[geo] Re: Important: make sunsets interview

[Josh Horton]

Andrew,

I'm not a regular listener, but this is a great podcast -- well done!  I 
recommend others give it a listen.

Josh

On Saturday, December 31, 2022 at 1:00:56 PM UTC-5 Russell Seitz wrote:

> The comparison  of  Ice 911 and  Make Sunsets  in your podcast is entirely 
> deserved.
>
> On Saturday, December 31, 2022 at 9:31:44 AM UTC-5 Andrew Lockley wrote:
>
>> I don't normally announce podcast episodes individually, but this is 
>> worth your attention. 
>>
>> First (known) long form interview with SAI deployment company 
>> @makeSunsets 
>> https://open.spotify.com/episode/2Fr15fdX20qyyfVX8VCF3Q?si=J-kE7zqSR5eCuh9PLcD3fw
>>
>

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/6c30bffc-46f6-4473-9aff-fed5a2501a7en%40googlegroups.com.

[geo] Re: Make Sunsets: Clarifications!

[Josh Horton]

I want to repeat a set of questions I publicly posed to Luke on December 9, 
few if any of which have been fully answered (despite the statement "Happy 
to answer any questions").

Hi Luke,

Can you provide more information about your launches--locations, flight 
descriptions, release altitudes and amounts, safety protocols, 
consultations, permits, funding, etc.?

Josh Horton

On Thursday, December 29, 2022 at 8:07:48 PM UTC-5 Russell Seitz wrote:

> Luke,  Make Sunsets has tweeted invoking "trade secrets ' in denying 
> simple requests to quantify how much  helium is needed  per
>  " cooling credit".
> This lack of transparency cannot stop anyone , policy analysts included 
> from running the numbers .
>
> Dimensional analysis  based on handbook  and commercially disclosed values 
> of the physical constants of  air, helium and SO2 indicates that you can at 
> best hope to lift 1.01 Kg per  STP cubic meter of 97% pure balloon grade 
> He. 
>
> Since SO2 vapor's molecular weight makes it over twice as dense as air  ( 
> ~64/29),  even if  if the dead weigh of the balloon and its telemetry are 
> completely disregarded it will still take  a tonne  or more of helium to 
> loft a  tonne of aerosol feedstock to stratospheric elevation.
>
> As you must be aware,  the short supply of helium ( the US strategic 
> reserve acquired after WWII was largely sold off by 2021)  has already 
> quadrupled its cost.,  and at present , annual   global production is 
> below100,000 tonnes and recoverable reserves stand at around 30 million 
> tonnes globally. 
>
> Using NOAA's numbers:
>
> https://research.noaa.gov/article/ArtMID/587/ArticleID/2756/Simulated-geoengineering-evaluation-cooler-planet-but-with-side-effects
>  it is clear that your scheme would  require lofting of a megatonne  or 
> more of SO2 a year per degree K of cooling: which is not only an order of 
> magnitude more that present production can bear, but enough to completely 
> deplete known reserves and resources by 2050. 
>
> Finally, US helium is almost exclusively a byproduct of natural gas 
> production , and so entails substantial release of  methane and other 
> hydrocarbons that are greenhouse gases  more powerful than CO2
>
> On Wednesday, December 28, 2022 at 6:09:51 PM UTC-5 lu...@lukeiseman.com 
> wrote:
>
>> Thanks Andrew, Olivier, Bala, and everyone else for diving in with 
>> critiques here. I'm a cofounder of Make Sunsets and want to clarify a few 
>> things: 
>>
>> *Honesty: *
>> We have no desire to mislead anyone. If we make a mistake (which we 
>> will), we'll correct it. 
>> *Radiative Forcing:*
>> I didn't make this "gram offsets a ton" number up. It comes from David 
>> Keith's research:
>> "a gram of aerosol in the stratosphere, delivered perhaps by high-flying 
>> jets, could offset the warming effect of a ton of carbon dioxide, a factor 
>> of 1 million to 1." 
>> <https://keith.seas.harvard.edu/news/whats-right-temperature-earth>
>> and, again: "Geoengineering’s leverage is very high—one gram of 
>> particles in the stratosphere prevents the warming caused by a ton of 
>> carbon dioxide." 
>> <https://longnow.org/seminars/02015/feb/17/patient-geoengineering/>
>> By stating "offsetting the warming effect of 1 ton of carbon for 1 year," 
>> I was trying to be more conservative than Professor Keith. I am correcting 
>> "carbon" to read "carbon dioxide" on the cooling credit description right 
>> now, and I'm adding a paragraph at the start of the post stating that 
>> estimates vary, but a leading researcher cites a gram offsetting a ton. 
>> For the several hundred dollars of cooling credits we've already sold, 
>> I'll be providing evidence to each purchaser that I've delivered at least 2 
>> grams per cooling credit. 
>> Olivier, or anyone else: I'd be happy to post something by you to our 
>> blog explaining what you estimate the radiative forcing of 1g so2 released 
>> at 20km altitude from in or near the tropics will be and why. I will 
>> include language of your choosing explaining that you in no way endorse 
>> what we are doing.
>> I very much hope to get suggestions from this community on 
>> instrumentation we should fly to improve the state of the science here. 
>> Again, I'm happy to do this with disclaimers about how researchers we fly 
>> things for are not endorsing our efforts. Or even without revealing who the 
>> researchers are: we'll fly test instruments and provide data, no questions 
>> asked:)
>> *Telemetry: *
>> My first 2 flights had no telemetry: in April, this was sti

