[geo] The inevitability of geoengineering « The Cost of Energy
Poster's note - interesting op-ed blog from someone who clearly doesn't have to worry about what he says http://www.grinzo.com/energy/2013/04/19/the-inevitability-of-geoengineering/ The inevitability of geoengineering By Lou, on April 19th, 2013 I don’t know which I find more remarkable, the speed and determination with which we tear fossil fuels from the ground and burn them, adding to our already too high level of atmospheric CO2, or how incredibly long it takes us at times to connect dots.In the first category we have, of course, the rampant spread of fracking and unconventional extraction of natural gas and oil, particularly here in the US, plus the newly heightened interest in mining offshore methane hydrates, e.g. Unlocking Icy Methane Hydrates, Largest Fossil Energy Store. One could not ask for a starker example of short term economics, which in this case is a euphemism for greed, taking precedence over our own long-term self-interest. We have arrived at a critical state where it is imperative that we find whatever maturity and foresight and strength of will are needed to leave as much of the available carbon in the ground as possible, and instead we’re rushing to ramp up production and therefore consumption of it as quickly as possible.The latest example of the second category, our lethargic dot connecting, is the recognition that, golly gee!, if we don’t burn all those carbon deposits then the massive valuations of fossil fuel companies are so much low-grade balloon juice, and we’re staring at a not insignificant chance of a financial mess that would make the recent mortgage meltdown look like the good old days. How long have we known that Exxon Mobil, BP, et al. would be serious endangered, along with the investments of many millions of people and institutions, if those deposits of ancient wealth were suddenly wiped off their ledgers? We should have been talking about this for years, decades even, but it’s only recently that it’s become a hot topic.[1] So, this give us quite an interesting situation, assuming we’re dumb enough to sit back and expect the runaway truck known as the “free market” to learn to steer itself. (See Burn our planet or face financial meltdown. Not much of a choice for some more on this.)But wait, you must be asking as you glance at the title of this blog post, what does any of this have to do with geoengineering? Glad you asked, because it’s a particularly glaring example of our ineptitude when connecting the dots that are sitting right before our collective face. According to a presumably leaked version of the next IPCC report, even that staid group is awakening to the inevitability of geoengineering.From World climate change goal at risk as emissions surge [emphasis added]:A global goal for limiting climate change is slipping out of reach and governments may have to find ways to artificially suck greenhouse gases from the air if they fail to make deep cuts in rising emissions by 2030, a draft U.N. report said.A 25-page draft summary, by the U.N. panel of climate experts and due for publication in 2014, said emissions of heat-trapping gases rose to record levels in the decade to 2010, led by Asian industrial growth.The surge is jeopardising a U.N. goal, set by almost 200 nations in 2010, to limit a rise in temperatures to below 2 degrees Celsius above levels before the Industrial Revolution, according to the text seen by Reuters on Friday.The panel, made up hundreds of the world’s top climate scientists, is trying to condense all the peer reviewed findings since 2007 into a summary for policymakers.Its draft said that if emissions were not checked by 2030, they would be so great that governments would have to take carbon dioxide out of the air to limit rising temperatures by the end of the century – not just cut emissions spewed from cars and factories – a sea change in the approach to climate change.Governments must sign off on the document that emerges from the draft by Working Group Three of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and which will serve as the climate policy road map for the next six or seven years.Delaying deep cuts until 2030 may make targets for limiting warming by 2100 “physically infeasible without substantial overshoot and negative global emissions … in the second half of the century”, it said.“Negative emissions” mean policies such as planting more forests that naturally absorb carbon dioxide from the air as they grow or burning biofuels, for instance wood or farm waste, and capturing and burying their greenhouse gas emissions.Given how hyper-cautious the IPCC has been in prior reports (witness their treatment of polar ice, for example, which fell very far short of events since the last report was published in 2007), and given what we know about the factors I natter on about here endlessly — long CO2 atmospheric lifetime, rising emissions, our current state of thermal disequilibrium — I think it’s about the safest bet one could make
[geo] Re: The inevitability of geoengineering « The Cost of Energy
