Greg writes: "Failing to quickly and fully understand our options from technical, economic, and environmental perspectives would seem to put at risk our chances of success under any measure of ethics."
I suspect that the situation is really quite simple. Without a *combination* of CDR type geoengineering and emissions reduction to reduce the level of CO2 in the atmosphere there are unacceptable risks from both ocean acidification (breaking the marine food chain which depends on shelled organisms) and global warming (with some assessments of climate sensitivity suggesting over 6 degrees this century). Without SRM type geoengineering to cool the Arctic and quickly stifle the growing positive albedo feedback, there is an unacceptable risk of continued *accelerated* warming and melting in the Arctic, leading eventually and inexorably to complete meltdown with (i) loss of an entire ecosystem and its services, (ii) many metres of sea level rise, (iii) destabilisation of climate at least in the Northern Hemisphere, and (iv) release of gigatons of methane sufficient for its global warming to dominate over CO2. We can already see an exponential trend in the sea ice retreat; and we can see possible exponential trends in the four consequential processes of ecosystem destruction, sea level rise, climate change in the Northern Hemisphere and methane release. So we have been warned. Where is the ethical argument against geoengineering, if it is, in reality, our only option to prevent a number of catastrophes, or at least reduce their risks to acceptable levels? I am very puzzled by the prevailing negative attitude to geoengineering, when it seems to be the only way out of our current predicament. Surely it is our moral duty, as a society with intelligence and technical capability, to do what it takes to restore our planet to a sustainable state. Indeed, you can regard this situation as an unprecedented opportunity for international collaboration to everyone's benefit - fighting together for the future. John On Sat, Aug 2, 2014 at 6:05 AM, Ronal W. Larson <[email protected]> wrote: > Greg, list and ccs > > 1. I found that Andrew’s message of yesterday was mostly about an evening > lecture. That was preceded by a free all-day seminar which had this > description: > > *The workshop will continue on 30th July with a day-long seminar at the > University of New South Wales. Speakers will include Nigel Clark > <http://www.lancaster.ac.uk/lec/about-us/people/staff-list/all/nigel-clark/>, > Jim > Falk <http://www.findanexpert.unimelb.edu.au/display/person35647>, Lauren > Rickards <http://www.findanexpert.unimelb.edu.au/display/person27899>, Josh > Wodak <http://www.arch-angle.net/>,Jeremy Walker > <http://www.uts.edu.au/staff/jeremy.walker>, Rebecca Pearse and Jeffrey > McGee <http://www.newcastle.edu.au/profile/jeffrey-mcgee>.* > > I hope someone could summarize any conclusions coming from that dialog. > In particular, was there discussion on the ethical differences between SRM > and CDR? > > 2. To your good list below, I would add a need for ethicists looking > closely at each of the CDR approaches - not only a superficial comparison. > To the best of my knowledge there has still not been a single > peer-reviewed article on the ethics of biochar (on which hundreds of > millions of dollars are being expended - with to my knowledge no real > concern raised by anyone). > > Ron > > > > On Aug 1, 2014, at 9:24 PM, Greg Rau <[email protected]> wrote: > > Since ethicists seem more than willing to point out ethical flaws re > actions against climate/CO2, how about we turn this around: > 1) What are the ethically perfect ways of solving the climate/CO2 problem? > 2) What do we do (and what are the ethics) if "ethical" solutions are not > adequately employed or fail to solve the climate/CO2 problem? > 3) Shall we let ethical perfection be the enemy of any effective > climate/CO2 solution? > 4) Might the ethics of taking a particular climate/CO2 action differ in a > society experiencing a +2 deg C warming vs a society under a +6 deg C > warming? > 5) Shall we then allow present ethics to dictate the options we research > and make available to future generations under potentially different > ethical restraints? > > It would seem that the first order of business would be to find out via > research what the cost- and environmental-effectiveness is of each > conceivable option. We and esp future generations can then debate what > option or combination can be ethically deployed and under what > circumstances. Failing to quickly and fully understand our options from > technical, economic, and environmental perspectives would seem to put at > risk our chances of success under any measure of ethics. > > Greg > > > > > ------------------------------ > *From:* Andrew Lockley <[email protected]> > *To:* geoengineering <[email protected]> > *Sent:* Thursday, July 