Still, it seems that some sort of linkage between solar geoengineering and CO2-emissions reductions is needed if we are to avoid getting in a situation where both solar geoengineering deployments and atmospheric CO2 concentrations are steadily ramping up for many decades.
If the climate situation is bad enough that a country feels that it is in its national interest to engage in solar geoengineering, then it should feel that it is in its national interest to phase out CO2 emissions. The coupling of solar geoengineering deployment to the manufacture of new CO2-emitting devices (smoke stacks, tail pipes) because both activities are tangible and verifiable actions, but other options are possible. However, I would not be satisfied with current deployment of solar geonegineering systems in return for promises of future emissions reduction. If, for example, the US starts spraying aerosols over the Arctic, but we are simultaneously building new CO2-emitting power plants, how can we get away from the conclusion that the solar geoengineering is facilitating continued CO2 emissions? Many suspect that solar geoengineering is just a ruse to allow continued CO2 emissions. Explicit linkage along the lines I suggest would make it so that solar geoengineering deployment is NOT in the interest of the fossil-fuel companies etc, and so could change political dynamic on research etc. On Saturday, September 14, 2013, Mike MacCracken wrote: > My personal view of an optimal strategy would be to start early with > regional geoengineering—so would seek to alleviate specific regional risks > (like accelerated ice loss in the Arctic, etc.), per my paper that is in > proceedings of IPCC workshop (copy attached)-which would alleviate some > aspects of severe impacts and provide some useful experience as one checks > out what can be done, etc. For global geoengineering, I just think one has > to have simultaneous action on emissions reductions as only with that being > done will we have a sense of how big an effort we need to be thinking about > and how long it must be kept in place. > > Mike > > > On 9/14/13 9:52 AM, "[email protected]" < > [email protected]> wrote: > > Mike: > > Long ago, after much grief and unhappiness I concluded that when there was > a job to be done, or a result achieved, and I was not in complete control > of the all the needed elements of the process, although I could argue on > behalf of what I thought needed to be done by others, I did my part anyway > and generally got it done. I learned from experience that when I got my > part done or was getting it done, it put pressure on the laggards to do > their part done since they were clearly naked and I was not. > > What I am saying is figure out how to get the cooling job or the part you > can implement done, do your part, and use your success to put pressure on > the those who control the production of energy, especially hydrocarbon > based energy, which you do not and cannot control. Don't waste your time on > worrying about non hydrocarbon energy sources since the issues are mainly > economic/political and not technical. Geoengineering has enough on its > plate without dealing with non science issues out of ones control. > > Best of Luck. > > -gene > > ------------------------------ > *From: *"Mike MacCracken" <[email protected]> > *To: *"[email protected]" <[email protected]> > *Cc: *"Ken Caldeira" <[email protected]>, "Geoengineering" < > [email protected]> > *Sent: *Friday, September 13, 2013 10:39:44 PM > *Subject: *Re: [geo] Linking solar geoengineering and emissions reduction > > Re: [geo] Linking solar geoengineering and emissions reduction Gene—The > problem is that how much can be done by geoengineering is > limited—geoengineering is not an option in itself, it can only be effective > over time if there is also mitigation and adaptation (and still some > suffering). > > Mike > > > On 9/13/13 4:45 PM, "[email protected] <about:blank> " > <[email protected] <about:blank> > wrote: > > Mike: > > As scientists you need to continue to develop technology for reducing > global temperature. Let us hope you are extremely successful. Let others > deal with emission reduction, which is not part of geoengineering although > it is an important part of global warming mitigation. Emission reduction > is partly technical, not part of geoengineering but political and what > happens will be determined by politicians. *Don't make geoengineering > hostage to the politicians. *As scientists you have a lot on your plate. > It seems unwise to put yourselves in the position of fighting the > politicians and energy companies. > > -gene > > ------------------------------ > *From: *"Mike MacCracken" <[email protected] <about:blank> > > *To: *"Ken Caldeira" <[email protected] <about:blank> >, > "Geoengineering" <[email protected] <about:blank> > > *Sent: *Friday, September 13, 2013 4:14:43 PM > *Subject: *Re: [geo] Linking solar geoengineering and emissions reduction > > Re: [geo] Linking solar geoengineering and emissions reduction Belatedly, > just to note I agree with Ken that what we need is action or real > commitment to strong mitigation before consider global engineering, at > least, or it will be excuse to delay or do less. This way climate > engineering is used to shave the peak warming after mitigation (of both > short and long-lived species) rather than a substitute. > > Mike > > > On 9/11/13 12:36 PM, "Ken Caldeira" > <[email protected]<about:blank> <about:blank> > 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] <about:blank> > <about:blank> > http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab @kencaldeira > > > > -- _______________ 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.
