Clive, cc List
I write partly as the self-designated “CDR Nag” on this list about failures to properly use the term “Geoengineering” when the real topic is “SRM”. But I am more concerned that you wrote in your recent NYT Op-Ed (emphasis added): “ Some approaches, like turning biomass into biochar, a charcoal whose carbon resists breakdown, and painting roofs white to increase their reflectivity and reduce air-conditioning demand, are relatively benign , but would have minimal effect on a global scale.” I wish you had replaced “ benign” with something more ethically demanding (such as “polluter pays”), but I see zero justification for your term “ minimal ”. Jim Hansen is proposing, through afforestation and reforestation, to add 100 Gt C to the existing roughly 600 Gt C of above ground biomass. Presumably this could “minimally” add more than about 1/6 to the present annual land-based NPP of 60 Gt C/yr, or about 10 Gt C/yr. (This saying nothing about a possibly equal amount possible from the oceans.) There is a considerable published literature that says we can add to stocks and simultaneously, through management, have an annual flow draw-down of much more than your “minimal” amount. I assume your “minimal” means a biochar wedge of 1 Gt C/yr, whereas you will find that such a published number means minimal changes from present land-use practices, afforestation, species, and soil productivity. We should instead be predicting, for ethical reasons backed up by funding, steady NPP improvements of many percent per year – both globally and per unit area. One main ethical societal question seems to be how one should handle the several Gha of land now devoted to pastures and raising cattle. But what I am really interested in are your views on the ethics of striving, totally independent of SRM, for a massive global effort into the CDR side of geoengineering. By “ ethics ” and “massive”, I mean about 10 wedges of carbon negativity – some large part of which (biochar) also addresses the mess we have made of the world soils, and that can aid (not being limited by daily and seasonal availability issues) in getting to 100% renewable energy and full employment. I also would have liked to see some discussion of the ethics of SRM only for the Arctic – continued only until CDR can have its desired effect . To end on a positive note, I thought much of your Op-Ed well supported the ethical views regularly expressed on this list by Professor Alan Robock - which I do not believe are intended to apply to all geoengineering approaches. So, I am hoping that you can provide to this list as strong a positive ethical message on some CDR aspects of geoengineerng as you have on some negative SRM ethical aspects. This is more than an issue of nomenclature. Youth and groups like 350 ppm need hope - which you discourage with the dismal (and I feel inaccurate) term “minimal”. Ron ----- Original Message ----- From: "Clive Hamilton" <[email protected]> To: "Ken Caldeira" <[email protected]> Cc: "Ross Salawitch" <[email protected]>, [email protected] Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2013 6:36:34 AM Subject: [geo] Reply to Ken Caldeira I’m confused. In one post Ken Caldeira calls for respectful communication and in the next (see below) he attacks me sharply for “making things up”. So let me respond. I should first confess that on occasion I make mistakes. When they are pointed out I correct them. My book, Earthmasters , was read thoroughly by several readers with various kinds of expertise, and revised several times to correct errors. Since publication a couple more have been pointed out by a diligent reader and will be corrected in the next printing by Yale University Press. But there is no need to make any corrections after Ken’s criticisms of me on this site. My source for the claim about Bill Gates and Silver Lining was an article in The Times . There it was stated: “Silver Lining, a research body in San Francisco, has received $300,000 (£204,000) from Mr Gates.” ( http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/science/article2504715.ece ) It’s the reference I include for the claim in my book (page 220, note 15) As for the role of Haroon Kheshgi, he was a member of the workshop convened by NASA and the Carnegie Institution that led to a report in 2007 advocating research into SRM and essentially pushing geoengineering hard. Ken was the convener of that meeting. He thought it appropriate to invite a representative of Exxon Mobil and a representative from the American Enterprise Institute. The latter was Lee Lane. Lane is responsible for an “economic analysis” (published by the AEI) purporting to show that SRM would be a much cheaper way to deal with global warming than cutting greenhouse gas emissions and is to be preferred. Ken was happy to have Lane co-author the NASA report with him. The AEI later cut and pasted large chunks of the NASA report into one of its own reports. This is all documented in my book. Ken invited Kheshgi to the NASA meeting but says that the leader of Exxon’s Global Climate Change programme had no influence over the proceedings or the report. Well (as one might say in the US) tell that to the marines. Ken can see no problem inviting onto a team to write a pro-geoengineering report a representative of the oil corporation that has done more than any other to attack climate science and resist all measures to curb carbon emissions. He also had no problem inviting a representative of the organization that has been the leading right-wing think tank attacking climate science for two decades. The AEI itself has received funding from Exxon Mobil to engage in climate science disinformation. One of its resident