I hope that Michael isn’t implying that olivine weathering needs geological
time scales!. There are people who think that the rate of weathering is what is
determined in sterile laboratories with distilled water, whereas in fact we
know that the weathering of olivine in nature is 1000 to 10.000 times faster
than in the abiotic clean laboratory, and we can choose the best environments,
and make the olivine grains move in rivers and even better in the surf! Olaf
From: Michael Hayes [mailto:voglerl...@gmail.com]
Sent: zaterdag 17 september 2016 1:03
Cc: Mike MacCracken; Ken Caldeira; Ronal Larson; Greg Rau; Schuiling, R.D.
Subject: Re: Distinguishing morale hazard from moral hazard in geoengineering
On first glance, I'm confidant in saying that many of your opining premises are
simply wrong or are clearly and simply cherry picking to support your private
views. As such, the overall paper has nether scholarly merit nor even common
sense. As a prime example, you claim that negative emissions technologies are
presumed to be "only decades away".
That bit of information would, I'm sure, be somewhat confusing to Drs. Rau and
Larson as both of their respective negative emissions technologies are
currently being used at the industrial level. The use of olivine, as Dr.
Schuiling has tried to explain on many occasions, has geological time scales of
use as a natural NET!! Further, marine biomass production by humans dates back
roughly 5 millennium, if not further.
To avoid putting a too sharp of a point on my take away, I will forever hold
your paper up as a prime example of how one can, at least attempt to, bring an
opponent (i.e. non-SAI concepts) down through 'clarifying' certain words and
terms in what supposedly is a peer reviewed journal.
The lack of integrity, much less accuracy, in this so called peer reviewed
paper should be of concern to all 'Independent' and/or other species of
On Wednesday, September 14, 2016 at 8:54:03 AM UTC-7, Andrew Lockley wrote:
Distinguishing morale hazard from moral hazard in geoengineering
CPM, UCL Bartlett, London, UK
Geoengineering is the deliberate modification of the climate system. It has
been discussed as a technique to
counteract changes expected as a result of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW).
Speculation has occurred that the possibility of geoengineering will reduce or
delay efforts to mitigate AGW. This possible delay or reduction in mitigation
has been described as ‘moral hazard’ by various authors. We investigate the
definitions and use of the term ‘moral hazard’, and the related (but
significantly different) concept of ‘morale hazard’, in relevant law, economic
and insurance literatures. We find that ‘moral hazard’ has been generally
misapplied in discussions of geoengineering, which perhaps explains unexpected
difficulties in detecting expected effects experimentally. We clarify relevant
usage of the terms, identifying scenarios that can properly be described as
moral hazard (malfeasance), and morale hazard (lack of caution or
recklessness). We note generally the importance of correctly applying this
when discussing geoengineering. In conclusion, we note that a proper
consideration of the risks of both
moral and morale hazards allows us to easily segment framings for both
geoengineering advocacy and the
advocate groups who rely on these framings. We suggest mnemonics for groups
vulnerable to moral hazard
(Business as Usuals) and morale hazard (Chicken Littles) and suggest the
development of an experimental
methodology for validating the distinction thus drawn.
Geoengineering, moral hazard, morale hazard, carbon dioxide removal, greenhouse
gas removal, negative
emissions technology, solar radiation management (SRM)
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
To post to this group, send email to email@example.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.