Let me phrase the critical part of Peter’s argument slightly differently.
You should do things with future, because learning here matters. If you build solar energy, it will get cheaper and cheaper over time. The same is true for DAC. It is even true for retrofitting old cold plants, but then you know you run out of old coal plants and all the learning was for naught. If you had picked another clean energy source with long term potential that would be fine, because it would have gotten cheaper, and you can’t know to begin with which of the different options will win. But you picked something that you know can’t compete in the long run and is going to be phased out. You learned a dying art. If the owners of coal plants find it competitive to fix the plant, let them do it. But there is no good reason to spend public money on that support. Klaus From: <[email protected]> on behalf of Peter Eisenberger <[email protected]> Reply-To: Peter Eisenberger <[email protected]> Date: Tuesday, August 22, 2017 at 15:56 To: Greg Rau <[email protected]> Cc: Geoengineering <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [geo] The influence of learning about (CDR) on support for mitigation policies Hi Greg , Just for a moment of truth- free of moral hazards and climate change politics 1 Emissions reductions through capturing and storing CO2 cannot solve the climate problem alone (and cost too much ) 2 CDR can solve the problem alone -it is just more difficult without emissions reductions 3 While it is true that in the short term an emission reduction from a plant already operating is equivalent to a CDR reduction of the same size one can most effectively reduce emissions by switching to renewables 4 Now the tricky point is that any technology has a practical limit of how fast it can be implemented -so lets use a doubling of capacity every two years - we know that experience curves result in cost reductions with installed capacity 5 So if one wanted to achieve the paris targets as fast as possible one would invest in renewables and in CDR (DAC) and not spend a penny on emissions reductions which in reducing the rate (the opprotunity cost of emissions reductions)on would be slowing down the other two deployments increasing the time it would take for both renewables and CDR to reach the scale needed - because the last doublings ( when all the factories making CDR and renewable will quickly make up for the increased emmissions from existing plants -alternatively if one was to focus first on emissions reductions and then on the other two that would be the longest time to reach the capacities needed. This could easily be modeled but the key is the positive feedback created by building plants which results in enhanced rate ( new installations per year because of lower costs and earlier establishment of mass production capability ) make the opportunity cost of investing in emmissions reductions that will eventually end so large they are not worth doing . In simpler terms one does not ususally invest in solutions that cannot solve the problem if one has available approaches that do . I believe this logic is solid . The reason is has not been widely if at all accepted is because clean coal got started in an era where we mistakenly( Socolow and Pacala) thought that they together with renewables and other things (eg conservation , efficiency etc ) could solve te climate problem . Lots of vested interests exist(DOE in particular) that do not want to admit that all their effort was in a dry hole so to speak. So my position is if we are serious about the climate threat we should all focus on renewable energy and CDR and I believe of course (which I want others to evaluate) that