To clarify, I was meaning that the piece was from someone who had the freedom to point out uncomfortable truths in a frank and readable fashion. It was intended as a complement. I apologize for any ambiguity in my earlier note. A On Apr 22, 2013 8:38 AM, Andrew Lockley andrew.lock...@gmail.com wrote: Poster's note - interesting op-ed blog from someone who clearly doesn't have to worry about what he says http://www.grinzo.com/energy/2013/04/19/the-inevitability-of-geoengineering/ The inevitability of geoengineering By Lou, on April 19th, 2013 I don’t know which I find more remarkable, the speed and determination with which we tear fossil fuels from the ground and burn them, adding to our already too high level of atmospheric CO2, or how incredibly long it takes us at times to connect dots.In the first category we have, of course, the rampant spread of fracking and unconventional extraction of natural gas and oil, particularly here in the US, plus the newly heightened interest in mining offshore methane hydrates, e.g. Unlocking Icy Methane Hydrates, Largest Fossil Energy Store. One could not ask for a starker example of short term economics, which in this case is a euphemism for greed, taking precedence over our own long-term self-interest. We have arrived at a critical state where it is imperative that we find whatever maturity and foresight and strength of will are needed to leave as much of the available carbon in the ground as possible, and instead we’re rushing to ramp up production and therefore consumption of it as quickly as possible.The latest example of the second category, our lethargic dot connecting, is the recognition that, golly gee!, if we don’t burn all those carbon deposits then the massive valuations of fossil fuel companies are so much low-grade balloon juice, and we’re staring at a not insignificant chance of a financial mess that would make the recent mortgage meltdown look like the good old days. How long have we known that Exxon Mobil, BP, et al. would be serious endangered, along with the investments of many millions of people and institutions, if those deposits of ancient wealth were suddenly wiped off their ledgers? We should have been talking about this for years, decades even, but it’s only recently that it’s become a hot topic.[1] So, this give us quite an interesting situation, assuming we’re dumb enough to sit back and expect the runaway truck known as the “free market” to learn to steer itself. (See Burn our planet or face financial meltdown. Not much of a choice for some more on this.)But wait, you must be asking as you glance at the title of this blog post, what does any of this have to do with geoengineering? Glad you asked, because it’s a particularly glaring example of our ineptitude when connecting the dots that are sitting right before our collective face. According to a presumably leaked version of the next IPCC report, even that staid group is awakening to the inevitability of geoengineering.From World climate change goal at risk as emissions surge [emphasis added]:A global goal for limiting climate change is slipping out of reach and governments may have to find ways to artificially suck greenhouse gases from the air if they fail to make deep cuts in rising emissions by 2030, a draft U.N. report said.A 25-page draft summary, by the U.N. panel of climate experts and due for publication in 2014, said emissions of heat-trapping gases rose to record levels in the decade to 2010, led by Asian industrial growth.The surge is jeopardising a U.N. goal, set by almost 200 nations in 2010, to limit a rise in temperatures to below 2 degrees Celsius above levels before the Industrial Revolution, according to the text seen by Reuters on Friday.The panel, made up hundreds of the world’s top climate scientists, is trying to condense all the peer reviewed findings since 2007 into a summary for policymakers.Its draft said that if emissions were not checked by 2030, they would be so great that governments would have to take carbon dioxide out of the air to limit rising temperatures by the end of the century – not just cut emissions spewed from cars and factories – a sea change in the approach to climate change.Governments must sign off on the document that emerges from the draft by Working Group Three of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and which will serve as the climate policy road map for the next six or seven years.Delaying deep cuts until 2030 may make targets for limiting warming by 2100 “physically infeasible without substantial overshoot and negative global emissions … in the second half of the century”, it said.“Negative emissions” mean policies such as planting more forests that naturally absorb carbon dioxide from the air as they grow or burning biofuels, for instance wood or farm waste, and capturing and burying their greenhouse gas emissions.Given how hyper-cautious the IPCC has been in
[geo] “Climate Engineering – Saving the Sky, Or Playing God? | IASS Potsdam
