All I can say is that there are two responses to a real emergency - a
response that says try everything and one that prioritizes. In most
situations and all with long time responses prioritization is always
chosen as the more effective approach . We are in a real emergency it
is our responsibility to prioritize if we want to really address the
threat effectively . Yes I suggest that while DAC should not be the
only thing to be supported it is at this time the number 1 priority .
I am willing to listen to other opinions and change my mind as needed
. I have also tried to add credibility by saying I pledge not to take
public funding if the recommendation was honored.
Doug , please understnd my call for prioritization is because of the
seriousness of the threat we face . We need to move beyond the
research phase and start the long effort required ASAP . I see a non
prioritized agenda resulting in marginal progress on many fronts and
significant progress (scale ) on none. The power of learning by doing
means we got to start on our best choices now.
On Sun, Dec 3, 2017 at 5:22 PM, Douglas MacMartin
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Peter,
I’d just add to Mike’s point that the specific wording of yours
that I explicitly disagree with is the word “priority”. To me,
that suggests, well, a prioritization… that is, we should focus on
DAC to the exclusion of other approaches. If you think we should
consider all of the available options, and invest in all of them,
then you shouldn’t use the word priority, nor say things like “The
BEST path to address the threat of catastrophic climate change
involves DAC with permeant storage”
Personally, I think we need a portfolio of options, and we
shouldn’t ignore any of them (and if you said we could only
prioritize one thing, I would rather strongly vote for
mitigation). DAC and SRM are different tools in the toolbox, and
as Mike points out, the “best” solution quite possibly involves
both of them, along with aggressive mitigation, and maybe along
with other methods for CDR. That is quite a different statement
from stating that one particular approach is the best, and that
one particular approach should be prioritized.
Two other comments:
Right now the sum total US federal research on SRM is, within a
rounding error, zero. So no, it is not only DAC that is receiving
no funding. Funding right now for DAC I suspect outweighs funding
for SRM if you include philanthropic.
Also note that you attribute to me “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”. I don’t think it is possible to
demonstrate DAC at Gt scale without investing in it, so I don’t
know how you could read my email and conclude that I believe we
should delay investing in DAC.
doug
*From:*[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>
[mailto:[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>] *On Behalf Of *Michael
MacCracken
*Sent:* Sunday, December 03, 2017 4:07 PM
*To:* Peter Eisenberger <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>
*Cc:* Douglas MacMartin <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>; Michael Hayes
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>;
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
Dear Peter--The IPCC FOD (first order draft) of the 1.5 C special
report is what is really concerning me.
First, they label their emissions pathways by the end point
temperature that they are aiming for a century or so in the
future; thus a 1.5 C pathway is aiming at 1.5 C, but there is wide
recognition and apparent acceptance that the temperature path will
overshoot not just 1.5 or 2 C, but could well go a good bit over 3
C before the forcings are brought back down enough (via negative
emissions, etc.) to get back to 1.5 C. Well, right now,
simulations by Climate Interactive etc. have the world exceeding 2
C by 2050 and headed up a good bit further. So, we'll be having
all this talk about being on 1.5 pathways when in reality the
impacts will be primarily determined by the peak temperature, say
3 or 3.5 C, and some, like biodiversity loss and acceleration of
ice sheet loss (and perhaps ocean acidification effects) are not
really going to be reversible. Well, I just don't see emissions as
likely to be cut fast enough or DAC as being phased up fast enough
to prevent this, and I think the temperature/climate induced
impacts are only likely to be able to be avoided with SRM, so it
is needed in the near-term, and until emissions cuts and DAC can
take over.
My second problem with the IPCC FOD 1.5 report is that it
basically accepts (based on no scientific evidence--only that
negotiators chose that value as an aspirational goal) as the
agreed upon long-term equilibrium temperature for society. In my
view (not to mention the views of others), that is just too high a
value. As Hansen et al. have argued, some long-term impacts like
accelerating glacial ice loss and intensifying climate extremes,
for example, started once we passed 0.5 C, so what we really need
to do is get to below this value for the long-term (and some argue
0.5 C would be too high if one wants to really freeze stop the
glacial loss (if that is possible). Well, while SRM could get us
that cool, we really have to be working to phase out SRM, and so
DAC is critical and is, as you suggest, the way to really not be
creating other impacts in the long-term. But, it is going to take
time to get there, and during this time, SRM has the potential to,
with I think what might well be pretty modest negative impacts, to
be holding down the climate change impacts until DAC is adequately
phased up.
What I think about your response that might rub those of us
responding to you is the implication that DAC can do everything
needed--well, with really tremendous cost, it could (starting now,
to keep the temperature from not going up further, it would need
to be removing enough CO2 to keep the atmospheric concentration
from rising, so something like 40 GtCO2/yr--plus more to account
for increases in methane, etc.--and while this could perhaps, on a
technological basis, be done, this just seems to be a lot less
likely and much more expensive than starting with SRM while
emissions are phased down and DAC is phased up.
It basically seems to me that the trends and impacts today make
clear that the actual global temperature increase needs to be kept
to less than 1.5 C and that early on there needs to be action
aimed at moving the peak global average temperature increase back
to below 0.5 C over the next few decades, doing all we can by
emissions reductions of CO2 and especially short-lived species,
strong efficiency efforts, moving aggressively to renewables, as
much CDR as possible, and then the rest by SRM. So, we need every
arrow in our quiver, and not implementing all throughout coming
decades will result in significant negative consequences. Having
you advocate this as well would seem to me the way to best unify
our perspectives.
Best, Mike
On 12/3/17 3:06 PM, Peter Eisenberger wrote:
Dear Mike ,
Something stange is going on here that perhaps you can help me
understand . I repeatedly state that I am for doing research
on other things and SRM explicitly . Yet somehow in asserting
what i believe is a higher priority for our common objective I
am accused of argunig against supporting other things. Maybe I
have been out of a zero sum funding world but in any case I
reject such logic as a basis for shaping our scientific
positions. I think a let a 100 flowers bloom or everything
goes approach shirks our responsibility as scientists where we
should discipline ourselves to use our knowledge to prioritize
things . I assert again I cannot support nor do I think it is
justified to support SRM before one supports DAC . One is a
backup and the other is a shot a a solution -the only
sustainable solution(eg with renewable energy etc I know at
this time
The logic that a large investment in DAC will rob funds for
other purposes is just wrong. As the paper I sent you shows
certainly alot of DAC ( I argue all ) can use the CO2 to make
money (not a cost a benefit) and store it at the same time. So
as I have written I am convinced that in this century we will
be harvesting our carbon from the sky (where it is excess)
rather than mining it from the ground. $50 per tonne CO2 in
terms of carbon content is about $40 per barrel. Yes I do
assert that DAC that is used to provide our liquid fuels,
hydrocarbions and our building materials will not be a burden
on society but an asset. By the way if one is concerned about
wasting capital than join me in appposing electric vehicles
and instead suport renewable gasoline made for CO2 from the
air and hydrogen from water powereed by the sun. That will
save trillions in new infrastructure that could indeed be
better spent on education or health or other infrastructure .
Peter
On Sun, Dec 3, 2017 at 11:39 AM, Michael MacCracken
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
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
<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.