[geo] Re: Actively Launching

[Josh Horton]

Hi Luke,

Can you provide more information about your launches--locations, flight 
descriptions, release altitudes and amounts, safety protocols, 
consultations, permits, funding, etc.?

Josh Horton
On Friday, December 2, 2022 at 12:14:16 PM UTC-5 lu...@lukeiseman.com wrote:

> I wanted to let you all know we've launched: Make Sunsets is the first 
> place you can buy cooling credits <https://makesunsets.com>. This 
> directly funds our research launches of so2 into the stratosphere. We've 
> launched twice, and we'll have 3 more within the month.
>
> I hope some of you will take me up on my offer: we will fly any reasonable 
> test instrumentation. 
>
> Happy to answer any questions, and I'll also be thrilled to help others 
> set up their own launch programs. I'm particularly interested in launch 
> sites on equatorial islands existentially threatened by climate change.
>
> -Luke
>

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/fcdcfccc-160e-4966-bd57-9a41b62d37fan%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [geo] HPAC comment on White House Office of Science and Technology Policy climate intervention program

[Josh Horton]

Great, that's helpful, thanks Ron.

Josh

On Friday, September 23, 2022 at 2:28:07 PM UTC-4 rpba...@gmail.com wrote:

> Hi Josh,
>
> As far as I know it was in response to a general call for comments (see 
> intro to the HPAC response) here: 
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rByAkb7rBO8f5lMCKUcMqJPlaFuhftNi/edit
>
> I don't know of any documents from the OSTP or the USGCRP on the proposed 
> research program that have been publicly shared. 
>
> Best,
> Ron Baiman (HPAC OSTP response drafting committee) 
>
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 23, 2022 at 12:19 PM Josh Horton  wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Obviously I'm late to this conversation, but I have a quick question for 
>> those of you who were engaged -- were the comments many of you submitted in 
>> response to a draft plan or something similar made available by OSTP, or in 
>> response to a general call for thoughts on research and research 
>> governance?  I assume it was the latter, but if it was the former can 
>> someone please pass along any relevant documents?  Thanks.
>>
>> Josh Horton
>>
>> On Saturday, September 10, 2022 at 2:14:25 AM UTC-4 Sev Clarke wrote:
>>
>>> My submission was:
>>>
>>> *THREE CLIMATE SOLUTIONS*
>>>
>>>  
>>>
>>> *Introduction. *As harnessing industry is likely to be key to prompt 
>>> and effective climate action and investment, the text in blue bold below 
>>> indicates some of the industrial applications of the three conceptual 
>>> technologies. Some of them should be profitable. Most await independent 
>>> assessment, modelling, development, governance and deployment. Supporting 
>>> documentation is available on request. The three technologies are currently 
>>> under active investigation by a consortium of renowned research institutes.
>>>
>>>  
>>>
>>> *Buoyant Flake Ocean Fertilization (BFOF)* is designed to nutriate 
