List and Ken
This is to generally support Ken's "no new" proposal below. I have received 17
others in this thread, but I don't believe any have the following three
amendments that I suggest for further discussion.
1. That "ceasing" also apply to the opening of any new fossil fuel
production facility (oil, gas, coal)/ Rationale 1: This is
designed (as is Ken's) to foster renewables. Also good to refurbish and extend
the life of older wells. But mainly to ensure that the annual input of fossil
CO2 into the atmosphere does not stay constant, but moves downward - at a
predictable pace. Plenty of new wells/mines would be rushed into place before
the deadline, but the amount would be well known, and controlled somewhat by
not being able to be exploited quickly (giving a further cost preference to
renewables).
2. That the decision on when to OK large scale solar geoengineering be made
by the IPCC, and be made within the next 10 years.
Rationale 2: The IPCC overs all countries already. The needed
expertise is mostly voluntary and already in place. Ten years is arbitrary,
but shouldn't be perceived as too soon.
3. That the IPCC (or other, if a better choice exists) must first affirm
that CDR (carbon dioxide removal - including reforestation and afforestation)
would NOT be a safer and less costly approach than SRM.
Rationale 3. There should always be an alternative approach -
especially one that addresses a/the main reason (ocean pH) many folks are
fearful of SRM. This will mandate much needed R&D on CDR, as well as
accelerate R&D on renewables (especially by fossil fuel companies).
(Other: This could be in lieu of a carbon tax. Companies that wished to
could simply sell their assets and/or go out of business, if they didn't want
to become a renewable energy supplier.)
Ron
On Sep 11, 2013, at 10:36 AM, Ken Caldeira <[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 [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.
