--On 07/02/2024 06:21 GMT 'Sev Clarke' via Healthy Planet Action Coalition (HPAC) <[email protected]> wrote:Folks,Some are making a mountain out of a molehill. My three principle climate restoration technologies, Buoyant Flakes, Seatomiser/ISAs and Ice Shields could all be separately approved and tested in the EEZ waters of many states at pilot, then local, then cautiously scaling up to regional scales, without either Security Council or other UN approval - though open discussion of the plans in advance and independent and transparent MRV during, should also occur. Several such tests by different organisations should both give confidence to local communities and the international community, and allow us to proceed quickly in learning by doing. Approval for use in international waters might be sought from either an enhanced LC/LP (preferably), the International Maritime Organisation, the G20 (in order to bring in several Global South members), the Security Council, or even the UNEP or General Assembly. Any holdout spoilers should be shamed, bypassed or compelled by whatever means are necessary to save the planet - after their views had been properly considered (and, if necessary, exposed).Best,Sev
On 7 Feb 2024, at 1:27 pm, Ron Baiman <[email protected]> wrote:Dear Herb, Mike, and Oswald,I think the issue right now is pervasively couched in far too general and absolutist terms that would make it very difficult/impossible to get universal (or even just Security Council) agreement for deployment from the UN. If pilot testing were started small-scale with willing actors consisting of countries with polar regional jurisdictions that are willing to try this in this from their territory (as probably not all polar jurisdictions or polar peoples will agree right away) and done carefully with maximum transparency, openness, etc. this could hopefully make it less of an abstract 'politicized and moralized' hot potato and more of a cooling method that is perceived as potentially valuable, useful, and (quite likely) indispensable to avoid climate catastrophe.I'm assuming here of course mostly measurable positive impacts from the pilot testing, and an ability to adjust to smaller and less significant undesirable impacts. My thinking is that this would be a way to make gradual polar SAI a more practical and tangible technique and less of a boogie man on which to project every manner of global geopolitical armageddon (per the Futerman talk and I'm guessing - from the abstract - in the Keith and Smith paper as well). At this point, my hope is that it would be easier to arrive at, at least, "tacit" and at some point "formal" consent by the Security Council, or a sufficient number of major world powers, for continued, slowly upscaled, global deployment without geopolitical disaster.My thinking is that (as with the research/deployment dichotomy), the governance/deployment dichotomy should not be looked at as strictly separable. My hope is that moving on both tracks simultaneously and trying to build confidence, trust, and knowledge with gradual deployment would hopefully change international perceptions and discussions of SAI and direct climate cooling more broadly in a positive way, and that this could then hopefully allow for global tacit, and at some point formal, political support.I should also note that countries are already currently engaging in large scale climate efforts 'on their own territory' that probably have cross boundary impacts. See for example discussion of China's large scale cloud seeding efforts (as I recall in the Himalayas to regenerate snow pack, discussed in this podcast: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/cloud-seeding-law-simon/id1529459393?i=1000632950341Also by starting SAI in the spring in the poles, as the aerosol falls out (in the poles) at the end of the polar summers, all, or most of, the direct impact will be on the poles, and hopefully if there is enough indirect impact on reducing polar amplification to affect the jet stream and polar ice melt - these global climate effects would be overwhelmingly positive. .Best,Ron
On Tue, Feb 6, 2024 at 4:17 PM Oswald Petersen <[email protected]> wrote:Dear Herb and Mike
Prenotice
Europeans like me are still quite unfimiliar with the new habit to adress a community without an adressee. Adressees do have the advantage that I can disregard everything I am not addressed for. So far for US globalimsus.
Dear all,
The UN are our only hope. We cannot diverge from the UN. Let´s stick to the UN!
Regards
Oswald
Oswald Petersen
Atmospheric Methane Removal AG
Lärchenstr. 5
CH-8280 Kreuzlingen
Tel: +41-71-6887514
Mob: +49-177-2734245
Von: [email protected] <[email protected]> Im Auftrag von Michael MacCracken
Gesendet: Dienstag, 6. Februar 2024 23:03
An: H simmens <[email protected]>; Ron Baiman <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]; Gregory Slater <[email protected]>; healthy-planet-action-coalition <[email protected]>; Planetary Restoration <[email protected]>; geoengineering <[email protected]>; Healthy Climate Alliance <[email protected]>
Betreff: Re: [prag] Re: [HPAC] Solar geoengineering could start soon if it starts small | MIT Technology Review
It is really not clear to me why the United Nations could (and should) not be the structure--or at least the designator of the structure, but better yet, of the overall goal, namely to offset future warming and gradually return the climate to something similar to its mid-20th century situation (with allowances for those nations facing special needs to ask for consideration of possible fine scale adjustments as knowledge improves--or something similar).
There is a UN Commission on Sustainable Development (UNCSD), and if there were ever anything that is impinging on their mandate, it is climate change. The UN Secretary General, with concurrence I imagine of General Assembly, could refer matter to them asking for a report on the matter and to propose a recommendation to the General Assembly and Security Council. I'd note that I was on a panel that prepared a report for the UN Commission on Sustainable Development (see https://www.sigmaxi.org/programs/critical-issues-in-science/un-sigma-xi-climate-change-report), and I and other lead authors, courtesy of contacts made by former Senator and UN Foundation lead Tim Wirth (the UN Foundation having provided some of the funding for the effort), met with the UN Secretary General upon the report's issuance.
I'm not clear on how the Conference of the Parties of the UNFCCC might mesh (or not) with the UNCSD, but this too could be outlined. The UNCSD I think meets annually and so could well move things along,
Mike MacCracken
On 2/6/24 2:41 PM, H simmens wrote:
Ron,
It’s quite telling I think that a breakthrough article like this has been released without essentially anyone noticing.
The only mention of it I see is from the excellent Technology Review reporter James Temple who posted it on X.
The only comments the post received were from Andrew Lockley and someone posting a vile obscenity.
I was the only one who even retweeted the post to my loyal following of bots, trolls, fake porn stars and a few Climate informed folks.
Is it fair to observe that most everyone laments the understandable and very real challenges of developing a governance architecture but no one in any kind of authority has yet to propose a serious effort to get such a governance structure discussed and agreed to by the world community?
If and until that happens the strategy you’re proposing while sound will be very difficult to advance very far.
Herb
Herb Simmens
Author of A Climate Vocabulary of the Future“A SciencePoem and an Inspiration.” Kim Stanley Robinson
@herbsimmens
HerbSimmens.com
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.
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
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.--
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.--
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/CDF4D93B-504F-4532-A2EA-64DF65DBB237%40gmail.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/329c7a99-85d3-4b94-99dc-3b22c495a783%40comcast.net.--
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/CAPhUB9DJ3WcyEYcPQMvn6xSixYQA0fZwEQ51wCoKevkjs8-rGw%40mail.gmail.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/A10A72DA-6525-4925-A574-FD2C7F637646%40me.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/1076443314.1349818.1707291874988%40email.ionos.co.uk.
