Thanks for this, Oliver. I must say that your second point only increases my trepidation. We are now asked to indulge the fiction that we'll, almost by magic or sheer luck at this point, attain an optimal level of SAI through the efforts of a multiplicity of actors, presumably not working in concert, since you seem to concede that different actors would likely have greatly different temperature objectives. I always thought that our current state of climatic woes were frightening, but that is, indeed, an even more frightening scenario.
As for what I consider to be a niggle between the concept of "continuous" and "preserved" governance, if your vision is a series of unconnected efforts to govern a system for which the very future of the climate's equilibrium could hang on getting it right, that is also an extremely frightening vision. Finally, in terms of the precautionary principle, the termination effect could result in temperature increases of 6-10x that of a business as usual scenario for a number of decades; it strikes me that status quote climate response measures are thus more precautionary, even without additional interventions to address climate change. Moreover, again, there's an extremely binary framing of our policy options implied by this argument, i.e. that we're weighing the impacts of a business as usual scenario's risks against deployment of SRM. However, if we can indulge the fiction that we can cobble together hundreds, or a thousand years' worth of governance of an SAI enterprise, and coordinate the efforts of a multiplicity of actors to ensure that we don't deploy at a level that poses a serious threat of termination, then I think we can indulge the fiction of working more mightily on mitigation, as well as an emphasis on reducing short-lived radiative forcers to buy us time for decarbonization. If we're going to "dream big," let's dream big, and focus, on what I would suggest is a more positive vision of the future, and one which is likely to engender far less international resistance. wil Dr. Wil Burns Co-Executive Director, Forum for Climate Engineering Assessment, School of International Service, American University 650.281.9126 | w...@feronia.org | http://www.ceassessment.org | Skype: wil.burns | 2650 Haste St., Towle Hall #G07, Berkeley, CA 94720| View my research on my SSRN Author page: http://ssrn.com/author=240348 -----Original Message----- From: 'Oliver Morton' via Carbon Dioxide Removal [mailto:carbondioxideremo...@googlegroups.com] Sent: Monday, March 12, 2018 12:34 PM To: Wil Burns <w...@feronia.org> Cc: Douglas MacMartin <dgm...@cornell.edu>; Leon Di Marco <len2...@gmail.com>; Carbon Dioxide Removal <carbondioxideremo...@googlegroups.com>; geoengineering@googlegroups.com; Andy Parker <apark...@gmail.com>; Peter Irvine <p.j.irv...@gmail.com> Subject: Re: [CDR] SRM and CDR - The risk of termination shock from solar geoengineering Cross posting to the geoengineering list, since as Wil pointed out this might well sit better there. At which point, Wil, I'm afraid my agreement sort of runs out. The paper by Andy and Pete just doesn't have the flaws you claim. You say it presumes that "The world community as a whole, without unilateral dissent, agrees as to what the “optimal” temperature should be over the course of the next 50-100 years" It doesn't. While it suggests that risks might be lower if the decision to implement were taken in such a way as to win the widest possible support, it says nothing about an optimising decision by the world community as whole. It devotes significant time to what the options open to political opponents of SRM -- unilateral, or indeed multilateral, dissenters -- might be, and what other conditions need to be in place for that dissent to lead to a termination shock. Specifically, that a unanimity of actors capable of SRM has to be convinced -- or have the belief imposed on them by force majeure -- that a termination shock is preferable to either continuing SRM or phasing SRM out over a relatively small number of decades. You also say it presumes that "there’s a central authority with their hand on the thermostat". Again, it doesn't. Indeed it lays welcome weight -- welcome in the sense that I think it has been underplayed in previous discussions -- on the high likelihood that a world with SRM would be highly likely to have various independent or quasi-independent players capable of shouldering the SRM burden. In such a world there will be a number of different parties that can choose to increase levels of SRM, or to slow down any decrease. No one party can unilaterally choose to lower them. This clearly has its problems, as Gernot and Marty's "free driver" analysis shows. But they are not the problem of a single hand on the thermostat, nor do they stem from the unlikelihood of "binding