>>> oligotrophic surface waters with the necessary nutrients. Rice husks rich 
>>> in opaline silica are coated in waste minerals containing iron, phosphate 
>>> and trace elements using hot-melt lignin glue derived from straw or woody 
>>> waste and a leavening agent to provide buoyancy. Reactive nitrogen is 
>>> provided by nutrient-supplemented cyanobacteria that convert atmospheric 
>>> nitrogen and CO2 into biomass. The flakes are pumped pneumatically from the 
>>> holds of bulk cargo ships thinly over the sea surface, into which flake 
>>> nutrients leach out over a year before the husks disintegrate and sink.
>>>
>>>  
>>>
>>> Modelling should be able to establish the theoretical cooling effect 
>>> provided by increasing the albedo of these waters by increasing their 
>>> phytoplankton concentrations. Modelling and experimentation should also be 
>>> able to estimate the increase in marine biomass that would likely be 
>>> generated by such supplementary fertilization, together with its beneficial 
>>> effects on ocean de-acidification and the moving downwards (sequestration) 
>>> of the carbonaceous material contained in marine faeces, dead organisms, 
>>> marine ‘snow', flake residuals, and the bicarbonate released by bacterial 
>>> and chemical action. It has been estimated that this could sequester from 
>>> 6-13GtC/yr in the ocean depths - at very low cost, or even profitably.
>>>
>>>  
>>>
>>> The ultra-slow release of nutrients into nutrient-poor, and increasingly 
>>> stratified, surface waters should allow a rich and stable marine ecology to 
>>> develop. Furthermore, it would tend to prevent eutrophication and toxicity 
>>> from occurring. The effectiveness of this proposed method has recently been 
>>> given a major boost, as it was realized that krill and other diel, 
>>> vertically-migrating (DVM) species form an Active Carbon Pump that, when 
>>> supplemented by increased phytoplankton numbers fed by the minerals 
>>> released by the buoyant flakes, could release sufficient carbon-rich faecal 
>>> pellets and respiration at depth fully to offset annual anthropogenic 
>>> carbon dioxide emissions.  *The commercial opportunities offered by 
>>> this technology lie mainly in the additional fish catch or fishing 
>>> royalties that it could provide. In time, independently-verified carbon 
>>> credits might also become monetizable from proven carbon sequestration. The 
>>> increase in ocean cooling albedo caused by the solar-reflecting 
>>> phytoplankton and their cloud-thic

Re: [geo] HPAC comment on White House Office of Science and Technology Policy climate intervention program

[Josh Horton]

Hi all,

Obviously I'm late to this conversation, but I have a quick question for 
those of you who were engaged -- were the comments many of you submitted in 
response to a draft plan or something similar made available by OSTP, or in 
response to a general call for thoughts on research and research 
governance?  I assume it was the latter, but if it was the former can 
someone please pass along any relevant documents?  Thanks.

Josh Horton

On Saturday, September 10, 2022 at 2:14:25 AM UTC-4 Sev Clarke wrote:

