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
To: geoengineering
Cc: Mike MacCracken; Ken Caldeira; Ronal Larson; Greg Rau; Schuiling, R.D. 
(Olaf); christopher.rodg...@ncl.ac.uk
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 

Warmest regards,


On Wednesday, September 14, 2016 at 8:54:03 AM UTC-7, Andrew Lockley wrote:

Distinguishing morale hazard from moral hazard in geoengineering

Andrew Lockley
Independent scholar
D’Maris Coffman
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 
"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 https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Reply via email to