DAC followed by use of the carbon that stores it is the CDR technology that can scale and offers a low cost solution because the co2 makes money . The other approach I would support investigating is enhancd weathering and of course fusion . On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 11:14 AM, Greg Rau <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Thanks, Peter. Just to amplify, the IPCC states that to stay below 2degC warming and esp below 1.5degC warming, both emissions reduction and CDR are required, not either/or. So how about the concept that emissions reduction presents a "moral hazard" to (required) CDR development? In any case, if even thinking about CDR (let alone doing it) is perceived by humans as a threat to emissions reduction (Campbell-Arvai et al., 2017), it's game over. We have to do both. I seriously doubt that humans are truly incapable of doing 2 things at once, but if they are we're toast (IPCC). Greg ________________________________ From: Peter Eisenberger <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> To: Andrew Lockley <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: geoengineering <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2017 1:40 AM Subject: Re: [geo] The influence of learning about (CDR) on support for mitigation policies This line of reasoning is logically flawed and is one of the best examples of how the role of CDR is misunderstood and distorted by others who have an anti technology orientation that pervaded the original environmental movement. It is logically flawed because it is normal for people to react to news that a new solution exists, CDR ,to a problem they thought they could solve by renewable energy, emissions reductions and conservation . The 2014 IPCC report confirmed what many knew that those processes are not adequate for avoiding a climate disaster and that CDR is needed. So switching ones emphasis to CDR solution that can solve the problem from ones that cannot makes sense- to not change ones emphasis is illogical. The original approach has its origins in the original environmental movement in which renewable energy , emissions reductions ,and energy conservation were the central tenets. The latter two garnered the support of the people who believe industrialization and human consumption is the real problem and want us to change. The two are combined in the moral hazard argument - eg CDR will reduce our commitment to the previous plan and will also be a technological fix that will argue against the fundamental tenet of the early environmental supporters - human development has to harm the environment so we have to reduce our footprint to zero. On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 11:59 PM, Andrew Lockley <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Poster's note: I'm working in this field, and the divide between liberals and conservatives is discussed in my paper. journals.sagepub.com/ doi/full/10.1177/ 1461452916659830<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__journals.sagepub.com_doi_full_10.1177_1461452916659830&d=DwMFaQ&c=l45AxH-kUV29SRQusp9vYR0n1GycN4_2jInuKy6zbqQ&r=hFjA8A8KwwhQx5qilpfIleTL0XYVr_fckT8DnwIEWlQ&m=aeIX0GnCm5RzRarzHD7FMNe7Fou5h5BjIEukq8Fy8ME&s=m9lZyelFxOBb-nKkMsLz26iN7BVJl-jAPA2xvmmYgic&e=> Climatic Change<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__link.springer.com_journal_10584&d=DwMFaQ&c=l45AxH-kUV29SRQusp9vYR0n1GycN4_2jInuKy6zbqQ&r=hFjA8A8KwwhQx5qilpfIleTL0XYVr_fckT8DnwIEWlQ&m=aeIX0GnCm5RzRarzHD7FMNe7Fou5h5BjIEukq8Fy8ME&s=fkMf8Ml8ngKEsV19Vtgb7IkUGZWul-OjcDWrwlKqn5s&e=> August 2017 , Volume 143, Issue 