> My submission was:
>
> *THREE CLIMATE SOLUTIONS*
>
>  
>
> *Introduction. *As harnessing industry is likely to be key to prompt and 
> effective climate action and investment, the text in blue bold below 
> indicates some of the industrial applications of the three conceptual 
> technologies. Some of them should be profitable. Most await independent 
> assessment, modelling, development, governance and deployment. Supporting 
> documentation is available on request. The three technologies are currently 
> under active investigation by a consortium of renowned research institutes.
>
>  
>
> *Buoyant Flake Ocean Fertilization (BFOF)* is designed to nutriate 
> oligotrophic surface waters with the necessary nutrients. Rice husks rich 
> in opaline silica are coated in waste minerals containing iron, phosphate 
> and trace elements using hot-melt lignin glue derived from straw or woody 
> waste and a leavening agent to provide buoyancy. Reactive nitrogen is 
> provided by nutrient-supplemented cyanobacteria that convert atmospheric 
> nitrogen and CO2 into biomass. The flakes are pumped pneumatically from the 
> holds of bulk cargo ships thinly over the sea surface, into which flake 
> nutrients leach out over a year before the husks disintegrate and sink.
>
>  
>
> Modelling should be able to establish the theoretical cooling effect 
> provided by increasing the albedo of these waters by increasing their 
> phytoplankton concentrations. Modelling and experimentation should also be 
> able to estimate the increase in marine biomass that would likely be 
> generated by such supplementary fertilization, together with its beneficial 
> effects on ocean de-acidification and the moving downwards (sequestration) 
> of the carbonaceous material contained in marine faeces, dead organisms, 
> marine ‘snow', flake residuals, and the bicarbonate released by bacterial 
> and chemical action. It has been estimated that this could sequester from 
> 6-13GtC/yr in the ocean depths - at very low cost, or even profitably.
>
>  
>
> The ultra-slow release of nutrients into nutrient-poor, and increasingly 
> stratified, surface waters should allow a rich and stable marine ecology to 
> develop. Furthermore, it would tend to prevent eutrophication and toxicity 
> from occurring. The effectiveness of this proposed method has recently been 
> given a major boost, as it was realized that krill and other diel, 
> vertically-migrating (DVM) species form an Active Carbon Pump that, when 
> supplemented by increased phytoplankton numbers fed by the minerals 
> released by the buoyant flakes, could release sufficient carbon-rich faecal 
> pellets and respiration at depth fully to offset annual anthropogenic 
> carbon dioxide emissions.  *The commercial opportunities offered by this 
> technology lie mainly in the additional fish catch or fishing royalties 
> that it could provide. In time, independently-verified carbon credits might 
> also become monetizable from proven carbon sequestration. The increase in 
> ocean cooling albedo caused by the solar-reflecting phytoplankton and their 
> cloud-thickening emissions is unlikely to be monetizable, though beneficial 
> to the biosphere and humanity. *
>
>  
>
> Floating* Seatomizer* (seawater atomizing) units, powered by offshore 
> wind farms, could spray seawater into the lower atmosphere to humidify the 
> air, form high-albedo marine cloud, cool the surface water, restore coral 
> reefs, increase off-planet heat flow, and irrigate the land with 
> additional, gentle precipitation. BETE’s commercial spray nozzles, when 
> adapted to use higher and triphasic pressures, might generate droplets in 
> the right size distributions to produce sea salt aerosols, cloud 
> nucleation, atmospheric humidification up to the point where saturation 
> occurs, marine cloud forms or thickens, and rainfall or snow may be induced 
> to fall at predetermined distances downwind - saving crops, forests, and 
> homes. Performed in arctic warm seasons, ice albedo and thickness could be 
> protected. 
>
>  
>
> Anchored arrays of Seatomizer units should be able to have significant 
> regional cooling effects on the warming waters that power extreme weather 
&

[geo] Non-Use and Earth System Governance

[Josh Horton]

Hi everyone,

The proposed Non-Use Agreement seems to be largely driven by the leadership 
of the Earth System Governance Project (see 
here https://www.earthsystemgovernance.org).  In that regard it's worth 
mentioning that I recently co-authored a couple of articles on how ESG and 
some of its prominent affiliates relate to solar geoengineering.

The first, written with Jesse Reynolds, is titled *An Earth System 
Governance Perspective on Solar Geoengineering* 
(https://keith.seas.harvard.edu/files/tkg/files/an_earth_system_governance_perspective_on_solar_geoengineering.pdf?m=1603715657).
 
 Here's the abstract:

*Solar geoengineering appears capable of reducing climate change and the 
associated risks. In part because it would be global in effect, the 
governance of solar geoengineering is a central concern. The Earth System 
Governance (ESG) Project includes many researchers who, to varying degrees, 
utilize a common vocabulary and research framework. Despite the clear 
mutual relevance of solar geoengineering and ESG, few ESG researchers have 
considered the topic in substantial depth. To stimulate its sustained 
uptake as a subject within the ESG research program, we identify 
significant contributions thus far by ESG scholars on the subject of solar 
geoengineering governance and survey the wider solar geo- engineering 
governance literature from the perspective of the new ESG research 
framework. Based on this analysis, we also suggest specific potential lines 
of inquiry that we believe are ripe for research by ESG scholars: nonstate 
actors’ roles, polycentricity, public engagement and participation, and the 
Anthropocene.*
The second, written with Barbara Koremenos, is titled *Steering and 
Influence in Transnational Climate Governance: Nonstate Engagement in Solar 
Geoengineering Research* 
(https://keith.seas.harvard.edu/files/tkg/files/glep_a_00572_horton.pdf?m=1599010167).
 
