I'm all for mitigation and push hard for it, writing legal declarations seeking to get leaders to pay attention to the issue and the law, pushing for going after short-lived species in the near term as well and personally investing in and encouraging development of green technologies--but then we get the supposedly green Obama Administration offering public lands for extensive coal mining, permission for drilling for oil off the US East coast and in the Arctic, and claiming the action to limit emissions from coal-fired power plants is some remarkable step (it is turning out, it seems, it will be easily accomplished).
As for Alan's list, aside from it basically being based on a large scale implementation that assumes that mitigation won't work--and the particular implementation not in any way being optimized to minimize adverse impacts (in particular, I think that stratospheric aerosol injection may well be among the least optimal approaches), I'd urge reading the reports from the World Bank on what the world will be like at 4 C in 2100, which is where we are headed (see http://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/climatechange/publication/turn-down-the-he at-climate-extremes-regional-impacts-resilience). No doubt climate engineering won't be perfect, but the alternative situation is, in my view, far, far worse, and what matters, in my view, is the comparative assessment. We are not talking about doing climate engineering as a general good or bad in a situation with a stable climate--of course, in that case, the answer would be a clear No. We are talking about being on a path to incredible disruption of the planetary system. I am all for mitigation, efficiency, resilience, enhanced carbon uptake and every alternative except climate engineering, but given the way the nations are presently being so inconsistent in their commitments, I fear that climate engineering may well prove to be, by good measure, needed to get the world onto a less bad pathway. The key issue for me is that we're likely to wait so long to be considering and implementing it that it will be too late and that sudden invocation of solar radiation management will not be able to halt the most impactful trends (e.g., rising sea level), so the benefit will be relatively minimal. Perhaps what we can agree on, at least, is that we should all be protesting the actions of this Administration in its all-in energy strategy--that is a path to a disastrous outcome. Mike On 6/2/15, 9:19 PM, "David Hawkins" <dhawk...@nrdc.org> wrote: > It may be more effective to point out that even those who assert that > Geoengineering at some level can be safe and effective, assert with equal > strength that it should not be seen as an alternative to emissions avoidance. > > Typed on tiny keyboard. Caveat lector. > > >> On Jun 2, 2015, at 9:12 PM, Jon Lawhead <lawh...@usc.edu> wrote: >> >> Alan/Mike/Dave, >> >> I think Alan's pro and con list is a good one. I'd add also that with >> respect to stratospheric aerosol injection, we have very good reason to >> believe that it will also cause significant changes in global precipitation >> patterns (see attached), which for some regions might result in conditions >> that are more dangerous than those that would be present even with fairly >> significant warming. These are not trivial problems, and it's not at all >> clear that they'll be soluble if we can just find the "right" approach to >> geoengineering. Other leading proposals suffer from similar (though >> different) issues. Any scheme that is both safe and cost-effective is very >> unlikely to also be effective enough to make the kind of difference that >> would make it a viable fail-safe plan. >> >> Mike and Dave, your points are well taken. It's true that this discussion >> assumes a degree of rationality among policy-makers and the public at large >> that may, in fact, not be present. However, it seems to me that we have very >> little recourse beyond assuming that enough people can be swayed by clear, >> cogent arguments to make those arguments worthwhile; if that's not the case, >> then we might as well throw up our hands and stop trying to do any kind of >> climate policy advocacy at all. My point was just that most of the science >> journalism or writing I've seen that's aimed at an educated lay audience >> strikes me as inappropriately neutral about this topic, and tends not to >> emphasize the dangers of geoengineering strongly enough and clearly enough. >> This has led to a popular perception that we (i.e. geoscientists) have plans >> waiting in the wings that can be implemented safely and effectively in the >> event that mitigation policies fail. That perception is (as far as I know) >> not accurate, and we should be more vocal about making that fact known. >> >> It's certainly possible that we may end up "needing" geoengineering at some >> point in the sense that things could conceivably get so bad that the benefits >> would outweigh the risks (both known and unknown). However, it seems to me >> that we should clearly and frequently repeat the fact that this is a >> situation that we should be willing to bend over backward to avoid finding >> ourselves in. >> >> Naturally, >> >> Jon Lawhead, PhD >> Postdoctoral Research Fellow >> University of Southern California >> Philosophy and Earth Sciences >> >> 3651 Trousdale Parkway >> Zumberge Hall of Science, 223D >> Los Angeles, CA 90089-0740 >> >> http://www.realityapologist.com<http://www.realityapologist.com/> >> >> On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 5:48 PM, Alan Robock >> <rob...@envsci.rutgers.edu<mailto:rob...