One probable reason why there is supposedly little outrage about the disease issues (and there is a lot of outrage) is that the 'horse has already bolted." Companies make money selling products that produce or encourage the diseases and companies make money selling the remedies, so its a win win situation for everyone other than those with the disease. You can't criticise business practices unless they are overtly corrupt. Some people assume the same kind of thing will happen with some types of geoengineering - except taxpayers will end up funding it as well
If you can't change the social organisation, or lower the production of green house gases, then these kind of remedies will be used to make things worse, or be used as an opportunity not to make things better - even if they are necessary. jon ________________________________________ From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com <geoengineering@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Greg Rau <gh...@sbcglobal.net> Sent: Sunday, 18 March 2018 10:41 AM To: Hawkins, David; Sean Hernandez Cc: Leon Di Marco; Carbon Dioxide Removal; Geoengineering Subject: Re: [geo] Re: [CDR] Re: Medium Is Geoengineering an Immorality of Last Resort? There are diseases that are largely if not entirely preventable via behavior modification, yet $100'sB are spent to develop treatments. Where is the moral hazard outrage here that the latter may relax prevention efforts? At one point AGW (1.5-2 deg C warming) was 100% preventable via behavior modification (emissions reduction). Experts now tell us that this is now very unlikely and that additional measures are now needed. Why then are the latter still branded as threats and moral hazards if both methods are now ultimately needed and neither one alone will be sufficient, just as in the case with dealing with many diseases? If exploration of all medical prevention and treatment options for individuals is considered rational and essential, why isn't it also for dealing with the health of the planet, the only one we've got? Given a rationale, humans are able to walk and chew gum at the same time, and in the AGW prevention and treatment case it would seem morally imperative that they do. At the end of the day we may have no safe and effective treatment options, but that is guaranteed if we are prevented from searching. Greg ________________________________ From: "Hawkins, David" <dhawk...@nrdc.org> To: Sean Hernandez <sean.j.hernan...@gmail.com> Cc: Greg Rau <gh...@sbcglobal.net>; Leon Di Marco <len2...@gmail.com>; Carbon Dioxide Removal <carbondioxideremo...@googlegroups.com>; Geoengineering <geoengineering@googlegroups.com> Sent: Saturday, March 17, 2018 3:28 PM Subject: Re: [geo] Re: [CDR] Re: Medium Is Geoengineering an Immorality of Last Resort? Thanks Sean, I do not believe that the prospect of NETs, etc have been a significant factor yet in our inadequate progress on mitigation. (Though people like Kevin Anderson and Glen Peters are correct to warn that it is easy to slide from the heavy reliance on NETs in IPCC modeling runs to a conclusion by policymakers that this amount of NETs is something we can bank on and tailor today's mitigation efforts accordingly.) I agree with you that factors other than the prospect of NETs have been overwhelmingly responsible for mitigation delays to date. That said, it would be wrong to dismiss the concerns that NETs' prospects may become an effective new argument against rapid mitigation. I agree that some voices in the "environmental community" have concluded the only way to deal with this threat is to discredit the very idea of researching these techniques and developing the ability to use them sensibly. I think that is an error but changing those views is more likely to happen with conversations between people who trust each other than with public broadsides from strangers. I think there is a coherent stance to take: most effort needs to continue to focus on the imperative of rapid mitigation now but at the same time we need added effort to design and carry out NETs research programs. I do think it would be helpful for the community of scientists that support research in these areas to craft and socialize a statement of principles that emphasizes the imperative of emission mitigation now and that calls for critical governance safeguards. I am aware of prior efforts to do something like this but it is worth another attempt. David ________________________________ From: Sean Hernandez <sean.j.hernan...