Thank you for the elaboration. First, I looked at the video, and it seems overly pessimistic to me about SRM and underly expressive of the Large changes that could lie ahead (e.g., getting on a path of SL rise of a meter or more per century, tens of percent loss of global biodiversity, etc.).
Second, if mitigation is very slow and the situation gets much more serious and the question of imposing a large SRM effort to cool the world suddenly (which seems to be the type of implementation that the video envisions), I largely agree with your analysis. Waiting until we are that far along seems likely to me to be both too late and too controversial to envision implementing given the present world framework. Third, an alternative approach, however, pursued in parallel with strong mitigation of CO2 and short-lived species and adaptation, would seem to me to be to slowly ramp up SRM, seeking to keep the climate about as it is or gradually push it a bit cooler given that the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets are already loosing mass. Indeed, it may be that some fraction of the diminution of the recent warming trend may be due to small volcanic eruptions or maybe tropospheric sulfate aerosols. Now, I will agree the weather now is anomalous, but I¹d suggest that is largely due to much warmer Arctic‹and an SRM effort would, in my view, best be focused on the Arctic (as a paper a few of us did a bit ago explored). This is all pretty speculative analysis, but the type of research and implementation that I¹d suggest be explored. And if one can have aggressive mitigation with SRM shaving off the peak of the warming, it would be nothing like the magnitude of intervention of seeking to reverse a CO2 doubling. I also think there would be the potential to think about patterns of implementation and combining of approaches, done iteratively, to perhaps keep the extremes in key areas to what has been experienced‹or at least well less than the extremes being projected. I would also agree that such a situation would nonetheless still have lots of aspects and issues meriting investigation and discussion, as you suggest, but likely focused more on the need for all the effort in that the public would not yet have experienced the harsh impacts that would be occurring before implementation in the scenario in the video‹and so there might at some point need to be a halt and then as the serious consequences occur have to be restarted (which would have its own problems). In any case, I think there is plenty of need for thinking about a much wider range of possible implementations and societal and governance issues than is typically being considered. Mike MacCracken On 2/22/14 12:57 PM, "Bjørnar Egede-Nissen" <[email protected]> wrote: > Well, the brief description in the Lawrentian leaves out much. I certainly > mentioned the adverse impacts SRM is proposed to counteract. I spent 15 > minutes in the beginning discussing the "nightmare rationale" for SRM and I > played the newly released IASS video (http://youtu.be/3GKjl7afwaY) to > introduce the topic (on a sidenote, the video was very well received). Perhaps > there's a discussion to be had about whether the video gives a fair overview > of the rationales for doing SRM. The previous lecture in this series was > dedicated to the science and pros/cons of SRM/geoengineering. My lecture was > on ethical and moral issues that arise in the discourse on SRM, research and > governance, picking up where the other left off. Thus, it was not my job to do > a hard sell of the tipping point argument for SRM. > > The main ethical problem with SRM, I think, is political legitimacy. Almost > 200 sovereign states with maybe 9 billion souls would be affected and have > different perspectives on what ought to be done and how. If you add "in a > situation of multiple regional drought/flood catastrophes, with a small window > of opportunity, where many people nevertheless will have pragmatic or ethical > doubts about the wisdom of using technology to fix a problem caused by > technology in combination with the human condition; a situation where there > would almost certainly be significant power differentials between relative > global winners and losers", you have social complexity approaching off the > scales compared to the rather ordinary (and still (nearly) unresolvable) > political problems we face today. The kind of global institution that could > arbitrate such a situation and make a timely, authoritative, legitimate and > lawful decision about SRM that would be universally respected and obeyed does > not exist, and it is hard to see that it ever will. Now, perhaps that is too > high a bar to set - perhaps it would be enough that a majority of the global > population were represented by states that wanted SRM and a multilateral > consortium implemented it regardless of the wishes of everyone else. Various > other conditions that could