 There's a big overlap between ESG and TCG.  Here's the abstract:

*Theorists of transnational climate governance (TCG) seek to account for 
the increasing involvement of nonstate and substate actors in global 
climate policy. While transnational actors have been present in the 
emerging field of solar geoengineering—a novel technol- ogy intended to 
reflect a fraction of sunlight back to space to reduce climate 
impacts— many of their most significant activities, including knowledge 
dissemination, scientific capacity building, and conventional lobbying, are 
not captured by the TCG framework. Insofar as TCG is identified with 
transnational governance and transnational governance is important to 
reducing climate risks, an incomplete TCG framework is problematic for 
effective policy making. We attribute this shortcoming on the part of TCG 
to its exclusive focus on steering and corollary exclusion of influence as 
a critical component of gover- nance. Exercising influence, for example, 
through inside and outside lobbying, is an important part of transnational 
governance—it complements direct governing with indi- rect efforts to 
inform, persuade, pressure, or otherwise influence both governor and gov- 
erned. Based on an empirical analysis of solar geoengineering research 
governance and a theoretical consideration of alternative literatures, 
including research on interest groups and nonstate advocacy, we call for a 
broader theory of transnational governance that integrates steering and 
influence in a way that accounts for the full array of nonstate and 
substate engagements beyond the state.*
Both of these articles offer insights into some of the perspectives behind 
the proposal.

Josh Horton

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/d6809349-1f49-4a6a-bfd3-306236387758n%40googlegroups.com.

[geo] Re: Parametric Insurance for Solar Geoengineering: Insights from the Pacific Catastrophe Risk Assessment and Financing Initiative

[Josh Horton]

Thanks for flagging Andrew.

I'd also point those who are interested toward the guest blog we wrote for 
C2G - 
https://www.c2g2.net/solar-geoengineering-compensation-and-parametric-insurance-insights-from-the-pacific/
 

Among other things, we attempt to connect a number of different arguments 
about unilateralism, compensation, loss and damage, liability, and 
index-based climate risk insurance that are spread across three relatively 
recent papers.

Josh

On Wednesday, October 14, 2020 at 2:18:15 PM UTC-4 Andrew Lockley wrote:

>
> -- Forwarded message -
> From: Andrew Lockley 
> Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2020, 12:50
> Subject: Parametric Insurance for Solar Geoengineering: Insights from the 
> Pacific Catastrophe Risk Assessment and Financing Initiative
> To: carbondiox...@googlegroups.com  <
> carbondiox...@googlegroups.com>
>
>
>
> https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10./1758-5899.12864
>
> Parametric Insurance for Solar Geoengineering: Insights from the Pacific 
> Catastrophe Risk Assessment and Financing Initiative
> Joshua B. Horton  Penehuro Lefale  David Keith
> First published: 10 October 2020
> https://doi.org/10./1758-5899.12864
> About
> Sections
>  
>
> Share on
> Abstract
> Solar geoengineering (SG) entails using technology to modify the Earth's 
> radiative balance to offset some of the climate changes caused by 
> long‐lived greenhouse gases. Parametric insurance, which delivers payouts 
> when specific physical indices (such as wind speed) cross predefined 
> thresholds, was recently proposed by two of us as a compensation mechanism 
> for SG with the potential to ease disagreements about the technology and to 
> facilitate cooperative deployment; we refer to this proposal as 
> reduced‐rate climate risk insurance for solar geoengineering, or ‘RCG’. 
> Here we probe the plausibility of RCG by exploring the Pacific Catastrophe 
> Risk Assessment and Financing Initiative (PCRAFI), a sovereign risk pool 
> providing parametric insurance coverage against tropical cyclones and 
> earthquakes/tsunamis to Pacific island countries since 2013. Tracing the 
> history of PCRAFI and considering regional views on insurance as 
> compensation necessitates reconfiguring RCG in a way that shifts the focus 
> away from bargaining between developed and developing countries toward 
> bargaining among developed countries. This revised version of RCG is 
> challenged by an assumption of broad developed country support for 
> sovereign climate insurance in the developing world, but it also better 
> reflects the underlying incentive structure and distribution of power 
>

