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?
On 05/02/2024 17:17, Gregory Slater
wrote:
Hello Herb,
Thank you for this link.
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
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
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.
