Thanks Robert. I'm thinking that the key is in your second sentence. There is no doubt that SAI (if it can be done without major adverse unintended consequences) would be much faster, less costly, and (likely) much less disruptive of existing political and economic arrangements. But I don't think a) cooling, and b) reducing and c)removing, can be easily compared, and (as I've stated) not sure this (at least in terms of high leverage global methods like SAI) would ultimately be a good idea, as this method cries out for coordinated public (not decentralized private) implementation and funding. Per the HPAC position we need all three and they can't be substituted for each other! However (as I've said) in terms of moving up the urgency of cooling I'm hoping that the Making Sensets initiative will have a positive impact. Fingers crossed! Ron Baiman
On Sun, Jan 15, 2023 at 8:13 PM Robert Tulip <[email protected]> wrote: > Ron > > > > Thanks for this cost comparison you raise between Solar Radiation > Management and Greenhouse Gas Removal. The economics and politics and > science of comparing something that is big and fast but impermanent (SRM) > versus something that is small and slow but permanent (GGR) are > complicated. The following numbers are rough, but they seem within the > order of magnitude. Happy to be corrected. > > Let’s say SRM could cut the temperature by 2°C for an ongoing annual cost > of USD $40 billion (cf Wake Smith > <https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aba7e7>). > Achieving that same temperature cut with GGR at a cost of $10 per tonne of > CO2e – with long term removal – would have to remove about two trillion > tonnes of CO2e <https://www.globalwarmingindex.org/>, at a cost of $20 > trillion. That would equal the SRM cost for 500 years. > > > > My view is this is a conservative comparison, and the reality is likely to > be more in favour of SRM. > > > > The GGR result might take 100 years to achieve, whereas MacMartin > <https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.2202230119> argues SAI could > deliver this temperature cut in 50 years, not including Marine Cloud > Brightening and other technologies. With political agreement, cooling by > SRM could be deployed quickly, preventing tipping points, a key point that > is ignored by opponents of SRM. If a sudden Arctic methane release > <https://www.scientistswarning.org/2022/09/01/methane-emergency/> caused > ten billion tonnes of CO2e to enter the atmosphere, that would outweigh all > practical GGR, causing accelerating feedbacks. This and other tipping > points could possibly be prevented by the annual investment in SRM, which > therefore has a major security and stability benefit. > > > > Relying just on the carbon-based cooling methods of GGR seems a bit like > leaving your house wide open, whereas SRM provides a precautionary security > prevention, a bit like locking your doors. Medically, the analogy could be > that SRM is like pills for blood pressure or cholesterol, whereas GGR is > like diet and exercise. If you are in bad shape, it is no use complaining > that you ignored recommended drug treatments after you have a heart > attack. > > > > Does this comparison help provide a valid basis to calculate Radiative > Forcing Credits? > > > > Regards > > > > Robert Tulip > > > > > > *From:* [email protected] <[email protected]> *On > Behalf Of *Ron Baiman > *Sent:* Monday, 16 January 2023 11:09 AM > *To:* healthy-planet-action-coalition < > [email protected]>; 'Eelco Rohling' via > NOAC Meetings <[email protected]>; Planetary Restoration < > [email protected]>; geoengineering < > [email protected]>; Healthy Climate Alliance < > [email protected]> > *Cc:* [email protected]; [email protected]; Andrew Lockley < > [email protected]>; Jesse Reynolds <[email protected]>; > [email protected] > *Subject:* [geo] Make Sunsets - useful act of civil disobedience or > irresponsible and like counter-productive silicon valley hubris? > > > > Dear Colleagues, > > > > For those wondering what this is all about see: https://makesunsets.com/ > and links and existing thread cited below. > > > > I'm opening up another thread on this as I don't feel comfortable sharing > the comments on the existing thread (please view at: > [email protected]) with the other google groups added to > this post. > > > > I too have numerous natural and social science issues with the > representations made by Make Sunsets. > > > > Most salient for me on the scientific side is comparing potential one year > of radiative forcing with with a ton of CO2 