Ken and list - with ccs
1. I have previously said I admired your own taxonomy. I was only
following up on Simon's cite (especially as I found a free version).
2. Dr. Heyward's 5-part taxonomy could/would be improved by bringing your
three (conservation, efficiency, and low-carbon) in at the front end to replace
"mitigation" - bringing hers to 7-part. All three make sense in terms of
coupling the first four circles
3. But I would already call yours more 7-part than 6-part, as you have 7
circles and 7 outer "links" (not all arrows) Presumably your outermost (late
in the day) red "hammer" is related to her "rectification" - which would allow
a seventh interior "hammer" with that name. That seventh inner label would
nicely balance your chart.
4. All of the seven arrows and "hammers" have economic metrics. The final
seventh (rectification) could be the most expensive of all the "hammers" - and
is rarely (ever) noted (to my knowledge) in economic analyses. That's where we
would include the cost of avoiding expensive wars.
5. Do you agree that adding this fifth-seventh "Heyward"
rectification-element would look logical on your chart?
Ron
On Aug 25, 2013, at 4:13 PM, Ken Caldeira <kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu> wrote:
> Of course this is no one best taxonomy. Taxonomies are tools and different
> methods of classification may be more useful for different purposes.
>
> In the past, I have offered the following 6-part taxonomy, published in
> Caldeira et al 2013. It differs from that of Heyward by not considering
> "rectification", but subdividing "mitigation" into three categories:
> conservation, efficiency, and low-carbon energy.
>
>
> http://www.annualreviews.org/eprint/8NiUE6HXETbrWNj3ybct/full/10.1146/annurev-earth-042711-105548
>
> <Climate_circle.png>
>
> _______________
> Ken Caldeira
>
> Carnegie Institution for Science
> Dept of Global Ecology
> 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA
> +1 650 704 7212 kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu
> http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab @kencaldeira
>
> Assistant: Sharyn Nantuna, snant...@carnegiescience.edu
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, Aug 25, 2013 at 11:40 AM, Ronal W. Larson <rongretlar...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
> Simon and Geoengineering list:
>
> Thanks for providing this link to a recent paper by Clare Heyward,
> emphasizing proper terminology. The middle part of the abstract reads:
>
> This article argues that “geoengineering” should not be regarded as a
> third category of response to climate change, but should be disaggregated.
> Technically, CDR and SRM are quite different and discussing them together
> under the rubric of geoengineering can give the impression that all the
> technologies in the two categories of response always raise similar
> challenges and political issues when this is not necessarily the case.
> However, CDR and SRM should not be completely subsumed into the preexisting
> categories of mitigation and adaptation. Instead, they can be regarded as two
> parts of a five-part continuum of responses to climate change
>
> This concern on separating SRM and CDR is especially important when
> talking about Al Gore's views.
>
> The title of the suggested Heyward paper (cite below) talks of 5
> responses. Besides CDR and SRM, she mentions mitigation and adaptation in
> the abstract. The fifth is "rectification" - not mentioned in the abstract,
> and a topic not well enough addressed on this list
>
> I would appreciate seeing the paper without having to pay the $30
> (especially as there may be some ethical discussion in the paper), should any
> reader have this electronically. Almost certainly, the same concepts are
> found in this free version:
> http://www.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs/Climate%20change/Clare%205%20categories.pdf
>
> Here is a final quote from the free version (maybe both?)
> Let future research and debate cease to be about “geoengineering” and
> instead focus on
> the specific features of proposed technologies, and the appropriate mix of
> emission
> reductions, CDR, SRM, adaptation and rectification.
>
> (Note that "mitigation" has been replaced by "emission reductions" in this
> final categorization. Only a few CDR approaches (BECCS and biochar at least)
> do the first two, which are often also termed carbon neutral and carbon
> negative (or is that creating new confusion, when we are talking
> nomenclature?)
>
> Ron
>
>
> On Aug 25, 2013, at 11:11 AM, Simon Driscoll <drisc...@atm.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>> Salif,
>>
>> "We are already doing geoengineering"
>>
>> My view (and perhaps this is incorrect) is that almost all of the population
>> would take the opposite view to this statement and agree we are NOT doing
>> geoengineering (here restricted to SRM) now. In fact, despite of knowing one
>> or two here and there - I was talking to Alan Gadian a week or two ago who I
>> know supports this view publicly - it appears widely accepted by the
>> academic community that the opposite is true and we are not geoengineering
>> today.
