Ken with ccs.
1. I think you are being too hard below on the Royal Society Report.
That report clearly states that it is made up of two approaches, whose names
are not being criticized (CDR and SRM, in that order on page xi). It is not
obvious why a name that combines two names that are not controversial should
itself be controversial. My beef is with people using the combination name
(Geoengineering) to be a synonym of only one (SRM). That practice (Greg Rau's
preference - and I see logic in it) should not be that hard to stamp out, since
it certainly was not part of the Royal Society report.
2. As you were one of the approximately sixteen persons preparing
this report (found at
http://royalsociety.org/uploadedFiles/Royal_Society_Content/policy/publications/2009/8693.pdf
)
it will be helpful to give us guidance, not on what is wrong, but on how we can
possibly turn the clock back. Emphasis on "how". The Royal Society again? If
they argued for "Geoengineering = SRM", I could support that; maybe you do.
But I can't be supportive until the Royal Society makes a move. Maybe time
before the IPCC Vol. III report is out? All they have to do is delete the
word "Geoengineering".
Ron
On Feb 17, 2014, at 8:12 AM, Ken Caldeira <[email protected]> wrote:
> It is fine to define "geoengineering" in a way that does not make the word a
> useful tool (e.g., as per the Royal Society Report), but then we must be
> prepared to recognize that the word as defined by the Royal Society Report is
> nearly useless in most relevant contexts (and commonly damaging).
>
> Perhaps the main remaining utility of the word "geoengineering" is as an
> epithet to disparage ideas that might someday be helpful (cf. BECCS).
>
>
> _______________
> 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
> https://twitter.com/KenCaldeira
>
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 2:02 AM, Oliver Morton <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> I'm struck by how much everyone wants a definition of geoengineering to do
> something -- to include ethics, to be a tool, not to be bad PR. I'm dubious
> about this in various ways. First, while understanding that language is
> inevitably value laden, I think it's helpful to try and be transparent about
> seeking to minimise that burden especially in contentious areas like this --
> not to ask what definitition is helpful, but to ask what broadly fits with
> the history of the discourse, the current general perception of the processes
> involved, and the need to be able to say of future ideas whether they are or
> aren't geoengineering. I appreciate that this sounds like a counsel of
> perfection, but trying to get to a place where people can just speak clearly
> isn't surely too much to ask.
>
> Second, I think that trying to steer the debate by controlling the
> terminology suggests a power that the in-group/geo-clique/whatever both
> doesn't have and shouldn't have.
>
> Realistically, in everyday discourse the world is for the time being stuck
> with some sort of definition of climate geoengineering similar to that in the
> Royal Society report. (What I like about my definition is that it offers to
> my mind a pretty good way of formalising that status quo rather more
> rigorously than the Royal Society did; its definition would include, to my
> mind, very large scale deployment of wind energy). This isn't a problem as
> far as I can see for people with a primary interest in solar geoengineering
> methods. It does seem to be a problem for people interested in carbon
> methods, in two opposing ways: people interested in carbon dioxide removal
> from a practical point of view think they might do better if they are not
> tarred with the geoengineering brush (a position which may be true); people
> interested in carbon dioxide removal from a policy point of view fear that if
> it is not seen as geoengineering the subject might fail to qualify for
> research money set aside for geoengineering policy/governance questions (a
> position which may also be true). Is that not, at the moment, the conflict at
> the heart of this debate?
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 5:05 AM, Ken Caldeira <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> Words are tools.
>
> Before designing a tool, it is a good idea to understand what the tool will
> be used for.
>
> Rather than defining terms in a vacuum, it may be a good idea to think about
> the contexts in which these words will be used and then provide a definition
> (or definitions) that make these words most useful in these contexts.
>
> ---
>
> Biomass energy is generally considered mitigation.
>
> Carbon capture and storage is generally considered mitigation
>
> So, for the time period in which we are still emitting copious amounts of
> fossil CO2 into the atmosphere, biomass energy + CCS is perhaps best viewed
> in the context of climate change mitigation. I do not see how labeling
> biomass energy with CCS (BECCS) "geoengineering" is helpful in this context.
>
> If we are concerned about novel risks, and want to govern things called
> "geoengineering" because they pose novel risks, then it might be a good idea
> to define "geoengineering" in terms of novel risk.