limits" and all countries "ceding sovereignty". And they are not problems that lead to a termination shock. Is a world with multiple SRM capabilities likely? Consider another thing which might be considered a global good: satellite positioning services. For such systems to work they needs must be global, and so in some narrow economic sense there needs to be only one. But in terms of geopolitical strategy that's a non starter -- no major power is going to rely on another for something so strategically important. So China and Russia have satellite navigation systems which China, at least, is in a position to develop further, and Europe is starting to deploy another. This sort of redundancy is not, as your post suggests, a "belt and braces" approach that requires "a high level of coordination at the international level that is belied by climate politics to date" -- more or less the reverse; it grows out of strategic uncertainty and the perceived need for an ability to keep acting in a self-interested and un-coordinated way. Climate politics suggest that that which is self-interested and un-coordinated is not unlikely. This leads to another point where I think your logic lets you down. You say that large scale SRM would "require...governance for CENTURIES or perhaps a MILLENNIUM." There are quite plausible scenarios where this is not true -- you allude to one yourself, when you talk of "peak shaving", but there are others. You seem to think such scenarios unlikely and their discussion dangerous (indeed your critique seems founded on the idea that this article is in some way an argument in favour peak shaving scenarios, which I think is a stretch, since the term is never used). But they are an example of relatively short-term SRM. However, continuing on the point about a commitment of centuries or even a millennium, you say that that would require "a governance architecture unprecedented in the history of mankind." That is an unwarranted leap. Continuous governance does not imply a preserved governance architecture; it just implies that, at a given time, something is governed. There is also a reference I don't understand. You say that there is "research that indicates that long-term bio-geochemical feedbacks might severely denude the effectiveness of said approach, creating a 'natural' termination effect" Could you say what you are referring to here? Such feedbacks would have to not just impose diminishing returns on SRM, but also to have a threshold beyond which the effects of SRM vanish completely and rapidly. I am at a loss as to what such feedbacks might be. I also agree with Doug McMartin on the precautionary principle; it is not remotely obvious which way it should point in this discussion. Best wishes Oliver On 12 March 2018 at 14:52, Wil Burns <w...@feronia.org> wrote: > Since I already committed the cardinal sin of responding to an article > focus on SRM, and further taking us off the focus on CDR that this > list was created for, my response to you (and Mike) will be brief: I > find that some researchers (not you) are engaged in a bit of a Monty > Pythonesque “wink and nod” when it comes to SRM deployment, i.e. while > they piously intone that they only support research, they: a. Frame > the issue in an ultra-Manichean manner, i.e. our options are climatic > catastrophe under a business as usual scenario, or “consideration” of > SRM, which is then often gussied up as ensuring that “all regions” of > the world are “better off” if we ultimately proceed with said > deployment. Dare I say that I’ve seen such language in SRM research > pieces recently?; b. Rather blithely suggest that potentially > catastrophic consequences of deployment, the termination effect being > front and center, can be minimized by measures such as those outlined > in the Parker piece. In all such cases, and nothing I’ve seen in > response here suggests otherwise, I think that those prescriptions are > internally illogical, i.e. they all assume that the world has reached > a momentous state of climatic crisis because of disparate interests in > terms of climate policymaking, but now assumes that we can finely > craft a regime that rather precisely “peaks” deployment of SRM at some > “optimal” level that avoids the termination effect, is resilient for > hundreds or thousands of years, and can ensure that biogeochemical feedbacks > won’t ultimately terminate its effectiveness even if geopolitical forces do > not. > > > > When I read pieces such as this, I see a clear strain of advocacy, i.e. > extremely serious risks associated with SRM deployment are being given > short shrift. I’ve also seen public presentations of this research > that essentially mocks those who raise the concerns about termination. > As one African minister at one of these presentations remarked