@envsci.rutgers.edu>> wrote: >> Dear Mike and Jon, >> >> I agree with Jon. >> >> And Mike, I think you are ignoring all the unsolvable problems with >> geoengineering (considering only stratospheric aerosols - the most likely >> option). First, it looks like the aerosols will grow as more SO2 is >> injected. As Niemeier and Timmreck (2015) found, "[A] solar radiation >> management strategy required to keep temperatures constant at that >> anticipated for 2020, whilst maintaining Œbusiness as usual¹ conditions, >> would require atmospheric injections of the order of 45 Tg(S)/yr which >> amounts to 6 times that emitted from the Mt. Pinatubo eruption each year." >> >> Niemeier U., and C. Timmreck, 2015: What is the limit of stratospheric sulfur >> climate engineering? Atmos. Chem. Phys. Discuss., 15, 10,93910,969. >> >> And how will you deal with everyone of these risks? From Robock (2014), >> updated: >> >> >> Benefits >> >> >> Risks >> >> >> 1. Reduce surface air temperatures, which could reduce or reverse negative >> impacts of global warming, including floods, droughts, stronger storms, sea >> ice melting, land-based ice sheet melting, and sea level rise >> >> >> 1. Drought in Africa and Asia >> >> >> 2. Perturb ecology with more diffuse radiation >> >> >> 3. Ozone depletion >> >> >> 4. Continued ocean acidification >> >> >> 5. Will not stop ice sheets from melting >> >> >> 6. Impacts on tropospheric chemistry >> >> >> 2. Increase plant productivity >> >> >> 7. Whiter skies >> >> >> 3. Increase terrestrial CO2 sink >> >> >> 8. Less solar electricity generation >> >> >> 4. Beautiful red and yellow sunsets >> >> >> 9. Degrade passive solar heating >> >> >> 5. Unexpected benefits >> >> >> 10. Rapid warming if stopped >> >> >> >> >> 11. Cannot stop effects quickly >> >> >> >> >> 12. Human error >> >> >> >> >> 13. Unexpected consequences >> >> >> >> >> 14. Commercial control >> >> >> >> >> 15. Military use of technology >> >> >> >> >> 16. Societal disruption, conflict between countries >> >> >> >> >> 17. Conflicts with current treaties >> >> >> >> >> 18. Whose hand on the thermostat? >> >> >> >> >> 19. Effects on airplanes flying in stratosphere >> >> >> >> >> 20. Effects on electrical properties of atmosphere >> >> >> >> >> 21. Environmental impact of implementation >> >> >> >> >> 22. Degrade terrestrial optical astronomy >> >> >> >> >> 23. Affect stargazing >> >> >> >> >> 24. Affect satellite remote sensing >> >> >> >> >> 25. More sunburn >> >> >> >> >> 26. Moral hazard the prospect of it working would >> >> reduce drive for mitigation >> >> >> >> >> 27. Moral authority do we have the right to do this? >> >> >> >> Robock, Alan, 2014: Stratospheric aerosol geoengineering. Issues Env. Sci. >> Tech. (Special issue ³Geoengineering of the Climate System²), 38, 162-185. >> >> Don't you think that the more we look at geoengineering, the more it is clear >> that it will not be a solution, and the more imperative mitigation is? I >> agree that Obama, who is the best President ever on this subject, could be >> doing much more. This just means he needs more pushing, and the Chinese and >> Indians need to agree to take strong steps. We're certainly not there yet, >> but let's not tell them that geoengineering will give them an out. >> >> Alan >> >> Alan Robock, Distinguished Professor >> Editor, Reviews of Geophysics >> Director, Meteorology Undergraduate Program >> Department of Environmental Sciences Phone: >> +1-848-932-5751<tel:%2B1-848-932-5751> >> Rutgers University Fax: >> +1-732-932-8644<tel:%2B1-732-932-8644> >> 14 College Farm Road E-mail: >> rob...@envsci.rutgers.edu<mailto:rob...@envsci.rutgers.edu> >> New Brunswick, NJ 08901-8551 USA http://envsci.rutgers.edu/~robock >> http://twitter.com/AlanRobock >> Watch my 18 min TEDx talk at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qsrEk1oZ-54 >> >> On 6/2/2015 8:29 PM, Mike MacCracken wrote: >> Dear Jon‹While I think you overstate the situation with climate engineering >> in terms of both uncertainties and costs (i.e., keeping the climate roughly >> as it is likely has fewer uncertainties that heading to a 2 to 4 C climate >> with its uncertainties; and the costs of climate engineering may well be a >> good bit less than mitigation‹though mitigation costs do seem to be >> dropping), I would generally agree with your logic when one assumes rational >> leaders and policymakers thinking in terms of long-term interests and rights >> and idealized situations (e.g., no vested interests effectively pushing their >> views). Unfortunately, it is not at all clear to me that these (and some >> related) assumptions are valid, at least based on actions that seemingly >> rational leaders are taking, much less ones that are focused more on ideology >> than rational thinking. It seems to me this situation could perhaps be >> achieved with an approach that is relatively robust to the particular foibles >> of those making the decisions (e.g., a really aggressive energy technology >> development effort that makes the cost of transitioning energy systems less >> than the cost of staying as we are‹a situation that might well be achieved >> with a reasonable carbon tax with substantial resources devoted to the >> transition), but getting to this type of solution is also problematic. And >> so, given all that is at risk and the behavior of the leaders that we are >> seeing (so, for example in the US, leasing public lands for coal mining and >> the Arctic seabed for drilling), it becomes hard to see how at least some >> climate engineering is not inevitable as a means to reduce overall suffering >> and loss. >> >> Mike MacCracken >> >> >> On 6/2/15, 7:46 PM, "Jon Lawhead" <lawh...@usc.edu<http://lawh...