I am comforted by the fact that the CIA director has the facts basically right.
Rumor had it that the CIA was one of the funders of the recent National Academy reports on geoengineering. It is reassuring to see that the main points of the solar geoengineering report have been digested reasonably well: An SAI program could limit global temperature increases, reducing some risks associated with higher temperatures and providing the world economy additional time to transition from fossil fuels. The process is also relatively inexpensive—the National Research Council estimates that a fully deployed SAI program would cost about $10 billion yearly. As promising as it may be, moving forward on SAI would raise a number of challenges for our government and for the international community. On the technical side, greenhouse gas emission reductions would still have to accompany SAI to address other climate change effects, such as ocean acidification, because SAI alone would not remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere. On the geopolitical side, the technology’s potential to alter weather patterns and benefit certain regions at the expense of others could trigger sharp opposition by some nations. Others might seize on SAI’s benefits and back away from their commitment to carbon dioxide reductions. And, as with other breakthrough technologies, global norms and standards are lacking to guide the deployment and implementation of SAI. NAS report available here: http://www.nap.edu/catalog/18988/climate-intervention-reflecting-sunlight-to-cool-earth +1 650 704 7212 http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 8:29 AM, Fred Zimmerman <[email protected]> wrote: > I think I overstated my formulation. I was not talking about the science > but really the level of enthusiasm and energy around various options. While > we see people full-throatedly arguing for MOAR BECCS NOW we don't really > see the same breadth of enthusiasm for immediate SAI. > ᐧ > > On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 11:06 AM, Ken Caldeira <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I think of carbon dioxide removal as a form of mitigation and of solar >> geoengineering as an extreme form of adaptation. >> >> They are not not mutually exclusive, and not substitutes except insofar >> as more carbon dioxide removal reduces the motivation to deploy solar >> geoengineering. >> >> On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 07:52 Fred Zimmerman <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> What I find interesting about this is that it had seemed to me that this >>> community >>> had largely moved on to CDR & especially BECCS as the preferred mechanism, >>> most people accepting David Keith's view of SAI as a last-ditch option for >>> slowing the rate of change. Do others agree with my formulation? >>> >>> On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 10:06 AM, Andrew Lockley < >>> [email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> https://www.cia.gov/news-information/speeches-testimony/2016-speeches-testimony/director-brennan-speaks-at-the-council-on-foreign-relations.html >>>> >>>> Extract >>>> >>>> Another example is the array of technologies—often referred to >>>> collectively as geoengineering—that potentially could help reverse the >>>> warming effects of global climate change. One that has gained my personal >>>> attention is stratospheric aerosol injection, or SAI, a method of seeding >>>> the stratosphere with particles that can help reflect the sun’s heat, in >>>> much the same way that volcanic eruptions do. >>>> >>>> An SAI program could limit global temperature increases, reducing some >>>> risks associated with higher temperatures and providing the world economy >>>> additional time to transition from fossil fuels. The process is also >>>> relatively inexpensive—the National Research Council estimates that a fully >>>> deployed SAI program would cost about $10 billion yearly. >>>> >>>> As promising as it may be, moving forward on SAI would raise a number >>>> of challenges for our government and for the international community. On >>>> the technical side, greenhouse gas emission reductions would still have to >>>> accompany SAI to address other climate change effects, such as ocean >>>> acidification, because SAI alone would not remove greenhouse gases from the >>>> atmosphere. >>>> >>>> On the geopolitical side, the technology’s potential to alter weather >>>> patterns and benefit certain regions at the expense of others could trigger >>>> sharp opposition by some nations. Others might seize on SAI’s benefits and >>>> back away from their commitment to carbon dioxide reductions. And, as with >>>> other breakthrough technologies, global norms and standards are lacking to >>>> guide the deployment and implementation of SAI. >>>> >>>> -- >>>> 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. >>>> >>> >>> ᐧ >>> >> > -- 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.