31, 2014 5:04 PM > *Subject:* [geo] Failure to deal with ethics will make climate > engineering 'unviable' > > Failure to deal with ethics will make climate engineering ‘unviable’ > http://gu.com/p/4vd69 > Failure to deal with ethics will make climate engineering ‘unviable’ > Environmental philosopher warns major ethical, political, legal and social > issues around geoengineering must be addressed > Graham Readfearn in Sydney > 22:00 CEST Thu 31 July 2014 > Geoengineering, also known as climate modification, falls into two > categories - carbon dioxide removal or solar radiation management. > Photograph: ISS/NASA > Research into ways to engineer the Earth’s climate as a last-ditch > response to global warming will be rendered “unviable” if the associated > ethical issues are not tackled first, a leading environmental philosopher > has warned. > Prof Stephen Gardiner, of the University of Washington, Seattle, told the > Guardian that so-called geoengineering risked making problems worse for > future generations. > Gardiner was in Sydney for a two-day symposium that aimed to grapple with > the moral and ethical consequences of geoengineering, also known as climate > modification. > Later this year, the United States’ National Academy of Sciences is due to > publish a key report into the “technical feasibility” of a number of > proposed geoengineering methods, which fall into two categories. > Carbon dioxide removal (CDR) tries to cut the levels of the greenhouse gas > in the atmosphere and store it, for example, in trees, algae or underground. > A second category, known as solar radiation management tries to lower the > amount of energy entering the Earth’s atmosphere from the sun by, for > example, spraying sulphate particles into the stratosphere or whitening > clouds. > Gardiner said political inertia was one reason why the world had failed to > respond meaningfully to climate change and rising greenhouse gases. > “There’s a temptation for the current generation particularly in the rich > countries to take benefits now and pass the severe costs on to the future,” > he said. > “Arguably that’s one of the big reasons we have failed so far on climate > policy because we have succumbed to that temptation. > “But when it comes to geoengineering, one of my biggest worries is that we > might pick geoengineering as an intervention that replicates that pattern. > “We might try and adopt a quick technological fix but one that holds the > worst impacts for a few decades without much attention to what happens > after that. What does happen after that could be even worse than what would > unfold if we just allowed the negative climate impacts in the near term to > materialise.” > He said that it was time to engage with the ethical and moral questions > now that major scientific institutions and a growing group of researchers > were starting to consider geoengineering. > “We are still in the early stages and very few people have written and > talked about this. The good news is that the major scientific reports > generally do signal that they think there are major ethical, political, > legal and social issues that need investigating. The crucial thing is > whether we get beyond saying that as a throwaway line to actually dealing > with those implications. > “Unless you can deal with these social and political issues then any kind > of geoengineering would be unviable anyway – or at least any remotely > ethically defensible version would be unviable.” > In 2009, a Royal Society report called for more research into > geoengineering and concluded that CDR techniques “should be regarded as > preferable”. > A proposed experiment to test a way to deliver particles into the upper > atmosphere using a balloon and a one kilometre-long pipe was cancelled in > 2012 after it was reported that two of the scientists involved had > submitted patent applications that were similar to the techniques being > proposed. > A study earlier this year in the journal Nature Communications comparing > five different proposed methods of climate engineering found all were > “relatively ineffective” while carrying “potentially severe side effects” > that would be difficult to stop. > Prof Jim Falk, of the Melbourne Sustainable Society Institute at the > University of Melbourne, told the symposium there were more than 40 > distinct methods that could be described as geoengineering, including > planting large numbers of trees and painting roofs white. > He said: “There’s a huge array of ideas and they go from local scale to > intermediate scale to a global scale. The scale, the impacts and the risks > all go up together.” > • Graham Readfearn’s travel and accommodation was paid for by the > symposium organisers. > -- > 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. > -- 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.
