“Geo” List + Dr.  Schuiling’s list + adding Andrew and his co-author, Prof. 

        I find this an interesting exchange, based on the Lockley-Coffman 
paper, with my hope for further discussion on “hazards”.

        See (different types of) inserts on the three messages below (mostly on 
the last below (first in time)).

> On Sep 17, 2016, at 8:01 AM, Schuiling, R.D. (Olaf) <r.d.schuil...@uu.nl> 
> wrote:
> 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 Schuiling
        [RWL-S:   I have talked to Michael Hayes for a few years and am pretty 
sure he would be supportive of the “Schuiling” approach.  Most of us on this 
list recognize olivine’s near term potential is because it has had such an 
important historic place in CDR. 

      (more below)

> From: Michael Hayes [mailto:voglerl...@gmail.com 
> <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 <mailto:christopher.rodg...@ncl.ac.uk>
> Subject: Re: Distinguishing morale hazard from moral hazard in geoengineering
> Andrew, 
> 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". 
        [RWL-M1:  Michael - let me urge you to take issue with the paper, not 
the author(s).
> 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.
        [RWL-M2:  I wouldn’t use the term “confusing” - just not up-to-date.  
All of us have this problem in a field changing so rapidly and covering so many 
disciplines.  Your strong support for ocean biomass on this list is highly 
> 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 
> scholars.
        [RWL-M3:  I repeat Item M1 above.

                (more below)
> Warmest regards,
> Michael 
> On Wednesday, September 14, 2016 at 8:54:03 AM UTC-7, Andrew Lockley wrote:

        [RWL:  Now addressing questions mainly to (list moderator) Andrew and 
Prof.  Coffman (identified as the one to receive comments; I am including her 
as a courtesy):

        a)    In my background investigations, I found that this paper is the 
first of an (at least) 4-part sequence of papers - for which we can see 3 more 
abstracts at:

https://ucl.academia.edu/DMarisCoffman <https://ucl.academia.edu/DMarisCoffman>

They (abstracts only; no papers) are:

1. Combined SRM and CDR:
with help on “blockchain” at   

2.  Only CDR apparently    

3.  Only SRM I guess:

        (all the abstracts are worth the time of list members - to understand 
this one)

        b)   My first question is whether these papers are all already written 
- or whether comments on the present paper #1 could still influence the 
remaining 3?   I believe (and would hope for disagreement) that biochar is 
moving faster than any other CDR approach - perhaps a doubling time of around 2 
years, with some of my friends suggesting closer to one year.  The reason that 
the “geo” list doesn’t know this is that the biochar community is mostly 
uncaring about “geo”.  Nearly ALL of their messages relate to soil; it is rare 
to find a “geo” message.  But the atmospheric and soil improvement targets are 
in zero conflict;  you improve soil via biochar, you improve the climate.   If 
your series of papers doesn’t delve into how/why biochar is so different from 
the other (slower or non-moving) CDR approaches, you will be missing a lot.   
The hazard I worry about is NOT engaging in the biochar form of CDR.   My 
concern Includes biochar ending up in soil  whose origins were from the oceans.

        c).  I am concerned that in order to understand this paper we 
apparently have to ignore the common definitions of both “moral” and “morale”.  
 Could you say a bit more to this list about these two words that are so 
critical to your paper - and perhaps some synonyms and antonyms.  And more on 
the morality and moral(e)ity [making up a word] of NOT taking action of either 
the SRM or CDR  (or both together) type.

        d)   In this present paper,  I am concerned in having ALL of 
geoengineering subsumed in only the two categories of “Business as Usual” 
(no-one in the CDR camp fits this, I think), and “Chicken Littles” (I don’t put 
ANY known “Geo” list recipients there either, but I agree there is some small 
population in this category).  Can you provide a more complete list of the 
categories of people who will be or should be influencing this discussion?

        e).   I can see merit in bringing the insurance industry into this 
discussion and Prof.  Coffman clearly has expertise here.  But I doubt that we 
will ever be able to obtain insurance policies based on the risk of doing or 
not doing either type of geoengineering.  I am hoping for more explanation of 
the relationship of “geo” to the insurance industry.

        Thanks in advance to all who can further address this paper, whose 
abstract is given next.


> Distinguishing morale hazard from moral hazard in geoengineering 
> Andrew Lockley 
> Independent scholar 
> D’Maris Coffman 
> CPM, UCL Bartlett, London, UK 
> Abstract 
> 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 distinction 
> 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. 
> Keywords 
> 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 
> <mailto:geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>.
> To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com 
> <mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com>.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering 
> <https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering>.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout 
> <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.
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