3–4<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__link.springer.com_journal_10584_143_3_page_1&d=DwMFaQ&c=l45AxH-kUV29SRQusp9vYR0n1GycN4_2jInuKy6zbqQ&r=hFjA8A8KwwhQx5qilpfIleTL0XYVr_fckT8DnwIEWlQ&m=aeIX0GnCm5RzRarzHD7FMNe7Fou5h5BjIEukq8Fy8ME&s=mDuYOEWRxZFVgm7aUOEu9vzh9gcDkFLAr3JM1-m0RSQ&e=>, pp 321–336 The influence of learning about carbon dioxide removal (CDR) on support for mitigation policies · Authors<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__link.springer.com_article_10.1007_s10584-2D017-2D2005-2D1-23authors&d=DwMFaQ&c=l45AxH-kUV29SRQusp9vYR0n1GycN4_2jInuKy6zbqQ&r=hFjA8A8KwwhQx5qilpfIleTL0XYVr_fckT8DnwIEWlQ&m=aeIX0GnCm5RzRarzHD7FMNe7Fou5h5BjIEukq8Fy8ME&s=kBeTsNzRRyzEOpX-mnfx4Stjb1OyTBu3Yy2pWKu_w5o&e=> · Authors and affiliations<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__link.springer.com_article_10.1007_s10584-2D017-2D2005-2D1-23authorsandaffiliations&d=DwMFaQ&c=l45AxH-kUV29SRQusp9vYR0n1GycN4_2jInuKy6zbqQ&r=hFjA8A8KwwhQx5qilpfIleTL0XYVr_fckT8DnwIEWlQ&m=aeIX0GnCm5RzRarzHD7FMNe7Fou5h5BjIEukq8Fy8ME&s=MwtU82AafqV_jm0UooLSL--AxYlN-oihY_AaIE1j-1w&e=> · Victoria Campbell-ArvaiEmail author<mailto:[email protected]> · P. Sol Hart · Kaitlin T. Raimi · Kimberly S. Wolske · o · o · o · o o 1. 1. 2. 2. 3. 3. 4. 4. 5. 5. Article First Online: 28 July 2017<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__link.springer.com_article_10.1007_s10584-2D017-2D2005-2D1-23article-2Ddates-2Dhistory&d=DwMFaQ&c=l45AxH-kUV29SRQusp9vYR0n1GycN4_2jInuKy6zbqQ&r=hFjA8A8KwwhQx5qilpfIleTL0XYVr_fckT8DnwIEWlQ&m=aeIX0GnCm5RzRarzHD7FMNe7Fou5h5BjIEukq8Fy8ME&s=lt-lYZYkqMyc-HFbsgdkEQGGamCGrQwsi6huCB7XdV8&e=> · 44Shares<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.altmetric.com_details.php-3Fcitation-5Fid-3D22932693-26domain-3Dlink.springer.com&d=DwMFaQ&c=l45AxH-kUV29SRQusp9vYR0n1GycN4_2jInuKy6zbqQ&r=hFjA8A8KwwhQx5qilpfIleTL0XYVr_fckT8DnwIEWlQ&m=aeIX0GnCm5RzRarzHD7FMNe7Fou5h5BjIEukq8Fy8ME&s=0iRKcZ19LtkJl1aMYNyMyPMoHUN04I4InPi4XAQMFnI&e=> · 201Downloads Abstract A wide range of carbon dioxide removal (CDR) strategies has been proposed to address climate change. As most CDR strategies are unfamiliar to the public, it is unknown how increased media and policy attention on CDR might affect public sentiment about climate change. On the one hand, CDR poses a potential moral hazard: if people perceive that CDR solves climate change, they may be less likely to support efforts to reduce carbon emissions. On the other hand, the need for CDR may increase the perceived severity of climate change and, thus, increase support for other types of mitigation. Using an online survey of US adults (N = 984), we tested these competing hypotheses by exposing participants to information about different forms of CDR. We find that learning about certain CDR strategies indirectly reduces support for mitigation policies by reducing the perceived threat of climate change. This was found to be true for participants who read about CDR in general (without mention of specific strategies), bioenergy with carbon capture and storage, or direct air capture. Furthermore, this risk compensation pattern was more pronounced among political conservatives than liberals—although in some cases, was partially offset by positive direct effects. Learning about reforestation, by contrast, had no indirect effects on mitigation support through perceived threat but was found to directly increase support among conservatives. The results suggest caution is warranted when promoting technological fixes to climate change, like CDR, as some forms may further dampen support for climate change action among the unengaged. