Professor MacMartin et al
Thanks for the response. See few inserts below.
On Apr 14, 2015, at 12:10 PM, Doug MacMartin <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi Ron:
>
> j. Yes, I agree completely with David… regarding the “only known” part, I
> think absolutely everyone on this list agrees that CDR is a great thing to
> pursue, but I do not think that there are any CDR approaches (including the
> one you note in point g) that could substantially reduce temperatures in the
> next 50 years; even going to zero emissions tomorrow won’t actually reduce
> temperatures, just slow their rate of increase.
[RWL1: My point was that there are proponents of CDR technologies that
disagree with Prof. Keith’s belief. To say nothing on this list to the charge
that CDR can’t accomplish 350 ppm in 50 years seems technically and ethically
inappropriate.
> So “only known way to substantially reduce climate risk” seems fair.
> Regarding the “weakest argument” part, I think that any rational evaluation
> of the risks of SRM would say that if there is any other available
> mitigation/CDR pathway to reach some given temperature without SRM, then that
> will most likely be less net risk.
[RWL2: We are in disagreement for the first sentence and in agreement
on the second (because you have used the term “CDR”).
> That is, I would never promote SRM as a substitute for mitigation (which is
> what “buying time” could be interpreted to mean).
[RWL3: Mitigation is not the issue. Most of my career has been in
mitigation - and getting off fossil fuels completely in 20-25 years is possible
- with overall cost savings.
> The stronger arguments for SRM in my view are (a) there is no other pathway
> (mitigation + CDR) that would get temperatures/climate risks down
> mid-century, (i.e. SRM as a possible supplement on top of mitigation/CDR)
[RWL4: I greatly appreciate that you have here again included “CDR".
My interpretation of Prof. Keith’s remarks is that he would not.
> and (b) I don’t trust decision-makers to be rational (they obviously aren’t),
> so even though more aggressive mitigation might be a wiser choice per unit of
> reduced climate risk, I don’t expect us to somehow miraculously be on that
> pathway,
[RWL5: I agree it (say 350 ppm in 50 years) is unlikely, but the
likelihood goes way up if we reject that SRM is “the only known way.”
> and thus in 20-30 years we’ll be faced with the same concern over reducing
> temperatures/climate risks late century after we have failed to cut emissions
> as much as we should in the next 20 years. (That argues for researching it,
> not deploying it.)
[RWL6: I need to be more sure of your meaning. To be doing something
meaningful with CDR in 20 years, we have to start now (and of course should
have started long ago). We need to be both reducing and removing emissions as
fast as we can - and certainly not hold off on any viable CDR approach until we
achieve a stable CO2eq level.
>
> b. More generally, why is it that every time someone talks explicitly about
> SRM, they’re supposed to also mention CDR?
> They are different things that both happen to have been labeled
> geoengineering, but have about as much in common as CDR does with renewable
> energy, yet I’m sure someone is allowed to mention solar power in a sentence
> without referring to CDR…
[RWL7: I disagree two ways. First, I believe SRM and CDR are in
competition, especially when the term “only” is used. They can be used
cooperatively as well. Secondly some forms of CDR (specifically biochar and
BECCS) are able to supply renewable energy. I agree that sentences can talk of
solar/wind without mentioning CDR. But to talk about biochar and BECCS without
talking of their carbon neutral “energy storage” character is a big mistake.
> the question that you extracted doesn’t talk about geoengineering
> generically, it talks about SRM only.
[RWL8: Maybe I’m thin skinned, but I take CDR to be directly (not
indirectly) intended when using the term “only” (which you have not done).
> I’m sure you’re aware that David has worked on CDR (DAC) also, so you hardly
> need to ask whether he thinks it is a good idea.
[RWL9: I suppose DAC still has a chance, but Prof. Socolow has put
quite a question mark in that. Prof. Keith would seem to agree when he uses
the term “only known way” for SRM.
> (And on a minor note, I don’t know why you would expect an answer by one
> professor to speak for an entire academic department; like all of us, David
> speaks for himself, not for SEAS.)
[RWL10: I intentionally coupled them to point out the softball nature
of the six questions (Keith being a part of SEAS). The issues of precipitation
and ocean acidification (and a concrete plan to get off of SRM) need responses
from all promoting SRM.
To sum up: I think SRM proponents are on a self-defeating track when
they say theirs is the “only way.”
Ron
>
> From: [email protected]
> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Ronal W. Larson
> Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2015 1:11 PM
> To: Andrew Lockley; Geoengineering
> Subject: Re: [geo] Climate engineering, no longer on the fringe | Harvard
> School of Engineering and Applied Sciences
>
> Andrew and list:
>
> I write to take issue with the sixth (last) Q/A below, which
> reads:
>
> "Some climate engineering proponents argue that approaches like
> solar radiation management have the potential to buy time to make real
> progress on reducing carbon emissions. Is that the strongest argument for
> pursuing SRM?
> KEITH: Absolutely not. I think this is one of the weakest arguments. The
> strong argument is that solar geoengineering provides the only known way to
> substantially reduce climate risk over the next half century.
>
> a. I am OK with Prof. Keith’s responses to the first
> five questions.
>
> b. Nowhere in this sequence do we learn that
> geoengineering has both an SRM and CDR component. Intentional or inadvertent?
>
> c. The (SEAS Department) questioner only mentions
> “reducing”, not “removing”. Was CDR meant to be included or not in this
> question and answer?
>
> d. Which interpretation of “reducing” was Prof.
