Andrew, list and ccs

        OK - I see where you are coming from.  I agree that the Paris Agreement 
did not go far enough. I agree with your final sentence - mitigation is nowhere 
as aggressive as is deserved.   But I can’t agree that too much reliance on 
CDR, and especially biochar, was the cause of the failure to set a goal of 1.5 
degrees vs 2 degrees. Rather, I feel the Paris Agreement paid too little 
attention, not too much, to CDR.  The French 4p1000 didn’t fail for lack of 
interest in mitigation by CDR enthusiasts.
        It is still not clear to me who you think was prevaricating/lying.

Ron

> On Sep 21, 2016, at 10:34 AM, Andrew Lockley <andrew.lock...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 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 
> <mailto: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 
>> <mailto: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 
>> <mailto: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 
>>> <mailto: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.

Reply via email to