http://www.iass-potsdam.de/research-clusters/sustainable-interactions-atmosphere-siwa/news/climate-engineering-saving-sky-or “Climate Engineering – Saving the Sky, Or Playing God? Should humans try to control the climate? Climate Engineering (CE), the purposeful intervention into the global climate system, increasingly raises the hope that the effects of climate change could be compensated with the help of technology. However, these methods, even if they are able to affect global mean temperatures quickly and significantly, also involve large uncertainties and risks that are by far not sufficiently explored. They also raise questions such as: Are people allowed to put their hand on the climate? In the media, climate engineering therefore is sometimes compared to “playing God”. The IASS is convening a workshop on “Religious and Spiritual Perspectives on Climate Engineering” from April 24 to 26, 2013 addressing the following questions: How do different religious and spiritual thought traditions frame the human-environment relationship, and how does climate engineering fit into or challenge this? How do these traditions weigh the potential alleviation of current and future suffering through climate change against the risks and uncertainties of climate engineering? Is it already possible to make conclusive statements about how acceptable or unacceptable climate engineering will be viewed within individual religious and spiritual traditions? The event builds on previous workshops aimed at understanding the more basic relationship between religions and the climate change we are already facing, as well as building on current work being done at the IASS cluster “Sustainable Interactions with the Atmosphere” (SIWA) on understanding the impacts, uncertainties and risks of climate engineering. On the evening of April 25th, there will be a public panel discussion at the IASSon the topic of religion and climate engineering, titled “Climate Engineering: Saving the Sky, or Playing God?” In the focus of the discussion is particularly the question on the relationship between climate engineering, the deliberate manipulation of the global climate system, and religious and spiritual traditions. The discussion deals with the following questions: What is the relationship like between religion and climate engineering? How relevant is climate engineering for religious and spiritual communities? How do some religious and spiritual groups understand the potential of climate engineering I order to compensate the effects of climate change in the context of its risks? The discussion will be chaired by PD Dr. Mark Lawrence (Scientific director at the IASS) and feature:Dieter Gerten (Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research) Shlomo Shoham (Former Commissioner for Future Generations, Parliament of Israel)Michael Northcott (University of Edinburgh)Venerable Vivekananda (Panditarama Lumbini International Vipassana Meditation Center) Attendance is by appointment only! Please register with Stefan Schäfer ( stefan.schae...@iass-potsdam.de) for the panel discussion. Media representatives please register with me...@iass-potsdam.de. The workshop as well as the panel discussion will be in English. -- 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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
[geo] The Politics of Geoengineering - Events - Centre for Citizenship, Identities and Governance (CCIG) - Open University
http://www.open.ac.uk/ccig/events/the-politics-of-geoengineering The Politics of Geoengineering Tuesday, 7 May 2013, 14:30 - 18:00 The Open University, 1-11 Hawley Crescent, Camden Town, London, NW1 8NP, Room 6A workshop on the politics behind the different ‘geoengineering’ options.This workshop will explore the social-political cleavages that can be expected from geoengineering techniques and what existing options might they resemble. Convenor: Olaf CORRY (by invitations only) Background: As greenhouse gas emissions rise ever faster and scientists point to signs of abrupt climate change previously assumed to be gradual or distant prospects, plans to research and possibly deploy techniques to directly manipulate global temperatures or extract CO2 from the atmosphere – geoengineering – are entering policy discourse.However, despite its global implications, only a relatively narrow set of actors have so far been engaged in geoengineering debates. Also, current evaluations have tended to lump too many different technologies together, have been overwhelmingly technical and framed in terms of an emergency and the assumed failure of mitigation. As a result they are not necessarily measured against wider criteria of feasibility or in relation to portfolios of mitigation and adaptation. As a result, policy-makers, NGOs and the public have only limited sources of ideas about how such a future global politics of governing the climate may unfold and potentially interact with traditional strategies of mitigation and adaptation.Aims: Normally geoengineering methods are grouped according to technical differences (SRM and CDR, for example), but how would they cluster in terms of the politics? Some are territorial while others rest on the commons. What analogues exist from earlier debates – e.g. is air capture similar to wind power in it requiring apparatus to be set up in certain places? Will governing stratospheric particle injection as a ‘last resort’ be similar to governing the spread of nuclear weapons as a ‘last resort’ tool reserved for a few ‘responsible’ powers?This workshop aims get begin to get at the question of what the politics of different ‘geoengineering’ options might have in store for us. The aim is not necessarily to sort technologies into ‘good’ and ‘bad’ at this stage, but rather to begin to group them according to the political challenges they pose. What social-political cleavages can be expected – and what existing options might they resemble? There is obviously a big difference between what political impulses stratospheric particle injection and – say - biochar or afforestation options might mobilize. -- 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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: [geo] “Climate Engineering – Saving the Sky, Or Playing God? | IASS Potsdam
