Dear Peter--I don't really think you can say that your approach is
without the risk of adverse impacts in that it will take much longer to
pull down the temperature than will DAC. Yes, DAC gets you to the lower
temperature over time, but in the interim a lot is going on. Now, yes,
if a very great more were invested to implement DAC, one could have a
nearer-term impact, but then one is taking money from society for other
purposes, etc. It seems to me, the metric to be used for comparison
might be the net reduction in impacts (I do agree SRM would not uniquely
lead to less impacts everywhere and of every type) per unit of money of
some amount invested.
This is not in any way to be saying we should not be investing in DAC
but I don't think your argument makes the case for not also doing
research on SRM of various types (and SRM is getting very little
research money as well). Given the seriousness and imminence of the
predicament that we are in, in my opinion, a broad-based and aggressive
research effort is needed that recognizes the advantages and
shortcomings of each type of approach and ultimately aims for a program
that draws on multiple approaches to deal with the rapidly worsening
situation.
Best, Mike MacCracken
On 12/3/17 2:24 PM, Peter Eisenberger wrote:
Dear Doug ,
I am sorry for the misunderstanding : I am clearly for doing efforts
on other approaches including SRM
But the situation as it stands is that the only solution conceptually
that can address the threat of climate change without the risk of
adverse impacts is DAC with permanent storage. Yet it is the only
approach to this date that has effectively zero public funding support
and until very recently policy support. So my argument is that we all
should support public funding of DAC efforts that can be published and
shared that will test the premise that it can be done at low cost at a
gigatonne scale. What I have further shared is that our commercial
efforts involving experts in industrail gas technology ( eg
separating gases from air) have determined that $50 per tonne DAC is
achievable and that we are having great commercial success -so much so
that I have committed us not to seek public funding if it were approved.
So the only reason I am writing about this is because I do not think
we should delay investing in DAC till as you say
Once we have demonstrated DAC with permanent storage at Gt scale and
proven it to be low cost with no side effects,
When I read that I think that every year we delay starting a serious
effort on DAC is a year longer of risking catastrophic climate change
-the overshoot will be more and the time will be greater. So I
literally believe that I need to surpress my interests in the company
where others delaying is better(less competition) and instead as a
scientist try to get people to understand that DAC will be low cost
-all we have to do is do it . Furthermore I argue that our patents
that are public enable an indpendent person like Ellen Stechl to
understand why DAC can be low cost and why others are mistaken in
asserting otherwse .
Peter
On Sun, Dec 3, 2017 at 4:30 AM, Douglas MacMartin
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Peter,
Once we have demonstrated DAC with permanent storage at Gt scale
and proven it to be low cost with no side effects, then I would
agree that we can stop researching other options. Until then I
think it is premature to declare that we have found the solution
and can ignore every other option. I know you disagree with me,
but I do not think that we know what the costs of a technology are
going to be when we haven’t implemented it at even a tiny fraction
of a meaningful scale. I’m not convinced that it will be as cheap
as you believe it to be, but furthermore, it is not possible for
you to convince me without demonstrating both removal and storage
at Gt scale; sorry, but I’ve been an engineer all my life and have
seen my share of overconfident predictions (and probably safe to
say zero accurate predictions at this stage of technology
development), and I simply don’t believe that it is theoretically
possible to accurately predict costs and issues to sufficient
accuracy without actually doing something.
Therefore I don’t understand why you insist on picking the right
solution today and stopping all research on all other solutions.
I don’t view this as a competition.
At any rate, if you have any concern about nonlinearities and
tipping points, you should strongly support research into SRM, as
that’s a pretty strong argument in favour of it. We don’t know
what would happen if we allowed the planet to keep warming, but
we’re a lot less likely to pass major earth system tipping points
if we keep the system “closer” to the current state. That is, of
course it is almost trivially true that a world that is say 1.5C
(just to use the Paris number, not endorsing it) due only to CO2
is less risky than a world that would have been 3C due to CO2 but
is brought back to 1.5C with SRM. But that second scenario is
quite likely to be less risky than allowing a 3C world. Although
we don’t actually know that today, not without further research.
So I’m not sure why you’re so vehemently opposed to any further
research into SRM… which is how I interpret your comments.
doug
*From:*[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>
[mailto:[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>] *On Behalf Of *Peter
Eisenberger
*Sent:* Sunday, December 03, 2017 4:48 AM
*To:* Michael Hayes <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>
*Cc:* geoengineering <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>; David Keith
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
*Subject:* Re: [geo] Scientists Look to Bali Volcano for Clues to
Curb Climate Change - Scientific American
Vocanic euptions have impacts that are much more imporant than
their transitory impact on climate. Their most significant role is
in replenishing critcal elements to preserve the fertiliity of the
soil.
This in turn of course raises the issue of what the impact will be
of human efforts to do SRM on the rest of the ecosystems. This in
turn is the cause for concern about unexpected consequences and a
concern that cannot be addressed
by theory or experiment because complex systems evolution is not
predictable and we only have one planet. The important aspect of
climate change from a risk perspective is not the first order
linear responses but rather whether one crosses some tipping point
where the internal feedbacks drive the system to a very different
and usually catastrophic state. Such tipping points are an
inherent property of both the climate and the ecosystems and ala
the butterfly effect are inherently unpredictable.
Thus the real issue is not how SRM is like volcanoes but rather
what are the unintended feedback from SRM. As a physicist ,and
not a DAC advocate, the fact is that DAC with permanent storage
is the path to address the risk of catastrophic climate change
that has the lowest risk of triggering adverse impacts compared to
alternatives when implemented at a global scale for any
signiifcant period of time.
It is clear to that all of us share the goal of wanting to prevent
the consequences of catastrophic climate change. So in the
positive spirit of tryimg to develop a consencus ageneda I assert
The BEST path to address the threat of catastrophic climate
change involves DAC with permeant storage -it is necessary .
I respectfully ask for resposes to this assertion and that we
have a constructive dialoque to see if if stands up to scrutiny.
I do not want to be asserting an incorect postion but I do want
our community
to develop a clear science based consencus for the best actions to
take.
Again to be clear I personally support R&D on SRM but in the
context that DAC with permanent storage is the clear priority. If
my assertion is wrong and in fact we have no low risk and cost
path to addressing the risk than of course SRM would have a high
priority and I would want us to be asserting that .
On Sat, Dec 2, 2017 at 11:10 AM, Michael Hayes
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Sentinel-SP5 feed:
http://m.esa.int/spaceinimages/Images/2017/12/Sentinel-5P_captures_Bali_volcanic_eruption
<http://m.esa.int/spaceinimages/Images/2017/12/Sentinel-5P_captures_Bali_volcanic_eruption>
--
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:geoengineering%[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://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering>.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout
<https://groups.google.com/d/optout>.
--
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://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering>.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout
<https://groups.google.com/d/optout>.
--
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.
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.
