Hi Daniel
Thanks for noting this report
<https://www.ippr.org/research/publications/1-5c-dead-or-alive>. It
contains the following:
*Limiting heating to 1.5°C is still physically possible.* It will
require deep and sustained emissions reductions, with immediate
action needed to ensure emissions peak in the next couple of years
(IPCC 2022a). This can only happen if, in the words of the United
Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), there is an “urgent
system-wide transformation” of societies globally over the 2020s and
beyond (UNEP 2022a). This is why Birol has also said that
“proponents of the existing energy systems will be the beneficiaries
if the obituary of 1.5°C is written” (Harvey 2022). *Declaring the
1.5°C goal lost could benefit those who wish to delay rapid
emissions reductions and use unproven and risky technologies to make
potentially dangerous promises about how societies do not need
significant change.* (emphasis added)
Birol is Faith Birol, CEO of International Energy Agency. The Harvey
reference is to an article in the Guardian reporting Birol's comments
just before COP27. UNEP 2022a refers to their Emissions Gap Report 2022.
If Hansen et al's /Warming in the Pipeline /is sound science, the
fundamental premise of this report is unsound - limiting heating to
1.5°C is NOT still physically possible, at least not through a sole
focus on GHGs.
This is either an innocent error of timing - the report was written
before Hansen et al's paper, or it's another example of institutional
denial of the failure of the existing policy regime. Take your pick!
The final sentence above is playing to the so-called moral hazard
argument that wrongly assumes that not delaying rapid emissions would
make much difference. It also totally fails to assess the relative
risks of deploying the supposedly risky technologies and not doing so,
and assumes that their risks cannot be mitigated by further research and
experience.
Their report refers to the 'doom loop'. Their take on all this is
likely to be self-fulfilling.
Regards
Robert
On 16/02/2023 10:56, Daniel wrote:
Hi Herb,
Thanks for sharing the Silver Lining report. Very useful. Glad to see
such progressive and realistic thinking coming out of the US regarding
the need for urgent investment into R&D for direct cooling tech.
By contrast, 2 UK think tanks (Chatham House and IPPR) have released a
new report which refers to geoengineering as an 'extreme' measure and
implies the climate problem can be solved by 'virtuous' carbon
reduction measures such as insulation, heat pump installation etc.
Again there is no differentiation between different types of
geo-engineering or its relative merits compared to carbon reduction
alone /carbon reduction + carbon removal etc.
Here's an article from today's Guardian about this report:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/feb/16/world-risks-descending-into-a-climate-doom-loop-warn-thinktanks
It also implies that geoengineering would be considered / taken
seriously as a policy option if 1.5C is no longer viewed as a viable /
possible warming limit with current 'net zero' type approaches.
As we all know, exceeding 1.5C is certain to be exceeded with current
national / international approaches to climate change, yet denial of
this fact leads to denial of the urgent need for direct cooling
intervention. We therefore have to focus on combatting this new type
of *climate denial *- based on the false hope that keeping below 1.5C
is still possible by 'virtuous' GHG reduction actions alone. With the
timescale we have this is a complete fantasy.
Kind regards,
Daniel
On Wed, 15 Feb 2023 at 18:07, H simmens <[email protected]> wrote:
Silverlining has released a new report recommending the
expenditure of $13 billion in the US over the next five years to
research climate interventions, most specifically sunlight
reflection.
Silverlining is perhaps the most active and influential NGO in the
direct climate cooling space so it is likely that these
recommendations will carry considerable weight in the climate
policy arena.
HPAC has reached out to Kelly Wanser the Silverlining founder to
speak at one of our meetings.
Herb
Herb Simmens
Author A Climate Vocabulary of the Future
@herbsimmens
Begin forwarded message:
*From:* Kelly Wanser <[email protected]>
*Date:* February 15, 2023 at 12:35:24 PM EST
*To:* [email protected]
*Subject:* *[New Report] Near-term Climate Risk and Intervention:
A Roadmap for Research, U.S. Research Investment and
International Scientific Cooperation*
*Reply-To:* Kelly Wanser <[email protected]>
A new report by SilverLining calls for the United States, as a
leading provider of open climate research internationally, to
undertake...
View this email in your browser
<https://mailchi.mp/silverlining.ngo/team-introductions-17025255?e=abe26d117d>
<https://ngo.us20.list-manage.com/track/click?u=effa7b2192dde9046ae5e5444&id=f087589c50&e=abe26d117d>
*A new report by SilverLining calls for the United States, as a
leading provider of open climate research internationally, to
undertake a “Climate Safety Initiative” to deliver against a
well-defined roadmap of research supported by $13 billion in new
funding over 5 years.*
The magnitude of escalating climate threats, particularly for the
world’s most vulnerable people and ecosystems, warrants a
concerted effort to improve projections of near-term climate
risks and impacts and to assess the potential for climate
interventions to reduce them.
