I know many of you have seen Holly Buck’s thread on twitter about the non-use letter - she addresses many of the vague statements and illogical conclusions and was the peer review on the main article so perhaps someone could reach out to her in relation to the draft response letter?
One thing I have noticed is that almost all of the original 16 signatories were governance scholars. Any kind of intentional cooling needs a properly interdisciplinary approach to avoid silo preferences and ill advised moratoria demands. Governance, atmospheric physics, ethics, Law, engineering, risk analysis are just some academic areas that might contribute to a more nuanced pathway to research and maybe deployment. Moral hazard is two fold as you say and too often used as a club to bat away the uncomfortable truth that given the magical BECCS permeating the IAMs, things are even worse than forecast. Clare (@clare_nomad_geo) > On 29 Jan 2022, at 00:21, Ron Baiman <[email protected]> wrote: > > Thank you John for starting the ball rolling on this. > > In addition to Herb's excellent comments, I think an opposition letter should > address the "moral hazard" problem raised (as I recall) at the end of the > non-use letter and that I think is really the core issue behind the > opposition to direct cooling. I would recommend flipping this concern around > by pointing out the moral hazard of pretending that the climate change > problem can be solved through national voluntary, mostly rich-country, > emission reductions, and financial contributions to poor countries. The moral > hazard here is that, though vitally important, these efforts, especially if > they are viewed as the only acceptable response to climate change, have > become an excuse to avoid tackling the real problems of urgent direct > cooling, and resurrecting a global Kyoto-like mandatory regime for GHG > removal and funding transfers that is necessary for rapid (within decades) > global GHG drawdown at the necessary scale. > > This is evidenced by the fact that the EU that continued the Kyoto regime > (supplemented with individual country carbon taxes) is the only major region > of the world to have significantly reduced GHG emissions (by 24%) from 1990 > to 2019, as compared, for example, to 2% growth for the US. Paris accord > national voluntary NDCs will also not induce the 25 countries and 1.1. > billion people that depend on over $ 4 trillion in revenue from oil related > exports that make up 10% or more of their total exports to stop producing and > selling oil, or the (with some overlap with the former) 1.5 billion people > (20% of the global population) in 72 Europe and Central Asia or Sub-Saharan > Africa countries, both excluding high income, and Other Small States, for > which on average (weighted by population) 26% of total exports are fossil > fuel exports that in 2019 generated approximately $ 149 billion of foreign > exchange. > > A good example is the leftist President of Ecuador who offered to not drill > in the rainforest if his country could be compensated for the lost revenue, > received no offset, and commenced drilling. The Paris Accord voluntary Green > Development Fund has raised only $ 18.8 billion (2014 - 2021) compared with $ > 303.8 billion by the global mandatory Kyoto Clean Development Mechanism (2001 > - 2018) that was effectively allowed to lapse in 2012. See references and > more discussion in the attached paper. > > Does anyone else in the lists above want to work on this? Needless to say, I > think a collaborative effort is needed to produce an effective response. > > Best, > Ron > > On Fri, Jan 28, 2022 at 2:19 PM H simmens <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > Hi John, (I deleted the HCA list in response to Peter‘s request.) > > I appreciate you taking the initiative in drafting a response letter. > > I think it is important however that the letter respond to the specific > arguments that are made by the proponents of this non-use agreement. > > And their primary objection even more than the adverse effects is their > assertion of the impossibility of developing an effective governance > mechanism, particularly one that could represent the interests of the global > south. > > They also make no attempt at examining the most obvious issue which is what > the consequences are to the planet in the absence of cooling. You do address > that in your draft letter. > > They do not recommend that research be prohibited though it appears that the > primary reason for that is their inability to come up with a description of > what research that would entail. > > I would suggest a letter that offers them a partnership rather than is > oppositional in tone. > > One that essentially says: > > “we agree with you there are risks, we agree with you that