Good catch Herb! Thanks for sharing. I haven't read the article yet, but though acknowledging the feasibility and possible relevance gradual polar SAI scenario would definitely be progress (that David Keith was very critical of this in his HPAC talk), from skimming the abstract the article appears to focus on SAI geopolitical concerns that echo Gideon Futerman's recent HPAC talk.
On this, needless to say, I agree with Robert C and Mike. Waiting for a fully operational global governance regime (like hoping for a super expidited emissions and drawdown only policy) is not realistic in the near future - the only future that counts if humanity is going to have a non-catastrophic immediate future, at all. I think the alternative of starting slow by getting the consent of polar jurisdictions and peoples for a 'Save the polar ecosystems' effort (following current MCB 'save the Great Barrier Reef' efforts) and inviting all nations who wish to contribute to contribute in a 'coalition of the willing' model (as with the 'International Space Station') that would be gradual (initially local SAI focused on polar summers), public, and transparent, and hopefully successful in gradually reducing warming and cooling the poles and helping to stabilize the global climate is an example of a more realistic approach for urgent deployment. Waiting for 'global governance' or 'absolute confidence from research that does not include deployment pilot testing' before beginning deployment is not an urgently workable option. At the risk of beating a dead horse I'm again attaching a draft of this proposal that many of you may have seen: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1o5xQogx1kKgD-QlM4MVPdWeL2BzBtwUm/view?usp=sharing Best, Ron On Mon, Feb 5, 2024 at 12:38 PM <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Herb and Greg and all > > Working on something else, the other day I chanced upon the dedication for > my PhD thesis written in 2012/13. It was addressed to my then two year-old > and newborn grandchildren expressing the hope that as adults they would > come to be awestruck by humanity's achievements, yet forgive it its > failings, and all the while see the funny side of both. This piece by > Keith and Smith definitely requires one to see the funny side. > > First, they're playing a great game of dissimulation, straining to present > their 'we're the good guys' credentials by espousing caution and concern, > while also chomping at the bit to get some serious sulphates into the sky. > Their greatest fear is clearly being dubbed the Dr. Strangelove of climate > change. > > But what's even funnier is the bizarre cognitive dissonance displayed by > those opposed to SAI. On the one hand the global shipping industry can > with no serious public debate whatsoever force changes to bunker fuel that > will greatly accelerate global warming, with who knows what consequences > for both human and other life, on the grounds that the pollution it will > reduce will save the lives of a much smaller number of people. No need to > consider the negative climate consequences of reducing the sulphur content > of the fuel because, quite obviously, no one really cares about that. If > they did, there would at least have been some public conversation about the > relative merits of changing the fuel. They didn't, so there wasn't. 30 > years of IPCC really has changed things, hasn't it! > > Other amusing bits from this article are the implications that it'll take > decades to scale SAI to make a significant difference to global warming and > that this requires long-term anticipatory action by governments both in > relation to the technology and its governance. That completely knocks on > the head the idea that some maverick Greenfinger or national leader is > going to go off and do their own thing. The rogue geoengineer is shown to > be the joke it always has been. > > Similarly, Keith and Smith's highlighting of the social licence issues > that have hitherto delayed, and are likely going forward to continue > delaying, if not totally frustrating any move to deploy SAI, or even do the > research and small scale deployment that they're proposing, completely > kills off the equally nonsensical moral hazard argument that the mere > prospect of SAI is sufficient reason for the climate baddies to continue > being baddies. The climate baddies can relax, their foes are going to make > sure we need all the oil and gas they can produce for as long as they can > so dutifully provide it. > > For those of us on this list, it is hard to fathom how humanity has boxed > itself into this paralysis. For some us, it has become clear that the > basic rules of neoclassical economics are unfolding according to plan. > Boom and bust. Boom and bust. As the excesses destabilise the system, the > system reacts. This is euphemistically called a correction. The greater > the excess. The more severe the correction. The corrections are a form of > catharsis. But at some point the excess becomes sufficient to provoke a > correction that collapses the system. That happens when the system's > resilience is sufficiently compromised that it can't adapt fast enough to > the changed circumstances it is then facing. > > 1.5C, 2C, 2.5C, 3C and beyond, here we come! > > There's little I can do to protect my grandchildren from what will > confront them decades hence. Maybe they'll be among the lucky ones. Some > people will make it through, why shouldn't