On Feb 6, 2024, at 2:20 PM, Ron Baiman <[email protected]> wrote:
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 <http://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>.