@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, March 17, 2018 5:54 PM To: Hawkins, David Cc: Greg Rau; Leon Di Marco; Carbon Dioxide Removal; Geoengineering Subject: Re: [geo] Re: [CDR] Re: Medium Is Geoengineering an Immorality of Last Resort? Hi David. In your opinion have geoengineering and other potential substitutes already contributed to a significant delay in mitigation? My starting reaction would be that they have not because awareness is not very great and there are significantly greater political and economic obstacles to mitigation besides geoengineering awareness. For two, mitigation is very costly and it's highly disagreeable internationally. These political factors to me explain more of where we are then the status quo knowledge of geoengineering and substitutes. Of course the problem could always be exacerbated by greater knowledge of geoengineering. I sometimes think of it in terms of 'At what point is mitigation a complete strategic failure?' I guess that could be called gas lighting. Is that quite different from directly advocating for a delay? I'm not sure I know of any serious geoengineering researchers who advocate for a delay. Maybe economists like Nordhaus but I'm not sure on that. But also we wouldn't necessarily need explicit advocates in order for geoengineering to slide us into a delay world. Your point is very well taken about preventing a further delay by fighting back against geoengineering-only advocates. Yet I perceived that the environmental movement as a whole is excessively intrested in that, nearly to the exclusion of potential insurance options. I believe that many would prefer to denounce and prevent geoengineering in order to lock us into a mitigation-only approach because "it's the right thing to do." How should we wall the line between supporting mitigation and supporting geoengineering as a fail safe? We definitely need a strategic communication approach. Thank you, Sean On Mar 17, 2018 2:32 PM, "Hawkins, David" <dhawk...@nrdc.org<mailto:dhawk...@nrdc.org>> wrote: Sean and others, Respecting this statement-- "If researchers and the public can realize that the moral hazard concern is insufficient because mitigation is already dangerously low, then they can have some consolation and develop the resolve to research geoengineering to the fullest extent scientifically possible." Whether labeled "moral hazard" or something else, I think we all need to recognize the high probability that those who have been effective in stalling serious action on emissions mitigation will seize on the prospect of BECCS, CDR, and SRM as reasons to not proceed with rapid mitigation programs. Those of us who believe that we need rapid mitigation programs need to keep thinking and acting to develop effective counters to the inevitable attempts to use SRM and NETs as a reason not to mitigate. Attempting to ban research or work on these techniques is unwise because ignorance is dangerous, but also because not researching these techniques will not prevent opponents of mitigation from using the notions of these techniques as an alternative to rapid mitigation. All of us on this list know the arguments against delaying mitigation because of the existence of these other possible techniques. But repeating these arguments to each other is not an adequate response. We need to recognize the political attractiveness of claims that we can afford to delay mitigation because "SRM and NETS might save us with less pain." We need to develop effective communications programs that will serve as an antidote to these latest reasons for delay. This is a subset of the communications challenge we have faced and largely failed to meet for the past 30 years or more. David ________________________________ From: geoengineering@googlegroups. com<mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com> <geoengineering@googlegroups. com<mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com>> on behalf of Sean Hernandez <sean.j.hernan...@gmail.com<mailto:sean.j.hernan...@gmail.com>> Sent: Saturday, March 17, 2018 4:55 PM To: Greg Rau Cc: Leon Di Marco; Carbon Dioxide Removal; Geoengineering Subject: [geo] Re: [CDR] Re: Medium Is Geoengineering an Immorality of Last Resort? Hi Greg and Leon et al., Thanks so much for looking into the paper and for your kind comments and questions. Thank you for pointing out the last sentence - I can see how that would be confusing and sort of rushed through. But there, I mean to say that researchers were previously restricted by their own fears of the moral hazard argument. If researchers and the public can realize that the moral hazard concern is insufficient because mitigation is already dangerously low, then they can have some consolation and develop the resolve to research geoengineering to the fullest extent scientifically possible. I really mean that the restrictions are from within. The same people who are the climate scientists looking at geoengineering are often the same ones sounding the alarms for mitigation, so you can understand how there has been internal conflict brewing. By side effects I do mean negatives. Absolutely I agree the real issue is net benefits - and it is quite clear that potential negative environmental consequences of SRM or CDR need to be weighed against the advantage of stalling climate change in an emergency. In fact, I think that several of the 16 moral hazard arguments become a lot more interesting when you look at them as side effects rather than moral hazard. For example, a side effect of living in an SRM world could be higher ocean acidification (cooler planet + higher CO2 level). We could either assess that as a side effect and try to find the net benefit, or we could reject geoengineering on "moral" grounds by vaguely asserting it makes climate change worse. Thank you again. All the best, Sean On Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 10:18 PM, Greg Rau <gh...