What is so breathtakingly illogical If not frank gaslighting is the statement in the first paragraph that SRM does not solve the climate crisis because it doesn’t reduce emissions.
And yet in the next paragraph, they implicitly acknowledge that emission reductions will not solve the climate crisis as they assert that the world must reduce emissions to avoid the worst consequences of climate change with no mention that reducing emissions would solve the climate crisis!
It’s one thing to come across this up is down and down is up logic while reading a high school student essay, but it’s another coming from the institution responsible for leading the world’s effort to address the climate crisis.
Herb
Herb Simmens Author A Climate Vocabulary of the Future @herbsimmens
I have commented on this report previously. In the summary
Q&A for which the link is given below, the following extract
is key:
Does UNEP think we have lost the battle to reduce the
greenhouse gas emissions that are driving the climate crisis?
AH: Not at all. First, the scientific
assessment of potential hazards that can stem from new
technologies is critical to avoid potentially catastrophic
consequences. Second, it is important people understand that SRM
technologies, should they be considered at some point in the
future, do not solve the climate
crisis because they do not reduce greenhouse
gas emissions nor reverse the impacts of climate change.
The world must be crystal clear on this point.
Issues such as ocean
acidification, sea level rise, the increasing intensity
and frequency of weather events, changes in species distribution
and pollution
will continue unless they are tackled directly. The evidence is
irrefutable: the world can and must act swiftly, decisively, and
immediately to reduce emissions to avoid the worst consequences
of climate change. UNEP will therefore continue to strengthen
its efforts to address the triple planetary crisis of climate
change, nature
and biodiversity loss, and pollution and waste.
This extract illustrates that the premise on which this UNEP
report is based is at best questionable, and at worst, simply
incorrect. Until this error is more widely appreciated, it is
doubtful that much progress will e made on AE research. We have a
classic Catch 22. We'll only support AE research if we can be
satisfied that it can be done safely, but we can't know that it
can be done safely without first doing the research. Moreover, as
I have stressed elsewhere, how do we get sufficient agreement
about what is meant by 'safe'.
Regards
Robert
On 17/03/2023 18:25, Ron Baiman wrote:
Thank you Rebecca et al. I agree. Not surprisingly, the
UNEP is not going to break ranks with conventional wisdom on
this issue. From a quick skim, a couple of "glimmers of
progress" might be their support for a "risk risk" evaluation,
and for small scale research.
Interestingly the Montreal Protocol report is cited as a
supportive backup source in the interview but that report
focused on a spring injection of SAI in Antarctica (where the
Ozone hole is largest) and found mixed results. After 20 years
of SAI loss of ozone in Antarctica in October close to 1990's
loss, but less loss if SAI is started later, and for larger
applications enhancement of Ozone in NH midlatitudes:
Additional ozone depletion due to SAI is
simulated in
spring over Antarctica, with magnitudes
dependent on
the injection rate and timing. Simulations of
strong SAI
show an increase in total column ozone (TCO)
in mid-lat-
itudes (40–60°N) in the winter Northern Hemisphere.
º For October over
Antarctica, SAI simulations that achieve
a global mean surface cooling of 0.5 °C in the
first 20
years, show a reduction of TCO of around 58 ±
20 DU,
assuming 2020–2040 halogen conditions. This reduc-
tion brings TCO values close to the observed
minimum in
the 1990s. Less ozone loss would be expected
for a later
SAI start date, when halogen concentrations
are project-
ed to be lower.
º Beyond the first 20 years,
the continued application of
strong SAI, to offset almost 5 °C of warming
by 2100, re-
duces Antarctic ozone in October
by similar amounts (55
± 20 DU) throughout the 21st century despite declining
abundances of ozone-depleting substances
(ODS). In
this case, ozone hole recovery from ODSs is
delayed by
between 25 and 50 years. A peakshaving
scenario po-
tentially leads to less ozone depletion.
º Under stronger SAI
scenarios, ozone is significantly
enhanced in NH mid-latitudes in winter owing
to strato-
spheric heating from injected sulfur, which
leads to in-
creased equator to poleward transport of
ozone.
º Ozone loss within the
Arctic polar vortex has not yet
been robustly quantified for SAI.
Best,
Ron
Good afternoon to you in Chicago Ron,
Thank you for sending, it’s hard to keep up
with all the reports and actions people are taking.
Herb did send a link for this report, but
it’s worth drawing it to everyone’s attention again.
Unfortunately, it buys right into the net
zero story, at least from the executive summary, excerpt
below. Perhaps it is part of a strategic picture/plan
that we’re not seeing, and also any news is good news?
Quote from Ms Inger Andersen, ED UNEP
Best regards to all ,
Rebecca
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Planetary Restoration" 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/planetary-restoration/CAPhUB9DbvoMUpq4vXXYawayVO7VPN441MbwMZ02813Ja5stmqw%40mail.gmail.com.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Planetary Restoration" 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/planetary-restoration/ea76ff93-2ca5-8e23-00fb-7d3b01b1a2cb%40gmail.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/8B27715E-B4B6-4D75-AF4F-15A405636D06%40gmail.com.
|
