Dear Michael--
I'd suggest that your summary of the situation is not how I would
characterize the situation, so I'll try rewriting to indicate my view of
the situation.
1. CCS is Carbon Capture and Storage and refers to capturing the CO2 in
the exhaust stream of a fossil fuel burning facility and storing it.
Yes, CCS is expensive compared to the income generated by that
fossil-fuel burning facility, probably costing roughly a third of
income. As you then note, this also ignores the external costs of the
CO2 emissions--were these to be added in to the analysis, it might make
going ahead with CCS more justifiable, but quite likely the combined
analysis would show that coal- and shale- and even oil and natural gas
plants should just be closed and replaced with wind and solar on an
economic basis, and this is happening, but far too slowly--and in
consideration of external costs and the shift to wind and solar should
be more greatly incentivized.
2. CCS is not usually considered to be geoengineering--rather, it is
mitigation. Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) refers to increasing the sinks
of CO2 once it has been distributed into the atmosphere. This can be
done by regrowing and/or expanding forests, burying biomass carbon that
has been burned to be charcoal (biochar) or similar (doable at
reasonable cost, but hard to do in large amounts compared to current
emissions). I am not quite sure how you justify saying that we know the
climatic effects of removing the CO2 when for SRM you say we apparently
end up with unpredictable outcomes when we remove the same amount of
energy as by removing CO2 to reduce the intensity of the greenhouse
effect. Yes, we have had a world with lower CO2 and so have a sense of
what that would be like--basically going back to a time when the extra
CO2 forcing caused effects that were less than the naturally induced
factors of solar and volcanic forcing and land cover change (and the
ongoing changes in orbital forcing over the longer term). I think what
we might agree on is that we'll be going back to having the
distributions of the weather back within a range that we are more used
to (in the sense that the Hansen et al. paper talked about the
distribution of the summer average weather, etc. in a paper a few years ago.
3. On SRM, it is generally agreed that its cost would be small compared
to mitigation and to the time and effort to remove the CO2--so it is
inexpensive, which is what makes this whole issue so challenging. I also
do not agree that the climatic effects are unknown or really even
unfamiliar (unless you are thinking of some case going to four times CO2
and then trying to crash back to the 19th century climate). Assuming
that we are shaving off the top of a warming curve that is going up to
say 3 C and then back down due to ending of CO2 emissions, and so
gradually turning up CO2 and then phase it out gradually), the whole
notion is that we would be pushing the climate back toward the envelope
of conditions that we have had over the last several decades--having a
bit dimmer sun to counter the energy being trapped by the increased
GHGs. The match may not be perfect, but it would very likely be a lot
less disruptive than the continually changing situation as GHG
concentrations keep going up and down without SRM.
4. On Pinatubo, that was a sudden quite large pulse effect rather than
the gradual change that I am suggesting would be the likely policy
action--and while Pinatubo had some impacts, not at all so severe that
there was substantial disruption. As to the rest of your views on
Pinatubo, I really do need to take exception. Yes, some warming over
very cold Asia was found from Pinatubo, but I don't think warmer than
where we are now. Also, if one goes back and considers lessons from
paleoclimatic records, when the orbital configuration was such that
summer radiation was a bit lower and winter radiation was actually up a
bit that the glaciers built up on the northern hemisphere continents
because winter was warm enough for substantial snows to occur and
summers were cool enough that not all of the snow melted (especially in
mountainous areas). As to sea ice cover, it would also likely build
up--as I noted the warm anomaly in winter due to Pinatubo had conditions
still well below freezing. So, I just don't at all agree with your
portrayal of the SRM situation.
If I may venture then to comment on the philosophical points you made:
1. I agree that I would much prefer to bring the situation under control
by stopping the intentional harm being done by GHG
concentrations--clearly the preferred approach. However, we have delayed
so long in taking suitable action that there will be very substantial
climatic change and environmental and societal impacts (including
especially very substantial and long-lasting sea level rise before
cutting emissions could have virtually any influence. Neither CCS nor
CDR can act quickly or fractionally enough to deal with the situation,
and it can be a very expensive option as well--but we are in trouble
even if we could go to zero emissions tomorrow, and this cannot happen
as fossil fuels currently provide about 80% of the world's energy and so
a huge number would die if we just stopped using fossil fuels. The
Paris accord and commitments are commendable in getting unanimous
participation, but they are very far short of limiting climate change to
the indicated goals--even assuming the commitments are fulfilled, the
likely warming is likely a good bit over 3 C, plus a high rate of loss
from the ice sheets inundating cities and serious ocean acidification.
