Comment from Peter Fiekowski founder of
http://www.healthyclimateproject.org/follows. -Greg
<!--#yiv7776156125 _filtered #yiv7776156125 {font-family:Calibri;panose-1:2 15
5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;} _filtered #yiv7776156125 {font-family:Tahoma;panose-1:2 11 6
4 3 5 4 4 2 4;} _filtered #yiv7776156125 {font-family:inherit;panose-1:0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0;}#yiv7776156125 #yiv7776156125 p.yiv7776156125MsoNormal,
#yiv7776156125 li.yiv7776156125MsoNormal, #yiv7776156125
div.yiv7776156125MsoNormal
{margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",
"sans-serif";}#yiv7776156125 a:link, #yiv7776156125
span.yiv7776156125MsoHyperlink
{color:blue;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv7776156125 a:visited, #yiv7776156125
span.yiv7776156125MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{color:purple;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv7776156125 p
{margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New
Roman", "serif";}#yiv7776156125 p.yiv7776156125MsoAcetate, #yiv7776156125
li.yiv7776156125MsoAcetate, #yiv7776156125 div.yiv7776156125MsoAcetate
{margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:8.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",
"sans-serif";}#yiv7776156125 p.yiv7776156125MsoListParagraph, #yiv7776156125
li.yiv7776156125MsoListParagraph, #yiv7776156125
div.yiv7776156125MsoListParagraph
{margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",
"sans-serif";}#yiv7776156125 span.yiv7776156125EmailStyle17
{font-family:"Calibri", "sans-serif";color:windowtext;}#yiv7776156125
span.yiv7776156125apple-converted-space {}#yiv7776156125
span.yiv7776156125BalloonTextChar {font-family:"Tahoma",
"sans-serif";}#yiv7776156125 .yiv7776156125MsoChpDefault
{font-family:"Calibri", "sans-serif";} _filtered #yiv7776156125 {margin:1.0in
1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}#yiv7776156125 div.yiv7776156125WordSection1
{}#yiv7776156125 _filtered #yiv7776156125 {} _filtered #yiv7776156125
{margin-left:.25in;} _filtered #yiv7776156125 {margin-left:.75in;} _filtered
#yiv7776156125 {margin-left:1.25in;} _filtered #yiv7776156125
{margin-left:1.75in;} _filtered #yiv7776156125 {margin-left:2.25in;} _filtered
#yiv7776156125 {margin-left:2.75in;} _filtered #yiv7776156125
{margin-left:3.25in;} _filtered #yiv7776156125 {margin-left:3.75in;} _filtered
#yiv7776156125 {margin-left:4.25in;} _filtered #yiv7776156125 {} _filtered
#yiv7776156125 {} _filtered #yiv7776156125 {} _filtered #yiv7776156125
{}#yiv7776156125 ol {margin-bottom:0in;}#yiv7776156125 ul
{margin-bottom:0in;}-->https://brainscienceandclimatechange.wordpress.com/2017/04/02/where-are-we-going-climate-wise
Last month I was honored to attend the Forum on Solar Geoengineering (also
called Solar Radiation Management or SRM) in Washington DC. It was a valuable
gathering of 110 experts, reflecting significant technical progress and
political change in the last year. With the new US administration, things could
move quickly, forward and / or backwards. It’s up to us to make sure that
things move towards success. To succeed, we must define success clearly and as
something we want.What would successful SRM achieve?One of the panelists at the
forum said that SRM success is staying below two degrees warming. That goal is
arguably too vague to elicit specific and effective action. I think experts
will agree that SRM actions as a whole have been indecisive and hesitant;
actions consistent with a vague and unappealing goal.As a parent, I’m clear
that success is restoring a healthy climate for our children, and doing it
before we lose much more of the beauty and glory of our planet. Although the
IPCC may disagree with that goal, that is I want, and what almost everyone I
speak with wants, and what the clergy I speak with now demands. We have a moral
obligation to give our children and grandchildren a climate close to that which
we were given. If we don’t yet know how to achieve it then we are obligated to
invent the methods required. Not knowing how to do it does not absolve us from
that obligation to our children and grandchildren.As an SRM outsider with
children here’s what I want from SRM:1. Be prepared to cool the planet
with SRM during the time during which carbon dioxide removal is
operating.Assume that we will implement carbon dioxide removal (CDR) and reduce
atmospheric CO2 back to levels that have supported humans in the past, i.e.
below 300 ppm. We should target achieving this by 2050, although it could take
until 2100. Recent work confirms what Dr. Jim Hansen said in 2008, that CDR
investment of about 1% of global GDP could remove the trillion tons of excess
atmospheric CO2 in 20-50 years. This requires removing 50 GT / year, which
scale could be achieved by any one of seven techniques, using direct air
capture (DAC), or ocean processes (references forthcoming). 2. Be ready
to start SRM within 2-3 years—by 2020.Waiting longer is too late, arguably
criminal, given rapidly worsening climate trends from the arctic to the
equator. We need the insurance policy of SRM. If we don’t provide that, our
children should sue us for dereliction of duty—perhaps as part of “Our
Children’s Trust” lawsuit. Insofar as we are the leadership for SRM, we are
morally, if not legally liable. This is a harsh assertion, but arguably true.
This isn’t saying that we must implement SRM—implementation is a moral
decision. This community must prepare to implement SRM. As technologists, our
obligation is to provide the tools. The humanists could in the end insist that
SRM not be implemented, and that we should continue into the sixth extinction.
If so, that will be their responsibility, and we will have provided options to
save the planet. I consider that SRM veto most unlikely—after we’ve prepared
the following data for consideration.To be prepared, we must answer some
critical questions:1. What are the best options for stopping sea-level
rise, and for halting ice sheet collapse in Antarctica and Greenland?2.
What are the best options for weakening the cyclones decimating the Philippines
and other areas?3. What are the best options for stopping permafrost melt
and a “methane burp”?4. What are the best options for restoring the Gulf
Stream and other ocean currents?5. What are the benefits to society and
nature of implementing SRM? We have dozens of articles about the risks, but
precious little about the benefits. Given the public data, it’s no surprise
that there is low public support for SRM.6. If SRM is required, what are
the real options for implementing SRM quickly? What are the technical,
financial, and logistical options? There is great fiction about that, but
little policy work. I am proposing that a “Climate Restoration” center be
established in 2017 to host research to answer these critical questions which
will allow progress towards restoring the climate. If you have a recommendation
for where this could be hosted, or individuals and groups that might want to
contribute funding, please contact me: Peter Fiekowsky [email protected]
--
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.
