The best way to give mitigation a chance is to recall what the word means outside of Climateball:
As the term pertains to both causes and effects in making thing less severe, harmful or damaging, limiting it to gases that cause radiative forcing artificially constrains the climate policy conversation . Climate Desk may be entitled to its own opinions, but it smacks of semantic agression when it reaches for its own dictionary. On Tuesday, November 3, 2020 at 2:15:55 AM UTC-5 David Appell wrote: > We are gearing up to go with geoengineering when we haven't even given > mitigation a chance. > > On Mon, Nov 2, 2020 at 9:58 AM Andrew Lockley <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> >> https://legal-planet.org/2020/10/30/geoengineering-ready-for-its-close-up/ >> >> GEOENGINEERING >> Geoengineering: Ready for its Close-up? >> After long being marginalized in climate debates, geoengineering is >> experiencing a surge in attention — which carries both opportunities and >> risks. >> If you’re a long-time Legal Planet reader, you may have noticed that I >> weigh in once a year or so to say that geoengineering – active engineered >> response to global climate change – is going to get prominent, and >> intensely contentious, soon. >> >> Geoengineering? Before continuing, we need a brief aside about names. >> Even what to call it is contested and shifting. In addition to >> geoengineering, people call it climate engineering, climate remediation, >> more recently climate intervention. They argue about whether it’s all one >> thing, or whether various methods and approaches are so different that they >> should have different names and not be discussed together. The names are >> certainly important for debate framing, and for shaping public and >> political response, but they don’t change the substantive issues and >> arguing over what to call this stuff has become tiresome. So for this post, >> I’m going to call it “Norma.” (If this confuses you, check the classic >> Billy Wilder film, “Sunset Boulevard.”) >> >> Norma is intentional modification of the environment at large scale – >> large meaning continental to global – to reduce the climate change and >> other harms done by elevated atmospheric greenhouse gases. Norma comes in >> two main types, interventions that remove CO2 or other greenhouse-gases >> from the atmosphere (“Carbon dioxide removal” or CDR – for this post, >> “Removal Norma”), and interventions that change the energy balance of the >> Earth, mainly by scattering an additional percent or so of incoming >> sunlight to make the Earth a little brighter (“Solar geoengineering,” solar >> radiation management, solar radiation modification—for this post, “Solar >> Norma”). The most prominent form of Solar Norma would spray mists of >> reflective aerosols in the upper atmosphere, “stratospheric aerosol >> injection” (SAI). “Carbon” and “Solar” are not necessarily the only >> possible types of Norma. Others are occasionally proposed. >> >> For 15 years or so, Norma has been argued over by small groups of >> scientists, climate-policy wonks, and activists, but has not received wide >> attention. This changed a few years ago for Removal Norma (CDR), which has >> gained a surge of attention and resources since 2015. The main trigger for >> this came from the emissions scenarios produced to show ways of meeting the >> Paris climate targets, limiting global-average heating to 1.5 to 2ºC. Most >> of these required hundreds of billions of tons (GtCO2) of Removal Norma by >> year 2100. Solar Norma might be much more effective than Removal Norma at >> limiting climate risks – and act much faster – but has enjoyed no such rise >> in attention or respectability. On the contrary, Solar Norma has faced >> starkly inadequate research funding, determined opposition to even >> innocuous proposals for small-scale field research, marginalized and biased >> treatment in official assessments, and exclusion from climate scenarios. >> The widespread reluctance to study or research it, even to better >> characterize potential risks and limitations, has been widely likened to a >> religious ban on study or discussion of heretical doctrine. >> >> Until now, that is. Over the past couple of months, Solar Norma is >> everywhere. Research funding has started to flow (although still far short >> of need), and research communities not formerly involved are starting to >> pay attention. Stories about it are appearing every week in prominent, >> respected publication outlets. Research and policy organizations are >> staffing up. It finally hit me yesterday that this change is real, when >> within a two-hour period both my teenaged sons sent me a link to a new >> video on Norma their favorite cool-science-explained Youtube channel. (BTW, >> the treatment of Norma in this video is excellent – it covers all the major >> issues accurately and clearly, and is even-handed about the scariness, the >> known problems and risks, and the reasons Norma still needs to be studied >> and considered despite these.) >> >> So why is this happening now? Is it a good or a bad thing? And does it >> suggest that other things about the debate over Norma have changed? >> >> One possible answer to the “why now” question is that it was bound to >> happen eventually, and that it’s happening now is just a random event. The >> familiar argument for increased research and governance attention to Solar >> Norma remains valid, indeed grows stronger as time passes: >> >> Climate-change risks are severe, getting worse, and slow to deflect: >> climate change is a train-wreck in slow-motion; >> Deep cuts to the emissions that are driving the changes, moving the world >> economy to non-carbon energy sources, is the first-priority response, >> essential to limiting risks; >> But we’ve known this for 30 years, during which world emissions kept >> increasing except for a few flat years. With