Jonathan, cc List
On this list, we have pretty much stayed away from CCS - not considered
to be part of geoengineering - or what Andrew wrote about. Can you expand on
your own research to the “Geo” area - perhaps specifically to BECCS? I’m
particularly interested in who is lying about CDR?
Ron
> On Sep 21, 2016, at 5:26 PM, Jonathan Marshall <jonathan.marsh...@uts.edu.au>
> wrote:
>
> For what it is worth I've just had a paper published on CCS in Australia
> which pretty much agrees with Andrew's argument.
>
> http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421516302750
> <http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421516302750>
>
> It basically seemed to allow various governments and the coal industry to
> defend the status quo.
>
> This does not mean that it is its only function at all times, or that it is
> inherently impossible, but in Australia it has not been of any practical use
> in fighting greenhouse gas emissions.
>
> jon
>
>
>
> From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com> <geoengineering@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com>> on behalf of Ronal W. Larson
> <rongretlar...@comcast.net <mailto:rongretlar...@comcast.net>>
> Sent: Thursday, 22 September 2016 8:45 AM
> To: Andrew Lockley
> Cc: Coffman, D'Maris; Geoengineering; Michael Hayes
> Subject: Re: [geo] Re: Distinguishing morale hazard from moral hazard in
> geoengineering
>
> 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
>> <mailto: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
> <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>.
> UTS CRICOS Provider Code: 00099F DISCLAIMER: This email message and any
> accompanying attachments may contain confidential information. If you are not
> the intended recipient, do not read, use, disseminate, distribute or copy
> this message or attachments. If you have received this message in error,
> please notify the sender immediately and delete this message. Any views
> expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except where
> the sender expressly, and with authority, states them to be the views of the
> University of Technology Sydney. Before opening any attachments, please check
> them for viruses and defects. Think. Green. Do. Please consider the
> environment before printing this email.
--
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.
