Diane and Harold, thank you for these comments – I have added my responses below.
In summary, the focus on cutting emissions as the main priority ignores the real scale of the climate problem. Regards Robert Tulip From: [email protected] <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Diane Warren Sent: Tuesday, 31 May 2022 11:49 AM To: Harold Hedelman <[email protected]> Cc: JOHN ENGLANDER <[email protected]>; Doug Grandt <[email protected]>; Robert Tulip <[email protected]>; geoengineering <[email protected]>; Carbon Dioxide Removal <[email protected]>; Planetary Restoration <[email protected]>; Healthy Climate Alliance <[email protected]>; healthy-planet-action-coalition <[email protected]>; [email protected] Subject: Re: Assuming we know how to increase albedo Re: [HCA-list] Climate Security Timeline What would those of you who think we should not shift the primary focus away from emissions propose to do with the trillion tons of excess CO2 that are now warming the planet, will do so until it is removed, and will stay for hundreds to a thousand years? * This question gets to the Pareto 80/20 logic of climate change – over 80% of climate effort goes into investment in emission reduction that can deliver at best 20% of results. Those proportions have to be reversed. Large scale measures to stabilise the climate should get most of the available funds, to directly target cutting radiative forcing. What would you propose to do about tipping points that were met approximately 15 years ago that are feedback loops now adding methane and CO2 at an alarming rate that will continue to get worse until we face and fix the problem? * Another great question! The immediate task to stop tipping points from accelerating is to increase planetary albedo. Against that urgency, cutting emissions is a second order priority. If we were to quit emissions by some miracle in the near future, we would still have the urgent problem of past emissions and current tipping points wreaking havoc. They are wreaking more havoc than what we are emitting right now. * The world shows no intention of quitting emissions. Governments agreed at Paris that annual emissions would increase until 2030. The disruption involved in changing the energy system too fast is a distraction from cooling. Decarbonisation has no prospect of being agreed by major emitters at climate-relevant scale and speed, and would cause needless delay through economic and political conflict. Our emissions got us into this mess and stopping emissions is necessary but not sufficient. * It is not true that stopping all emissions is necessary. If/when CO2 removal and conversion achieves a bigger scale than total emissions, there may be no great problem in allowing some emissions to continue. It is also possible that coal emissions will be fully utilised to grow algae biofuel to create a circular energy system. Removing CO2 at 50 billion tons per year will give us time to continue to lower emissions. * It is amusing that you use the phrase “continue to lower emissions” when apart from the tiny pandemic blip, invisible on the Mauna Loa CO2 graph, world emissions have continued to increase quite remorselessly. Lowering emissions will not give us time to remove GHG's from the atmosphere. * This is a critical point about both time and capacity. The trajectory to net zero emissions should mainly be met by greenhouse gas conversion and removal. Consider the hypothetical alternatives, at extremes of a spectrum of options. If by 2050 all combustion has stopped, and CDR is zero, the world will have achieved net zero emissions. The 600 ppm CO2e in the atmosphere will continue to exist, and will continue to destabilise planetary climate until a new equilibrium is reached. As well, with no CDR, there would be no capacity to remove committed warming from past emissions. Or, at the other extreme, if combustion continues with business as usual and GGR scales up to equal emissions, the world will have achieved net zero, and will also have created technological capacity to drive a trajectory for GGR to continue to increase, surpassing CO2 emissions and lowering the CO2 level toward Holocene norms. As well as your point about not giving us time for GGR, cutting emissions as the main climate focus crowds out investment that should go into GGR and SRM. Cutting emissions can be great for the economy and environment, but does very little about climate change. OK, to the scientists - did I get that right? Warmly, Diane * Thanks again Diane, your strategic commentary here is very astute. I am not a scientist, but I do follow the science closely and your comments align with my understanding. Robert Tulip. More comments below in response to Harold Hedelman. On Mon, May 30, 2022 at 5:20 PM Harold Hedelman <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > wrote: Doug, first of all, hi!!! I concur with John, that it is a mistake to talk about shifting the focus AWAY FROM emissions reduction. Rather than framing albedo reduction as an EITHER/OR choice, a BOTH/AND framing would be better. * Hi Harold, the existential situation is one of either/or. Either we continue the failed IPCC