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/c6cfe010-c183-4a4d-bd25-add4681b41d9n%40googlegroups.com.

[geo] Solar Geoengineering, Governance, and Parametric Insurance

[Josh Horton]

Hi everyone,

I wanted to draw your attention to a new blog post that summarizes a new 
article by me and David Keith titled *Multilateral Parametric Climate Risk 
Insurance: A Tool to Facilitate Agreement About Deployment of Solar 
Geoengineering?*

As the blog summarizes, the paper sets out how parametric insurance, a 
novel compensation mechanism that relies on objective environmental 
indicators, might help countries overcome serious disagreements about using 
solar geoengineering with a view to reducing overall climate risk.

Here's a link to the blog: 
https://climatestrategies.wordpress.com/2019/05/15/solar-geoengineering-governance-and-parametric-insurance/

Josh Horton

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/845334f1-2d64-403a-84b5-258e9880d593%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [geo] "UN Convention still says “No” to manipulating the climate"

[Josh Horton]

Hi everyone,

For what it's worth, my quick two cents on all this:

   - I tend to agree with Anna-Maria and others that this decision is not 
   so much an endorsement of geoengineering research as it is a recognition of 
   the need for more of it, in the context of a general reaffirmation of the 
   previous CBD position on geoengineering.
   - I disagree with Jim's characterization of this position as a "de facto 
   moratorium" on research -- no serious legal reading of these texts leads to 
   that conclusion.
   - In the scheme of things, I don't regard this latest decision as 
   terribly significant one way or the other.  It is a fairly routine 
   non-binding decision adopted by parties to a convention that, while 
   well-intentioned, exercises virtually no influence on international climate 
   policy.

Josh

Joshua Horton, Ph.D. 

Research Director, Geoengineering
Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs
Harvard Kennedy School
12 Oxford Street, Link Rm. 276
Cambridge, MA 02138