>>
>> Geoengineering, traditionally, includes the notion of intent. Could you tell
>> me what you mean by geoengineering? Could you tell me your view as to
>> whether intent actually matters in any situations? If it does not, this
>> seems to fly in the face of quite a lot of ethics and everyday
>> interpretation of events. Do you ignore these events, or if not are you
>> suggesting (somehow ... for some reason) that there is already an
>> intentional SRM geoengineering programme and this is why you say we are
>> already geoengineering?
>>
>> A good discussion on definitions is found here, for example:
>> http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=8802617
>>
>> Thank you for your clarification.
>>
>> "works undertaking under the umbrella of SRM include researches about the
>> optimal particles that can be injected to reduce solar Radiation reaching
>> the earth"
>>
>> My guess (and it is merely a guess) from this is that Al Gore could possibly
>> be MORE opposed to these. Given that there could be chemical surprises with
>> other particles, one could argue if Al Gore is opposed to something we have
>> a better handle on (and at least have observed a good few times), then he
>> would probably be against these, but it's hard to say.
>>
>> Simon
>>
>> ________________________________________________
>>
>> Simon Driscoll
>> Atmospheric, Oceanic and Planetary Physics
>> Department of Physics
>> University of Oxford
>>
>> Office: +44 (0) 1865 272930
>> Mobile: +44 (0) 7935314940
>>
>> http://www2.physics.ox.ac.uk/contacts/people/driscoll
>>
>> ________________________________________
>> From: Salif KONE [skonem...@yahoo.fr]
>> Sent: 25 August 2013 13:15
>> To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com
>> Cc: Simon Driscoll
>> Subject: Re: [geo] Al Gore on geoengineering
>>
>> Simon,
>>
>> I do understand that he assumes the SRM technique to be awful under the
>> consideration of injecting sulfate aerosol in the stratosphere, but works
>> undertaking under the umbrella of SRM include researches about the optimal
>> particles that can be injected to reduce solar Radiation reaching the earth.
>> We are already doing geoengineering but in the wrong way, without taking
>> into account the impact of what we are already injecting in the atmosphere
>> through commercial aircrafts.
>>
>> ****************************************************
>> Salif KONE,
>> M.Sc.Université Joseph Fourier/OSUG Grenoble/
>> UniversitéMontpellier II, 2007.
>> Enseignant à l’Ecole Nationale d’Ingénieurs
>> Abderrhamane Baba Touré (ENI-ABT)
>> Adresse: 410 Av. Van Vollenhoven BP.: 242, Bamako-Mali.
>> PhD Student(Oct. 2011- present), ISFRA-Bamako.
>> Tel.:+223 76 39 60 09 / +223 64 59 67 99
>> BP.:7048, Bamako-Mali.
>> Email:skonem...@yahoo.fr
>>
>> De : Ken Caldeira <kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu>
>> À : Gene Gordon <euggor...@comcast.net>
>> Cc : Simon Driscoll <drisc...@atm.ox.ac.uk>; Salif KONE
>> <skonem...@yahoo.fr>; geoengineering <geoengineering@googlegroups.com>
>> Envoyé le : Samedi 24 août 2013 16h46
>> Objet : Re: [geo] Al Gore on geoengineering
>>
>> Al Gore is not opposing geoengineering research because he wants to profit
>> off of climate change, as suggested by Eugene.
>>
>> Asserting this is as nutty as asserting that people commonly support
>> geoengineering research because they hope to profit off of the technologies
>> developed.
>>
>> Let's try to be more generous in our attribution of motives.
>>
>>
>> _______________
>> Ken Caldeira
>>
>> Carnegie Institution for Science
>> Dept of Global Ecology
>> 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA
>> +1 650 704 7212
>> kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu<mailto:kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu>
>> http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab @kencaldeira
>>
>> Assistant: Sharyn Nantuna,
>> snant...@carnegiescience.edu<mailto:snant...@carnegiescience.edu>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Aug 24, 2013 at 9:41 AM,
>> <euggor...@comcast.net<mailto:euggor...@comcast.net>> wrote:
>> Somewhat confusing and very tough! It is generally believed that the
>> monetary investment return (my choice based on your use of the terms
>> portfolio and type) of research if there is a return is at least 20 years. I
>> suspect that for global warming research the financial investment return
>> delay would be much longer. In contrast the return on development is much
>> earlier and more certain but it is too early for development. I suspect that
>> few here will make a personal financial investment. The personal investment
>> is related to career and how large is also personal. Governments seldom make
>> financial investments unless politics is part of the equation.