to me, > it’s essentially if they are telling us to shut up and trust them. For > me, the threat of the termination effect is one that can’t be wished > away, and this risk is so momentous that it leads me to argue that we > should be concentrating our efforts on short-term measures to avoid > passing critical thresholds, e.g. addressing black carbon and further > accelerating the phase-out of HFCs, as well as a longer-term strategy > of exploring the prospects for CDR options and far more aggressive > measures for de-carbonizing the economy and picking the low-hanging > fruit of energy efficiency. I’ll stop there, and promise not to darken > the doorway of the CDR list with any further discussion of SRM. wil > > > > > > > > Dr. Wil Burns > Co-Executive Director, Forum for Climate Engineering Assessment, > School of International Service, American University > > 650.281.9126 | w...@feronia.org | http://www.ceassessment.org | Skype: > wil.burns | > 2650 Haste St., Towle Hall #G07, Berkeley, CA 94720| View my research > on my SSRN Author page: http://ssrn.com/author=240348 > > > > > > > > From: Douglas MacMartin [mailto:dgm...@cornell.edu] > Sent: Monday, March 12, 2018 5:08 AM > To: Wil Burns <w...@feronia.org>; Leon Di Marco <len2...@gmail.com>; > Carbon Dioxide Removal <carbondioxideremo...@googlegroups.com> > Subject: RE: [CDR] SRM and CDR - The risk of termination shock from > solar geoengineering > > > > Wil, > > > > No offense, but I’m more gobsmacked by your response than anything in this! > > > > Two things: > > Nowhere in the article, nor in any of my conversations, is there any > suggestion consistent with “While folks e.g. Parker advocate SRM” . > You’ve been involved in this debate long enough, you know perfectly > well that Andy doesn’t advocate SRM, and indeed I’ve never heard a > single person advocate doing it (though I know a couple of people who > have at least said something of the form “if X was true then we > should” where we all know that X isn’t true, typically “X” being > “ignoring the sociopolitical concerns”; that’s as close to “advocate” > as I’ve ever heard anyone get to, other than the Dalai Lama and > Gingrich who were both woefully uninformed). Lots of us advocate > doing research and thinking carefully about it, including Andy. (Nor > do I think he used language like “obviate”, which to me suggests that > you think he thinks the risk is zero, rather than what he actually > wrote that there are ways to reduce the risk. Agree that judging how > effectively one can reduce the risk is a challenge about which > reasonable people will disagree, though arguing that it is possible to > reduce the risk seems rather obvious to me.) Directly related; the > reason many of us advocate research and thinking carefully about it is > because the future is scary no matter what. If you think implementing > some limited amount of SRM, and having multiple nations capable of > deploying is a “Rube Goldberg”, do you really think that it will be > trivial to adjust to a 3 or 4 degree world with associated > millennial-scale commitments to sea level rise etc? Yes, governance > of SRM would be unprecedented, but so would governance of a future > world without SRM. I think humility on both sides would be warranted; > yes there are serious risks to consider for doing SRM, yes there are > serious risks to consider for not doing SRM, we certainly don’t know > the balance of risks today to say what “should” be chosen in the > future because we don’t know either risk well enough, but regardless > we aren’t the ones choosing anyway (for which I’m certainly glad). I > will object to anyone on either side who thinks we already know > everything we need to know to make a decision, and that includes both > physical risks and societal risks. So I could equally well accuse you of > insouciance when it comes to the risks associated with climate change. > > And specifically, I don’t agree that “risk of termination” is a > show-stopper sufficient to argue that there are no circumstances under > which we would ever deploy SRM, and I don’t agree that “risk of > termination” is so trivially manageable that we can forget about it. > Substitute any other risk, or “governance” or whatever you want, and > my sentence would be roughly the same. > I don’t even know how to assign the sign of applying the precautionary > principle to SRM. Nor do I think anyone knows enough to know that yet. > > > > Bottom line is, I think we’re all in total agreement (you, me, and > Andy, though I can’t speak for either of you) – we really need to > mitigate and develop/deploy CDR at scale, and then if we work hard > enough and we’re also lucky then we won’t be faced with having to > decide about this. Just that folks like Andy or me aren’t > sufficiently confident, and think we need to think carefully about it. > > > > doug > > > > From: carbondioxideremo...