governance is > challenging, we agree with you that power imbalances and equity issues are > difficult and need to be addressed. > > (We want the reader to see that we are agreeing at least in part with many of > their key points.) > > But in light of the existential risks to everyone of us due to the alarming > acceleration of harmful climate impacts we believe the approach should be to > challenge the leaders of the world in cooperation with business and civil > society to develop a fair and effective governance structure. > > And to accelerate research and field testing to better understand the > benefits and risks of the increasingly wide variety of proposed approaches > towards directly and quickly cooling the planet at local, regional and > planetary scales. (They appear to be mostly or only against approaches that > operate at the planetary scale.) > > Thus will you join with us in working to create a fair and effective > governance structure and in supporting research and field testing to better > understand the implications of the variety of forms of direct cooling being > proposed.” > > It seems to me that that puts them on the defensive because their central > argument is that governance is impossible even though there has never been a > serious attempt by the world community to develop a governance structure. > > By offering them the invitation to join with us to address their objections I > have little illusion that it would change the minds of any of the signers. > Our goal is not to do that but rather to educate those who are drawn to Geo > engineering by this controversy that there is a reasonable approach that > incorporates their concerns rather than simply attempting to dismiss them. > > Herb > > Herb Simmens > Author A Climate Vocabulary of the Future > @herbsimmens > >> On Jan 28, 2022, at 2:24 PM, John Nissen <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> >> A draft letter is attached, using much of the email I wrote unchanged. >> >> Cheers, John >> >> >> On Thu, Jan 27, 2022 at 7:14 PM John Nissen <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> Hi Ron, >> >> >> I will draft a letter within the next 24 hours. We could discuss it at the >> PRAG meeting on Monday (8 pm UK time) to which everyone is invited. I will >> send the draft as a Word document, so people can mark up proposed changes >> and additions before the meeting. >> >> >> Concerning your “moral hazard”, I think you have a good point that rich >> countries have been acting without due regard to the interests of poorer >> countries, many of which are already suffering badly as a direct or indirect >> result of global warming. Bangladesh is an obvious example. Global cooling >> would have been applied years ago if the rich countries really cared and if >> there hadn’t been so much misinformation or even disinformation about >> geoengineering from people who should know better, e.g. in the Royal Society >> 2009 report [1]. >> >> >> Cheers, John >> >> >> [1] Royal Society, 2009 >> >> Geoengineering the climate: science, governance and uncertainty >> >> https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/publications/2009/geoengineering-climate/ >> >> <https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/publications/2009/geoengineering-climate/> >> >> >> On Thu, Jan 27, 2022 at 6:22 PM Ron Baiman <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> Thank you John. I agree that it would be excellent to draft and publish an >> opposition letter. >> >> Per my prior post, I would also include the "moral hazard" of substituting >> mostly rich country emissions reduction or "net zero" targets within one or >> a few decades as either a solution to the short-run emergency, or adequate >> for necessary long run GHG drawdown. Emphasizing that we wholeheartedly >> support rich country emissions reductions, but pretending that these >> national voluntary emissions reduction targets will rapidly get us to the >> massive level of global GHG drawdown necessary to try to regenerate a stable >> and healthy climate and ecosystem, has become a fig leaf. A way of avoiding >> necessary work on resurrecting a global binding regime (like Kyoto) that >> would transfer massive funding (not the Green Climate Fund voluntary >> donation relative pittance) from rich to poor countries that is essential to >> achieve required levels of GHG drawdown within say decades, rather than >> perhaps a century or longer - if some form of human civilization can last >> under those conditions. This also I think would make the point that if we >> can't get it together to act globally in a decisive and mandatory way we're >> absolutely going to need direct cooling to stave off disaster. >> >> Repeating myself, but hopefully more clearly in summary