refusal to promote cooling strategies using geoengineering, by continuing to frame climate policy as a war on fossil fuels, or we recognise that the focus on cutting emissions has largely been a blind alley, and can usefully be deferred for twenty years. Strategies to scale up GGRs can allow emissions to continue. Strong emission cuts would reduce GHGs by a few gigatonnes each year, when the overall problem scale is a thousand gigatonnes. Different thinking is needed. Given the tiny contribution that emission cuts can make to cutting radiative forcing, the political benefits of easing up pressure on emissions far outweigh the disadvantages. It means left and right have to cooperate, which would be good for social cohesion. A shift to a geoengineering climate policy would unlock the resources, skills, networks and funds of the fossil fuel industry to support climate stability, as it would end the fear that their assets will be stranded due to political manipulation of climate policy. In fact, no matter what climate restoration specifics we advocate for, the same both/and framing will likely be more successful and face less opposition. * I disagree. The emission reduction paradigm is broken and has to be replaced by a stronger quantitative focus on practical ways to repair the climate. Right wingers already point out that full achievement of Paris pledges would barely slow the temperature increase. They use that to deny climate science. Meanwhile leftists say go in harder and sacrifice more to cut standards of living by making energy more expensive. A balanced view can recognise the Paris decarbonisation program is in a futile hole and more digging will not escape it. Obviously those with vested commercial or ideological interests in the existing climate policies will oppose change, but it is likely that the broader community will see the logic of a shift to albedo as the main climate concern for the 2020s <https://ci3.googleusercontent.com/mail-sig/AIorK4zUa6df4cB2WGCwRRr0ZTpJtnSEq1XU8HXPmsVn1h9W1SOwTbFr8SHonG2s4oWZksGWBlCbYSM> Harold Hedelman || 510-473-6897 On Mon, May 30, 2022 at 7:56 AM JOHN ENGLANDER <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > wrote: Robert and all — I get the appeal and reasoning, but find this a misleading and dangerous position. First, it indicates that we know how to increase the albedo in a benign way, with confidence, which is not the case. Second, following this logic takes the emphasis off of slowing the increase in GHG. JOHN ENGLANDER Twitter: @johnenglander LinkedIN: linkedin.com/in/johnenglander/ <http://www.linkedin.com/in/johnenglander/> http://www.johnenglander.net New Book: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1733499903 On May 30, 2022, at 10:18 AM, 'Doug Grandt' via Healthy Climate Alliance <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > wrote: Excellent analogy, Robert. I like it! Good on ya, mate ! Doug Grandt BTW, I am inspired to weave it into a May 1st presentation that I recorded last Sunday—there are a couple hiccups or verbal typos and rough unrehearsed sections that need to be cleaned up for an updated re-recording. Your thoughts and critique are welcome to streamline this 32 minute video Bit.ly/DougsMayDay <http://bit.ly/DougsMayDay> dg Sent from my iPhone (audio texting) On May 30, 2022, at 7:40 AM, 'Robert Tulip' via Planetary Restoration <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > 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 "Planetary Restoration" 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/planetary-restoration/061801d8741a%240aecc350%2420c649f0%24%40yahoo.com.au <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/planetary-restoration/061801d8741a%240aecc350%2420c649f0%24%40yahoo.com.au?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> . For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. <Climate Security Timeline.png> -- 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 <mailto:[email protected]> [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-climate-alliance/2DEC7785-9B89-411B-82C7-A4D0F276F2FE%40mac.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-climate-alliance/2DEC7785-9B89-411B-82C7-A4D0F276F2FE%40mac.com. -- 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/7186EBED-A66F-4783-9C1B-CC07F55D1942%40gmail.com <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-climate-alliance/7186EBED-A66F-4783-9C1B-CC07F55D1942%40gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> . -- 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/CANgs4ro54p%2Bz2Me%3DgPwizX49LmoYz2hKwpd%2BYONz4jRKfq1Nxw%40mail.gmail.com <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-climate-alliance/CANgs4ro54p%2Bz2Me%3DgPwizX49LmoYz2hKwpd%2BYONz4jRKfq1Nxw%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> . -- 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/CACSDze1S3jXwsZo%2B7TzHuRGNwDj2UuwZnXzcKt_XZ6BJgj-vPQ%40mail.gmail.com <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-climate-alliance/CACSDze1S3jXwsZo%2B7TzHuRGNwDj2UuwZnXzcKt_XZ6BJgj-vPQ%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/02fc01d874bd%24afb7aa00%240f26fe00%24%40rtulip.net.