I'd say the harm created is just far too large to be ignored and of far
more seriousness than the comparatively much smaller problems associated
with gradually ramped up SRM to shave off top warming (and the
additional CO2 emissions that will be needed to keep people cool as the
world goes through the higher temperatures).
I certainly do agree that research is needed on SRM, but not really so
much that one waits decades before starting implementation as I just do
not agree that uncertainties are anywhere near as large as proceeding
along with warming without SRM. I will also agree, that in spite of
this, I think there is a huge question about whether the public would be
willing to jump to doing something additional, even if not portrayed as
negatively as you portray the situation, whether because of your
suggestion of the difference in a moral perspective or just the shear
hubris of suggesting that doing something additional could make the
situation less serious (even a lot less serious) than a continuing
intensification of the trends we have had that people are at least
trying to deal with.
Regards, Mike MacCracken
On 11/21/16 4:52 PM, NORTHCOTT Michael wrote:
Dear Mike and Jonathan
I enjoy quietly reading this list and learn, especially from
atmospheric and arctic scientists.
As a non-scientist I note that the economics and the science seem to
indicate that:
CCS is expensive (because social costs of burning fossil fuels are
externalities not born by coal oil and gas corps.) and its climatic
effects are known (on large enough scale it will mitigate global
warming from ongoing fossil fuel use).
SRM is expensive, its climatic effects are unknown (unfamiliar)
because unpredictable. Mt Pinatubo eruption 1991 provides best real
world analogy to human intentional injection of particulates designed
to 'shade the earth' from the sun, or 'cool the arctic' to use a
phrase often seen on this list. As others argue, the effects of SRM
are relatively unknown but in the case of Pinatubo included,
counter-intuitively, tropospheric warming in N Hemisphere winter
according to NASA:
http://m.earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Volcano/ Currently Arctic
is much warmer than it should be and winter ice formation is delayed.
Pinatubo '91 like atmospheric injections apparently won't fix this and
they will cause other unknown harms - as did Pinatubo '91.
As a philosopher I can say, from my area of expertise, that there is
no moral equivalence between stopping intentional harm to the
atmosphere and trying to counter one kind of intentional harm (which
is stoppable through available tech and regulation and yes CCS) with
another kind of intentional harm whose externalities are
unpredictable. This lack of moral equivalence combined with extreme
uncertainty is why currently international law rightly bans SRM but
not CCS.
Michael Northcott
(School of Divinity, University of Edinburgh)
On 21 Nov 2016, at 21:13, Michael MacCracken <mmacc...@comcast.net
<mailto:mmacc...@comcast.net>> wrote:
Dear Jonathan--While I certainly agree that governance and the social
status quo are issues, I would just note that the notion of SRM is to
prevent further change and perhaps take us back a bit from the
consequences of the warming that we are experiencing (so back to more
familiar territory), whereas the no-SRM path is one heading into the
future and to much greater and unknown (at least more uncertain)
changes. This is not to say that SRM is a perfect response as there
will be changes, but generally back toward the more familiar and less
likely to severe new extremes. And if that is not what is happening,
SRM can be stopped, and if things are implemented and moderated
relatively gradually and careful observations are being taken and
used in the planning, the phasing out would not also not be so
harmful as the future that lies ahead without SRM.
So, I am a bit confused by all this talk of harm from doing
(gradually implemented) SRM as compared to the harm that seems to
clearly lie ahead from not doing this. Putting a tourniquet on a
rapidly bleeding leg might well cost me the leg, but otherwise I
might well be dead. I'd like to hear more about the social science
and governance challenges of undertaking a comparative analysis of
ongoing GHG-induced change with and without there being SRM; while to
an external or long-term observer (like me, quite probably), it would
seem the rational choice is to gradually implement SRM, in reality,
acceptance of the ongoing upward trend might well be seen as less
disruptful of one's short-term interests (so the classic frog in the
warming pot of water dilemma)--this, at least, seems to me, to be the
tenor of the social science discussions, and, if the way society
seems to be going about its living, short-term interests seem to me
to really have the upper hand. Are there instances or approaches that
might lead to greater consideration of the long-term interests of
society?
Mike
On 11/20/16 5:34 PM, Jonathan Marshall wrote:
The real thing to remember about governance is that it is often
about politics and preserving the social status quo.