@googlegroups.com > [mailto:carbondioxideremo...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Wil Burns > Sent: Monday, March 12, 2018 12:43 AM > To: Leon Di Marco <len2...@gmail.com>; Carbon Dioxide Removal > <carbondioxideremo...@googlegroups.com> > Subject: RE: [CDR] SRM and CDR - The risk of termination shock from > solar geoengineering > > > > I am not sure why I’m still gobsmacked by Andy Parker’s insouciance > when it comes to the risks associated with SRM approaches such as SAI, > but I still am. A couple of thoughts about this piece: > > > > It should be emphasized at the outset that that the potentially > catastrophic implications of the termination/rebound effect (which I > think were actually underplayed in the EF article) places an extremely > high burden of proof on anyone who supports deployment of SAI if the > precautionary principle/approach is to mean anything in the context of > international environmental law, and it should. I don’t think this > piece comes near to meeting that burden; Parker, et al. argue that > peak shaving, i.e. limited deployment of SRM technologies, might > obviate the threats associated with the termination effect. Beyond the > fact that this assertion is based on what remains extremely > speculative modeling, it presumes two things: 1. The world community > as a whole, without unilateral dissent, agrees as to what the > “optimal” temperature should be over the course of the next 50-100 > years, which is not likely to be true (Russia and Canada, for example, > in less guarded moments, will admit that they believe that substantial > increases in temperature may produce net benefits for them in terms of > increases in agricultural productivity); and b. Given this reality, > there’s a central authority with their hand on the thermostat (and > this argument is also germane to the assertion that we could agree to > a scheduled phase-out of SAI deployment). While folks e.g. Parker > advocate SRM largely because of the feckless response of the world > community to climate change, they indulge the fiction that this same > community will now come together to agree to binding limits on the > deployment of SAI, and that individual countries will cede > sovereignty. That does not reflect my 35 years of experience in > international negotiations associated with climate change; Parker et > al. also argue that a “belt and suspenders” approach to SAI > deployment, i.e. having backup systems in place, would ensure that the > termination effect did not occur. Again, this assumes a high level of > coordination at the international level that is belied by climate politics to > date. It also ignores a broader question, which is whether “termination” > might occur as a consequence of the actual failure of SAI in the > longer term. While we have some empirical evidence from volcanic events, e.g. > Pinatubo, injection of sulfur into the stratosphere in the short term > would exert a cooling effect, we do not know what happens with ongoing > injections, and there’s some research that indicates that long-term > bio-geochemical feedbacks might severely denude the effectiveness of > said approach, creating a “natural” termination effect; And, finally, > it needs to be emphasized that large-scale deployment of an SAI > approach would require governance (including the Rube Goldberg > approach advocated here by Parker, et al, i.e. peak shaving, back-up > systems, etc.) for CENTURIES or perhaps a MILLENNIUM. As Marcia McNutt > suggested a few years ago, such governance architecture would be > unprecedented in the history of mankind. > > > > wil > > > > > > > > Dr. Wil Burns > Co-Executive Director, Forum for Climate Engineering Assessment, > School of International Service, American University > > 650.281.9126 | w...@feronia.org | http://www.ceassessment.org | Skype: > wil.burns | > 2650 Haste St., Towle Hall #G07, Berkeley, CA 94720| View my research > on my SSRN Author page: http://ssrn.com/author=240348 > > > > > > > > From: carbondioxideremo...@googlegroups.com > [mailto:carbondioxideremo...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Leon Di > Marco > Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2018 6:10 PM > To: Carbon Dioxide Removal <carbondioxideremo...