John, list etal:
I believe you have misread the FoE material a little. I take some
hopes from their predictions of what is coming in Vol. III of AR5. I presume
they would not have written as they have if they did not have a copy of a
draft. The previous leaks reported by Reuters last year were nowhere as
detailed as this new FoE material, so I believe we should have increased hopes
for what Vol. III will say. See inserts below.
On Mar 15, 2014, at 4:51 PM, John Nissen <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
>
> FoE says the WG2 report on climate impacts will be published on March 29th
> and the WG3 report on "pathways to avoid dangerous climate change" will be
> published on April 11th.
>
>
> To quote from the WG3 summary by FoE:
>
>
> "It is still possible to reduce global carbon pollution fast enough and deep
> enough to make 2 degrees of global warming unlikely and provide a small
> chance of avoiding 1.5 degrees of warming, but only by making far-reaching
> socio-economic changes."
>
RWL: The key word here is "reduce" - which can include both mitigation
and CDR (but not SRM). I think the right question is whether the Vol III
authors meant to include CDR. The evidence from other quotes is that
geoengineering is a big part of Vol.III; since SRM is going to do nothing for
"reduce" - this leaves only CDR. I strongly believe that CDR can do what is
this sentence - so I don't view it as "twaddle".
>
> This is complete twaddle and wishful thinking by people whose solidarity is
> clearly with the "egalitarians" (see posting by Dan Kahan on polarities). It
> is twaddle because the level of CO2 in the atmosphere has to be reduced if
> the world is to have any chance of keeping below 2 degrees C warming. There
> is no way that some vague collection of "socio-economic changes" can reduce
> the CO2 in the atmosphere as required. Only geoengineering can do this.
>
>
[RWL: I guess I am partly responding since I am pretty sure I am an
egalitarian. Guessing you might be also. (And I have read a lot of the Kahan
material.) Your last sentence should read "Only CDR can do this", if we are
talking "reduction". Yes SRM can control temperatures, but the sentences here
are more about reduction, which you endorse, rather than about temperature -
which can follow reduction.
>
> It is also twaddle because the situation in the Arctic is completely ignored.
> Best scientific evidence points to a vicious cycle of warming and melting in
> the Arctic as albedo is lost. The only way to break this cycle, and halt the
> slippery slide into complete Arctic meltdown, is to cool the Arctic.
>
>
RWL: I agree with the last sentence, but SRM via sulfates and cloud
brightening are not the only ways. CDR and albedo modification are other ways,
albeit slower. My guess is that Vol. III will talk about the Arctic - clearly
the most immediate reason for their talking about geoengineering (which itself
is not a sure thing). My guess is that they will also talk about their
perceptions on the downsides of SRM - so I think it quite premature to say that
the Arctic will be ignored.
>
> The sooner that IPCC accepts geoengineering as a logical necessity for both
> CO2 removal and cooling the Arctic, the sooner that the twin dangers from
> excess CO2 and Arctic overheating will be accepted by politicians and society
> at large. The talk of geoengineering will make everyone aware that the
> situation we find ourselves in is already dangerous - really dangerous.
>
RWL: I read this "leak" by FoE as saying that the IPCC has now
accepted geoengineering as needing discussion. Not clear what they will say
about SRM, but I infer that CDR will receive a welcome positive boost.
>
> The only sensible "pathways to avoid dangerous climate change" must involve
> geoengineering to remove CO2 and geoengineering to cool the Arctic. The
> pathway proposed by WG3 is suicidal lunacy.
>
RWL: I agree with your first sentence - but FoE probably wouldn't - it
being opposed to SRM. Your word " geoengineering" needs to be more nuanced
there by replacing it with the words SRM and CDR. My guess is that WG3 could
also agree with some version of your first sentence. So I think your final
sentence is misreading the FoE material (which I hope/think is based on more
than their guess about what will appear). Only a few more weeks to see.
Please reread the longer FoE version. I think there is much more hope for the
Arctic coming than you are expressing. That hope probably is due in large part
to your own hard work. Ron
>
> Cheers, John
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 12:34 AM, Oscar Escobar <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> IPCC AR5 WG2 report - advance briefing
>
> Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
> Change (IPCC)
> Fifth Assessment, Working Group 3 report
> Questions and answers in advance of publication
>
> http://www.foe.co.uk/sites/default/files/downloads/advance-briefing-ipcc-report-climate-mitigaton-45694.pdf
>
> (Excerpt)
> Reasons to be worried
>
> Although the WG3 report will show that the potential to cut carbon pollution
> sufficiently to
> make 2 degrees warming unlikely exists, it will also illustrate the very
> significant
> socio-economic changes that are needed to do so. Currently the political will
> to make these
> changes, for example reducing fossil fuel use or reducing inequalities
> between and within
> countries, is sorely lacking.
>
> Because of current and past failures to reduce carbon pollution it is not
> surprising that the
> IPCC has investigated geoengineering options. However, by doing so it
> potentially
> normalises these approaches alongside energy efficiency, renewables, etc. The
> risks of
> particularly solar radiation management are very high and this will need to
> be made clear.
>
> What are others likely to say?
>
> It is likely that climate deniers will identify the high costs of mitigation
> whilst ignoring the
> considerable benefits which outweigh the costs.
> It is also possible that right-wing think tanks and the media focus on the
> potential for
> geoengineering as a potentially low cost response to climate change,
> particularly regarding
> the extremely risky strategy of injection of aerosols into the stratosphere
> as a form of solar
> radiation management.
>
> Friends of the Earth is opposed to the deployment of solar radiation
> management.
> There is also the danger that some commentators also reject all negative
> emissions
> technologies in addition to rejecting solar radiation management.
> This is simplistic and could create opposition to development of necessary
> technologies
> to remove carbon pollution from the atmosphere (e.g. air capture of carbon
> utilising carbon capture and storage).
>
> --
> 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/d/optout.
>
>
> --
> 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/d/optout.
--
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/d/optout.