Just as current governance processes seem often to be about
protecting the fossil fuel industries from any harm.
I would imagine the most likely result of changing the rules "in an
instant" will be to have rules which protect the people who impose
SRM (and impose is the right word, plenty of people will object to
the potentially disastrous consequences) from any legal liability
for damages. The argument will be that it is impossible to determine
what damages will have happened anyway, and what damages came
directly from the SRM. This will lessen any pressures to make sure
the process works properly.
The other obvious problem is that if the bad effects were localized,
then people could think it was an act of "Weather warfare" and
decide to strike back with either more SRM, or terrorist attacks, or
nukes.... This would render the systems (social, international, and
ecological) even more unstable.
Basically if you don't think about the social consequences now while
you have time, the chances are high that it will massively interfere
with any success the project might have and amount to a massive
waste of time....
jon
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From:* geoengineering@googlegroups.com
<geoengineering@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Stephen Salter
<s.sal...@ed.ac.uk>
*Sent:* Monday, 21 November 2016 1:46 AM
*To:* Myles Allen; geoengineering@googlegroups.com; Oxford Martin Info
*Subject:* Re: [geo] CO2 capture may be our only option for
stabilising temperatures - we need to find out the costs, fast |
Oxford Martin School
Hi All
It is much easier to change legal rules about liability and
governance than to alter the laws of physics and the boundaries of
engineering. The rules will be changed in an instant when the
results of climate change get bad enough. But now the arguments
about them are wasting time which we may not have.
Stephen
Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design. School of Engineering,
University of Edinburgh, Mayfield Road, Edinburgh EH9 3DW, Scotland
s.sal...@ed.ac.uk, Tel +44 (0)131 650 5704, Cell 07795 203 195,
WWW.homepages.ed.ac.uk/shs, YouTube Jamie Taylor Power for Change
On 20/11/2016 14:13, Myles Allen wrote:
Others much more expert in these matters than I have concluded that
liability and governance issues mean that SRM is probably out of
the question unless we have a very different global governance
regime than the one we have now (and not necessarily in a good
way). Which leaves CO2 disposal (initially from stationary sources,
ultimately from free air capture) as potentially the only option. Myles
Myles R Allen FInstP | Professor of Geosystem Science |
Environmental Change Institute
School of Geography and the Environment and Department of Physics |
University of Oxford
Oxford University Centre for the Environment, South Parks Road,
Oxford, OX1 3QY, UK
myles.al...@ouce.ox.ac.uk | +44 (0)1865 275895 (Direct) | +44
(0)1865 275216 (Anne Ryan, PA, anne.r...@ouce.ox.ac.uk)
From: Stephen Salter <s.sal...@ed.ac.uk <mailto:s.sal...@ed.ac.uk>>
Date: Sunday, 20 November 2016 12:30
To: "geoengineering@googlegroups.com
<mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com>"
<geoengineering@googlegroups.com
<mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com>>, Oxford Martin Info
<i...@oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk <mailto:i...@oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk>>,
Myles Allen <myles.al...@ouce.ox.ac.uk
<mailto:myles.al...@ouce.ox.ac.uk>>
Subject: Re: [geo] CO2 capture may be our only option for
stabilising temperatures - we need to find out the costs, fast |
Oxford Martin School
Hi All
In the headline of
http://www.oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk/opinion/view/346Myles Allen writes
that 'CO2 capture may be our only option for stabilising
temperatures.'
I believe that at least three things will be desperately needed. We
have to reduce emissions by use of renewable sources, remove
existing CO2 from the atmosphere and also directly reduce the
levels of incoming solar energy especially in the Arctic.I am sad
that my ignorance of chemistry and biology prevents me from
contributing to CO2 removal and I am careful not criticise people
who know much more than I do.
I would be grateful to anyone who could stop me wasting time trying
to solve insoluble problems and so I ask Myles Allen to explain why
marine cloud brightening cannot contribute to stabilising temperatures.
Stephen Salter
Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design. School of Engineering,
University of Edinburgh, Mayfield Road, Edinburgh EH9 3DW, Scotland
s.sal...@ed.ac.uk, Tel +44 (0)131 650 5704, Cell 07795 203 195,
WWW.homepages.ed.ac.uk/shs, YouTube Jamie Taylor Power for Change
On 19/11/2016 14:49, Andrew Lockley wrote:
http://www.oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk/opinion/view/346
CO2 capture may be our only option for stabilising temperatures -
we need to find out the costs, fast
15 Sep 2016
Professor Myles Allen, Co-Director of the Oxford Martin Net Zero
Carbon Initiative, gives his views on a new report on carbon
capture and storage (CCS), and asks whether this technology could
deliver “net zero CO2 fossil fuels”.