Thanks for the kind reminder/invitation, Andrew. Unfortunately, my non-existant travel budget forbids me from attending the event. Perhaps there will be reruns on YouTube. As for the question Are people allowed to put their hand on the climate?, I might remind the participants that is exactly the problem - humans are putting their hands on climate (and ocean chemistry and biology) via their carbon intensive lifestyle. And it doesn't look like those hands and their sinful, earth-threatenting mischief are going away anytime soon. So my vote is that we indeed learn to play (and act) like God, and with our hands and changed behavior save the sky and the rest of the planet. My answer to the workshop's two-part title question then is a resounding yes, barring some other divine/better intervention. Praying for guidance in this immense task (and for forgiveness from future earth inhabitants if we fail) might also be a good idea. Greg From: Andrew Lockley andrew.lock...@gmail.com To: geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.com Sent: Mon, April 22, 2013 3:53:06 PM Subject: [geo] “Climate Engineering – Saving the Sky, Or Playing God? | IASS Potsdam http://www.iass-potsdam.de/research-clusters/sustainable-interactions-atmosphere-siwa/news/climate-engineering-saving-sky-or “Climate Engineering – Saving the Sky, Or Playing God? Should humans try to control the climate? Climate Engineering (CE), the purposeful intervention into the global climate system, increasingly raises the hope that the effects of climate change could be compensated with the help of technology. However, these methods, even if they are able to affect global mean temperatures quickly and significantly, also involve large uncertainties and risks that are by far not sufficiently explored. They also raise questions such as: Are people allowed to put their hand on the climate? In the media, climate engineering therefore is sometimes compared to “playing God”. The IASS is convening a workshop on “Religious and Spiritual Perspectives on Climate Engineering” from April 24 to 26, 2013 addressing the following questions: How do different religious and spiritual thought traditions frame the human-environment relationship, and how does climate engineering fit into or challenge this? How do these traditions weigh the potential alleviation of current and future suffering through climate change against the risks and uncertainties of climate engineering? Is it already possible to make conclusive statements about how acceptable or unacceptable climate engineering will be viewed within individual religious and spiritual traditions? The event builds on previous workshops aimed at understanding the more basic relationship between religions and the climate change we are already facing, as well as building on current work being done at the IASS cluster “Sustainable Interactions with the Atmosphere” (SIWA) on understanding the impacts, uncertainties and risks of climate engineering. On the evening of April 25th, there will be a public panel discussion at the IASSon the topic of religion and climate engineering, titled “Climate Engineering: Saving the Sky, or Playing God?” In the focus of the discussion is particularly the question on the relationship between climate engineering, the deliberate manipulation of the global climate system, and religious and spiritual traditions. The discussion deals with the following questions: What is the relationship like between religion and climate engineering? How relevant is climate engineering for religious and spiritual communities? How do some religious and spiritual groups understand the potential of climate engineering I order to compensate the effects of climate change in the context of its risks? The discussion will be chaired by PD Dr. Mark Lawrence (Scientific director at the IASS) and feature:Dieter Gerten (Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research) Shlomo Shoham (Former Commissioner for Future Generations, Parliament of Israel)Michael Northcott (University of Edinburgh)Venerable Vivekananda (Panditarama Lumbini International Vipassana Meditation Center) Attendance is by appointment only! Please register with Stefan Schäfer (stefan.schae...@iass-potsdam.de) for the panel discussion. Media representatives please register with me...@iass-potsdam.de. The workshop as well as the panel discussion will be in English. -- 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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