Climate interventions are approaches to rapidly remove greenhouse
gases or heat energy from the atmosphere to prevent the worst
impacts of climate change. The most rapid approaches involve
dispersing particles to increase the reflection of sunlight (or
release of longwave radiation) from the atmosphere, also called
“solar climate intervention”. These approaches are similar to
processes that occur in nature and as effects of pollution that
are long-standing areas of uncertainty that limit climate
prediction and risk analysis.
Read the Report
<https://ngo.us20.list-manage.com/track/click?u=effa7b2192dde9046ae5e5444&id=91e1664173&e=abe26d117d>
Read the Overview
<https://ngo.us20.list-manage.com/track/click?u=effa7b2192dde9046ae5e5444&id=1ff2997d1e&e=abe26d117d>
“*To bring global temperatures down quickly, the only button we
can push - that we know about - is solar climate intervention*,”
says David Fahey, Co-Chair of the Scientific Assessment Panel of
the Montreal Protocol and Director of the Chemical Sciences
Laboratory, NOAA, “*There are many uncertainties, which is why
scientists should be studying the issue carefully.*”
These uncertainties create an urgent need for a major public
research effort. Such an effort, structured around a 5-year
roadmap, could fill information gaps and support robust
scientific assessment of the potential for solar climate
intervention to reduce near-term climate risks. Research should
include improved modeling and analyses of climate and impacts,
improved observations of the atmosphere and other natural
systems, research on specific sunlight reflection approaches,
socio-economic studies, and international scientific programs.
There are large uncertainties in predicting near-term climate,
including dangerous “tipping points” for irreversible changes in
natural systems and how expected reductions in particulate
pollution could add to near-term warming. Yet U.S. and global
funding for climate research (excluding energy and other
emissions reduction) are relatively low given their importance to
public welfare and the economy. This funding has been flat in
real terms for several decades and requires increased investment.
The report calls for increasing U.S. funding for research by $2.6
billion per year (60-70% above existing levels) for 5 years to
rapidly improve our ability to predict and manage near-term
climate change, with emphasis on improving the understanding of
atmospheric influences on climate.
U.S. scientific research plays a central role in supporting
international climate and environmental science and governance
for the rest of the world. A coordinated U.S. scientific research
effort on near-term climate risk and intervention could also
facilitate expanded international participation in research to
support more effective and equitable decision-making, including
for those most affected by climate change.
*Related Content: *
The report builds on information in SilverLining’s 2019 report,
Ensuring a Safe Climate: A National Imperative for Research in
Climate Intervention and Earth System Prediction
<https://ngo.us20.list-manage.com/track/click?u=effa7b2192dde9046ae5e5444&id=7441fd2c27&e=abe26d117d>,
and a series of papers by international climate law experts Sue
Biniaz and Daniel Bodansky, Solar Climate Intervention: Options
for International Assessment and Decision-making
<https://ngo.us20.list-manage.com/track/click?u=effa7b2192dde9046ae5e5444&id=4b3ac58796&e=abe26d117d>.**
About SilverLining
/SilverLining is a non-profit organization dedicated to ensuring
that society has sufficient options to address near-term climate
risks. SilverLining engages with the research community,
policymakers, technologists, civil society, and people from all
walks of life to help advance research and innovation in efforts
to ensure a safe climate. /
/Learn more at our website
<https://ngo.us20.list-manage.com/track/click?u=effa7b2192dde9046ae5e5444&id=a2d5d32bfb&e=abe26d117d>
and follow us on social media below. /
Twitter
<https://ngo.us20.list-manage.com/track/click?u=effa7b2192dde9046ae5e5444&id=eb92f6a8dc&e=abe26d117d>
LinkedIn
<https://ngo.us20.list-manage.com/track/click?u=effa7b2192dde9046ae5e5444&id=3b48e37e14&e=abe26d117d>
Website
<https://ngo.us20.list-manage.com/track/click?u=effa7b2192dde9046ae5e5444&id=8c97bda63d&e=abe26d117d>
/Copyright © 2022 SilverLining, All rights reserved./
*Our mailing address is:*
SilverLining
500 North Capitol St NW #210
Washington, DC 20001
Want to change how you receive these emails?
You can update your preferences
<https://ngo.us20.list-manage.com/profile?u=effa7b2192dde9046ae5e5444&id=1c05823662&e=abe26d117d&c=28075791b1>
or unsubscribe from this list
<https://ngo.us20.list-manage.com/unsubscribe?u=effa7b2192dde9046ae5e5444&id=1c05823662&e=abe26d117d&c=28075791b1>.
--
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].
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/planetary-restoration/4D58AF3B-70C9-49B7-89D8-579A97A44395%40gmail.com
<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/planetary-restoration/4D58AF3B-70C9-49B7-89D8-579A97A44395%40gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Healthy Planet Action Coalition (HPAC)" 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/healthy-planet-action-coalition/CADtjw3_kK08OKP19iMxZrhsPOod1StjAJy_H%3DkP7kQjPHWwtig%40mail.gmail.com
<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/CADtjw3_kK08OKP19iMxZrhsPOod1StjAJy_H%3DkP7kQjPHWwtig%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
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/813b9a28-11ed-dac0-ef75-570098cd1f76%40gmail.com.