>>
>> From: "Simon Driscoll" <drisc...@atm.ox.ac.uk<mailto:drisc...@atm.ox.ac.uk>>
>> To: "Ken Caldeira"
>> <kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu<mailto:kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu>>
>>
>> Cc: "Salif KONE" <skonem...@yahoo.fr<mailto:skonem...@yahoo.fr>>,
>> geoengineering@googlegroups.com<mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com>
>> Sent: Saturday, August 24, 2013 12:09:59 PM
>> Subject: RE: [geo] Al Gore on geoengineering
>>
>>
>> "If we take a portfolio view, the question is how large and what type of
>> investment should we be making in solar geoengineering research."
>>
>> Agreed.
>>
>> ________________________________________________
>>
>> Simon Driscoll
>> Atmospheric, Oceanic and Planetary Physics
>> Department of Physics
>> University of Oxford
>>
>> Office: +44 (0) 1865 272930
>> Mobile: +44 (0) 7935314940
>>
>> http://www2.physics.ox.ac.uk/contacts/people/driscoll
>> From: kcalde...@gmail.com<mailto:kcalde...@gmail.com>
>> [kcalde...@gmail.com<mailto:kcalde...@gmail.com>] on behalf of Ken Caldeira
>> [kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu<mailto:kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu>]
>> Sent: 24 August 2013 17:09
>> To: Simon Driscoll
>> Cc: Salif KONE;
>> geoengineering@googlegroups.com<mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com>
>> Subject: Re: [geo] Al Gore on geoengineering
>>
>>
>>
>> There is a pleasing simplicity to answering a question as if it were a
>> binary, but I suppose if you got these people in a room and spoke with them
>> quietly, the question could not be answered with a yes or no, but rather
>> with an expression of what kind and how much.
>>
>> If we take a portfolio view, the question is how large and what type of
>> investment should we be making in solar geoengineering research. I suspect
>> that even Al Gore and Ray Pierrehumbert would favor some climate modeling,
>> strategic analyses, etc. 'Small and limited' is not as catchy 'they're just
>> crazy' as a rhetorical device. Sometimes the will to entertain supercedes
>> the need to make a nuanced point.
>>
>>
>> On Saturday, August 24, 2013, Simon Driscoll wrote:
>> Salif,
>>
>> my belief is that he suggests other avenues are far more sensible and that
>> this avenue isn't one to seek a solution from, hence his: "We shouldn’t
>> waste a lot of time talking about them. Some people will anyway, but they’re
>> just crazy." Admittedly, it's quite full on, albeit similar sentiments have
>> been echoed before by some of the world's most prominent scientists/policy
>> researchers etc., e.g.:
>> "In delivering the prestigious Tyndall Lecture at the annual American
>> Geophysical Union meeting last December, he said the idea of putting sulfate
>> aerosols in the stratosphere was “barking mad.” Pierrehumbert also rejects
>> the value of doing field experiments. “The whole idea of geoengineering is
>> so crazy and would lead to such bad consequences, it really is pretty
>> pointless. We already know enough about sulfate albedo engineering to know
>> it would put the world in a really precarious state. Field experiments are
>> really a dangerous step on the way to deployment, and I have a lot of doubts
>> what would actually be learned.”"
>>
>> It seems that Tim Palmer holds the belief that impressions will change a lot
>> when models become better (although he doesn't use a comparable tone): "the
>> nations of the world should come together to fund the sort of supercomputers
>> that would allow us to simulate the climate of the coming century with much
>> greater reliability than is currently possible. The impact that this will
>> have for mitigation, adaptation and geoengineering policies is likely to be
>> enormous.", and so on.
>>
>> Al Gore does discuss other things he think may bring about solutions though
>> - just not involving SRM in any way.
>>
>> And anyway, it seems quite obvious that there exists no necessary condition
>> for a statement involving the pointing out of what an individual considers
>> to be a major obvious issue/flaw to be coupled with a solution, no?
>>
>> Simon
>>
>> ________________________________________________
>>
>> Simon Driscoll
>> Atmospheric, Oceanic and Planetary Physics
>> Department of Physics
>> University of Oxford
>>
>> Office: +44 (0) 1865 272930
>> Mobile: +44 (0) 7935314940
>>
>> http://www2.physics.ox.ac.uk/contacts/people/driscoll
>> From: Salif KONE [skonem...@yahoo.fr]
>> Sent: 24 August 2013 15:19
>> To: Simon Driscoll; geoengineering@googlegroups.com
>> Subject: Re: [geo] Al Gore on geoengineering
>>
>> I do disagree with this Al Gore' statement " ...We shouldn’t waste a lot of
>> time talking about them. Some people will anyway, but they’re just crazy.".
