Hi Robert
I'll leave others better qualified to comment on your numbers and in
particular, your statement that 'Albedo management and carbon management
could combine to return the planet to 280 ppm CO2 [...]. That could
occur alongside ongoing emissions.' I suspect there might be a little
push back on that.
Nevertheless, I am pleased that we've established that the core driver
for you is the protection of the fossil fuel industry's property
rights. An extension of that is that by truly embracing renewable
energy the industry could retain its pre-eminent position in supplying
the world with plentiful energy and in so doing create a whole new set
of property rights to replace those that are causing most of our GHG
related the problems. Those new property rights will emerge. Whether
the current fossil fuel industry is one of their primary owners depends
on the choices they now make.
Framing this as an ideological 'left/right' issue is also interesting.
I don't see it that way at all. For me it's about the internal
functioning of complex adaptive systems. Too big a topic to deal with
here but briefly, such systems _always_ grow and die. Their temporal
and spatial extent goes from the tiny to the huge, but they all
eventually die. Empires, governments, economic systems, cities,
corporations, industries, species, and so on. Sometimes they collapse
due to overwhelming external events such as the volcanic destruction of
Pompeii. Other times they collapse due to human failure such as Enron
and Lehman Bros. Sometimes they collapse because the world just moves
on and despite their best efforts, what they offer is no longer required
- where are all the farriers, thatchers and candlestick makers? But in
every case, the collapse arises due to the failure of the system to
adapt to changing circumstances. Sometimes the change is too great or
sudden for such adaptation to be possible. Other times it is due to a
lack of foresight.
There are probably very few who do not now consider the glory days of
the fossil fuel industry to be numbered. What that number is, is an
open question, as is the depth of foresight within the industry and in
government about how to manage the transition. You frame that as an
ideological question, I see it in systemic terms. In systemic terms,
there is a sweet spot on one side of which a system can be sustained by
continual adaptation, and on the other side of which attempts to
preserve elements that undermine the system, hasten its collapse. Where
we are right now in relation to that sweet spot can only be known
retrospectively. Foresight isn't an exact science but a lack of it is.
Robert Chris
On 31/05/2022 02:55, Robert Tulip wrote:
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].
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].
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/09252359-096d-0abb-4b07-ab2582ff51b5%40gmail.com.