form! >> >> Best, >> Ron >> >> >> On Thu, Jan 27, 2022 at 9:27 AM John Nissen <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> Hi Ron, >> >> >> Thanks for your work on drawing attention to the short-term crisis which I >> see as three crises arising mainly from rapid warming in the Arctic: >> escalating extremes of weather and climate; accelerating sea level rise; and >> feedback to global warming (especially from methane). I would like to see a >> direct attack on the open letter. >> >> >> The non-use open letter has been publicised by Mongabay: “News and >> Inspiration from Nature’s Frontline” [1]. The 60+ authors should be >> castigated for utter irresponsibility, promoting unwarranted fears about >> technology for cooling the planet in general, and the Arctic in particular, >> when the latest science indicates that this cooling is vital in the short >> term: >> >> to reverse the trend towards extreme weather and climate before parts of the >> world become unliveable; >> to slow sea level rise which is currently accelerating from glacier melt; >> to avoid the possibility, however remote, of the planet becoming a >> hot-house, e.g. as the result of a huge outburst of methane from permafrost >> already in a critical condition. >> >> >> Cooling is a vital band-aid while CO2 emissions are reduced and CO2e ppm is >> brought down significantly towards its pre-industrial level. >> >> >> The fear they promote is totally unwarranted. They tacitly choose >> Stratospheric Aerosol Injection (SAI) as the geoengineering to denounce. >> The risks from SAI mentioned by one of the lead authors are absolutely >> without foundation, and anyway are negligible compared to the harm being >> done by global warming and the even more rapid Arctic warming, which BTW are >> affecting ecosystems as well as humans. >> >> >> Stratospheric aerosol might whiten the sky by 1% with slightly redder >> sunsets on average. >> No permanent chemical change to ozone or ocean would occur, assuming any >> slight ozone depletion would be rectified. >> Photosynthesis is, if anything, improved. >> Biodiversity and agriculture would, if anything, be improved. >> Global weather patterns would tend to stabilise if AA is reduced. >> Otherwise, a diffuse application of SO2 would not have a direct effect on >> weather patterns. >> >> >> If anyone disagrees with anything I’ve said above, let’s discuss it. We >> need to be unified in our condemnation of the letter. >> >> >> Cheers, John >> >> >> [1] Shanna Hanbury in Mongabay >> >> Efforts to dim Sun and cool Earth must be blocked, say scientists >> >> https://news.mongabay.com/2022/01/efforts-to-dim-sun-and-cool-earth-must-be-blocked-say-scientists/ >> >> <https://news.mongabay.com/2022/01/efforts-to-dim-sun-and-cool-earth-must-be-blocked-say-scientists/> >> >> Blocking the sun’s rays with an artificial particle shield launched high >> into Earth’s atmosphere to curb global temperatures is a technological fix >> gaining traction as a last resort for containing the climate crisis — but it >> needs to be stopped, wrote a coalition of over 60 academics in an open >> letter <https://www.solargeoeng.org/non-use-agreement/open-letter/> and >> article <https://wires.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/wcc.754> >> released in the WIREs (Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews) Climate Change >> online publication on January 17. >> >> “Some things we should just restrict at the outset,” said one of the open >> letter’s lead authors, Aarti Gupta, a professor of Global Environmental >> Governance at Wageningen University. Gupta placed solar geoengineering in >> the category of high-risk technologies, like human cloning and chemical >> weapons, that need to be off-limits. “It might be possible to do, but it’s >> too risky,” she told Mongabay in an interview. >> >> The color of the sky could change >> <https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2012GL051652>. The >> chemical composition of the ozone layer >> <https://www.pnas.org/content/113/52/14910> and oceans may be permanently >> altered. Photosynthesis, which depends on sunlight, may slow down, possibly >> harming <https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/08/180808134302.htm> >> biodiversity and agriculture. And global weather patterns could change >> unpredictably. >> <https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/2020GL087348> >> >> >> On Wed, Jan 26, 2022 at 9:08 PM Ron Baiman <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> Needless to say I absolutely agree with Robert. >> >> Below is a complementary response (based on the attached updated paper that >> I've been circulating). >> >> The real "moral hazard" is promoting the delusion that cutting emissions >> will; a) "solve" the current emergency