Hi Greg--Having also done declarations in this and other lawsuits.
Basically, the declarations are explaining the findings of the
scientific community in the context of the particular case. This can
sometimes mean explaining the significance of particular amounts of
emissions in context of what is said to be the allowable emissions
before one would get to 2 C, the implied amount of sea level rise by
scaling, the difference between the near- and long-term equilibrium
responses, etc. So, it is not really new science, just a contextual
explanation of the science and putting together science from different
sources that have not been combined or explained concisely, etc. Having
read Jim's various briefs, I'd say he has been done very clearly. Where
opinion is included, that is made clear.
Basically, someone has to be doing this, making the selections, etc. For
example, in the declaration that I did on standing in Mass. vs EPA
(2007) that Justice Stevens cited in his majority opinion, what was done
was to pick out the most clear cut findings and explain what they would
do to affect the plaintiffs. So, the lead impact was sea level rise and
that this would be taking land away from Massachusetts, etc. For Justice
Stevens argument it did not matter exactly how much land would be
taken--is there really a difference between an inch and a mile (so
uncertainties could be stated, etc.)?. That the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts turned over the responsibility for protection of its land
to the Federal Government was enough to grant the states standing to
file a case for consideration of how EPA was interpreting the Clean Air
Act. That sea level will go up due to climate change is, of course,
among the most solid projected impacts, and all was interpretation. In
another case it was the rise in the snowline in the western mountains
that would be affecting the water resources of the key plaintiff cities
that led to standing being granted.
If not the experts explaining the science, who would be doing so. Given
we are involved in studying such a real and potentially serious socially
relevant issue, there would seem to be an obligation to be available to
explain the science via legal declarations. And so, having now done it
in about a dozen cases, sometimes supporting filings against the
government (e.g., responses to the filings against the EPA coal fired
power plant regulations by correcting the scientific statements of those
fighting the regulations even though they are a very modest step) and
sometimes in cases against the government (e.g., the implications of
continuing to lease very large tracts for mining of coal, etc), I'd
suggest it is a responsibility that scientists really can't say no to
when asked.
In my view, I think Jim has done a really great job in explaining the
science, sometimes presenting the science in ways that also then
presenting the statements to the scientific community can illustrate how
what we has learned can be effectively explained to the public.
Best, Mike MacCracken
PS--And my first try took a couple of dozen drafts to be clear enough
and relevant enough in answering the questions of the lawyers filing the
case to be accepted for filing (and it was more drafts than for a
typical science paper ). The statements are one's own, but, just as when
one speaks to the public, questions come up and so one learns over time
how to explain the science in ways that are sufficiently clear in the
public forum.
On 10/6/16 5:07 PM, Greg Rau wrote:
Relatedly:
http://www.nature.com/news/the-maximum-climate-ambition-needs-a-firm-research-backing
<http://www.nature.com/news/the-maximum-climate-ambition-needs-a-firm-research-backing-1.20687>
"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]
<mailto:[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 Rayner
James Martin Professor of Science & Civilisation
Director, Institute for Science, Innovation & Society
Professorial Fellow, Keble College
University of Oxford
64 Banbury Road
Oxford, OX2 6PN
T: +44 (0)1865 288938
E: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
<07F4D7A7-B430-4679-BA3F-3B8E6BB4B0F6[20].jpg>
From: <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> on behalf of Greg Rau
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
Reply-To: "[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>"
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
Date: Thursday, 6 October 2016 at 07:10
To: Geoengineering <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>
Cc: "[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>, MICHAEL MANN <[email protected]
<mailto:[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] <mailto:[email protected]>>
*To:* Geoengineering <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>
*Cc:* "[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>"
<[email protected] <mailto:[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 about
0.18°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 interglacial
25 (Eemian) period, when sea level was several meters higher than
today, and, if it long remains at
this level, slow amplifying feedbacks will lead to greater climate
change and consequences. The
growth rate of climate forcing due to human-caused greenhouse
gases (GHGs) increased over
20% in the past decade mainly due to resurging growth of
atmospheric CH4, thus making it
increasingly difficult to achieve targets such as limiting global
warming to 1.5°C or reducing
30 atmospheric CO2 below 350 ppm. Such targets now require
“negative emissions”, i.e., extraction
of CO2 from the atmosphere. If rapid phasedown of fossil fuel
emissions begins soon, most of
the necessary CO2 extraction can take place via improved
agricultural and forestry practices,
including reforestation and steps to improve soil fertility and
increase its carbon content. In this
case, the magnitude and duration of global temperature excursion
above the natural range of the
35 current interglacial (Holocene) could be limited and
irreversible climate impacts could be
minimized. In contrast, continued high fossil fuel emissions by
the current generation would
place a burden on young people to undertake massive technological
CO2 extraction, if they are to
limit climate change. Proposed methods of extraction such as
bioenergy with carbon capture and
storage (BECCS) or air capture of CO2 imply minimal estimated
costs of 104-570 trillion dollars
40 this century, with large risks and uncertain feasibility.
Continued high fossil fuel emissions
unarguably sentences young people to either a massive, possibly
implausible cleanup or growing
deleterious climate impacts or both, scenarios that should provide
both incentive and obligation
for 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 to [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>.
To post to this group, send email to
[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>.
Visit this group at 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 [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
<mailto:[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]
<mailto:[email protected]>.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
<mailto:[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.