@sbcglobal.net<mailto:gh...@sbcglobal.net>> wrote: Thanks Leon. Seems to be the definitive work on the subject, with broad referencing. Was puzzled by the report's last sentence, however: "With the moral hazard argument aside, researchers interest in the economics of geoengineering should feel more free to explicitly model physical and economic evaluations of geoengineering side effects to prescribe the efficient level of SRM and CDR conditional on how little mitigation takes place during this century." This implies that researchers were not free before to explore side effects(?) Restricted by who or what? Side effects meaning co-benefits or negatives? Isn't the real issue net benefits (=positives - negatives)? Anyway, so glad we're now "more free" to explore this and I don't have to look over my shoulder any more. What other restrictions are keeping us from saving the world? Greg ________________________________ From: Leon Di Marco <len2...@gmail.com<mailto:len2...@gmail.com>> To: Carbon Dioxide Removal <CarbonDioxideRemoval@googlegr oups.com<mailto:carbondioxideremo...@googlegroups.com>> Sent: Friday, March 16, 2018 8:12 PM Subject: [CDR] Re: Medium Is Geoengineering an Immorality of Last Resort? Further discussion about this with Sean Hernandez in a new Nori podcast https://nori.com/podcast/15-se an-hernandez-energy-economist<https://nori.com/podcast/15-sean-hernandez-energy-economist> #15 Sean Hernandez, Energy Economist March 13, 2018 5:03 38:42 SUBSCRIBE ON ITUNES<https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/reversing-climate-change/id1321759767?mt=2> SUBSCRIBE ON GOOGLE PLAY<https://playmusic.app.goo.gl/?ibi=com.google.PlayMusic&isi=691797987&ius=googleplaymusic&apn=com.google.android.music&link=https://play.google.com/music/m/Ic5eoljjaj7r2msx264pmogae7q?t%3DReversing_Climate_Change%26pcampaignid%3DMKT-na-all-co-pr-mu-pod-16> Economics isn’t all about money. It’s about human action, decisions and choices. In fact, economists and environmentalists could be natural allies in solving climate change. Unfortunately, a good number of environmentalists take a hardline stance on geoengineering, arguing that any further human manipulation of the environment is a bad idea. But with CO2 levels reaching more than 400 PPM, mitigation alone will not solve our problem. So how would an economist approach climate change? Sean Hernandez is a professional economist, data scientist, and environmental policy expert with a Master’s degree in economics from USC. In his current role at an energy utility, Sean specializes in energy marketing, trading and financial analysis. Today, he joins Ross and Christophe to define what is meant by the phrase ‘moral hazard’ and explain the argument against a technofix for global warming. They discuss the problem with lumping all forms of geoengineering together, pointing out that some techniques are widely accepted while others are much more controversial. Sean employs his national champion debate skills to explore the mitigation camp’s moral hazard argument against geoengineering and offer insight around cap and trade as well as carbon market policy in California. Christophe, Ross, and Sean cover the accelerating effect of climate change, the risks around solar radiation management, and the fuel switching issue. Listen in for Sean’s take on a portfolio-based approach to climate change that continues civilization while employing a combination of advanced techniques—including geoengineering. Resources Is Geoengineering an Immorality of Last Resort? by Sean J. Hernandez<https://medium.com/@seanjhernandez/is-geoengineering-an-immorality-of-last-resort-71d7b88b49a7> “Geoengineering, Climate Change Scepticism and the ‘Moral Hazard’ Argument” in Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society <http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/372/2031/20140063> 350.org<https://350.org/> [https://cdn.350.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/350-share-img-home-1-1024x538.jpg]<https://350.org/> 350.org<https://350.org/> 350.org We are standing up to the fossil fuel industry to stop all new coal, oil and gas projects and build clean energy for all. [https://cdn.350.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/350-share-img-home-1-1024x538.jpg]<https://350.org/> [https://cdn.350.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/350-share-img-home-1-1024x538.jpg]<https://350.org/> 350.org<https://350.org/> 350.org We are standing up to the fossil fuel industry to stop all new coal, oil and gas projects and build clean energy for all. 350.org<https://350.org/> [https://cdn.350.