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s10584-017-2005-1<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__doi.org_10.1007_s10584-2D017-2D2005-2D1&d=DwMFaQ&c=l45AxH-kUV29SRQusp9vYR0n1GycN4_2jInuKy6zbqQ&r=hFjA8A8KwwhQx5qilpfIleTL0XYVr_fckT8DnwIEWlQ&m=aeIX0GnCm5RzRarzHD7FMNe7Fou5h5BjIEukq8Fy8ME&s=8Nc7FzpUkQf4JE2M8vQVJ8bDjrwqeVEBsYJwfOu5-Dc&e=> ) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. -- 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+unsubscribe@ googlegroups.com<mailto:[email protected]>. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups. com<mailto:[email protected]>. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/ group/geoengineering<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__groups.google.com_group_geoengineering&d=DwMFaQ&c=l45AxH-kUV29SRQusp9vYR0n1GycN4_2jInuKy6zbqQ&r=hFjA8A8KwwhQx5qilpfIleTL0XYVr_fckT8DnwIEWlQ&m=aeIX0GnCm5RzRarzHD7FMNe7Fou5h5BjIEukq8Fy8ME&s=GDb_2oWddSqwHhwQLU5QUiqcN1mn2sUPro8M4GKnedI&e=>. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/ optout<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__groups.google.com_d_optout&d=DwMFaQ&c=l45AxH-kUV29SRQusp9vYR0n1GycN4_2jInuKy6zbqQ&r=hFjA8A8KwwhQx5qilpfIleTL0XYVr_fckT8DnwIEWlQ&m=aeIX0GnCm5RzRarzHD7FMNe7Fou5h5BjIEukq8Fy8ME&s=_9YXhmQrFnFRL6DlWkY9Ot57VlTiWTT4h9aEfzGfdf0&e=>. -- CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION: This email message and all attachments contain confidential and privileged information that are for the sole use of the intended recipients, which if appropriate applies under the terms of the non-disclosure agreement between the parties. -- 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<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__groups.google.com_group_geoengineering&d=DwMFaQ&c=l45AxH-kUV29SRQusp9vYR0n1GycN4_2jInuKy6zbqQ&r=hFjA8A8KwwhQx5qilpfIleTL0XYVr_fckT8DnwIEWlQ&m=aeIX0GnCm5RzRarzHD7FMNe7Fou5h5BjIEukq8Fy8ME&s=GDb_2oWddSqwHhwQLU5QUiqcN1mn2sUPro8M4GKnedI&e=>. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__groups.google.com_d_optout&d=DwMFaQ&c=l45AxH-kUV29SRQusp9vYR0n1GycN4_2jInuKy6zbqQ&r=hFjA8A8KwwhQx5qilpfIleTL0XYVr_fckT8DnwIEWlQ&m=aeIX0GnCm5RzRarzHD7FMNe7Fou5h5BjIEukq8Fy8ME&s=_9YXhmQrFnFRL6DlWkY9Ot57VlTiWTT4h9aEfzGfdf0&e=>. -- 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<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__groups.google.com_group_geoengineering&d=DwMFaQ&c=l45AxH-kUV29SRQusp9vYR0n1GycN4_2jInuKy6zbqQ&r=hFjA8A8KwwhQx5qilpfIleTL0XYVr_fckT8DnwIEWlQ&m=aeIX0GnCm5RzRarzHD7FMNe7Fou5h5BjIEukq8Fy8ME&s=GDb_2oWddSqwHhwQLU5QUiqcN1mn2sUPro8M4GKnedI&e=>. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__groups.google.com_d_optout&d=DwMFaQ&c=l45AxH-kUV29SRQusp9vYR0n1GycN4_2jInuKy6zbqQ&r=hFjA8A8KwwhQx5qilpfIleTL0XYVr_fckT8DnwIEWlQ&m=aeIX0GnCm5RzRarzHD7FMNe7Fou5h5BjIEukq8Fy8ME&s=_9YXhmQrFnFRL6DlWkY9Ot57VlTiWTT4h9aEfzGfdf0&e=>. -- CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION: This email message and all attachments contain confidential and privileged information that are for the sole use of the intended recipients, which if appropriate applies under the terms of the non-disclosure agreement between the parties. -- 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<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__groups.google.com_group_geoengineering&d=DwMFaQ&c=l45AxH-kUV29SRQusp9vYR0n1GycN4_2jInuKy6zbqQ&r=hFjA8A8KwwhQx5qilpfIleTL0XYVr_fckT8DnwIEWlQ&m=aeIX0GnCm5RzRarzHD7FMNe7Fou5h5BjIEukq8Fy8ME&s=GDb_2oWddSqwHhwQLU5QUiqcN1mn2sUPro8M4GKnedI&e=>. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__groups.google.com_d_optout&d=DwMFaQ&c=l45AxH-kUV29SRQusp9vYR0n1GycN4_2jInuKy6zbqQ&r=hFjA8A8KwwhQx5qilpfIleTL0XYVr_fckT8DnwIEWlQ&m=aeIX0GnCm5RzRarzHD7FMNe7Fou5h5BjIEukq8Fy8ME&s=_9YXhmQrFnFRL6DlWkY9Ot57VlTiWTT4h9aEfzGfdf0&e=>. -- 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.
