Replies appreciated.
It is obviously provocative for Peter Fiekowsky to compare views of climate scientists to claims that health scientists made for tobacco companies and that oil company scientists made about climate actions. I think there is a real difference, in that climate scientists who disparage climate restoration honestly (but wrongly) believe that emission reduction augmented by some CDR could stabilise the climate, as presented in the IPCC consensus, and so are acting with integrity. By contrast, tobacco and oil scientists display the Upton Sinclair syndrome, the psychological difficulty of getting someone to understand something when their income depends upon not understanding it. To the extent climate scientists are committed to the ethical principles of evidence and logic, they have a major difference from morally corrupt scientists who say what they are paid to say. There is now strong evidence that the IPCC belief about the lead role of emission reduction in mitigating climate change is false, for the reasons Peter outlined about risk of system collapse. I would extend Peter’s argument to say carbon based approaches cannot prevent system collapse, and must be augmented by urgent focus on albedo enhancement. This is a paradigm shift. It is reasonable in such a case to criticise the ethics of those who stand on the wrong side of history, even though their personal integrity may be strong. If you refuse to engage with evidence that refutes your opinion, and that refusal abets suffering, your opinion is unethical. Mike MacCracken makes a great point that the role of the scientist is not to be an advocate. But as Andrew Revkin notes, this misses the factional reality that advocates use the views of scientists to demonize and prohibit relevant science. EWG, the advocacy group Andrew mentions, is the US Environmental Working Group, widely criticised for its product warnings which often ignore scientific data. Peter Fiekowsky’s argument implies that the scientists quoted in the MIT article are actually engaged in political advocacy when they oppose field testing of iron salt aerosol. Advocates such as myself have just as much moral responsibility as scientists do to ensure their views and values have a sound evidentiary basis. This material directly relates to carbon dioxide removal due to the massive potential of ocean iron fertilization and methane oxidation to affect the carbon cycle. One reader could not access the link I provided to my HPAC Issues Paper. It is available at https://www.healthyplanetaction.org/hpac-participants-work Robert Tulip From: Andrew Revkin <[email protected]> Sent: Saturday, 18 February 2023 9:12 AM To: [email protected] Cc: [email protected]; Healthy Climate Alliance <[email protected]>; NOAC <[email protected]>; Peter Fiekowsky <[email protected]>; Planetary Restoration <[email protected]>; geoengineering <[email protected]>; healthy-planet-action-coalition <[email protected]>; [email protected] Subject: Re: [geo] Re: [CDR] Re: [HCA-list] Iron Salt Aerosol: Article in MIT Technology Review Important discussion and Mike’s point about roles and sequencing has merit, but may be. missing an important negative feedback loop. That loop exists when the ethical frame of one faction in civil society, let’s say represented by EWG, is used to demonize and prohibit relevant science itself. (Typing on phone so hopefully this isn’t too telegraphic to understand) On Fri, Feb 17, 2023 at 5:01 PM Michael MacCracken <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > wrote: 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] <mailto:[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 "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/2f9101d94336%24a39e5d20%24eadb1760%24%40rtulip.net.
