Ken You make a good point (on which I agree in principle).
However, if you think this through, you need to imagine what kind of political institutions and agreements need to be in place to 'police' all nation-states to ensure that 'no-one builds new CO2-emitting devices' (cars, power stations, infrastructure etc.). And whether this is in any way plausible in current circumstances. The wider point is that in a number of respects (including for the reason you suggest below) it is implausible to imagine how SRM can be compatible with current, liberal, democratic institutions. I suggest that the 'political' challenges posed by SRM need further consideration in groups such as this one. We have developed a paper on this point which I will be happy to share with the group when an on-line version is available (hopefully in the next month or so). Phil Visiting Professor Department of Science and Technology Policy Institute of Geosciences P.O. Box 6152 State University of Campinas – UNICAMP 13083-970, Campinas, SP, Brazil Professor of Geography Department of Geography Science Laboratories Durham University South Road Durham, DH1 3LE, UK From: Ken Caldeira <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Reply-To: "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Date: Wednesday, 11 September 2013 14:51 To: Andrew Lockley <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: geoengineering <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: Re: [geo] Linking solar geoengineering and emissions reduction Note that I did not require decarbonization of the economy as a pre-requisite for deployment as my proposal allows existing CO2-emitting devices to continue being used. I merely required that we stop building new CO2-emitting devices. My point is that if climate change is enough of an emergency to require rapid deployment of solar geoengineering then it is also enough of an emergency to stop building devices that will exacerbate that emergency. If we are doing solar geoengineering at the same time as we are building new fossil-fueled power plants that use the atmosphere as a waste dump, how do you assure that the solar geoengineering system does not facilitate continued production of those devices? _______________ Ken Caldeira Carnegie Institution for Science Dept of Global Ecology 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA +1 650 704 7212 [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab @kencaldeira On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 1:25 PM, Andrew Lockley <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Ken We need to control temperatures far more quickly than we can hope to decarbonise the economy. Are you seriously trying to argue that every car factory in the world needs to close before we can do any SRM at all? That seems entirely implausible. Perhaps more sensible to suggest that emissions growth be capped (possibly at zero) before geoengineering starts. As I see it the 'buy time' argument for SRM is a strong one. We need to stop temperatures increasing *whilst * we decarbonise. A On Sep 11, 2013 5:36 PM, "Ken Caldeira" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: We do not want to be in a situation where a solar geoengineering system is used to enable continued increases in CO2 emissions. Therefore, a reasonable demand is that no new smokestacks or tailpipes be built after a solar geoengineering system is deployed. Another way of phrasing this is to demand that new construction of all new CO2-emitting devices cease prior to any solar geoengineering system deployment. This would help address the concern that solar geoengineering could provide cover for continued expansion of CO2-emitting industries. Norms that would prevent simultaneous solar geoengineering deployment and increasing CO2 emissions would help diminish the likelihood of bad outcomes and could help broaden political support for solar geoengineering research. -- This would limit deployment of solar geoengineering systems to the case of "catastrophic" outcomes and would not permit use of solar geoengineering for "peak shaving" amid promises of future reductions in CO2 emissions. Thus, this proposal does have a substantive implications for "peak shaving" strategies. -- I am floating this idea without being certain that the formulation presented here is the best possible formulation. _______________ Ken Caldeira Carnegie Institution for Science Dept of Global Ecology 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA +1 650 704 7212<tel:%2B1%20650%20704%207212> [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab @kencaldeira -- 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]<mailto:geoengineering%[email protected]>. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>. 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 [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>. 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 [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
