Hi Robert
Nothing snide about my comments. I was merely noting that your focus is
a climate change policy regime that addresses the property rights of the
fossil fuel industry, as opposed to an industrial policy that responds
to the needs of climate change. It's a subtle distinction but it
establishes the order of priority. It may be that that the two are not
in conflict and therefore the distinction is irrelevant, but if they
are, your positioning puts the property rights first.
An issue that you'll need to address when promoting an albedo management
(AM) driven climate policy regime is the substantial body of research
that suggests that a climate cooled by AM is a quite different climate
from one cooled by lower atmospheric GHG concentrations and quite
different from the one we have now. It entrains environmental impacts
that are different from those from unrestrained warming, but not
necessarily less impactful. In addition, AM does nothing for ocean
acidification, which would accelerate in your scenario.
Your comments about the availability and economics of renewables are
interesting. There is certainly not enough of them available today but
new renewables are already generally cheaper than new fossil fuels, and
even more so if the imbalance in subsidies were addressed. But much the
same could be said about AM. That doesn't yet exist as a deliverable
technology at scale, so there's an equal timing problem about its
availability. Refreezing the Arctic is a great idea and some people are
thinking about it. But no one is doing it. There's no sense of urgency
outside of a few academics waving their arms frantically, and ignored by
most everyone else. The resources are available to promote either or
both AM and renewables to get to climatically significant scale within a
couple of decades. It's a choice. Will the fossil fuel industry now
start putting some serious money into AM to realise the future climate
management you envisage? Or are they expecting that this will be funded
by the public purse? If so, it'll raise an interesting debate about
which is more deserving of public funds, renewables or AM. Securing
social licence for extensive AM is also likely to be significant
challenge, quite apart from the technology aspects .
I am fully aware that 80% of energy is currently provided from fossil
fuels. Indeed, that defines the scale of the problem we face. I share
your scepticism about our capacity to invert that percentage, the
historical record going back more than 200 years demonstrates the
unprecedented nature of the challenge. I have no illusions about the
likelihood of it being achieved. While I have never doubted that we
have the wherewithal to do so, that doesn't mean that we can organise
ourselves to actually make it happen. Human history is littered with
such failures. The systems point I was making is that not doing
everything we can to retire fossil fuels at the earliest opportunity, is
a good indicator of the likelihood of success (or failure!).
I rather like your comment about the 'popular tribal myth that emission
reduction is enough to fix the climate'. I'm not sure what 'fixing the
climate' actually means and how you can know in advance that any policy
will 'fix' it. It's more likely to be a continuing process of trial and
error, like almost all public policy interventions. Do people really
believe that emissions reductions are enough? I'm not sure about that.
I think that most informed commentators would argue that the evidence
strongly suggests that emissions reductions are an important part of the
mix, yet might still not be enough. However, that they might not be
enough is not a reason not to do as much of them as possible. I also
think that most informed commentators would argue that the evidence
strongly suggests that more emissions are not likely to 'fix' the climate.
Your comments bring to mind a suggestion from John Maynard Keynes about
how to solve the unemployment crisis in the 1930s depression. He said:
If the Treasury were to fill old bottles with banknotes, bury them
at suitable depths in disused coalmines which are then filled up to
the surface with town rubbish, and leave it to private enterprise on
well-tried principles of laissez-faire to dig the notes up again
(the right to do so being obtained, of course, by tendering for
leases of the note-bearing territory), there need be no more
unemployment and, with the help of the repercussions, the real
income of the community, and its capital wealth also, would probably
become a good deal greater than it actually is. It would, indeed, be
more sensible to build houses and the like; but if there are
political and practical difficulties in the way of this, the above
would be better than nothing.
Burning fossil fuels that emit GHGs and then paying to have them sucked
out of the air and disposed of, or using AM to mask their warming
effects, is much like burying banknotes and then paying someone to dig
them up.
Robert Chris
On 31/05/2022 10:40, Robert Tulip wrote:
Further response to Robert Chris, dot points in email below.