scholars infamously wrote to US climate scientists offering $10,000 in cash for any who agreed to write a critique of the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report (Hoggan, Climate Cover-Up , pp 73-4). Ken can see no problem working closely with these people on geoengineering. Nor can he see any problem with his public claim that all geoengineering research should be publicly funded (a claim he made at a public debate with me in Berkeley) while he himself accepts private funding (from Gates) and has privatized intellectual property by putting his name on geoengineering patents. Again, this is all documented in my book. What is most disturbing about the NASA report, co-authored by Ken from the meeting he organized, is its profoundly anti-democratic analysis. As I note in the book, Ken Caldeira and Lee Lane argue that in the “emergency” framing of geoengineering there is no point thinking about political objections and popular resistance to solar radiation management because, in a crisis, “ideological objections to solar radiation management may be swept aside”. The authors count the ability to sweep aside civil society objections to deployment of solar radiation management as an “obvious political advantage”. It is no surprise to me that the right-wing ideologues from the American Enterprise Institute should support the bypassing of democracy. That Ken, who frequently wheels out his credentials as an activist, should endorse such disdain for public participation in decisions determining the future of the planet comes as a shock. If Ken were to borrow a copy of my book he would learn a lot more about the politics of geoengineering, and perhaps even a bit about himself. As I compiled the index I noticed that his name features more than any other. I was surprised by this as my own assessment is that David Keith is a substantially more influential player. But David is more careful about how he goes about it. Clive Hamilton On 30 May 2013 12:18, Ken Caldeira < [email protected] > wrote: Ross, I agree with you about the need to focus on facts and ideas and not making snarky remarks about people. Unfortunately, Clive does himself and the broader discussion a disservice by promulgating an abundance of misinformation. Just grabbing the first thing I could find on the web, he claimed that Bill Gates is an investor in Silver Lining, which is patently untrue. Bill Gates has no investment in Silver Lining. In an earlier email, I noted Clive's propensity to make claims about people's motivations, when he is not in a position to discern their motivation. Clive also wrote " Through Kheshgi, Exxon has begun to influence “independent” reports into geoengineering, such as the 2007 NASA report on solar radiation management organised by Caldeira. ". What is the evidence for Exxon's influence in this report? Is it just an assertion, or is there real evidence? I have little desire to get into a discussion fact-checking Clive's every statement, but at least a few of them appear to have little foundation. (Many of them have a ring of "truthiness", in that they are related to true statements. The problem is that they are not in themselves true statements.) We can have our own points of view, but we cannot invent our own facts. Best, Ken PS. An example of "truthiness" might be the assertion of Exxon influenced the 2007 meeting report ( http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20070031204_2007030982.pdf ).Haroon Kheshgi was at the meeting, but I do not recall any influence he had in producing the report. Perhaps Clive can enlighten us, and tell us more specifically how Kheshgi influenced this report. _______________ Ken Caldeira Carnegie Institution for Science Dept of Global Ecology 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA +1 650 704 7212 [email protected] http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab @kencaldeira Caldeira Lab is hiring postdoctoral researchers. http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab/Caldeira_employment.html Check out the profile of me on NPR's All Things Considered On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 5:56 PM, Ross Salawitch < [email protected] > wrote: <blockquote> Disheartening to read criticism of Clive Hamilton, upon publication of his op-ed piece in the 26 May 2013 edition of the New York Times. Clive is eminently qualified to write on the topic of geo-engineering of climate, following the 22 April 2013 publication of his book "Earthmasters: The Dawn of the Age of Climate Engineering": http://www.amazon.com/Earthmasters-The-Dawn-Climate-Engineering/dp/0300186673 This book is very well referenced with citations to enumerable papers written by those active in this group. Since when has an op-ed piece contained citations to the peer reviewed literature? (in case it is not obvious, this is a rhetorical question). Several prior commentors seem to have lost sight of the fact a NY Times op-ed piece is written for the public, rather than a highly specialized audience of academics. IMHO, Clive's piece is outstanding and he should be lauded for such a thorough, succinct summary of this important societal issue. This forum is maintained by Google groups. Presumably, anything written will be preserved for many generations to follow. At the moment, this forum is close to delving into a pit of snarkiness. I urge those who chose to write to consider the permanency of your remarks before hitting the "post" button. -- 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 . </blockquote> -- Clive Hamilton Professor of Public Ethics Charles Sturt University www.clivehamilton.com -- 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.