a few small exceptions, >> emissions-cutting efforts have thus far achieved little; >> At this point, even an extreme effort on emissions-cuts might not >> adequately limit risks, given the late start and the uncertainties about >> the rate and impacts of climate change; >> Removal Norma will probably help a lot, but will take decades to grow to >> the assumed Gt scale – and is not confidently known to work, with >> acceptable impacts, at that scale. So by all means pursue it, hard, but >> don’t bet the farm on it. >> Solar Norma appears able to make bigger, faster changes to limit climate >> risks – so while it presents many scary risks and hard problems of >> governance and control (real problems, but potentially remediable), it may >> be a necessary part of an effective climate risk-limitation strategy, >> offering risk-reduction opportunities not available in other ways; >> And finally, the foregoing is not a secret. So no matter how much you may >> hate or fear Solar Norma, you can’t guarantee that some government(s) >> facing severe climate impacts won’t try to use it. This strengthens the >> case for understanding how it would work, what risks it would pose, and how >> to govern it, even if the endpoint is to reject it. >> With this all old news, the reason for the sudden spike in attention now >> could simply be that understanding of this tough situation has percolated >> to enough people to pass some critical scale. And like any issue dominated >> by conformity and fear of speaking out, the first little crack in the wall >> of silence leads quickly to the dam bursting. (Mix, mix, mix those >> metaphors!) >> >> But my guess is that there is more going on. The politics and public >> awareness of climate change are undergoing a broader transformation. The >> volume of alarming news about changes and impacts already occurring, the >> shifts in public opinion and elevation of alarm, have greatly strengthened >> the case for – and raised the likelihood of – serious action to cut >> emissions. The multiple announcements of new emissions commitments – >> notably China’s recent adoption of a net-zero target by 2060 – have further >> strengthened the sense of possibility on this front, as has the prospect of >> a new US administration that would take strong climate action seriously. >> >> I speculate that all this movement toward getting serious about emissions >> cuts – at last! – opens a window for a serious conversation about Norma, >> including Solar Norma. Even a cursory examination of the extreme need for >> emissions cuts, and the heavy lift involved in achieving them, has to raise >> the question of how much can be achieved, how fast – and the severity of >> remaining climate risks even under the most optimistic assumptions about >> the ambition and effectiveness of mitigation. This line of reasoning >> naturally directs inquiry to other, potentially additional approaches like >> Norma. Moreover, the strongest objection to thinking about Norma has been >> the risk that Norma may distract from, or undermine support for, the needed >> deep emission cuts. This argument becomes less persuasive as public alarm >> about climate change and support for emission-cutting policies grow >> stronger. So Norma may really be ready for its close-up. >> >> Whether my speculation about the cause of the current surge of attention >> to Norma is right or wrong, the existence of the surge is undeniable. So >> what happens now? What is likely to happen, and what should happen? >> >> Part of the answer is obvious, and unchanged by the current surge of >> attention. The first need is for a large expansion of research into >> alternative methods, how they would work, and what impacts and risks they >> would carry. Equally essential is starting the conversation about how to >> research, develop, and control these technologies, how to assess and limit >> their risks, how to fit them into an effective overall climate response >> strategy. Most importantly, how can it be ensured that the development of >> Norma does not impair, but rather strengthens, support for the other >> essential elements of such a strategy, especially deep rapid cuts in world >> emissions. The severity and novelty of Solar Norma’s governance challenges >> cannot be over-stated, and if its use is ever to be considered it must be >> with confidence that this can happen competently, prudently, and >> legitimately. Whatever use is made of Solar Norma, if any, must advance – >> and on all accounts not impair – effective overall management of climate >> risks and global cooperation, development, and justice. This will be a tall >> order for currently weakened international governance capacity, and the >> exploration of how to achieve it needs to start immediately. >> >> This emergence of Solar Norma as something that can be discussed in >> decent company is not without risks. Indeed, many of these risks are >> closely related to the concerns long expressed about Solar Norma, but the >> rise in attention means these previously hypothetical risks are becoming >> real. I’ll discuss these in future posts, including ways that some recent >> pathologies in debates about COVID and its responses illustrate ways things >> could go badly wrong with more active consideration of Solar Norma. >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "geoengineering" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to [email protected]. >> To view this discussion on the web visit >> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAJ3C-04WEBhTL-eF1pJ3ht-6_Mstxx52D%3D%2Bi2KHoKX-zfV-RKQ%40mail.gmail.com >> >> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAJ3C-04WEBhTL-eF1pJ3ht-6_Mstxx52D%3D%2Bi2KHoKX-zfV-RKQ%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >> . >> > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/6ef923ca-486b-4a71-b5ff-e8b5e6e9aa36n%40googlegroups.com.
