Dear Doug I am trying to understand what in my responses is causing this confusion .
To try and be clear 1 prioritization generally and certainly in my use of the term does NOT mean only the highest priority gets funded 2 I support 100 % doing work on SRM as defined by the experts in that field as well as of course mitigation and adaptation efforts not to mention renewable energy I assume you do not disagree with the above I then assert that CDR is necessary to address the threat of catastrophic climate change while all the others except for renewable energy are important but in principle , not what I am advocating , we can address the threat with CDR and renewable energy . I only make this point because the importance of CDR for addressing the threat we face is for many reasons been distorted in the policy debate . SRM is being debated on issues that are reasonable by the experts and have solid people advocating it in the public square . This is a good thing . However DAC has no voice in the public square and its perception is distorted by the lack of support even denigration by experts not themselves doing it . So my only request is that rather than SRM advocates argue that the failure of CDR is a basis for doing SRM that they advocate that SRM without CDR is not a sustainable solution and thus support a vigorous CDR effort as part of their argument . More generally I am asking all those who are concerned about the threat we face to ask the question about the non CDR approach they are advocating whether it can succeed if their is not a successful CDR effort as well As I have stated many times I believe this distortion in the perception of CDR generally and DAC in particular is a very serious issue I my view the science clearly says every year we delay achieving the CDR capacity we will need to reduce the co2 levels below those considered risky for catastrophic climate change increases the risk of unspeakable destruction that could be avoided Thus all I am asking which I hope others would agree with is for us to take the steps to rectify the misperceptions associated with DAC and then let the stakeholder policy community decide what to do Right now all our plans and efforts do not include a path to a solution . Those efforts should continue but we all need to advocate with high priority that the CDR /DAC option be pursued. If we do not I guarantee that future generations will judge our collective efforts harshly . This is not an academic debate . The outcome of our decisions as experts will have consequences I hope of course you and others also agree with the above . I also hope we can continue a respectful debate if you disagee Peter Sent from my iPhone > On Dec 4, 2017, at 7:27 AM, Douglas MacMartin <macma...@cds.caltech.edu> > wrote: > > Hi Peter, > > Thanks for clarifying. I think I can safely say that we quite strongly > disagree, at least with regards to semantics. > > For two reasons: > 1) SRM and CDR do different things and are therefore more appropriately > thought of as two different and complementary tools, rather than > alternatives, and > 2) For ways of ultimately avoiding having CO2 in the atmosphere I think > it is premature to pick a single winning approach. > > Prioritization in a response to an emergency doesn’t mean picking a single > thing. If we’re concerned about deaths in car accidents we invest in road > safety, driver education, car safety, law enforcement, and ABS, seat belts, > and air bags. After Pearl Harbour, the US didn’t decide to invest only in > the air force or the navy or the army. If we’re concerned about greenhouse > gases we should pay attention to CO2 and to methane and other SLCFs. If you > have a heart attack you consider dietary changes, blood pressure medication, > and surgery. In all of these, the reason for multiple strategies is that > they come at the problem from different tacks and are thus complementary, and > not alternatives. Same thing with SRM and CDR; I’ve never understood why > some people seem to view this as a competition in which there’ll be a single > winner – if we think the situation is serious, we come up with an overall > strategy on how to manage risk, and that strategy unequivocally includes > mitigation, pretty certainly includes CDR, and quite plausibly ALSO includes > SRM to avoid overshoot. > > It is entirely appropriate to prioritize within CDR approaches and focus only > on those that can be scaled up at reasonable cost without local impacts (and > for example that might mean retiring terrestrial BECCS). I don’t know if > that’s premature, but that’s a separate discussion. > > The idea of SRM is not reason why people haven’t been investing in scaling up > DAC, the reason is some mix of cost and short-term thinking. > > d > > From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com > [mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Peter Eisenberger > Sent: Sunday, December 03, 2017 11:47 PM > To: Douglas MacMartin <macma...@cds.caltech.edu> > Cc: Michael MacCracken <mmacc...@comcast.net>; Michael Hayes > <voglerl...@gmail.com>; geoengineering <geoengineering@googlegroups.com>; > David Keith <david_ke...@harvard.edu> > Subject: Re: [geo] Scientists Look to Bali Volcano for Clues to Curb Climate > Change - Scientific American > > 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 <macma...@cds.caltech.edu> > 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: geoengineering@googlegroups.com > [mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Michael MacCracken > Sent: Sunday, December 03, 2017 4:07 PM > To: Peter Eisenberger <peter.eisenber...@gmail.com> > Cc: Douglas MacMartin <macma...@cds.caltech.edu>; Michael Hayes > <voglerl...@gmail.com>; geoengineering <geoengineering@googlegroups.com>; > David Keith <david_ke...@harvard.edu> > > 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 <mmacc...@comcast.net> > 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 <macma...@cds.caltech.edu> > 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: geoengineering@googlegroups.com > [mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Peter Eisenberger > Sent: Sunday, December 03, 2017 4:48 AM > To: Michael Hayes <voglerl...@gmail.com> > Cc: geoengineering <geoengineering@googlegroups.com>; David Keith > <david_ke...@harvard.edu> > 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 <voglerl...@gmail.com> wrote: > Sentinel-SP5 feed: > > 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 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. > > > > -- > 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 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. > > > > -- > 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 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. > > > > > -- > 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 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. > > > > -- > 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 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. -- 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.
