Andrew, cc Michael and List: (adding Professor Coffman, as a courtesy)
1. Two questions:
a. Could you expand on your below phrase ”This has kicked mitigation
into the long grass.” It is not clear to me whether this is a pro-CDR or
con-CDR statement. For me, biochar is a mitigation option as well as a CDR
option. I don’t know whether “long grass” is a good or bad place to be. The
word “This” would seem to be CDR-influence (a positive from your, Michael’s and
my perspectives) - but ”kicked” seems negative.
b. Could you expand in the second sentence on “pending”. I take
Michael’s interjection to be that there are several existing CDR approaches
that are here today - not “pending”. Michael uses the term “10 (+) years”,
but the anthropogenic Terra Preta soils of the Amazon go back more than two
orders of magnitude further (6000 years by some accounts). Michael did not
include the term “BECCS” - which presumably many of us agree is not ready
(although widely assumed to be needed).
2. Thank you for the new terms “carelessness” and “malfeasance”.
These help me a lot in understanding the terms “morale” and “moral”. I
believe Michael is saying there are more than these two motivations at play
here in the CDR world. I agree.
3. Re your last sentence on “significant” - I think that can be true
- especially because we can now seriously debate about CDR’s readiness.
Michael is asserting CDR is ready. I agree.
Thanks for your prompt response to Michael’s note of concern.
Ron
> On Sep 21, 2016, at 1:58 AM, Andrew Lockley <andrew.lock...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Michael
>
> The influence of CDR technology is plain. It underpins the Paris Agreement.
> This has kicked mitigation into the long grass. We will, pending CDR, be
> allowed to eat too much meat, waste too much food, use inefficient cars, and
> have poorly insulated buildings and homes. We will move goods too far in
> vehicles that are themselves too energy inefficient. We will continue to chop
> down forests and degrade soils.
>
> Whether this is down to carelessness (Morale Hazard) or malfeasance (moral
> hazard) depends largely on the motives of those lobbying for such policies.
>
> I remain of the opinion that our contribution to the debate is significant.
>
> Thanks
>
> Andrew Lockley
>
>
> On 21 Sep 2016 08:51, "Michael Hayes" <voglerl...@gmail.com
> <mailto:voglerl...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> Critique: Distinguishing morale hazard from moral hazard in geoengineering
> <https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=forums&srcid=MDE0NTY3NTk0NzY2MTMxMzQ4MjEBMDk3MTEzODU3MDk0NzQ5MDcwMDYBR1RFMmsyZWtBUUFKATAuMQEBdjI>
> Abstract:
>
> In the introduction to the paper ‘Distinguishing morale hazard from moral
> hazard in geoengineering’ (Andrew Lockley Independent scholar, D’Maris
> Coffman CPM, UCL Bartlett, London, UK-Environmental Law Review 2016, Vol.
> 18(3) 194–204) the authors take the position that “It is therefore possible
> that the (sic) even the theoretical existence of geoengineering technologies
> results in a reduced urgency to cut emissions.”. This view is further
> expanded upon in the Discussion section's opening sentence: One of the key
> issues in geoengineering is the idea that the existence of techniques for
> climate change engineering represent what we would classify as a morale
> hazard, namely that they reduce the political will to cut carbon emissions,
> or that they might make individuals or society less inclined to change
> behaviours.
>
> Such an opinion, although it is parroted by many, is simply a misleading red
> herring as a number of Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) technologies, inter alia,
> Advanced Weathering of Limestone, Biochar, Olivine, and Marine Biomass
> Production etc. have been largely available for vast scale deployment, or
> have been deployed, for around 10(+) years. Yet the theoretical, or even
> actual, existence of such CDR methods have had no discernible effect on the
> public's opinion of geoengineering or their behavior relative to it, one way
> or another. As such, this critique will take a close look at:
>
> a) the scope of currently deployed/deployable CDR methods,
>
> b) the reasons why the morale/moral hazard argument(s) are simply not
> applicable to a number of such CDR methods and or combinations of methods,
>
> c) a few plausible reasons why so many authors, at both the peer reviewed
> level and media level, often find themselves making the conceptual mistakes
> reproduced within Mr. Lockley and Prof. Coffman’s work.
>
> Also, this critique will not involve itself with the discussion on the
> difference and/or distinction between the morale and moral hazard concepts,
> relative to geoengineering, as there are no obviously striking, or even
> slightly meaningful, difference and/or distinction to be found between the 2
> hazards...within a number of the currently actionable CDR methods. Therefore,
> this critique is not primarily an effort at pointing out what is wrong with
> the paper as much as it is an effort to point out why Lockley and Coffman got
> it wrong.
>
> Finally, this critique will be posted in a 3 part series as the subjects to
> be covered are extensive in both volume and complexity.
>
> Michael Hayes
>
>
> 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
>
> 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
> <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.