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/350-share-img-home-1-1024x538.jpg]<https://350.org/> 350.org<https://350.org/> 350.org We are standing up to the fossil fuel industry to stop all new coal, oil and gas projects and build clean energy for all. 350.org<http://350.org/> [https://cdn.350.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/350-share-img-home-1-1024x538.jpg]<http://350.org/> 350.org: A global campaign to confront the climate crisis<http://350.org/> 350.org We are standing up to the fossil fuel industry to stop all new coal, oil and gas projects and build clean energy for all. We are standing up to the fossil fuel industry to stop all new coal, oil and gas projects and build clean energy for all. “Arctic Temperatures Soar 45 Degrees Above Normal” in the Washington Post<https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/capital-weather-gang/wp/2018/02/21/arctic-temperatures-soar-45-degrees-above-normal-flooded-by-extremely-mild-air-on-all-sides/?utm_term=.c7578a88d92f> “Dutch Move to Ban Sale of Combustion Engines from 2025” in The Irish Times<https://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/motors/dutch-move-to-ban-sale-of-combustion-engines-from-2025-1.2757955> The Population Bomb by Paul R. Ehrlich<https://www.amazon.com/Population-Bomb-Paul-R-Ehrlich/dp/1568495870> Guns, Germs and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies by Jared M. Diamond<https://www.amazon.com/Guns-Germs-Steel-Fates-Societies/dp/0393317552> Key Takeaways [2:21] The definition of ‘moral hazard’ * Attempt to reduce risk leads to incur more risk (i.e.: drive faster with seatbelt) [4:04] The moral hazard argument against a technofix for global warming * Would disincentivize doing right thing (reducing emissions) * Addiction, rent-seeking [9:14] The problem with lumping all forms of geoengineering together * Planting trees, any form of agriculture qualifies [11:50] The counter to the mitigation camp’s disincentivization argument * CO2 levels already too high to be safe (>400 PPM) * Mitigation won’t remove CO2 from atmosphere [14:14] The problem with the moral hazard argument in carbon removal * Mitigation = prevent emissions * CO2 removal and mitigation both result fewer molecules in atmosphere [16:34] Why a portfolio-based approach to climate change is necessary * All emissions to zero tomorrow, would still take 1,000 years for climate to stop changing * Can’t rely on ‘spiritual change,’ need effective ways to motivate [19:33] The accelerating effect of climate change * ‘Global warming leads to more global warming’ [20:37] The challenge around cap and trade * Demand can’t grow as large as supply [23:06] Sean’s insight on carbon market policy * Bound marketplace (both floor and ceiling on price) * Carbon permits free to certain companies [25:07] The failings of the California cap and trade market * Renewable portfolio standard leads to reduced demand for cap and trade permits * Reduced demand results in reduced price of cap and trade permits [26:18] The flaw in the Netherlands’ plan to ban the sale of internal combustion engines * Shifts emissions from pipe to smokestack (fuel switching issue) [32:02] The risks of solar radiation management (SRM) * Nori doesn’t condone SRM, focus on carbon removal * Space-based would be safest (shades in orbit) [36:51] Sean’s take on natural gas and fracking * 1% increase in renewables leads to >1% natural gas burning * Fracking has environmental problems of its own [40:14] Sean’s approach to solving climate change * Establish global carbon tax, establish price of carbon * Geoengineering budget (CDR, SRM and blockchain) * Way forward is to continue civilization, advanced techniques On Saturday, March 17, 2018 at 2:48:50 AM UTC, Leon Di Marco wrote: A discussion of the moral hazard argument in geoengineering regarding SRM and CDR https://medium.com/@ seanjhernandez/is- geoengineering-an-immorality- of-last-resort-71d7b88b49a7<https://medium.com/@seanjhernandez/is-geoengineering-an-immorality-of-last-resort-71d7b88b49a7> [https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1200/1*IVCNla6kunmqJRXuQ5CWBw.png]<https://medium.com/@seanjhernandez/is-geoengineering-an-immorality-of-last-resort-71d7b88b49a7> Is Geoengineering an Immorality of Last Resort? – Sean J. Hernandez – Medium<https://medium.com/@seanjhernandez/is-geoengineering-an-immorality-of-last-resort-71d7b88b49a7> medium.com Sean J. Hernandez [https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1200/1*IVCNla6kunmqJRXuQ5CWBw.png]<https://medium.com/@seanjhernandez/is-geoengineering-an-immorality-of-last-resort-71d7b88b49a7> [https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1200/1*IVCNla6kunmqJRXuQ5CWBw.png]<https://medium.com/@seanjhernandez/is-geoengineering-an-immorality-of-last-resort-71d7b88b49a7> Is Geoengineering an Immorality