FWIW, I don't think that the "reduce" paragraph in the FOE release is a WGIII quote, so no sense guessing at what "reduce global carbon pollution" might mean in the mind of WGIII authors. In most usage I have seen, "reduce carbon pollution" means to lower the amount of current and future carbon releases resulting from human activity; as opposed to CDR, which might reduce the amount of "carbon pollution" now in the air.
I am not participating in this iteration of the WGIII report so I have no insight as to what it might say. But I think that those who seek greater attention paid to gaining a better understanding of the potential for different geoengineering approaches should not place so much weight on what the IPCC does or does not say about it in AR5. What the IPCC should consider is a Special Report on the topic, as it did for Carbon Capture and Storage in a process that began in 2003 and the more recent Special Report on Renewable Energy. The 2011 IPCC Expert Meeting on Geoengineering raised the issue of a Special Report. (I have not monitored all IPPC announcements so perhaps there is some decision on this that I have missed.) By the way, I participate in this list as an individual, not as a representative of NRDC. in many cases the views I express may not be ones on which NRDC has adopted a position. Sent from my iPad On Mar 16, 2014, at 11:16 AM, "Ronal W. Larson" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: 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]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[email protected]>. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[email protected]>. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[email protected]>. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]<mailto:[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.