@googlegroups.com> > Subject: [CDR] SRM and CDR - The risk of termination shock from solar > geoengineering > > > > https://www.carbonbrief.org/solar-geoengineering-risk-termination-shoc > k-overplayed-study > > > > GEOENGINEERING > > 12 March 2018 0:01 > > Solar geoengineering: Risk of ‘termination shock’ overplayed, study > says > > > > > > > > The policy options put forward in the paper do not require > decision-makers to “behave with perfect rationality”, the authors > note, but that they “must just avoid wanton irrationality”. > > Although this may seem reasonable, says Prof Alan Robock of Rutgers > University, “unreasonable policy decisions are made all the time”. He asks: > “Can we count on future political actors to be reasonable?” > > It is also worth remembering that the potential for termination shock > is just one of many other potential risks and concerns with SRM, he > tells Carbon Brief: > > “Even if termination shock were less likely, there are still many > reasons why SRM would not be a robust policy option.” > > That said, Robock “completely agrees” with the last paragraph of the > paper, which argues that the solution to global warming is mitigation > and adaptation so that SRM is not necessary in the first place: > > “Our final conclusion is the most obvious and important. The best way > to avoid termination would be to avoid a situation where a large > amount of SRM would be needed to reduce committed climate risks. > Strong action on mitigation would reduce the amount of SRM necessary > to maintain a stable global temperature. > > The development of safe and scalable CO2 removal techniques could > reduce the cooling needed from SRM after deployment, and strong > adaptation investment would reduce the suffering from the residual > climate impacts to which Earth is already committed.” > > > > Parker, A. and Irvine, P. J. (2018) The risk of termination shock from > solar geoengineering, Earth’s Future, doi:10.1002/2017EF000735 > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups "Carbon Dioxide Removal" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send > an email to carbondioxideremoval+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To post to this group, send email to carbondioxideremo...@googlegroups.com. > Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/CarbonDioxideRemoval. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/6414b302-a4a2-47f9-8bc8-90e30c946665%40googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups "Carbon Dioxide Removal" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send > an email to carbondioxideremoval+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To post to this group, send email to carbondioxideremo...@googlegroups.com. > Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/CarbonDioxideRemoval. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/BLUPR04MB659F36171AC9887B4A4A8D1A4D30%40BLUPR04MB659.namprd04.prod.outlook.com. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups "Carbon Dioxide Removal" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send > an email to carbondioxideremoval+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To post to this group, send email to carbondioxideremo...@googlegroups.com. > Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/CarbonDioxideRemoval. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/BLUPR04MB65947B60EEE6CCBC2751A53A4D30%40BLUPR04MB659.namprd04.prod.outlook.com. > > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- O=C=O O=C=O O=C=O Oliver Morton Senior Editor, Essays and Briefings The Economist +44 20 7830 7041 My book "The Planet Remade: How Geoengineering Could Change The World" can be bought at Amazon (UK|US), among other places. It was longlisted for the 2015 Samuel Johnson Prize and shortlisted for the 2016 Royal Society Insight Investment Science Book Prize. "Ambitious, enthralling and slightly strange" -- Bryan Appleyard, The Sunday Times "A necessary book, and so well done. Essential reading" -- Jon Turney "An excellently reasoned book with whose conclusions we disagree...clear, data-filled and still wonderfully descriptive." -- ETC Group O=C=O O=C=O O=C=O -- *This e-mail may contain confidential material. If you are not an intended recipient, please notify the sender and delete all copies. It may also contain personal views which are not the views of The Economist Group. We may monitor e-mail to and from our network.* *Sent by a member of The Economist Group. The Group's parent company is The Economist Newspaper Limited, registered in England with company number 236383 and registered office at The Adelphi, 1-11 John Adam Street, London, WC2N 6HT. For Group company registration details go to http://legal.economistgroup.com <http://legal.economistgroup.com> * -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Carbon Dioxide Removal" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to carbondioxideremoval+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to carbondioxideremo...@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/CarbonDioxideRemoval. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/CAAw1PSU%3D-JE9Zi7L7bsfDA1f-6G%3D%3D%3D6W8zeEtkKCkW-ic1en5A%40mail.gmail.com. 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.