>> He exposes the problems without proposing a solution; Geo-engineering is
>> trying to find a solutin through techniques as SRM...
>>
>> ****************************************************
>> Salif KONE,
>> M.Sc.Université Joseph Fourier/OSUG Grenoble/
>> UniversitéMontpellier II, 2007.
>> Enseignant à l’Ecole Nationale d’Ingénieurs
>> Abderrhamane Baba Touré (ENI-ABT)
>> Adresse: 410 Av. Van Vollenhoven BP.: 242, Bamako-Mali.
>> PhD Student(Oct. 2011- present), ISFRA-Bamako.
>> Tel.:+223 76 39 60 09 / +223 64 59 67 99
>> BP.:7048, Bamako-Mali.
>> Email:skonem...@yahoo.fr
>>
>> De : Simon Driscoll <drisc...@atm.ox.ac.uk>
>> À : "geoengineering@googlegroups.com" <geoengineering@googlegroups.com>
>> Envoyé le : Vendredi 23 août 2013 21h20
>> Objet : [geo] Al Gore on geoengineering
>>
>> Al Gore: "Let me deal with the geoengineering part of your question first.
>> That’s complex because there are some benign geoengineering proposals like
>> white roofs or efforts to figure out a way to extract CO2 from the
>> atmosphere , though no one has figured out how to do that yet. But the
>> geoengineering options most often discussed, like putting sulfur dioxide
>> into the atmosphere or orbiting tinfoil strips — these are simply nuts. We
>> shouldn’t waste a lot of time talking about them. Some people will anyway,
>> but they’re just crazy.
>>
>> To the broader part of your question, innovation is already playing a major
>> role in bringing about new potential solutions to the climate crisis. The
>> tech world had a bitter experience after the burst of enthusiasm in 2005 and
>> 2006 because of a perfect storm made up of four elements: First, the great
>> recession, which had a huge, destructive impact on business generally.
>> Number two, the Chinese juggernaut, which subsidized the production of
>> several prominent renewable energy technologies to the point where their
>> sales price fell below the price of production in the West. Third, the shale
>> gas boom dropped the retail price of electricity to levels below what many
>> renewable energy plans needed to be viable. And fourth there was the policy
>> failure I mentioned earlier in the U.S. Senate and Copenhagen. And all the
>> while there was this massively funded climate denier campaign by the Koch
>> Brothers and Exxon-Mobile and others that hired tobacco industry veterans to
>> work with them on consumer advertising and lobbying activities.
>> But that setback was only temporary because reality has a way of reasserting
>> itself. There has been a 100-fold increase in the number of extreme,
>> high-temperature events around the world in the distribution curve. And
>> people have noticed for themselves — the rain storms are bigger, the
>> droughts are deeper and the fires are more destructive. All of these things
>> have not escaped notice and people are connecting the dots. The cumulative
>> amount of energy trapped by manmade global warming pollution each day in the
>> earth’s atmosphere is now equal to the energy that would be released by
>> 400,000 Hiroshima bombs going off every 24 hours. It’s a big planet, but
>> that’s a lot of energy.
>> The consequences are now hard to escape. Every night on the news, it’s like
>> a nature hike through the book of revelations. Eleven states today are
>> fighting 35 major fires! People are noticing this. And simultaneously
>> they’re noticing the sharp drop in the cost of carbon-free, greenhouse
>> gas-free energy, and the combination is pushing us over this political
>> tipping point and the trend is unstoppable."
>>
>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/08/21/al-gore-explains-why-hes-optimistic-about-stopping-global-warming/
>>
>> --
>> 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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>>
>>
>> --
>> _______________
>> Ken Caldeira
>>
>> Carnegie Institution for Science
>> Dept of Global Ecology
>> 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA
>> +1 650 704 7212
>> kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu<mailto:kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu>
>> http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab @kencaldeira
>>
>> Assistant: Sharyn Nantuna,
>> snant...@carnegiescience.edu<mailto:snant...@carnegiescience.edu>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> 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 mailto:geoengineering%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> To post to this group, send email to
>> geoengineering@googlegroups.com<mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com>.
>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
>> 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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
>> 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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
>> 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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
> <Heyward_PS2013_geo-taxonomy.pdf>
--
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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