climate crisis and b) quickly produce >> a stable and sustainable, climate, ecosystem and economy to the long- term >> GHG draw down crisis, before potentially avoidable catastrophic harm is >> caused to us and our fellow species, particularly the most vulnerable. >> >> The truth is that: a) without implementing immediate direct cooling we are >> facing the reality of enormous and possibly irreversible suffering to humans >> and nature now and in the immediate future, and that b) without resurrecting >> a gobal mantatory Kyoto-like cap and trade agreement that addresses the real >> political economic reality of the need for massive transfers of funding from >> rich to poor countries, it will take many decades and possibly a century or >> more to achieve sufficient GHG draw down and a stable and sustainable, >> climate, ecosystem and economy under the current national voluntary Paris >> Accord scheme. >> >> Pledging to cut (not achieve net drawn down) GHG emissions by a certain >> percentage in a decade or two or three, has become a moral hazard excuse for >> not tackling the difficult (or not so difficult for local direct cooling) >> choices and work that is really required: immediate direct cooling, and >> forging a long term binding global agreement that includes massive funding >> transfers from rich to poor countries. >> >> Unfortunately, our faltering and morally inexcusable global response to >> COVID vaccination may be presaging our delusional and inadequate two climate >> crises response. >> >> Ron Baiman >> >> >> >> On Thu, Jan 20, 2022 at 12:26 AM 'Robert Tulip' via geoengineering >> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> >> wrote: >> The essay Solar geoengineering: The case for an international non-use >> agreement by Biermann et al (link below) displays a breathtaking level of >> political foolishness and indifference to scientific solutions to the >> climate emergency. It reflects a dominant false thinking within the climate >> action movement, whereby political conflict with the fossil fuel industry is >> totally prioritised over any practical response to improve the future of the >> world. If our goal is a stable liveable climate, then banning >> geoengineering is the most stupid action imaginable. >> >> >> >> The world reality is that the climate action movement lacks the political >> power to achieve anything close to the commitments under the Paris Accord. >> Emissions in 2030 are projected to be higher than in 2015. So instead they >> resort to bullying ideological argument typified by this call for a world >> fatwa against solar radiation management, seeking victory by intimidation >> rather than by reason. >> >> >> >> All the bluster of arguments like this article will do nothing to slow >> emission growth, let alone slow warming. Meanwhile, extreme weather events >> continue a rapid escalation, and warming continues to inflict irreversible >> damage to biodiversity. But the authors are so caught up in their class-war >> type of thinking that they do not care about immediate measures to mitigate >> weather or extinction impacts. >> >> >> >> The solution according to this article is to do precisely nothing in this >> decade that would have immediate material impact to mitigate extreme weather >> or climate-induced biodiversity loss. They flatly reject the observation >> that field research for a range of SRM methods could demonstrate easy, >> cheap, fast and safe activities. We should use scientific evidence rather >> than hypothetical speculation to answer serious questions about unintended >> consequences and optimal deployment strategies. >> >> >> >> And contrary to the argument about geoengineering promoting conflict, the >> real likelihood is that activities such as refreezing the North Pole would >> serve to strengthen international cooperation, confidence, peace, dialogue >> and security. The G20 is likely to be the best forum for this debate. The >> UN is hopelessly corrupted by the type of ideological thinking seen in this >> article. Climate change is the primary material threat to global stability >> and security. Engaging the G20 to refreeze the North Pole could directly >> reduce the destabilising effects of extreme weather while also providing a >> major program to strengthen mutual respect and political stability. >> >> >> >> These “governance scholars” express a number of opinions that are grossly >> ignorant of climate science. When the North Pole is melting, action to >> refreeze sea ice by increasing albedo could safely mitigate climate risks, >> returning toward previous stability. But no, that must be banned, >> because... >> >> >> >> Their comment about marine cloud brightening recognises its potential to >> stop bleaching of the Great Barrier Reef. Field trials of MCB