@usc.edu>> >> wrote: >> >> As a philosopher working on this issue, it seems to me that this provides a >> really strong argument in favor of focused attention on mitigation. There's >> at least some degree of popular perception that geoengineering provides a >> "fail safe" for fixing the climate if/when we fail to successfully implement >> sufficient mitigation policies. In some cases, this leads to more lukewarm >> (or downright cold) support for mitigation than it otherwise would have. >> Philosophers and social scientists call this a "moral hazard." >> >> But it seems to me that this position isn't just wrong--it's exactly >> backward. If a failure to adequately mitigate climate change means that our >> only recourse will be geoengineering, that's a very strong reason to mitigate >> early and mitigate often. The costs associated with geoengineering--both in >> terms of financial commitments and in terms of potentially dangerous >> side-effects--are just too numerous for it to be reasonable to think of a >> large-scale geoengineering program as a "fail safe." I think we would do >> well to work harder to promulgate that message more widely and more >> forcefully than we do now. >> >> Naturally, >> >> Jon Lawhead, PhD >> Postdoctoral Research Fellow >> University of Southern California >> Philosophy and Earth Sciences >> >> 3651 Trousdale Parkway >> Zumberge Hall of Science, 223D >> Los Angeles, CA 90089-0740 >> >> http://www.realityapologist.com <http://www.realityapologist.com/> >> >> On Sun, May 31, 2015 at 11:55 AM, Greg Rau >> <gh...@sbcglobal.net<http://gh...@sbcglobal.net>> wrote: >> Amen, Mike. Given this dangerous trajectory, I'd say it's time for another >> reading from our experts on the ethics of alternative climate management >> methods. And I don't mean adaptation. >> Greg >> -------------------------------------------- >> On Sun, 5/31/15, Mike MacCracken >> <mmacc...@comcast.net<http://mmacc...@comcast.net>> wrote: >> >> Subject: [geo] On why we'll very likely need climate engineering >> To: "Geoengineering" >> <Geoengineering@googlegroups.com<http://Geoengineering@googlegroups.com>> >> Date: Sunday, May 31, 2015, 10:28 AM >> >> For those who argue that it is best >> to keep relying on mitigation as the >> only acceptable approach, it is because of disgraceful >> decisions such as >> described in: >> >> http://motherboard.vice.com/read/the-10-billion-tons-of-coal-that-could-eras >> e-obamas-progress-on-climate-change >> >> that this will be the case. I've done declarations for a >> couple of lawsuits >> trying to fight the leasing of such coal lands. The >> Administration could >> have acceded to their calls for a high quality environmental >> review of the >> consequences of such leasing (so including GHG effect), but >> instead they >> have fought those lawsuits and rely on a really outdated EIS >> (their analysis >> starts on page 4-130--and is only a few pages long). Or they >> could have >> imposed the social cost of carbon as an additional fee if >> one wants to use >> the free market system to level the field across >> technologies--but no, >> leases would be at very low prices. >> >> So, first, the criticism that those of us favor >> geoengineering first are >> just wrong--we've been fighting hard for mitigation. But >> decisions like this >> keep coming, and I would suggest have nothing to do with >> whether >> geoengineering might or might not help. So, we keep having >> to go deeper and >> deeper in to the barrel to try to find some way to slow the >> devastating >> consequences of warming lying ahead. >> >> Second, given decisions like this by the US, no wonder the >> rest of the world >> is not yet really making commitments that are strong enough >> to make a >> difference for the future. Truly embarrassing decision--it >> makes all the >> clamor over stopping the Keystone pipeline to limit tar >> sands development >> ring very hollow. >> >> Mike MacCracken >> >> -- >> 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 >> geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com<http://geoengineering+unsubscribe >> @googlegroups.com> <mailto:geoengineering%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com> . >> To post to this group, send email to >> geoengineering@googlegroups.com<http://geoengineering@googlegroups.com>. >> 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 >> geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com<http://geoengineering+unsubscribe >> @googlegroups.com> <mailto:geoengineering%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com> . >> To post to this group, send email to >> geoengineering@googlegroups.com<http://geoengineering@googlegroups.com>. >> 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 >> geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com<mailto:geoengineering+unsubscribe >> @googlegroups.com>. >> To post to this group, send email to >> geoengineering@googlegroups.com<mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com>. >> 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 >> geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com<mailto:geoengineering+unsubscribe >> @googlegroups.com>. >> To post to this group, send email to >> geoengineering@googlegroups.com<mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com>. >> 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 >> geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com<mailto:geoengineering+unsubscribe >> @googlegroups.com>. >> To post to this group, send email to >> geoengineering@googlegroups.com<mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com>. >> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >> <054fa09d-88cd-0e9b-bb8d-1c416384d2b9.pdf> -- 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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
