Robert- Good point about the scientists uniformly calling for delaying implementation, essentially indefinitely, since they don't offer any criteria for actually starting to restore safe methane levels and protect against a methane burst.
Do you think this is an ethical issue? Doubling the methane oxidation rate would result, in 5 years, in methane levels cut roughly in half--bringing warming back to roughly 2002 levels. This would likely save a million lives a year lost in the severe hurricanes, floods, wildfires and droughts we have now. And if today's methane burst gets serious, it could also save a quarter, or even all of humanity from the kind of extinction event that happened last time our planet lost the Arctic sea ice. Even if it's only a 1% chance that history repeats itself (warming is now happening 10 times faster than during the previous methane burst called the PETM), statistically that's 8 billion people divided by a 1/1000 probability, or 8 million people we could save. Is it ethical for climate scientists to make the same claims that health scientists made for tobacco companies and later that oil company scientists made about climate actions--that we need undefined "more research" before acting? Should we establish a climate ethics committee to discuss this issue publicly? Peter On Fri, Feb 17, 2023 at 4:44 AM <[email protected]> wrote: > This article by James Temple provides a professional overview of efforts > to commercialise Iron Salt Aerosol (ISA). > > > > > https://www.technologyreview.com/2023/02/15/1068495/these-startups-hope-to-spray-iron-particles-above-the-ocean-to-fight-climate-change/ > > > > It discusses cooling effects of ISA including methane removal, ocean iron > fertilization and marine cloud brightening. The article comments that a > marine cloud brightening effect “would muddy the line between > greenhouse-gas removal and the more controversial field of solar > geoengineering.” My view is that taking this as a criticism shows the > incoherence in popular understanding of climate science. If marine cloud > brightening could be a fast, safe, cheap and effective way to mitigate > dangerous warming, field research of ISA could be a great way to test > this. Solar geoengineering is no more controversial than ocean iron > fertilization, given that both are under a de facto ban on field research. > > > > The article comments that “if it brightened marine clouds, it would likely > draw greater scrutiny given the sensitivity around geoengineering > approaches that aim to achieve cooling by reflecting away sunlight.” It > may prove to be the case that ISA could only be deployed by an > intergovernmental planetary cooling agreement of the scale of the Bretton > Woods Agreement of 1944 to establish the IMF and World Bank. In that > governance scenario, the scrutiny placed on all cooling technologies will > be intense regardless of the balance of effects between brightening and > greenhouse gas removal. > > > > I disagree with the scientists quoted in the article who oppose field > tests. That is a dangerous and complacent attitude, failing to give due > weight to the risks of sudden tipping points that can only be prevented by > albedo enhancement and GHG removal at scale. Learning by doing is the most > safe and effective strategy. If there are unexpected effects it is easy to > stop the trials. The only risk of well governed field tests is that they > would provide information to justify a slower transition from fossil > fuels. On balance that is not a serious risk, given that emissions are > expected to continue regardless of climate concerns. Cooling technologies > are essential to balance the ongoing heating, the sooner the better. > > > > I was pleased that the article included my comment that our company > decided not to pursue our ISA field test proposal because the overall > political governance framework is not ready to support this form of > geoengineering. This illustrates that strategic discussion of ethics and > governance will need to be far more advanced before any geoengineering > deployment is possible. I explored these moral themes in a recent discussion > note <https://pdfhost.io/v/nn85Rgk.g_Moral_Perspectives_on_Climate_Policy> > published by the Healthy Planet Action Coalition. > > > > Robert Tulip > > -- > 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]. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-climate-alliance/2bc901d942cd%248ee19e60%24aca4db20%24%40rtulip.net > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-climate-alliance/2bc901d942cd%248ee19e60%24aca4db20%24%40rtulip.net?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/CAEr4H2nDV%2BvPXnOFK3wJ5Kvn_hzZQwgLk%3DbJqMUXRXioygR%3DDQ%40mail.gmail.com.
