Point taken, Wil. Best, Ron On Tue, Feb 1, 2022 at 10:27 AM Wil Burns <w...@feronia.org> wrote:
> It should be noted that many of signatories beyond the original 16 > represent many of the subject areas you indicate should weigh in, including > law, ethics, and science. I don’t think this should be used as a straw man > argument. wil > > > > > > > > > > > > *WIL BURNS* > > Visiting Professor > > Environmental Policy & Culture Program > > Northwestern University > > > > Email: william.bu...@northwestern.edu <william.bu...@northwetsern.edu> > > Mobile: 312.550.3079 > > > > 1808 Chicago Ave. #110 > > Evanston, IL 60208 > > https://epc.northwestern.edu/people/staff-new/wil-burns.html > > > > > > *Want to schedule a call? Click on one of the following scheduling links: * > > - 60-minute phone call: https://calendly.com/wil_burns/phone-call > - 30-minute phone call: https://calendly.com/wil_burns/30min > - 15-minute phone call: https://calendly.com/wil_burns/15min > - 60-minute Zoom session: https://calendly.com/wil_burns/60min > - 30-minute Zoom session: > https://calendly.com/wil_burns/30-minute-zoom-call > - 15-minute Zoom session: > https://calendly.com/wil_burns/15-minute-zoom-call > > > > *I acknowledge and honor the Ojibwe, Potawatomi, and Odawa, as well as the > Menominee, Miami and Ho-Chunk nations, upon whose traditional homelands > Northwestern University stands, and the Indigenous people who remain on > this land today**.* > > > > > > > > > > *From:* geoengineering@googlegroups.com <geoengineering@googlegroups.com> > *Sent:* Tuesday, February 1, 2022 4:11 AM > *To:* Digest recipients <geoengineering@googlegroups.com> > *Subject:* [geo] Digest for geoengineering@googlegroups.com - 4 updates > in 1 topic > > > > geoengineering@googlegroups.com > > Google Groups > <https://groups.google.com/forum/?utm_source=digest&utm_medium=email/#!overview> > > > <https://groups.google.com/forum/?utm_source=digest&utm_medium=email/#!overview> > > Topic digest > View all topics > > · [HCA-list] [geo] Solar geoengineering: The case for an > international non-use agreement <#m_5815659627215592359_group_thread_0> - 4 > Updates > > [HCA-list] [geo] Solar geoengineering: The case for an international > non-use agreement > <http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering/t/c696c33e7e483dc?utm_source=digest&utm_medium=email> > > Clare James <cl...@kingssquare.co.uk>: Jan 31 04:07PM > > 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) > > > David Mitchell <david.mitch...@dri.edu>: Jan 31 05:51PM > > Here are some reflections I've been having concerning the anticipated > rebuttal letter: > > > 1. The real target audience of a rebuttal letter should be policy makers > and the public, and not the signatories of the non-use letter. Regarding > the non-use letter, it might be noted that decisions born of fear generally > lead to poor outcomes. > > > > 2. There is currently a lot of fear in society which makes people more > reactive. The non-use letter can be persuasive by provoking additional fear > about climate intervention technology and then offering a mechanism to > reduce this apparent threat. A rebuttal letter could be an opportunity to > educate the public about the myth of net zero carbon, the timescales of > CDR, and the likelihood over overshooting the Paris Agreement thresholds, > empowering them to act more wisely. Uncertainty and the unknown promote > fear, whereas knowing the facts and the options available may reduce fear. > > > 3. I especially like the comments made by Clare James and Herb Simmens. > > > > David Mitchell > > ________________________________ > From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com <geoengineering@googlegroups.com> > on behalf of Clare James <cl...@kingssquare.co.uk> > Sent: Monday, January 31, 2022 8:07 AM > To: rpbai...@gmail.com <rpbai...@gmail.com> > Cc: H simmens <hsimm...@gmail.com>; John Nissen <johnnissen2...@gmail.com>; > Robert Tulip <rtulip2...@yahoo.com.au>; geoengineering < > geoengineering@googlegroups.com>; Planetary Restoration < > planetary-restorat...@googlegroups.com>; Shaun Fitzgerald <sd...@cam.ac.uk>; > Hugh.Hunt <he...@cam.ac.uk>; healthy-planet-action-coalition < > healthy-planet-action-coalit...@googlegroups.com> > Subject: Re: [HCA-list] [geo] Solar geoengineering: The case for an > international non-use agreement > > 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 < > rpbai...