Relatedly:http://www.nature.com/news/the-maximum-climate-ambition-needs-a-firm-research-backing
"As it stands, there is minimal evidence that humanity will commit to its maximum climate ambition, but that could change as the impacts of global warming come into better focus. New technologies could also make it easier — and cheaper — to increase commitments. Scientists can help to provide a better basis for aggressive action when and if that happens." GR Yes, science and technology could make it easier and cheaper, but only if policies and incentives are in place to solicit and encourage the R&D required. Otherwise, are we going to entrust the development of cheaper and easier global CO2 management to what is currently treated as a cottage industry (as opposed to a Manhattan Project or the War on Cancer)? If scientists are expected to ride to the rescue, you are likely to get a better outcome by suppling them horses rather than burros. On Oct 6, 2016, at 2:12 AM, Steve Rayner <[email protected]> wrote: Greg You are absolutely right that “some of the greatest science efforts/achievements are driven by policy”. Anyone who doubts it should read Dan Sarewitz’s excellent piece in the latest issue of “The New Atlantis”http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/saving-science. Not only does Sarewitz argue that this is the case, he makes a compelling argument as to why it should be the case. The idea of a “firewall” between science and policy is simply part of an obsolete mythology that sees science as a uniquely asocial human activity. Steve Steve RaynerJames Martin Professor of Science & CivilisationDirector, Institute for Science, Innovation & SocietyProfessorial Fellow, Keble CollegeUniversity of Oxford64 Banbury RoadOxford, OX2 6PNT: +44 (0)1865 288938E: [email protected] <07F4D7A7-B430-4679-BA3F-3B8E6BB4B0F6[20].jpg> From: <[email protected]> on behalf of Greg Rau <[email protected]> Reply-To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Date: Thursday, 6 October 2016 at 07:10 To: Geoengineering <[email protected]> Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, MICHAEL MANN <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [geo] Saving the World the Hard Way: $104-570T, J. Hansen et al. The rest of the story:https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/oct/03/global-temperature-climate-change-highest-115000-years "The paper, submitted as a discussion paper to the Earth System Dynamics journal, is a departure from the usual scientific process as it has yet to be peer reviewed and has been launched to support a legal case waged by a group of young people against the US government. Last year, 21 youths aged between 8 and 19 years old filed a constitutional lawsuit against the Obama administration for failing to do enough to slow climate change. Hansen and his granddaughter are parties to legal challenge, which was filed in Oregon and asserts that the government has violated young people’s rights to life, liberty and property. Hansen, who has become increasingly outspoken on climate change since retiring from Nasa [sic] in 2013, said he recognized some scientists might object to publicizing the paper so soon but that “we are running out of time on this climate issue.”The courts need to step in to force governments to act on climate change because they are largely free of the corrupting influence of special interests, Hansen said. He repeated his call for a global tax to be placed upon carbon emissions and said that fossil fuel companies should be forced to pay for emissions extraction in the same way the tobacco industry has been sued over the health impact of cigarettes." …. "Michael Mann, a prominent climatologist at Penn State University, agreed that CO2 removal will be required if the world was to avoid 1.5C warming although the 2C limit “could likely be achieved without negative emissions, but it would require urgent action, as I have argued myself is necessary.”. Mann added that Hansen’s paper is “interesting” but tackles a huge range of topics and is unconventional in its use as a tool to support a legal case. “Along with the paper being publicized prior to peer review, this will certainly raise eyebrows about whether or not this breaches the firewall many feel should exist wherein policy agenda should not influence the way that science is done,” Mann told the Guardian via email." GR Hmmm… I'm no lawyer, but if Hansen et al want to submit legal evidence or opinion for a case, isn't this done via sworn testimony, affidavit, or by filing a brief? I'm also curious about the stated firewall between policy and science, since some of the greatest science efforts/achievements (high energy physics, disease eradication, modern agriculture, etc. ) have been driven by policy. Policy may not dictate how science is done, but it certainly can dictate what science is (or isn't) done. There is currently a policy vacuum re effective CO2 management R&D despite the best scientific evidence demanding otherwise. Firewall indeed, and if scientists can't/won't breach it, who will? Perhaps Hansen is on to something, again... From: Greg Rau <[email protected]> To: Geoengineering <[email protected]> Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, October 5, 2016 8:46 AM Subject: [geo] Saving the World the Hard Way: $104-570T, J. Hansen et al. http://www.earth-syst-dynam-discuss.net/esd-2016-42/esd-2016-42.pdf Abstract"The rapid rise of global temperature that began about 1975 continues at a mean rate of about0.18°C/decade, with the current annual temperature exceeding +1.25°C relative to 1880-1920.Global temperature has just reached a level similar to the mean level in the prior interglacial25(Eemian) period, when sea level was several meters higher than today, and, if it long remains atthis level, slow amplifying feedbacks will lead to greater climate change and consequences. Thegrowth rate of climate forcing due to human-caused greenhouse gases (GHGs) increased over20% in the past decade mainly due to resurging growth of atmospheric CH4, thus making itincreasingly difficult to achieve targets such as limiting global warming to 1.5°C or reducing30atmospheric CO2below 350 ppm. Such targets now require “negative emissions”, i.e., extractionof CO2from the atmosphere. If rapid phasedown of fossil fuel emissions begins soon, most ofthe necessary CO2extraction can take place via improved agricultural and forestry practices,including reforestation and steps to improve soil fertility and increase its carbon content. In thiscase, the magnitude and duration of global temperature excursion above the natural range of the35current interglacial (Holocene) could be limited and irreversible climate impacts could beminimized. In contrast, continued high fossil fuel emissions by the current generation wouldplace a burden on young people to undertake massive technological CO2extraction, if they are tolimit climate change. Proposed methods of extraction such as bioenergy with carbon capture andstorage (BECCS) or air capture of CO2imply minimal estimated costs of 104-570 trillion dollars40this century, with large risks and uncertain feasibility. Continued high fossil fuel emissionsunarguably sentences young people to either a massive, possibly implausible cleanup or growingdeleterious climate impacts or both, scenarios that should provide both incentive and obligationfor governments to alter energy policies without further delay." GR A)$104-570 could prove to be a bargain or B) maybe with a serious search for and practice of "technological" CDR options we can drive the cost and risk down and the feasibility up, just as we did with the first $7000 light bulb and the first multi $M computer. And why is risk and uncertain feasibility "unarguably" constrained to "technological" solutions when increasing the terrestrial biosphere CO2 sink (why ignore the ocean biosphere?) doesn't appear to be any non-technological walk in the park either??? Anyway, given our track record on emissions reduction, do we really have the option of not seriously pursuing CDR, whatever the "burden" might look like at this early stage of development? -- 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 [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. 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 [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. 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 [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
