Andrew, comments in bold:
1. SRM is safer than no SRM, with any fixed, near-BAU emissions trajectory.An
unproven pure assertion about a technology which is still effectively
imaginary. In addition to minimization of first-order physical risks, "safety"
claim does not include misguided or adversarial deployment. Implicitly asserts
a risk profile about climate sensitivity to CO2e concentrations which is still
uncertain [although I'm inclined to believe that those risks are very serious].
2a. There is no proven causal link between SRM and emissions
trajectory.Heuristics (including analogy) suggest that such a link may exist
and have unfortunate consequences. THis is very hard to "prove" except in
retrospect, given scaling issues (and the prospect of adversarial framing)
which even well-conducted small-scale social science experiments can't account
for.
or
2b. There is no evidence of any emissions trajectory, other than BAUForeclosing
the possibility of a sub-BAU curve is pure political speculation and
minimizes/ignores inflection points in social systems; note also the prospect
of BAU being progressively redefined to ignore emissions reductions already
achieved through political/economic/social processes.
Therefore SRM should be commenced immediately.Not on the basis of 1 & {2a | 2b}.
I think Ken's proposal is very interesting, by the way, and gets at a lot of
valid concerns around "peak shaving" approaches.
Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2013 18:18:06 +0100
Subject: Re: [geo] Re: Linking solar geoengineering and emissions reduction
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
CC: [email protected]; [email protected]
Well, here's a counter argument. Demolish this:
A
On 12 September 2013 15:38, Bill Stahl <[email protected]> wrote:
I think that what Ken is proposing is less a policy than a principle around
which to organize policies. There's been much talk of metaphors and framing and
this sounds like the kernel of, well, a slogan. Which might sound
condescending, but is not; these are the building blocks to political action. A
vivid metaphor that captures both aspects of SRM strategy would be very useful
as a rallying cry.
On Wednesday, September 11, 2013 10:36:02 AM UTC-6, Ken Caldeira 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 [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].
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.
--
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.
--
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.
