Ronal You need only look at the Paris Agreement for the ultimate example of prevarication. CDR is being used as "magical thinking" (not my words) to avoid near term mitigation. I think we can both agree that mitigation is limited, at best.
A On 21 Sep 2016 17:17, "Ronal W. Larson" <rongretlar...@comcast.net> wrote: > Andrew, list and ccs > > The word “prevaricate” is strong - and I have not observed any lie within > the biochar or any other CDR community. Biochar practitioners and > entrepreneurs are focussed on fixing a huge soil problem - that just > happens to work, without conflict, for excess atmospheric carbon. I can’t > speak for other forms of CDR. > > I agree with your last sentence - but that seems at odds with your first. > > It would help to have an example of a group (no need for individuals) who > you feel are lying and what they gain from the lies. Are you referring to > fossil fuel advocates? To climate deniers? To CDR advocates? Do you > feel the lie is that CDR is ready? Even if some CDR advocates are lying > (or mistaken or over-exuberant), it is not clear to me why/how that hurts > mitigation. I can see your argument for SRM, but not CDR. > > Since I haven’t seen any CDR advocacy used to argue against mitigation, > perhaps you can point us to something in print. > > Ron > > > > On Sep 21, 2016, at 3:00 AM, Andrew Lockley <andrew.lock...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > Ronal > > What I'm saying is that CDR is being used to prevaricate on mitigation. > That's simply an observation. I'm not speculating as to the specific > motivations. Without the promise of CDR, we'd either have to accept our > fate (2+C), or actually DO something. > > A > > On 21 Sep 2016 09:47, "Ronal W. Larson" <rongretlar...@comcast.net> wrote: > >> 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> 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. >>> 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. >>> >> >> -- >> 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. >> >> >> > -- 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.