> Keith responding to? (The response is only for “risk”)
>
> e. Is the word “substantially” critical here? Is
> there any chance in this Keith scenario of having peaked in atmospheric CO2eq
> prior to 2065? Can we anticipate a slow or rapid decline after that peak?
>
> f. There is no question here about ocean
> acidification or the possibility of inadvertent stoppage of SRM . How serious
> does SEAS take those issues to be?
>
> g. Jim Hansen has shown afforestation, coupled with
> an early peak in atmospheric CO2eq, to allow a return to 350 ppm well prior
> to 2065. Is that scenario considered to be “unknown”?
>
> h. Where can advocates of CDR (such as in Andrew’s
> forwarding yesterday just prior to this message Noah Deich’s CDR blog) go to
> learn why CDR doesn’t qualify as being a “known way to substantially reduce
> climate risk over the next half century”?
>
> i. Would SEAS/Keith recommend funding now for CDR
> research at what level compared to SRM funding?
>
> j. Are the “weakest argument” and “only known”
> views supported by other SRM supporters on this list?
> Ron
>
>
>
>
>
> On Apr 13, 2015, at 9:10 AM, Andrew Lockley <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> http://www.seas.harvard.edu/news/2015/02/climate-engineering-no-longer-on-fringe
>
> Harvard School of Engineering and Applied Sciences
>
> Climate engineering, no longer on the fringe
> DAVID KEITH RESPONDS TO NAS REPORTS ON GEOENGINEERING IN THIS Q&A
>
> February 18, 2015
> When the National Academy of Sciences released a pair of reports earlier this
> month on geoengineering—deliberate intervention in the climate system to
> counter global warming—it moved discussion of the controversial topic into
> the mainstream science community. The NAS-convened experts concluded that
> geoengineering is no silver bullet, but that further research is needed.
>
> David Keith, Gordon McKay Professor of Applied Physics at Harvard School of
> Engineering and Applied Sciences and Professor of Public Policy at Harvard
> Kennedy School, has been a leading voice for assessing the risks and
> implications of large-scale deployment of geoengineering to help cool the
> planet. Keith’s 2013 book, A Case for Climate Engineering, lays out how
> geoengineering might fit into a larger program for managing climate change
> (complementing steps to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and devise adaptation
> strategies). He recently detailed a potential small-scale solar radiation
> management experiment in which chemicals would be dispersed in the high
> atmosphere to reflect sunlight away from the Earth’s surface. He has also
> suggested a scenario for analyzing the risks and benefits of geoengineering,
> and proposed frameworks for the governance of geoengineering testing by
> nation states.
>
> [1] Keith spoke about what impact the new NAS reports may have on the
> policy and science of geoengineering.
> What is the significance of the National Academies taking up this topic?
> KEITH: The Academy has dealt with geoengineering as a part of broader energy
> and climate studies since the late 1970s, but this is the first report
> devoted to the topic. It serves as a marker of the extent to which solar
> geoengineering is becoming a more normal part of the science and policy of
> climate change.
>
> [2] Do the NAS studies bring us closer to deployment of small-scale
> geoengineering experiments?
> KEITH: By endorsing research on solar geoengineering and explicitly including
> a discussion of small-scale experiments along with a discussion of their
> scientific merits and possible regulation, I believe the Academy has made it
> easier for government agencies to fund such research. Many program managers
> in U.S. government science agencies have been favorably inclined to fund
> research on solar geoengineering but have been held back by a sense that they
> needed a high-level political okay. My hope is that this report will, de
> facto, give program managers the confidence to move ahead with science
> funding even in the absence of an explicit new program.
>
> [3] You’ve made the point that governance of geoengineering is paramount.
> Do you see a path for establishing international consensus on how to regulate
> efforts in this area?
> KEITH: Consensus, no. But little or nothing is done in the international
> arena with full consensus. A more reasonable goal is alignment of a coalition
> of countries that represent a reasonable cross-section of the world, north
> and south, east and west. Such a coalition might support a broad research
> program through various mechanisms from a simple memorandum of understanding
> to information exchange which could be a useful first step on the road to
> multilateral control.
>
> [4] Geoengineering opponents cite the moral hazard argument—that pursuing
> these approaches will shift the focus away from efforts to reduce emissions
> of the greenhouse gases that cause warming. Do the NAS reports address this?
> KEITH: Not in a deep way, but that is a hard ask. The fundamental job of the
> Academy is to provide assessment about the state of science, including social
> science, and about the prospects for research.
>
> [5] To what extent are the obstacles to an informed policy on geoengineering
> technical and to what extent are they social or political?
> KEITH: I think the fundamental obstacles are social and political. There is
> deep concern that any attention to geoengineering will inevitably weaken the
> political force needed to cut emissions. This is a sensible concern, but not
> an excuse for deliberate ignorance. If solar geoengineering can provide a
> meaningful reduction in climate risks for the most vulnerable people and
> ecosystems, we must take it seriously. It is plausible that the combination
> of emissions reductions and geoengineering will provide a substantially
> better environmental outcome than emission reductions alone, and that this
> fact will make it easier to develop a sustained commitment to reduce
> emissions.
>
> [6] Some climate engineering proponents argue that approaches like solar
> radiation management have the potential to buy time to make real progress on
> reducing carbon emissions. Is that the strongest argument for pursuing SRM?
> KEITH: Absolutely not. I think this is one of the weakest arguments. The
> strong argument is that solar geoengineering provides the only known way to
> substantially reduce climate risk over the next half century.
>
> Prof. David Keith has been a leading voice for assessing the risks and
> implications of large-scale deployment of geoengineering to help cool the
> planet.
>
>
> --
> 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 [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 [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 [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.