bestow sufficient legitimacy on anyone wanting to > geoengineer without global consensus is worth a discussion on its own (could > the end ever justify the means? Is the only kind of justification possible a > ex-post justification in a scenario where risks and consequences of SRM turned > out to be overblown?). Regardless, all scenarios that would see SRM > implemented would have to overcome really serious ethical and moral obstacles; > these would either have to be resolved in some fashion. Discussion of ethical > issues therefore has to start now. > > The prospect of tipping points terrify me - I'm quite convinced they are > plausible. Whether SRM terrifies me more depends on what side of the bed I got > out on in the morning. > > > Best wishes, > Bjørnar > > Bjørnar Egede-Nissen > PhD Candidate > Department of Political Science > Social Science Centre > University of Western Ontario > London, Ontario > N6A 5C2 Canada > Email: [email protected] > > > On 22 February 2014 10:20, Mike MacCracken <[email protected]> wrote: >> And apparently no mention at all of the adverse impacts that SRM would >> offset‹offsets so serious that there is global agreement (if not yet >> sufficient action) that the world must totally give up fossil fuels to avoid, >> that are viewed as potentially having nonlinearities and irreversibilities >> such as loss of tens of percent of global biodiversity, sea level rise of >> many meters, and more. Much less any discussion of the various potential >> forms of geoengineering and adaptive application of it, perhaps using SRM to >> slow in near-term and CDR drawdown of CO2 as an exit strategy, etc. >> >> Mike MacCracken >> >> >> >> On 2/21/14 9:26 PM, "Andrew Lockley" <[email protected] >> <http://[email protected]> > wrote: >> >>> http://www.lawrentian.com/archives/1002706 >>> >>> Visiting lecturer discusses moral quandaries in geoengineering >>> >>> POSTED ON FEBRUARY 21, 2014 BY XUE YAN >>> >>> On Tuesday, Feb. 18, Bjornar Egede-Nissen, from the department of political >>> science at the University of Western Ontario, gave a lecture titled >>> ³Geoengineering: Ethically Challenged, Politically Impossible?² in Steitz >>> Hall of Science.The lecture covered a brief introduction to geoengineering, >>> its ethical challenges and the political difficulties faced by >>> geoengineering.According to the lecture, geoengineering is defined as the >>> deliberate large-scale manipulation of the planetary environment to >>> counteract anthropogenic climate change. Solar radiation management (SRM), a >>> theoretical type of geoengineering which aims to reflect sunlight back into >>> space to reduce global warming, was the main topic of Egede-Nissen¹s >>> lecture.Egede-Nissen believed that there are some limitations on SRM. He >>> said that though SRM is able to block the sunlight, the CO2 is still left on >>> the earth, so SRM only treats the symptoms, not the causes of global >>> warming. In order to gradually get rid of the CO2, people have to continue >>> to use SRM, and due to the slow negative emission, it will take a very long >>> time to achieve. This is another limitation, he said.Egede-Nissen also said >>> that once the use of SRM begins, people would face the exit problem of SRM. >>> Also, it is extremely hard to predict the effects of the SRM on the climate, >>> so there is also unpredictable risk to using SRM.When considering SRM, >>> Egede-Nissen said we must also think about the ethical challenges.He >>> admitted that there are some justifications of doing SRM research, including >>> the cost-benefit analysis, the value of scientific research and the >>> emergency options for SRM research. According to Egede-Nissen, the SRM can >>> be comparatively cheap, but the long time-frame required and the side >>> effects of doing SRM research can be cause for reconsideration.At the end of >>> the talk, Egede-Nissen said he wanted to leave an ³irrelevant² take home >>> message. He said,³The environment is a bathtub.² He explained that if we put >>> the carbon in the earth, it would drain out of the atmosphere in a much >>> slower rate. He believed that it is a very common misunderstanding to think >>> that stopping emissions today will improve the situation, because the past >>> emissions will remain there for hundreds of years.Freshman Sara Zaccarine >>> said that it was interesting that his talk aimed at raising questions rather >>> than answering them. She said, ³His examples are very relevant to us and it >>> is helpful to understand a lot more.² She also likes that he brought the >>> large-scale issue down to more specific points.Sophomore Lena Bixby thinks >>> the ethical issues are important. People have the technology, but we are not >>> doing anything about the problem. She said it is like a moral test: ³Are we >>> doing anything wrong by not doing anything about [global warming]?² -- 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.