*From:*Robert Chris <[email protected]>
*Sent:* Tuesday, 31 May 2022 4:42 PM
*To:* Robert Tulip <[email protected]>
*Cc:* 'healthy-planet-action-coalition'
<[email protected]>; 'Planetary
Restoration' <[email protected]>;
'geoengineering' <[email protected]>;
[email protected]; 'Healthy Climate Alliance'
<[email protected]>
*Subject:* Re: [CDR] Climate Security Timeline
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.
* Happy to debate numbers. Total emissions by the end of this
century will be about one billion gigatonnes of carbon, while
annual emissions are about 15 gigatonnes C including equivalents.
The yearly amount is roughly 1.5% of the GHG forcing, leaving
aside factors like ocean interactions and the additional forcing
from albedo feedbacks. I have not seen a peer reviewed statement
of the ratio between annual emissions effect and total radiative
forcing so this is just my estimate. Another way to calculate the
ratio might be to set the proxy for radiative forcing as the CO2e
increase since the Holocene, about 200 ppm, and note that the
annual 2.3ppm increase is just over 1% of that total. Even
rounded up to 5% of RF, cutting emissions is still marginal to
climate stability. 280 ppm CO2 is an important target as it
represents the stable climate that enabled our current sea level
with beaches and ports and fragile coastal ecosystems. These would
all be destroyed under current climate policies but could be saved
by a rapid shift to an albedo focus. The main constraint to
starting SRM and scaling up GGR much bigger than emissions is
political understanding.
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.
* Excuse me Robert, I appreciate this is a fraught topic, but such
wilful distortion does you no credit. The core driver for me is
climate security, as clearly stated in this thread. I am simply
pointing out that snide dismissal of property rights inevitably
causes social conflict. Climate solutions that preserve legal
rights are to be preferred when this gives their owners an
incentive to cooperate in measures to solve their own and wider
problems. That is the situation for fossil fuel industries and
geoengineering.
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.
* And an extension of a proposed strategy to rely mainly on
transforming the energy sector is a burning earth. Renewable
energy potential is far too small, slow, contested and expensive
to stop dangerous warming.
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.
* The political left largely want to destroy the fossil fuel
industry, on the misguided assumption that to do so would stop
climate change, while the political right and centre largely want
to protect these industries from unjustified attacks. That
political divide opens the need for dialogue on how ongoing
emissions could be compatible with a path to a stable climate.
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.
* I am pointing out that a good way for the fossil fuel industry to
adapt to a changing climate is to support geoengineering. That
will solve the warming problem and enable a more gradual tradition
away from fuel sources that are less economic. I do need to point
out that the world now relies on fossil fuels for over 80% of
energy use. Blithe elegies for the main infrastructure of our
economy are very premature, and certainly not inevitable in our
lifetimes. If we can scale up GGR enough then ongoing emissions
will not harm the climate. It is disturbing to revel in
predictions of the demise of industries that are central to world
prosperity
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.
* “Glory days” could still be ahead if this industry opens a
conversation on the potential of geoengineering to salvage its
business models. If the oil majors offered to cooperate to
refreeze the Arctic Ocean, in exchange for greater social and
political licence to operate, it would be a good deal. A frozen
Pole would slow down tipping points, whereas a few more gigatonnes
of emissions is neither here nor there in the greater scheme of
climate stability and security.
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.
* Your ‘sweet spot’ analogy does not work in the way you suggest,
which seems to imply the precautionary principle requires
accelerated decarbonisation. A far more precautionary approach is
to shift focus to albedo, as the main urgent global cooperation
priority for climate. But the sweet spot does apply to climate
policy. What an irony it would be if the main “element that
undermines the system” turns out to be the popular tribal myth
that emission reduction is enough to fix the climate. Thanks for
interesting comments. Regards, Robert Tulip
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]>
<mailto:[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/cc8faa14-7324-b0bf-27c8-d9aaac83bf55%40gmail.com.