it be them? However it unfolds, > I'm sure they'll find it easier if they can retain the ability to see the > funny side. > > Thanks David and Wake. I needed reminding how tragic this comedy is. Or > is it, how comic this tragedy is? > Regards > > Robert > > > On 05/02/2024 17:17, Gregory Slater wrote: > > > Hello Herb, > > Thank you for this link. > > ( > https://www.technologyreview.com/2024/02/05/1087587/solar-geoengineering-could-start-soon-if-it-starts-small/ > ) > > I think this is more evidence of the (glacially) slow progression of the > scientific and engineering community (such as Keith and Smith) beyond their > (completely disingenuous) *"SAI is the most insane idea in the history of > the Multiverse, but we should fund numerical simulations (etc.) of it for > the next fifty years just in case things get 'really bad' (for me > personally)"* and toward (the inevitable) acceptance and eventual > advocacy for deployment of SAI, without wating for a unanimous vote in > favor of it by the entire population of the earth (all 8 billion) before > the deployment of even a single molecule of any aerosol for the stated > intent of cooling the earth is allowed to be released, which is the current > (psychotic) demand of SJWs. > > However, it is still riddled with disclaimers (for example, last > paragraph) and they coyly seem to be pitching the *'small scale SAI'* > scenario not as a scientific test of the physical effects of SAI's on the > atmosphere and climate, but rather as a 'political or sociological science' > test of the political reaction of the world to such a test (that is, dump a > little SO2 in the stratosphere and measure the blood pressure of the > anti-SAI crowd). > > It is actually difficult for me to tell, at first reading, whether they > are "fer or agin;" such a test. And I think that ambiguity was carefully > crafted. > > Of course, it's not like Keith and Smith (and other *'ultra-cautious > geoengineers'* just 'discovered' the possibility of 'small-scale SAI'. > It's straightforward and obvious, and they certainly know that this has > been outlined and advocated for a long time, including by members of this > group. I mean, when Keith spoke on the HPAC zoom just last year, in answer > to my question about low level tests, he directly said that he saw no > usefulness in small scale tests. > > I think they are starting to put the tip of their toes in the side of > advocacy, while describing it as 'cautionary'. I think the proper response > is, "thanks for stating the obvious about the possibilities for 'low-scale > SAI' tests". But point out their timidity and disingenuousness in not > advocating for the scenario they describe is uncompelling. They describe > one variant of) a first obvious small scale SAI test, but at the end say > they still say they are against it until we get a unanimous vote in favor > by the entire population of the planet. > > They still seem to be trying to maintain their increasingly precarious and > wobbly perch on the fence between denouncement and advocacy of SAI, while > requesting lots more money for numerical simulations of SAI and studies of > the 'sociological' effects of its deployment. > > Those who support immediate measures to stabilize global mean temperature > should double down and press for actual tests and not be satisfied with > 'cautionary notes' like this about the potential dangers of not starting > tests. > > When will they find the testicles to actually advocate? > > Greg Slater > > > On Feb 5, 2024, at 5:29 AM, H simmens <[email protected]> wrote: > > This article published this morning by David Keith and Wake Smith argues > that it is entirely feasible that SAI could begin to be deployed at small > scale within five years by launching aerosols at higher latitudes where the > lower stratospheric boundary is easily accessible by current aircraft. > > It appears that their proposal is consistent with what Mike Maccracken has > long been advocating - start small and learn by doing testing. > > They also argue that such testing should be subject to a formal moratorium > - absent the development of a viable governance structure - consistent with > the recommendations of the Climate Overshoot Commission. > > The risks of igniting a geopolitical free for all, particularly if testing > were only done by one country and not by a coalition, are substantial they > argue. > > Is this proposal something that those on these lists should get behind? > > Herb > > > https://www.technologyreview.com/2024/02/05/1087587/solar-geoengineering-could-start-soon-if-it-starts-small/ > > Herb Simmens > Author of *A Climate Vocabulary of the Future* > “A SciencePoem and an Inspiration.” Kim Stanley Robinson > @herbsimmens > HerbSimmens.com > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Healthy Planet Action Coalition (HPAC)" 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-planet-action-coalition/086AD4FC-0128-4F76-9E06-11B5A46D3FD1%40gmail.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/086AD4FC-0128-4F76-9E06-11B5A46D3FD1%40gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > > -- > 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/aabf34ae-6529-4e39-968d-e3e1159b7ffc%40gmail.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/planetary-restoration/aabf34ae-6529-4e39-968d-e3e1159b7ffc%40gmail.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/CAPhUB9A%2BiR__vVteEq5n0vW7ZGiRs9mvXSu9Ap1ttaQ4PueC%2BQ%40mail.gmail.com.