The UK government has so many things to worry about right now that
combatting climate change appears to have slipped a long way down
the priority list. But ensuring that Big Business pays its way and
doesn’t get away with dumping costs on long-suffering taxpayers
and consumers is at the heart of Theresa May’s agenda. So the
report of the Parliamentary Advisory Group on Carbon Capture and
Storage (CCS), chaired by Lord Oxburgh, should be at the top of
her in-tray this week.
The report recognises that we need a completely new approach to
CCS, because relying on subsidies and various forms of carbon
pricing clearly isn’t working. Everyone agrees that we need to get
net global emissions of carbon dioxide to zero to stabilise
climate. There are only two ways to achieve this: a watertight
global ban on the extraction and use of fossil fuels, or the
deployment of technologies to ensure that, if CO2 is generated by
the burning of fossil fuels, it is safely captured at source or
re-captured from the atmosphere and disposed of out of harm’s way.
A global ban on fossil fuels is neither affordable nor
enforceable, so capture and disposal of CO2 is the only option.
Assuming we don’t want to turn the world over to cultivating
biofuels and resort to eating insects, then there will always be
some uses of fossil fuels for which there is no effective
non-fossil substitute, much as environmentalists hate to admit it.
Right now, the only proven large-scale approach to CO2 disposal is
geological CCS – the reinjection of CO2 into geological formations
underground. There are other ideas out there, but since we have no
clear idea what geological CCS will actually cost when it is
deployed at scale, whether or not these are needed remains largely
hypothetical. And as I have written previously, the IPCC's most
ambitious climate change scenario for tackling climate change
involves a substantial element of industrial-scale CO2 disposal.
This is the core conclusion of the Oxburgh report: there is no
time to lose to find out what CCS actually costs, and the only way
we will find that out is by doing it at scale. Britain, with vast
off-shore storage potential and a North Sea oil and gas industry
literally begging for new opportunities, is uniquely placed to do
this – and we have a chance to become world leaders in what will
be one of the major growth industries of the 21st century.
The report proposes the establishment of a state-owned
CO2-disposal company, to avoid the massive cost escalations
resulting from asking private investors to accept all the risks.
Crucially, however, they also map out a path to allow the state to
withdraw as soon as everything is up and running. This is the
recommendation that should chime with the government’s stated
agenda of making sure Big Business pays its way.
Within a decade, the Oxburgh report recommends the introduction of
a “CCS obligation system”, or more simply a “carbon take-back
scheme”, under which companies supplying fossil fuels in the UK
would be obliged to prove they have stored (or paid someone else
to store) CO2 equivalent to a given percentage of the carbon
content of the fuel they have supplied in any particular year.
In principle, this works just like a packaging take-back scheme:
we, the consumers, don’t actually want the CO2 emissions that come
along with fossil-fuel-based products. One of the most efficient
ways of dealing with them is, just like unwanted packaging, to
require the companies that sell us those products to take these
emissions back.
One day, if we’re going to stabilise climate, they will have to
take them all back: that is what net zero means. But for now, it
is enough for them to take back a rising percentage so they can
demonstrate their CO2 disposal capabilities and avoid any shocks
(or “too big to fail” declarations) in the future.
As the Oxburgh report emphasises, such a scheme would also be good
for investors in the fossil fuel industry. It would provide them
with the security that their money was placed in assets with a
long-term future.
The costs of CO2 disposal, just like packaging disposal, would
eventually be borne by the consumers of fossil-fuel-based
products: but provided the disposed fraction rises progressively,
this cost would increase slowly and predictably over decades,
allowing consumers and investors to plan and adjust.
One of the puzzles in climate change politics is why the
environmental movement is not crying out for a carbon take-back
scheme. My personal suspicion is that they have a nagging fear
that it might work. The fossil fuel industry has such a formidable
track record at driving down the costs of massive engineering
projects that they might turn out to be able to deliver “net zero
CO2 fossil fuels” that would continue to play a major role in
powering the world economy into the 22nd century.
Then again, perhaps they won’t. Perhaps, when the costs of CO2
disposal are included, fossil fuels will remain competitive for
only a tiny number of niche applications. There is only one way to
find out.
--
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.
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
<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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
--
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.