removal - as Pete and Jesse > repeatedly emphasize here: > https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/27-luke-iseman-on-his-for-profit-solar-geoengineering/id1593211714?i=1000593365923 > this is nonsense - as the radiative forcing regime would have to be > continued for hundreds or thousands of years to obtain even rough > equivalence turning the $10 for 1 ton CO2 removal into more like the NPV of > what Make Sunsets is offering a $1,000 - $10,000 or more per ton offset > that is not really an offset as the other effects of the increased CO2 like > ocean acidification etc. would remain in place. Also of course the lack of > the most elementary MRV (monitoring, reporting, and verification) for the > two launches made - albeit before the for-profit company was formed - > emphasized by Andrew here: > https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/important-pioneers-or-pirates-make-sunsets-sell-launch-sai/id1529459393?i=1000591767167 > and here: > https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/can-you-stop-srm-viviani-galpern/id1529459393?i=1000594246859 > . > > > > On the social science side (as I've mentioned in a NOAC thread on cooling > credits), unlike CO2 (or CO2 equivalent) GHG removal, Direct Climate > Cooling (DCC) broadly (not just SRM, see: > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TowThwi6j6cX3iLGBRrj22D30cYhKa_9/edit > ) is not a pure global public good. That is, it DOES matter *where and > when* you do it. This is even true of SAI as experts on the lists above > can testify ( see for example SAI discussion and footnote 95 here: > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TowThwi6j6cX3iLGBRrj22D30cYhKa_9/edit > and > https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1wYxY8V_XLjwkbOBtgGXV92wUnUgjriP_ > ). So the details of setting up even an SAI private radiative forcing, or > even carefully designed and regulated, public, radiative forcing, > decentralized offset system (if desirable) would be much more complicated > than existing decentralized GHG offset systems - *as GHG offset is a pure > global public good*. It seems that it would be much more efficient, > responsible, and effective (especially as SAI costs are minimal compared > to GHG reduction and drawdown - per Gurnot Wagner's "free driver" point) to > fund and implement this publicly - as Luke and Andrew (Make Sunsets > founders) themselves emphasize in the podcasts above. > > However, having said this (perhaps because I feel more free to do this as > I am not (like Jesse, Pete, and Andrew and others in the prior thread) a > prominent player in this space, I'm going to go out on a *personal* limb > on this ( though I am a member of the HPAC SC my views below have not been > discussed with my HPAC colleagues). My thinking is that what Luke and > Andrew have done may prove to be an act of civil disobedience that may > indeed move the ball forward on Direct Climate Cooling and particularly on > SAI. Luke's statements at the end of Climate Challenge podcast with Pete > and Jesse resonated with me as the cry of very conscious and aware young > people who are (within the space that he and Andrew are most familiar with > - Silicon Valley startups) making a statement to the world - and to us more > responsible and cautious "elders" that something drastic has to be done, > and if responsible parties like governments, non-profits, and academics, > are unwilling or unable, to move cooling forward quickly, other agencies > (individuals and for-profit startups) will try to do something in whatever > way they can. > > > > My hope is that instead of this turning into a OIF Russ George CBD > (perceived) prohibition on geoengineering (per Jesse's point at the end of > the Challenging Climate podcast) - this and other similar actions will be > the impetus that lights a fire for public authorities demonstrating that if > responsible action on DCC and SAI is not rapidly expedited - individuals > and nations may act irresponsibly. Hopefully the analogy will be more > like Robinson's Ministry of the Future Uttar Pradesh wet bulb event leading > to unilateral Indian SAI than the George OIF debacle! > > > > Best, > > Ron Baiman > > > > > > > > > > -- > 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/CAPhUB9A7Q%2BF0yOWbKA%3DvMr5vh4nCuLTD_KchjStw_KHWbuhrBg%40mail.gmail.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAPhUB9A7Q%2BF0yOWbKA%3DvMr5vh4nCuLTD_KchjStw_KHWbuhrBg%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/CAPhUB9DVWwc6Ux5KkXv-2-DMYdrTN8Y6BEjOLjBNKP1SM57v-g%40mail.gmail.com.
