Andrew, The paper is impressive in its comprehensive coverage of the potential control scenarios. However, there may be some issues with the definitions used in the work as the assumptions used are taking the position that CDR is not fast acting enough and is more expensive. The statement of "*CDR options are relatively slow-acting, and are typically more expensive than SRM.*" may be oversimplifying the science.
Marine Cloud Brightening can be legitimately viewed as *(a)* both SRM and CDR capable and *(b)* would not present the wide governance complications which you detail and *(c)* is far less expensive that SAI when the liabilities are added up. It is plausible that SAI will warm the polar regions which would represent truly massive legal liabilities and even environmental damage. In brief, MCB can be used to quickly cool vast areas of ocean surface water which would, if used in the marine desert regions, keep primary production active in those thermally stressed areas. This CDR focused use of MCB would be the equivalent to OIF without the many drawbacks that OIF represents. <http://www.pifsc.noaa.gov/media/news/img/polovinaetal_Feb08.jpg> Further, the use of MCB within the ENSO has the strong possibility of reducing or even halting an El Nino which, as is well known, contributes to massive net primary production reduction. <https://robertscribbler.files.wordpress.com/2015/11/equatorial-red-scar.jpg?w=900> As such, building an argument around the assumption that "*CDR options are relatively slow-acting, and are typically more expensive than SRM.*" may not reflect the STEM reality...as we know it. The 2 scenarios above have the real potential to quickly and relatively cheaply remove and sequester truly vast amounts of carbon and do so with the least amount of governance complications as opposed to SAI. Your paper clearly shows just how complex, at the governance/control level, the use of SAI can be. Well done! *Note to Noah*, I found your resent paper concerning philanthropic involvement in CDR highly interesting. In your conclusion, it may be worth pointing out that the concept of CDR is still a work in progress and that many of the distinctions, which have been adopted by both the media and the scientific literature, are still subject to a wide degree of interpretation. The longer the current misconceptions about CDR go unopposed, the harder it will be to get the true potential of CDR recognized. Michael On Friday, February 5, 2016 at 4:22:29 PM UTC-8, Andrew Lockley wrote: > > http://jetpress.org/v26.1/lockley.htm > > Geoengineering: A war on climate change? > Andrew Lockley > Journal of Evolution and Technology - Vol. 26 Issue 1 – February 2016 - > pgs 26-49 Abstract > > Geoengineering, specifically Solar Radiation Management (SRM), has been > proposed to effect rapid influence over the Earth’s climate system in order > to counteract Anthropogenic Global Warming. This poses near-term to > long-term governance challenges, some of which are within the planning > horizon of current political administrations. Previous discussions of > governance of SRM (in both academic and general literature) have focused > primarily on two scenarios: an isolated “Greenfinger” individual, or state, > acting independently (perhaps in defiance of international opinion); versus > more consensual, internationalist approaches. I argue that these models > represent a very limited sub-set of plausible deployment scenarios. To > generate a range of alternative models, I offer a short, relatively > unstructured discussion of a range of different types of warfare – each > with an analogous SRM deployment regime. > -- 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 https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