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________
> 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
> https://twitter.com/KenCaldeira
>
>
>
> On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 8:34 PM, Rau, Greg <[email protected]> wrote:
> I would go further and say "climate geoengineering is distinguished by, and
> can be defined through, its capacity to decouple climate outcomes from
> atmospheric carbon dioxide (or other GHG) levels." Thus, the very different
> (and in my opinion usually lower) risks from atmospheric CO2/GHG management
> R&D and deployment are separated from those of SRM.
> Greg
> From: [email protected] [[email protected]] on
> behalf of O Morton [[email protected]]
> Sent: Sunday, February 16, 2014 4:20 AM
> To: [email protected]
> Cc: [email protected]
>
> Subject: Re: [geo] Re: What Is Climate Geoengineering? Word Games in the
> Ongoing Debates Over a Definition
>
> I'm not sure that you want to include intention in the definition, though it
> is hard to exclude. And I think srm, for example, could, though, unwisely, be
> used without abatement options being pursued; I don't think its reasonable to
> include normative assumptions about how geoengineering should be pursued in
> the definition.
>
> For me, climate geoengineering is distinguished by, and can be defined
> through, its capacity to decouple climate outcomes from cumulative carbon
> dioxide emissions.
>
>
> On Sunday, 16 February 2014 07:46:40 UTC, Emily L-B wrote:
> Hi is it only fossil-fuel use it's aiming to deal with, rather than including
> the effects of land use change, deforestation, burping cows, etc?
> I wonder if geo-engineering aims to
>
> 'reduce climate change (or global warming specifically) alongside efforts to
> reduce ghg emissions.'
>
> This can include srm and cdr.
>
> This captures other ghg emissions sources, so for example, human release
> direct to air, but we are also weakening natural carbon draw down pumps in
> the ocean and may be causing carbon stores to release, from, for example, the
> oceans, forests and methane hydrates.
>
> This also captures the suggestion that geo-eng is expressly intended to be
> used as well as emissione reductions and not instead and not wait till
> emissions reductions is declared inadequate because some people are
> differently optimistic about that and may disagree/ be too late.
>
> Best wishes,
> Emily.
> Sent from my BlackBerry(R) smartphone on O2
> From: Greg Rau <[email protected]>
> Sender: [email protected]
> Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2014 15:03:20 -0800 (PST)
> To: [email protected]<[email protected]>;
> [email protected]<[email protected]>
> ReplyTo: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [geo] Re: What Is Climate Geoengineering? Word Games in the
> Ongoing Debates Over a Definition
>
> How about:
> "geoengineering schemes seek to mitigate the effect of fossil-fuel combustion
> on the climate in the event that fossil fuel emissions reductions prove
> inadequate to avoid dangerous climate change."
>
> Due to very different risks and benefits, my preference would be to have
> geoengineering be synonymous with SRM, and to treat CDR separately.
>
> Greg
>
> From: Oscar Escobar <[email protected]>
> To: [email protected]
> Sent: Saturday, February 15, 2014 12:24 PM
> Subject: [geo] Re: What Is Climate Geoengineering? Word Games in the Ongoing
> Debates Over a Definition
>
>
> I think the most accurate definition of climate geoengineering - Climate
> Engineering or (Insert new term here_________________), should include the
> following concept:
>
>
> "geoengineering schemes seek to mitigate the effect of fossil-fuel combustion
> on the climate without abating fossil fuel use."
>
> David Keith
> Ecyclopedia of Global Change - Environmental Change and Human Society -
> volume 1 (2002)
> Also here:
> "Geoengineering Climate - David Keith - Dept. of Chemistry and Chemical
> Biology - Harvard University - Cambridge, Massachusett
> http://keith.seas.harvard.edu/papers/16_Keith_1998_GeoengClimate_s.pdf
>
> I think this is doubly accurate in the case of fossil fuel CCS and enhanced
> oil recovery with carbon storage. I don't think any level of language
> sophistry, or legalese, will separate this fact from reality.
>
> I have to say that, I understand that the many climate geoengineering schemes
> have many different levels of risk, and other issues such as those raised by
> Dr. Smolker, but I don't oppose them in such a blanketed way.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Oscar E.
>
> --
> 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.
>
> --
> 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.
>
>
>
>
> --
> O=C=O O=C=O O=C=O O=C=O O=C=O
>
> Oliver Morton
> Editor, Briefings
> The Economist
>
> O=C=O O=C=O O=C=O O=C=O O=C=O
>
> --
> 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.
