Andy- It's good to hear from you.
Yes-there's a problem when one faction of society demonizes and prevents relevant science from happening. There's also a problem when respected scientists speak inaccurately, in order to prevent critical actions from happening. The examples below are generic--not unique to these scientists whom I very much respect. They indicate systemic, not personal failures. In the article <https://www.technologyreview.com/2023/02/15/1068495/these-startups-hope-to-spray-iron-particles-above-the-ocean-to-fight-climate-change/>, Stanford Prof. Jackson says, "We don’t know enough about it. We don’t know enough about unexpected or unpredicted reactions." Of course we don't know what we don't know. But the use of that logic to argue against doing commercial field tests to look for unexpected reactions sounds suspicious. Similarly, Cornell Prof. Mahowald says, “We have no idea what will happen there.” Of course we don't know everything, as Jackson said, but we know a lot. The chemistry has been modeled and tested in labs. We design the process to produce aerosol concentrations 100 to 1000 fold lower than OSHA standards so that we know they're safe. I am told that the chemicals are often found in the atmosphere now at low concentrations, so we have reason to expect no serious safety issues. Don't these sound like the statements that tobacco company and oil company scientists made about uncertainty in their fields in the past? (Merchants of Doubt <https://www.amazon.com/Merchants-Doubt-Handful-Scientists-Obscured/dp/1608193942>) If so, is that delaying tactic acceptable in our climate emergency today? Is it ever acceptable? With respect and kindness, we can handle this systemic problem, if indeed you agree it's a problem. Peter On Fri, Feb 17, 2023 at 7:23 PM Michael MacCracken <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > -- > 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/CAEr4H2nuw_4denfF8QT-pha3i21QpVXt6qgLpgDAOFJq3kbwqw%40mail.gmail.com.
