I'd be delighted if that could be the case, but I am not sure we have the time to wait until it clearly is the case. We have, over the years, been promised electricity too inexpensive to monitor (for nuclear) and even more, perhaps with fusion. There has been too much time spent waiting--we need to get going aggressively now.
Mike On 2/23/14 2:58 PM, "Keith Henson" <hkeithhen...@gmail.com> wrote: > Mike, I think the entire idea of "sacrifice" is the wrong approach. > > What we need is a huge new source of cheap, non carbon energy. So > cheap that fossil fuels are driven out of the market by being more > expensive in comparison to the new source. > > And rather than giving up annual pay raises, how about dropping the > cost of your utility bills and synthetic gasoline for a dollar a > gallon? > > "A challenge yes, but I would suggest as possible." > > I am not looking for paradise on earth, but an energy rich future is > much more attractive than the opposite. > > Keith > > On Sun, Feb 23, 2014 at 5:06 AM, Mike MacCracken <mmacc...@comcast.net> wrote: >> Agreed--it would have helped (at least conceptually) if I had said >> essentially phase down and out over several decades, which I would suggest >> is possible if we put our minds to it, even with population going up (phase >> in the internalization of the costs of climate change on fossil fuels and be >> willing to sacrifice some--so phasing up to what might be a few percent of >> GDP over a few decades--so equivalent to giving up an annual pay raise for >> one year per decade, say). A challenge yes, but I would suggest as possible. >> >> Mike >> >> >> >> On 2/23/14 12:01 AM, "Keith Henson" <hkeithhen...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> On Sat, Feb 22, 2014 at 7:20 AM, Mike MacCracken <mmacc...@comcast.net> >>> wrote: >>> >>> "world must totally give up fossil fuels" >>> >>> There is a little bit of a political problem there, which is why you >>> don't see "sufficient action." >>> >>> For the foreseeable future, giving up fossil fuel energy would result >>> in the death of perhaps 6 billion people. >>> >>> Now you can argue, and I won't disagree, that we let the population >>> grow beyond what can be supported on conventional renewable energy. >>> But that's what we have. >>> >>> A politically acceptable solution would have to include a way that >>> does not involve 6 out of 7 people dying. >>> >>> I think I know a way this can be done, but am a long way from certain >>> about it. Not to mention that it has known problems. >>> >>> Keith >>> >>> >>>> 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" <andrew.lock...@gmail.com> 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 >>>> "Geoengineering: Ethically Challenged, Politically Impossible?" 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-Nissen's >>>> 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 "irrelevant" take home >>>> message. He said,"The environment is a bathtub." 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, "His examples are very relevant to us and it >>>> is helpful to understand a lot more." 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: "Are we >>>> doing anything wrong by not doing anything about [global warming]?" >>>> >>>> -- >>>> 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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >>>> To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. >>>> 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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