On Sunday, December 18, 2016 at 10:18:00 AM UTC-5, p.williamson wrote:
>
>
> Ron - and others
>
>
> In response:
>
>
> 1.  My 'small part' related to the CBD decision text.  I did not draft 
> that, but had the opportunity to comment on it at the 2015 CBD SBSTTA.  I 
> should have been more careful in distinguishing three levels of "CBD 
> text":  i) CBD decisions, the agreed position determined by the Conference 
> of Parties (COP) of signatories to the Convention, i.e. national 
> governments (although excluding the US, who has not ratified the 
> Convention, and is now very unlikely to do so);  ii) documentation prepared 
> by the CBD Secretariat for consideration by parties at CBD SBSTTA and COP 
> meetings; and iii) externally-prepared information papers and reports, such 
> as mine, that have their final editing by the Secretariat, but are not 
> necessarily "accepted" by parties (I think Technical Series 84 was "noted" 
> by the 2015 CBD SBSTTA, but I haven't checked that).  Thus, strictly 
> speaking, only (i) should be considered as CBD text. 
>
>
> 2.  The CBD Secretariat took the lead role in drafting the Key Messages 
> part of the report.  However, I was fully comfortable with that part of the 
> text (with sign-off also by my co-author, Ralph Bodle).  
>
>
> 3.  There arguably never was a "moratorium":  CBD decision X33 was a 
> request, with various provisos.  For example, identifying the need for 
> adequate scientific justification, also including the exception for 
> small-scale scientific experiments in a controlled setting - without 
> defining what that meant.  For a scientific study, the 'control' involves 
> measurements of the matching situation without experimental treatment.  If 
> the intention was for 'controlled setting' to rigorously mean a 
> fully-enclosed, laboratory study, that could/should have been 
> stated.  Furthermore, geoengineering was very poorly defined in X33, 
> without making clear whether land-based CDR (such as BECCS and large-scale 
> afforestation/reforestation) was or was not included.  Definition issues 
> are discussed further in Annex 2 of Tech Ser 84.
>
>
> 4.  Thanks for mentioning my Nature World View article (the pdf is 
> downloadable from the link you gave).  That is a different topic: I will 
> endeavour to keep you personally informed of the outcome, but would not 
> presume such issues are of interest to all the Geoengineering group members.
>
>
> Regards
>
> Phil
>
> --
> *From:* Ronal W. Larson 
> *Sent:* 18 December 2016 06:26
> *To:* Phillip Williamson (ENV)
> *Cc:* J.L. Reynolds; annamari...@ucalgary.ca ; 
> Geoengineering; macm...@cds.caltech.edu ; jim Thomas
> *Subject:* Re: [geo] "UN Convention still says “No” to manipulating the 
> climate" 
>  
> Dr. Williamson, list, et al 
>
> 1.  You say below that you had a “small part” - but you seem to have been 
> the primary author for almost all of “Report 84”  (cite given below).   
> I’ve only so far read the CDR part of most interest to me, but I will try 
> to at least skim the rest.  I thought it the best summary overview of all I 
> have seen for “my” CDR approach.  Of course I would have changed a few 
> words and phrases, but overall, you captured my area very well.  Of most 
> help is finding more than a dozen new 2016 citations, of which I was 
> unaware.  Amazing turn-around speed on a difficult topic..
>
> 2.  I didn’t feel the same about the “Key Messages” summary paragraph. 
>  Did another person/group write that?
>
> 3.  I now better understand the phrase “moratorium” - which you focus on 
> below.   Am I correct that you disagree with the ETC group on moratorium 
> issues/actions at this COP (and whose perception I have retained below)?
>
> 4.  New topic:   In googling, I found your recent short article in Nature 
> at: 
> http://www.nature.com/news/take-the-time-and-effort-to-correct-misinformation-1.21106.
>  
>  Thanks for 

[geo] SRM, Developing Countries, and the Philippines

[Josh Horton]

Hi everyone,

Tim O'Brien, a member of our Harvard group, has a new piece up online at 
Angle discussing solar geoengineering and the developing world, including 
some observations from a "listening tour" he undertook in the Philippines 
earlier this year.

Here's the link:  
http://anglejournal.com/article/2015-12-solar-radiation-management-only-works-if-it-works-for-the-poor/

And here's a summary:

*While the effects of climate change are typically discussed in abstract 
future terms, its impacts are already overwhelming the resources of a 
growing number of developing countries. The scale of climate change impacts 
and vulnerabilities in these developing countries warrants serious and 
inclusive international dialogue on geoengineering, and in particular a 
promising technology that aims to reflect a small percentage of sunlight 
back into space called Solar Radiation Management (SRM). There remains the 
possibility that SRM could complement mitigation and adaptation in the 
fight against climate change, but not without simultaneous increases in 
resources for research and informed debate that is grounded in the needs of 
those most affected by climate change right now.*

Josh Horton

-- 
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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[geo] Designing Procedural Mechanisms for the Governance of Solar Radiation Management Field Experiments: Workshop Report

[Josh Horton]

Hi everyone,

Here's a link to the new report from a workshop that Neil Craik, Jason 
Blackstock, Jack Doughty, and I ran in Ottawa this past February:

https://www.cigionline.org/sites/default/files/ottawa_workshop_feb_2015_1.pdf

This two-day workshop considered and evaluated governance mechanisms that 
may be useful for managing proposed SRM field experiments. Two specific 
procedural mechanisms were under consideration: environmental impact 
assessments and research registries. To ensure discussions were as 
realistic as possible, participants used a set of recently published SRM 
field experiment proposals as hypothetical examples when considering and 
evaluating both mechanisms. The workshop operated under the Chatham House 
Rule, and no attempts were made to forge consensus positions or to generate 
policy recommendations. Rather, this workshop was exploratory in nature, 
with discussions ranging widely along with personal opinions on some 
topics. 

