To Robert Chris
H Robert, I don’t agree with your comment that the need to manage albedo “has only been because of the fossil fuel industry blocking progress on transitioning to renewables.” Transition to renewable energy was never going to be the main climate solution. Faster progress on cutting emissions would not make much difference to ice melt. Most radiative forcing is from past emissions, with annual emissions worsening the problem by maybe 5%. Cutting emissions in half would slow the worsening annual effect of committed warming by about 2.5% on that measure, marginal to the scale of the climate problem. Albedo management and carbon management could combine to return the planet to 280 ppm CO2, the amount that gave us stable sea level. That could occur alongside ongoing emissions. To blame the fossil fuel industry for not jumping to give up its property rights while still supplying the world with plentiful energy creates a polarised climate debate. It would be better to find a climate strategy that both left and right can agree on. Easing off on emission reduction (~20% of the problem) while expanding geoengineering technologies (~80% of the solution) is the best way to build climate consensus. Regards Robert Tulip https://planetaryrestoration.net/ From: [email protected] <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Robert Chris Sent: Tuesday, 31 May 2022 1:00 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [CDR] Climate Security Timeline Robert, nothing new here. This was considered and dismissed at least as far back as 2009 (see Royal Society report here <https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/publications/2009/geoengineering-climate/> ), and repeatedly since then by those that understand that climate change and global warming are not synonymous. Albedo management is now necessary to refreeze the Arctic, as you note. However, this has only because of the fossil fuel industry blocking progress on transitioning to renewables. Far from making albedo management the priority action, their behaviour has now made both emissions reductions and albedo management more urgent. They have nowhere to hide. Their industries are in their final sunset phase. They have a simple choice, do they get behind the transition and make things better for everyone, or continue to resist and place us all in peril. Their fate is sealed either way. Perhaps you can explain this to me. If I was running a major corporation and I knew that the market for my primary product would more or less disappear in a matter of a few decades, why would I not now do everything in my power to reposition my business to be best placed to capitalise on what will follow it and to minimise the losses from my stranded assets? The fossil fuel sector has the finance, skill set and the global reach to rapidly totally transform the global energy sector. Why don't they do that, instead of paying lip service to the need for change but all the while consigning themselves to a slow and painful death that will hurt countless others in the process? Is it so difficult for them to go from zero to hero? Regards Robert Chris On 30/05/2022 12:40, 'Robert Tulip' via Carbon Dioxide Removal wrote: The attached Climate Security Timeline shows a new suggestion on climate priorities. It calls for a shift away from emission reduction as the main agenda, to instead focus at global level on albedo enhancement. Brightening the planet to reflect more sunlight can stabilise and reverse the movement toward a hotter world as the foundation of a new climate approach. Agreed systems to increase albedo should be in place before 2030. With a brighter planet as the foundation, the direct cooling effects make time available to scale up greenhouse gas conversion and removal to levels well above emissions. By the 2040s, GGC&R can produce steady decline in GHG levels over the second half of this century. Carbon dioxide conversion can store hundreds of billions of tonnes of carbon in valuable locations such as soil, biomass, etc, reducing the need to sequester as CO2. Market demand can regulate global emissions, which at annual scale are a minor factor in radiative forcing compared to albedo and GHG concentrations. The critical engineering path suggested for the planetary climate is like building a house. Albedo is the foundation, greenhouse gas conversions and removals are the walls, and decarbonisation caps the roof by a future move away from fossil fuels. You cannot build walls and roof until you have laid the foundation. That creates a timeline whereby global focus on a brighter world in this decade can replace the sole political emphasis on emissions and can give practical support to the recognition that removal of atmospheric carbon is essential. Without higher albedo, GHG effects cannot cool the planet. Higher albedo can only be engineered by peaceful global cooperation on new technologies such as marine cloud brightening. Albedo needs to be addressed first, especially at the poles, where refreezing should be an immediate global priority for climate security. Turning the polar oceans from dark to light by stopping the melting of summer ice will make a critical difference in the planetary energy balance. A main focus on albedo will give time for the slower effects of GHG conversion, removal and reduction to contribute over the next decades to a stable and secure and productive planetary climate. This order of priorities can sustain the biosphere conditions that have enabled humans and all other living species to flourish on our planet Earth. Robert Tulip -- 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 [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> . To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/061801d8741a%240aecc350%2420c649f0%24%40yahoo.com.au <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/061801d8741a%240aecc350%2420c649f0%24%40yahoo.com.au?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> . -- 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 [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> . To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/a952e272-a15f-0f50-00a5-01c9c19d0186%40gmail.com <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/a952e272-a15f-0f50-00a5-01c9c19d0186%40gmail.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/01c601d87491%24742bd820%245c838860%24%40yahoo.com.au.
