Our other papers are in review/press, so not much chance to edit. Also
they're not a logical sequence - although some are more linked than others.

It's best to forget your current understanding of moral and Morale. Think
of "moral hazard" and "Morale Hazard" as words.

We used "chicken littles" and "business as usuals" as a near-comic
caricature. You could alternatively use "progressives" and "conservatives",
although it wouldn't necessarily fit. We're trying to research this further


Andrew Lockley

On 19 Sep 2016 04:22, "Ronal W. Larson" <> wrote:

> “Geo” List + Dr.  Schuiling’s list + adding Andrew and his co-author,
> Prof. Coffman
> 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) <>
> 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 [ <>]
> *Sent:* zaterdag 17 september 2016 1:03
> *To:* geoengineering
> *Cc:* Mike MacCracken; Ken Caldeira; Ronal Larson; Greg Rau; Schuiling,
> R.D. (Olaf);
> *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
> commendable.*
> 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:
> They (abstracts only; no papers) are:
> 1. Combined SRM and CDR:
> the_blockchain_a_near-complete_solution_to_greenhouse_emissions
> with help on “blockchain” at
> 23/blockchain-definition/
> 2.  Only CDR apparently
> 22943065/Carbon_Dioxide_Removal_and_the_futures_market
> 3.  Only SRM I guess:
> adaptation_megaprojects_is_it_easier_for_a_rogue_mayor_to_
> change_the_world_than_build_a_dam
> * (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.*
> *Ron*
> 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
> To post to this group, send email to
> Visit this group at
> For more options, visit
> --
> 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
> To post to this group, send email to
> Visit this group at
> For more options, visit

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 post to this group, send email to
Visit this group at
For more options, visit

Reply via email to