@gmail.com<mailto:rpbai...@gmail.com>> 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 < > hsimm...@gmail.com<mailto:hsimm...@gmail.com>> 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 < > johnnissen2...@gmail.com<mailto:johnnissen2...@gmail.com>> 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 < > johnnissen2...@gmail.com<mailto:johnnissen2...@gmail.com>> 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/ > > > > On Thu, Jan 27, 2022 at 6:22 PM Ron Baiman < > rpbai...@gmail.com<mailto:rpbai...@gmail.com>> 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 < > johnnissen2...@gmail.com<mailto:johnnissen2...@gmail.com>> 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/ > > > > 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 < > rpbai...@gmail.com<mailto:rpbai...@gmail.com>> 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 > > Ron Baiman <rpbai...@gmail.com>: Jan 31 02:44PM -0600 > > Good point Clare! This is where I'm thinking that we may be able to make a > difference if we can get a wide array of climate leaders from different > fields including natural science, social science, policy, etc, signing a > letter with an opposing, "all options, including and specifically direct > cooling, need to be considered", viewpoint - as we did in our HPAC letters > to the IPCC. > > A small WG has started working on this effort and we welcome participation > - please contact me, if you, David Mitchell, or others reading these posts > are interested. > > Our various groups may produce more than one letter, but I think the key > to an effective response, specifically to the no-use letter, is something > that can attract a large and broadly diverse group, including with regard > to discipline and background, of signatories. It might even be good to > make the point you just made in such a letter. > > Best, > Ron > > On Mon, Jan 31, 2022 at 10:07 AM Clare James <cl...@kingssquare.co.uk> > wrote: > > > David Mitchell <david.mitch...@dri.edu>: Jan 31 10:21PM > > Hi John – I just saw your email; sorry I missed the meeting. > > One final comment on the Bierman et al. letter: their argument for a > non-use agreement is premised on the assumption that we have to accept the > status quo; that because there is no existing governance model for SRM, it > should banned from the portfolio of climate options. What they see as a > show-stopper can be turned into an opportunity for positive change. In the > CCT book chapter I wrote back in 2011 (Cirrus Clouds and Climate > Engineering: New Findings on Ice Nucleation and Theoretical Basis | > IntechOpen<https://www.intechopen.com/chapters/21120>), here is what I > wrote on this topic: > “If climate engineering in combination with resource conservation, > renewable energy systems and GHG reduction are all needed for our survival, > then it behooves us to explore what new opportunities climate engineering > presents for manifesting positive social and > political changes in the world. Since it would affect the entire world, > climate engineering should be internationally organized and executed, > requiring the cooperation of all the nations of the world. Seen in this > way, global warming may bring about a situation > mandating the cooperation of the entire human race, asking people and > nations to go beyond their immediate self-interest and act for the good of > the whole planet. The future climate of the planet may depend on whether > nations can cooperate in a spirit of shared sacrifice, and for democratic > nations, it depends on whether the people themselves can act in this way. > As it has always been, our collective destiny depends on our collective > consciousness and our ability to transform it to meet the challenges of our > time.” > > Of course I have no background on this subject, and would be curious to > know what others think. > > David > > > From: healthy-planet-action-coalit...@googlegroups.com < > healthy-planet-action-coalit...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of John Nissen > Sent: Monday, January 31, 2022 11:49 AM > To: David Mitchell <david.mitch...@dri.edu> > Cc: rpbai...@gmail.com; cl...@kingssquare.co.uk; H simmens < > hsimm...@gmail.com>; Robert Tulip <rtulip2...@yahoo.com.au>; > geoengineering <geoengineering@googlegroups.com>; Planetary Restoration < > planetary-restorat...@googlegroups.com>; Shaun Fitzgerald <sd...