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.


On 21 Sep 2016 17:17, "Ronal W. Larson" <> 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 <>
> 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" <> 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 <>
>> 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" <> wrote:
>>> Critique: Distinguishing morale hazard from moral hazard in
>>> geoengineering
>>> <>
>>> *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
>>> 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