Hi Andy--Growing up in 1950s with college in early 1960s, I'll admit I'm
an idealist, and likely naive, but what is that old saying: "Never
wrestle with a pig. You get dirty and the pig likes it." (for
attribution controversy, see https://quoteinvestigator.com/2017/07/08/pig/)
As noted in my response to Robert's email, I think we can make our point
convincingly with sound arguments.
Best, Mike
On 2/17/23 5:12 PM, Andrew Revkin wrote:
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]> 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]> 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
<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/7f4ac2e8-d38b-bf1d-7563-2f27cb5c6c88%40comcast.net?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.
--
_______________
ANDREW REVKIN
Climate Communication Advisor
Columbia Climate School
http://sustcomm.ei.columbia.edu
Subscribe to my Sustain What dispatch
https://revkin.Substack.com <https://revkin.Substack.com>
--
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/CA%2BakwtYfDsA1ifb4wacO_Q_RaFV0UZCCP4hoX3jDo0kce5jF7Q%40mail.gmail.com
<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CA%2BakwtYfDsA1ifb4wacO_Q_RaFV0UZCCP4hoX3jDo0kce5jF7Q%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/43547710-7daf-aa9a-4efc-ce5a8dc46548%40comcast.net.
