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?


> On Sep 21, 2016, at 5:26 PM, Jonathan Marshall <> 
> 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.
> <>​
> 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: 
> <> < 
> <>> on behalf of Ronal W. Larson 
> < <>>
> 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 < 
>> <>> 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" < 
>> <>> 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 
> <>.
> To post to this group, send email to 
> <>.
> Visit this group at 
> <>.
> For more options, visit 
> <>.
> 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 post to this group, send email to
Visit this group at
For more options, visit

Reply via email to