Dear Peter--A couple of comments:
1. What reducing methane emissions would do is to reduce the radiative
forcing over the ensuing decade or two. With the heat from the higher
levels having built up in the ocean, the time for recovery of the
temperature (and climate) is longer, so until the heat comes back out
of the ocean and is radiated to space and/or the time it takes to be
mixed into the deeper ocean so it is not affecting surface temperatures.
2. On behalf of scientists, let me say that our mantra is to focus on
the facts of what has happened and what would be expected to happen
under various types of situations/scenarios--and for statements about
such aspects to be made by those who truly understand/research the issue
(speculation by scientists needs to be made clear that it is
speculation) and strengths and limits of findings (so uncertainties)
should be listed. Like it or not, the role of the scientist is not to be
an advocate or to think of themselves as decisionmakers (even though
some of us might want to be kings or the equivalent)--it is the
decisionmakers (so, for government, the elected leaders; and, as
appropriate for the question, business leaders--though the capitalist
system would say their main, or even only, role relates to finances of
their investors). I do agree that how scientists phrase things, how they
explain their decision framework, etc. can all be relevant, but is it
not the choices that policymakers are (or are not) making decisions
where the ethics enter in--for everyone but the elected decisionmakers,
what they can do is mainly try to present useful information to
decisionmakers, which is where the risk and ethical perspectives
actually come into determining what actually happens? I'm just
suggesting that actions need to be directed appropriately.
Best, Mike
On 2/17/23 3:49 PM, Peter Fiekowsky wrote:
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 "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/CAEr4H2nDV%2BvPXnOFK3wJ5Kvn_hzZQwgLk%3DbJqMUXRXioygR%3DDQ%40mail.gmail.com
<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/CAEr4H2nDV%2BvPXnOFK3wJ5Kvn_hzZQwgLk%3DbJqMUXRXioygR%3DDQ%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/7f4ac2e8-d38b-bf1d-7563-2f27cb5c6c88%40comcast.net.