could also >> show ability to mitigate the strength of hurricanes and tornadoes, >> significantly reducing climate damage, especially for the poor, supporting >> climate justice. MCB could also cool water flowing into the Arctic, slowing >> down Greenland ice melt, permafrost melt, methane release and sea level >> rise. >> >> >> >> It seems none of this has occurred to these authors in their mindless >> advocacy of political polarisation. >> >> >> >> Decarbonising the economy will do precisely nothing to stop the pole from >> melting. Instead, the argument of this paper is to delay any real mitigation >> of climate change until long after expected tipping points could have >> shifted our planet into a hothouse phase. Opposition to SRM is no solution >> at all. >> >> >> >> Robert Tulip >> >> >> >> From: [email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> On Behalf Of Geoeng Info >> Sent: Wednesday, 19 January 2022 2:00 AM >> To: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >> Subject: [geo] Solar geoengineering: The case for an international non-use >> agreement >> >> >> >> https://wires.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wcc.754 >> <https://wires.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wcc.754> >> >> >> Solar geoengineering: The case for an international non-use agreement >> >> >> Frank Biermann, Jeroen Oomen, Aarti Gupta, Saleem H. Ali, Ken Conca, Maarten >> A. Hajer, Prakash Kashwan, Louis J. Kotzé, Melissa Leach, Dirk Messner, >> Chukwumerije Okereke, Åsa Persson, Janez Potočnik, David Schlosberg, >> Michelle Scobie, Stacy D. VanDeveer >> >> >> >> Abstract >> Solar geoengineering is gaining prominence in climate change debates as an >> issue worth studying; for some it is even a potential future policy option. >> We argue here against this increasing normalization of solar geoengineering >> as a speculative part of the climate policy portfolio. We contend, in >> particular, that solar geoengineering at planetary scale is not governable >> in a globally inclusive and just manner within the current international >> political system. We therefore call upon governments and the United Nations >> to take immediate and effective political control over the development of >> solar geoengineering technologies. Specifically, we advocate for an >> International Non-Use Agreement on Solar Geoengineering and outline the core >> elements of this proposal. >> >> -- >> 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 view this discussion on the web visit >> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAKSzgpYFzMLKEUR-Eqg%2BLDdXT1jQ8fX2iBquGM08JFUB2WFy7A%40mail.gmail.com >> >> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAKSzgpYFzMLKEUR-Eqg%2BLDdXT1jQ8fX2iBquGM08JFUB2WFy7A%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] >> <mailto:[email protected]>. >> To view this discussion on the web visit >> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/00f001d80dc6%2495efdc40%24c1cf94c0%24%40yahoo.com.au >> >> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/00f001d80dc6%2495efdc40%24c1cf94c0%24%40yahoo.com.au?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>. >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Healthy Planet Action Coalition" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to [email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>. >> To view this discussion on the web visit >> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/CAPhUB9DRLHthfByXSy%2BGu7-DvXm%3DnJYFp3bmpWoks04JPtdp0w%40mail.gmail.com >> >> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/CAPhUB9DRLHthfByXSy%2BGu7-DvXm%3DnJYFp3bmpWoks04JPtdp0w%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout >> <https://groups.google.com/d/optout>. >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Healthy Climate Alliance" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to [email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>. >> To view this discussion on the web visit >> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-climate-alliance/CACS_Fxr%3Dthfk2RHPWgLND2WO2GaQNwMhH6LzojKunDG%2Bdesmzw%40mail.gmail.com >> >> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-climate-alliance/CACS_Fxr%3Dthfk2RHPWgLND2WO2GaQNwMhH6LzojKunDG%2Bdesmzw%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] > <mailto:[email protected]>. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAPhUB9AJDssq-nshkCoF0uboa3YFpJFSERWCb-XVLAjTCgy0RA%40mail.gmail.com > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAPhUB9AJDssq-nshkCoF0uboa3YFpJFSERWCb-XVLAjTCgy0RA%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>. > <Our Two Climate Crises Challenge_11.pdf> -- 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/A2852BBE-B7CE-462E-BFA0-017BE41C0E39%40kingssquare.co.uk.