of Last Resort? – Sean J. Hernandez – Medium<https://medium.com/@seanjhernandez/is-geoengineering-an-immorality-of-last-resort-71d7b88b49a7> medium.com Sean J. Hernandez Is Geoengineering an Immorality of Last Resort? – Sean J. Hernandez – Medium<https://medium.com/@seanjhernandez/is-geoengineering-an-immorality-of-last-resort-71d7b88b49a7> medium.com<http://medium.com/> [https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1200/1*L0zf9ap8xoInVbm78siJBA.png]<http://medium.com/> Medium – Read, write and share stories that matter<http://medium.com/> medium.com Welcome to Medium, a place to read, write, and interact with the stories that matter most to you. Every day, thousands of voices read, write, and share important stories on Medium. Sean J. Hernandez Sean J. Hernandez<https://medium.com/@seanjhernandez?source=post_header_lockup>Follow Mar 13 Is Geoengineering an Immorality of Last Resort? Sean J. Hernandez University of Southern California Abstract Geoengineering has been a possible climate policy option since the 1960’s; although its feasibility was known only to a handful of climate scientists. As the probability and expected magnitude of future climate change damages has grown, the number of hypothetical geoengineering schemes has increased. These alleged “techno-fixes” to global warming were, for decades, kept out of the public policy stage because of a widespread fear that popular awareness would lead to an exacerbation of carbon emissions. These mechanisms, by which emissions levels might increase, are collectively known as the “moral hazard” argument. In this paper, I employ Ben Hale’s nomenclature for the various moral hazard pathways to examine whether they are logically sufficient to de-justify geoengineering research and deployment. The small body of empirical evidence collected on public perception of geoengineering and moral hazard is discussed. I conclude that the inadequacy of carbon control regimes significantly weakens the persuasive appeal of moral hazard arguments in all its forms. With the moral hazard argument aside, researchers interest in the economics of geoengineering should feel more free to explicitly model physical and economic evaluations of geoengineering side effects to prescribe the efficient level of SRM and CDR conditional on how little mitigation takes place during this century. -- 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+unsubscri b...@googlegroups.com<mailto:carbondioxideremoval+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>. To post to this group, send email to CarbonDioxideRemoval@googlegro ups.com<mailto:carbondioxideremo...@googlegroups.com>. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/grou p/CarbonDioxideRemoval<https://groups.google.com/group/CarbonDioxideRemoval>. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/ms gid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/dcd62 5ab-e4c9-49b1-be95-178fcc3b3de 8%40googlegroups.com<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/dcd625ab-e4c9-49b1-be95-178fcc3b3de8%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>. Google Groups<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/dcd625ab-e4c9-49b1-be95-178fcc3b3de8%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> groups.google.com<http://groups.google.com/> Google Groups allows you to create and participate in online forums and email-based groups with a rich experience for community conversations. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/op tout<https://groups.google.com/d/optout>. -- Sean J. Hernandez -- 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:geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups. com<mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com>. 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>. Google Groups<https://groups.google.com/d/optout> groups.google.com<http://groups.google.com/> Google Groups allows you to create and participate in online forums and email-based groups with a rich experience for community conversations. -- 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<mailto:geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com<mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com>. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. UTS CRICOS Provider Code: 00099F DISCLAIMER: This email message and any accompanying attachments may contain confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, do not read, use, disseminate, distribute or copy this message or attachments. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete this message. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except where the sender expressly, and with authority, states them to be the views of the University of Technology Sydney. Before opening any attachments, please check them for viruses and defects. Think. Green. Do. Please consider the environment before printing this email. -- 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.
