/volltextserver/14373/1/goeschl_heyen_moreno_cruz__2013_dp540.pdf
2. I only had time to skim through it, and probably won't return, as SRM is not my area of interest. I did skim it because the last part of the paper title "....Atmospheric Carbon Stocks" caught my eye. Sadly, I found little on that topic (or ocean acidification) in the paper. 3. Still, I think that the paper's emphasis on economics and intergenerational issues should be a key focus of this list. So my first question to the authors is whether they have also any plans to expand this paper to the other part of this geoengineering (in the paper "climate engineering" ) list: Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR)? 4. My reading of this paper is that the authors felt they were just beginning the economic analysis; more needed. They identified five scenarios, but two were left un-studied. Were I active in this part of geoengineering, I'd feel a little disappointed - as everything seemed more than one generation away, at best. There was nothing to support SRM soon for the Arctic, as urged by John Nissen and others on the list, who see, like myself, a crisis. 5. I of course had to see what conclusions I could draw from this paper for the CDR part of geoengineering. The authors possibly feel that CDR has little future (based on my reading of some of their citations and a hint in the paper), but my feeling the opposite leads me to ask them about the afforestation and biochar portions of CDR. I see these already progressing quite rapidly - seemingly without the controls present for the oceans end of CDR.: a. Am I correct in believing that future generations would, without reservation, desire both aggressive present R&D and implementation? That is, have you seen any reason to think they would offer a different advice in the future? (any topic akin to changed precipitation patterns or countries desiring a warmer environment)? Have you identified any rationale why our generation should proceed cautiously in these two (coupled) areas? (any topic akin to ignoring ocean acidification?) b. My experience with land-owners (perhaps excluding short-sighted corporations) is that most take pride in passing on their land in at least as good condition as received from their parents or previous owners. But current ag practices are not making that possible in many cases. Soil carbon is mostly in decline worldwide. How would a change from an atmospheric or ocean perspective to a combined energy-soil-atmosphere perspective change your economic analysis? c. My thinking about the appropriate economic life cycle analysis (LCA) for biochar and afforestation is that the difficulty lies in at least four areas i) the right discount rate and term of analysis - or ways to eliminate that difficult analysis need, such as using a changed land valuation. ii) which claimed benefits to include (some analysts see as much climate value in controlling N2O and CH4 as CO2 , and I can name four or five other economic benefits usually ignored) iii) how to convincingly argue against a) the economics of energy benefits of biomass vs soil and sequestration benefits or tb) he benefits of leaving standing biomass vs using it for combined energy and climate-soil improvement iv) establishing the correct (from the economics theory perspective) incentive mechanisms In other words, although I fail to see difficult intergenerational optimization topics for at least some of the CDR areas, I see much need for improved economic analysis. I hope this list can have more discussion on these twin topics.. Thanks in advance (to anyone, not just the authors) for any comments on how the economics and intergenerational options should or could differ for SRM and CDR. Ron ----- Original Message ----- From: "Andrew Lockley" <[email protected]> To: "geoengineering" <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, February 10, 2013 7:28:25 PM Subject: [geo] The Intergenerational Transfer of Solar Radiation Management Capabilities and Atmospheric Carbon Stocks The Intergenerational Transfer of Solar Radiation Management Capabilities and Atmospheric Carbon Stocks Goeschl, Timo and Heyen, Daniel and Moreno-Cruz, Juan URN: urn:nbn:de:bsz:16-heidok-143739 URL: http://www.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/archiv/14373 Abstract Solar radiation management (SRM) technologies are considered one of the likeliest forms of geoengineering. If developed, a future generation could deploy them to limit the damages caused by the atmospheric carbon stock inherited from the current generation, despite their negative side effects. Should the current generation develop these geoengineering capabilities for a future generation? And how would a decision to develop SRM impact on the current generation's abatement efforts? Natural scientists, ethicists, and other scholars argue that future generations could be more sanguine about the side effects of SRM deployment than the current generation. In this paper, we add economic rigor to this important debate on the intergenerational transfer of technological capabilities and pollution stocks. We identify three conjectures that constitute potentially rational courses of action for current society, including a ban on the development of SRM. How-ever, the same premises that underpin these conjectures also allow for a novel possibility: If the development of SRM capabilities is sufficiently cheap, the current generation may for reasons of intergenerational strategy decide not just to develop SRM technologies, but also to abate more than in the absence of SRM. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
