Jesse:
This kept short, since we are interested in different topics.
I have re-read the ethics paper (very different from the other one I
commented on today) and repeat that you have too good a grasp of ethics topics
for me to jump in further.
On Sep 18, 2014, at 3:43 AM, J.L. Reynolds <[email protected]> wrote:
> Dear Ronald,
>
> Thank you for reading my paper and providing comments.
>
> I mentioned in my paper that its content applies primarily to large scale SRM
> methods (e.g. stratospheric aerosol, marine cloud brightening) but that some
> aspects of it could be extended to other climate engineering proposals, both
> SRM and CDR. I personally find it more useful to think of CDR as mitigation
> methods, albeit novel ones with some novel risks. Indeed, traditional
> mitigation measures at sufficient scales will have negative secondary
> effects, economic and/or environmental, often on other actors.
[RWL1: No disagreement. Unfortunately, CDR still remains firmly in
the "Geo" and " CE" camps. Biochar is relatively unique in being about half
mitigation anyway.
>
> The adoption of biochar practices may or may not impact crop insurance. I am
> not qualified to comment on that. Insurance was relevant in my paper as
> insurance economics is the source of the term and behavior of 'moral hazard'.
> Obtaining or increasing insurance causes one's incentives to change, and this
> may have socially suboptimal results. As I argue, though, this is a weak
> model for thinking about what we commonly call the moral hazard of climate
> engineering.
[RWL2: Yes, my interest in the insurance topic has little/nothing to
do with moral hazards. You gave some nice cites on insurance. I think some
"Geo"/"CE" technologies will find it difficult to get insurance - and I see an
advantage for biochar in possibly being able to lower crop insurance costs due
to improved drought resistance.
>
> Ocean acidification specifically is not relevant to my paper. It presents
> only one of the many advantages and disadvantages of the various response
> options to climate change, which in turn impact the shapes of the various
> supply and demand curves. It is clearly a problem but not fundamentally
> different in type than, let's say, the risks of storing CO2 underground, the
> land use changes required by some CDR methods, the waste disposal problem of
> increasing nuclear power as a means of mitigation, the potential impact of
> stratospheric sulfur on ozone, etc. (Except that addressing acidification
> through CDR or mitigation may be better conceptualized in the demand curve
> than the supply curve, although this will not have a significant impact on
> the conclusions.)
[RWL3: We will have to disagree on whether or not ocean acidification
is "fundamentally different in type" from your other examples. I predict that
this will be a big topic for decision makers with a sizable ocean-based portion
of their GNP. Conversely, should be a push for ocean-based biomass production
with island nations and some others.
Ron
>
> Best wishes,
> -Jesse
>
> -----------------------------------------
> Jesse L. Reynolds
> European and International Public Law
> Tilburg Sustainability Center
> Tilburg University, The Netherlands
> Book review editor, Law, Innovation, and Technology
> email: [email protected]
> http://works.bepress.com/jessreyn/
> http://twitter.com/geoengpolicy
>
> From: Ronal W.Larson [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: 18 September 2014 05:03
> To: J.L. Reynolds
> Cc: Geoengineering
> Subject: Re: [geo] Reynolds, Jesse (2014): A Critical Examination of the
> Climate Engineering Moral Hazard and Risk Compensation Concern
>
> Dr. Reynolds cc list:
>
> 1. Thanks for a new and useful view on (mostly) the SRM part of
> Climate Engineering (CE) - and especially making the whole paper available to
> us without a paywall. I fought it well reasoned and well written.
>
> 2. In your nice useful discussions of insurance, I was hoping
> for a few sentences on crop insurance - as possibly related to biochar as a
> CDR approach. I conclude that CE approaches that do not require insurance or
> lessened insurance should be preferred; would you agree?
>
> 3. I found no mention of "ocean acidification" in your paper
> and so wonder how you feel this common concern might influence your final
> conclusions. We interested in CDR use this as a/the primary reason for
> needing CDR (independent of whether SRM is needed).
>
> 4. Here is the final paragraph of the concluding section, which
> seems to summarize the paper well (where MH and RC are defined in your
> paper's title - given below - Moral Hazard and Risk Compensation.)
> "We should not assume that the CE MH-RC concern is warranted and that any
> substitution of climate engineering for mitigation would be negative. Even in
> the cases of the potential mechanisms which might cause deleterious
> mitigation reduction--mechanisms which go beyond the scope of the CE MH-RC
> concern and which are also present in many other policy choices-- we should
> not assume that optimal mitigation is always the victim. Policy should be
> rationally designed and based upon the central goal of minimizing net climate
> risks to humans and the environment in accordance with society's preferences.
> I assert that those who argue that consideration of and research into climate
> engineering should be restricted due to the CE MH-RC concern have the burden
> to demonstrate that such effects are likely and would be harmful, and that
> humans and the environment would be better protected by foregoing this
> option. Until then, this concern should not be grounds for restricting or
> prohibiting climate engineering research.
>
> 5. Dr. Reynold's paper was attached to the following.
>
> Ron
>
>
> On Sep 16, 2014, at 3:01 AM, J.L. Reynolds <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> The link to my paper (below) on "A Critical Examination of the Climate
> Engineering Moral Hazard and Risk Compensation Concern" is inactive. I
> removed it from SSRN and Berkeley Press Digital Works because it has been
> accepted for publication and there is a 12 month embargo against hosting it
> on such sites. I attach the paper here.
>
> By the way, the journal in which it will be published--The Anthropocene
> Review--is a relatively new multidisciplinary title on Sage. The editors
> appear keen on publishing papers on climate engineering.
> http://anr.sagepub.com/
>
> -Jesse
>
> -----------------------------------------
> Jesse L. Reynolds
> European and International Public Law
> Tilburg Sustainability Center
> Tilburg University, The Netherlands
> Book review editor, Law, Innovation, and Technology
> email: [email protected]
> http://works.bepress.com/jessreyn/
> http://twitter.com/geoengpolicy
>
> From: [email protected]
> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Andrew Lockley
> Sent: 16 September 2014 09:09
>
> <snip>
--
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.