@cam.ac.uk>; > Hugh.Hunt <he...@cam.ac.uk>; healthy-planet-action-coalition < > healthy-planet-action-coalit...@googlegroups.com> > Subject: Re: [HCA-list] [geo] Solar geoengineering: The case for an > international non-use agreement > > Thanks, David, good points. > > The PRAG meeting starts in 10 minutes, and we can discuss them. > > Cheers, John > > > On Mon, Jan 31, 2022 at 5:51 PM David Mitchell < > david.mitch...@dri.edu<mailto:david.mitch...@dri.edu>> wrote: > Here are some reflections I've been having concerning the anticipated > rebuttal letter: > > > 1. The real target audience of a rebuttal letter should be policy makers > and the public, and not the signatories of the non-use letter. Regarding > the non-use letter, it might be noted that decisions born of fear generally > lead to poor outcomes. > > > > 2. There is currently a lot of fear in society which makes people more > reactive. The non-use letter can be persuasive by provoking additional fear > about climate intervention technology and then offering a mechanism to > reduce this apparent threat. A rebuttal letter could be an opportunity to > educate the public about the myth of net zero carbon, the timescales of > CDR, and the likelihood over overshooting the Paris Agreement thresholds, > empowering them to act more wisely. Uncertainty and the unknown promote > fear, whereas knowing the facts and the options available may reduce fear. > > > 3. I especially like the comments made by Clare James and Herb Simmens. > > > David Mitchell > > ________________________________ > From: > geoengineering@googlegroups.com<mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com> < > geoengineering@googlegroups.com<mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com>> > on behalf of Clare James < > cl...@kingssquare.co.uk<mailto:cl...@kingssquare.co.uk>> > Sent: Monday, January 31, 2022 8:07 AM > To: rpbai...@gmail.com<mailto:rpbai...@gmail.com> < > rpbai...@gmail.com<mailto:rpbai...@gmail.com>> > Cc: H simmens <hsimm...@gmail.com<mailto:hsimm...@gmail.com>>; John > Nissen <johnnissen2...@gmail.com<mailto:johnnissen2...@gmail.com>>; > Robert Tulip <rtulip2...@yahoo.com.au<mailto:rtulip2...@yahoo.com.au>>; > geoengineering < > geoengineering@googlegroups.com<mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com>>; > Planetary Restoration < > planetary-restorat...@googlegroups.com<mailto:planetary-restorat...@googlegroups.com>>; > Shaun Fitzgerald <sd...@cam.ac.uk<mailto:sd...@cam.ac.uk>>; Hugh.Hunt < > he...@cam.ac.uk<mailto:he...@cam.ac.uk>>; healthy-planet-action-coalition > < > healthy-planet-action-coalit...@googlegroups.com<mailto:healthy-planet-action-coalit...@googlegroups.com > >> > Subject: Re: [HCA-list] [geo] Solar geoengineering: The case for an > international non-use agreement > > 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 < > rpbai...@gmail.com<mailto:rpbai...@gmail.com>> 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 < > hsimm...@gmail.com<mailto:hsimm...@gmail.com>> 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 < > johnnissen2...@gmail.com<mailto:johnnissen2...@gmail.com>> 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 < > johnnissen2...@gmail.com<mailto:johnnissen2...@gmail.com>> 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/ > > > On Thu, Jan 27, 2022 at 6:22 PM Ron Baiman < > rpbai...@gmail.com<mailto:rpbai...@gmail.com>> 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 < > johnnissen2...@gmail.com<mailto:johnnissen2...@gmail.com>> 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 > > Back to top <#m_5815659627215592359_digest_top> > > You received this digest because you're subscribed to updates for this > group. You can change your settings on the group membership page. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send an > email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > > > > -- > 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 view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/BL0PR04MB47055FEC0D775DE6FA221195A4269%40BL0PR04MB4705.namprd04.prod.outlook.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/BL0PR04MB47055FEC0D775DE6FA221195A4269%40BL0PR04MB4705.namprd04.prod.outlook.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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAPhUB9C7Pjo%2BJm1q3kyC%2BTTh42mfqNsCXV14mO8qo%2BZHS0PD_g%40mail.gmail.com.
