I think that we can all agree that we have a global problem (excess air CO2, OK, and other GHGs) that will require effective actions whose sum effect will counter or remove the problem at a global scale. Because all actions have risks, costs, negative impacts as well as benefits, we need to understand these for each type of action under global scale application and not just those that qualify as "geoengineering". If we plant a billion trees (natural or artificial), install a billion windmills, coat the sky with aerosol, or forego fossil energy overnight, all of these have benefits and none are immune to costs, risks, and negative impacts (social, monetary, and environmental). It would therefore seem that we need to be discussing these issues and their ethics and governance separately and comparatively for each potential, globally effective action proposed and not just narrow-mindedly focus on whatever qualifies as "geoengineering". The alternative is to call all actions (whose application can have global benefits, costs, impacts) geoengineering, which I doubt many on either side of the issue would be keen on. Regardless, we need further research to better understand if we have any globally effective options whose (cost +impact+ risk)/benefit passes whatever $, environmental, and ethics smell tests the world community wishes to apply. This issue should apply to potential actions/technologies that are far broader than whatever currently qualifies as GE. Greg
>________________________________ > From: Oliver Morton <[email protected]> >To: Ronal W. Larson <[email protected]> >Cc: Geoengineering <[email protected]>; Greg Rau ><[email protected]>; Ken Caldeira <[email protected]> >Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2014 1:29 AM >Subject: Re: [geo] Re: What Is Climate Geoengineering? Word Games in the >Ongoing Debates Over a Definition > > > >Dear Ron > > >Very large (eg 2TW - 20TW) wind installation will have effects on the climate >system by changing wind patterns, though the scale is not yet I think well >agreed; similarly large biomass plantations have albedo and evapotranspiration >effects. They could thus be seen as fitting the Royal Society defintition of >geoengineering as >>>deliberate large-scale intervention in the Earth’s climate system, in order to moderate global warming. > > >On your second point, I'm trying to be quite precise here; climate >geoengineering involves decoupling climate outcomes from cumulative carbon >emissions. I don't see ocean acidification as a climate issue. It's an issue >that, like the climate issue, can be traced to anthropogenic carbon emissions, >but that doesn't mean it's the same thing, or that climate geoengineering has >to address it in order to be climate geoengineering. If people want to say of >carbon dioxide reduction that it doesn't just offer hope as a climate >engineering solution but also has the benefit of reducing ocean acidification, >then that is fine by me. > > >To explain my use of decoupling: solar methods do their decoupling by changing >the energy inputs; carbon methods do their decoupling by changing the link >between cumulative emissions and atmospheric levels. > > >As I said in previous post, the purpose of this definition is really just to >try and express a bit more analytically the status-quo solar+carbon methods >definition that most people were I think using before the Royal Society report >and went on to use afterwards. I think there is some advantage in this not >least because it links climate geoengineering directly to cumulative carbon >emissions, currently seen as a particularly useful proxy for human >intervention in the climate system (cf Myles Allen, passim). But it obviously >does little to settle the differences between >carbon-dioxide-reduction-would-be- practitioners and >carbon-dioxide-reduction-policy-people I mentioned in my previous post. > > >Ken may be right to worry that "geoengineering" ends up an epithet that hurts >approaches, such as BECCS, that have little in common with stratospheric >sulphates and the like. Worth noting though that if BECCS were to be moved out >of the geoengineering camp people who opposed it, as many would, would point >to the name change itself as evidence of perfidy: "they used to call it >geoengineering but then they changed its name to try and hide what it really >is," etc. > > >o > > > > > > > >On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 10:53 PM, Ronal W. Larson <[email protected]> >wrote: > >Oliver and ccs. >> >> >>I mostly agree with all you say below, including your final “Is that not..” >>question below. But I ask that you say more about two items: >> >> >>1. How can your "very large scale deployment of wind energy” (highlighted >>below) fit into the Royal Society’s two part (SRM and CDR) geoengineering >>definition? To me, wind is firmly in the mitigation category and not helpful >>to try to fit it into geoengineering. >> >> >> 2. I am concerned about your “definition” (also highlighted below >>and repeating from your message following Ken's below which read: >>For me, climate geoengineering is distinguished by, and can be defined >>through, its capacity to decouple climate outcomes from cumulative carbon >>dioxide emissions. >> >>>> >>>>My concern is with the word “decouple”. I see SRM saying it is going to >>>>ignore ocean acidification - which is certainly decoupling but I believe >>>>acknowledged to be quite harmful, and perhaps the main reason for >>>>opposition to SRM. I see CDR saying it intends strongly to couple (not >>>>decouple) with the ocean acidification issue. Can you clarify your word >>>>“decouple” as applying to both parts of geoengineering? >>>> >>>> >>>>Ron >> >> >>On Feb 17, 2014, at 3:02 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® 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 >> > > > >-- >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.