Josh Horton

-- 
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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [geo] First U.S. state proposed legislation on climate engineering

[Josh Horton]

I live next door in Massachusetts so take a particular interest in this. 
 The bill has two sponsors, both Democrats:

   - Rep. Karen MacBeth http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karen_MacBeth
   - Rep. James 
   McLaughlin http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_McLaughlin_(politician)
   
They serve together on the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, and both 
represent Cumberland.

It just so happens that MacBeth is a member of Rhode Island Against 
Chemtrails and Geoengineering 
https://www.facebook.com/groups/RhodeIslandAgainstChemtrails/members/

Josh Horton

On Monday, March 23, 2015 at 10:10:27 AM UTC-4, Alan Robock wrote:

  Since the bill defines geoengineering as counteracting global *warning* 
 and not global *warming*, do we have anything to worry about?

 The bill makes no distinction between small scale experiments and large 
 scale implementation, but I guess that is what the review process is for.

 Alan Robock

 Alan Robock, Distinguished Professor
   Editor, Reviews of Geophysics
   Director, Meteorology Undergraduate Program
 Department of Environmental Sciences Phone: +1-848-932-5751
 Rutgers University Fax: +1-732-932-8644
 14 College Farm Road  E-mail: rob...@envsci.rutgers.edu 
 javascript:
 New Brunswick, NJ 08901-8551  USA http://envsci.rutgers.edu/~robock
   http://twitter.com/AlanRobock
 Watch my 18 min TEDx talk at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qsrEk1oZ-54

 On 3/22/2015 7:41 PM, Ken Caldeira wrote:
  
  
  If this is real and not a joke, and it passes in its present form, it 
 seems as if someone in Rhode Island could potentially be fined and 
 imprisoned for planting a tree with the intent of absorbing carbon dioxide 
 from the atmosphere. 

 ___
 Ken Caldeira

 Carnegie Institution for Science  
 Dept of Global Ecology
 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA
 +1 650 704 7212 kcal...@carnegiescience.edu javascript:
 website: http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab/  
  blog: http://kencaldeira.org  
 @KenCaldeira
  
  My assistant is Dawn Ross dr...@carnegiescience.edu javascript:, 
 with access to incoming emails.
 Postdoc positions available in my group: 
 https://jobs.carnegiescience.edu/jobs/dge/

  
 On Sun, Mar 22, 2015 at 3:03 PM, Hester, Tracy tdhe...@central.uh.edu 
 javascript: wrote:

  
  We now have possibly the first state proposed legislation in the United 
 States to control climate engineering efforts.   A bill (H-5480) was 
 recently introduced in the Rhode Island legislature that would require any 
 climate engineering efforts to undergo an approval process and two (at 
 least) public hearings.  The bill would impose fines and up to 90 days 
 imprisonment for each day that the unapproved climate engineering 
 continues.  The bill also gives Rhode Island's environmental agency the 
 ability to enjoin and halt an unapproved project.


  If you’d like to get more details, you can review the bill itself at  
 http://webserver.rilin.state.ri.us/BillText/BillText15/HouseText15/H5480.pdf
  

  

 These local initiatives might pop up in other state legislatures if 
 climate engineering research gains momentum (especially after the NAS 
 reports last month).   If so, the prospect of overlapping or conflicting 
 regulations from multiple states will often spur the federal government to 
 impose its own consolidated regulatory scheme to preempt the state efforts. 
  


  
  Professor Tracy Hester
 University of Houston Law Center
 100 Law Center
 Houston, Texas 77204
 713-743-1152
 tdhe...@central.uh.edu javascript:
 Web bio:   www.law.uh.edu/faculty/thester 
  
  
   -- 
 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 geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com javascript:.
 To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com 
 javascript:.
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

  
  -- 
 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 geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com javascript:.
 To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com 
 javascript:.
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


 

-- 
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.
For more options, visit https

[geo] Geoengineering a Right-Wing Technology?

[Josh Horton]

Clive Hamilton recently stated in a NYT op-ed that If there is such a 
thing as a right-wing technology, geoengineering is it.

I submit that this is a gross oversimplification (or worse), and suggest 
that the following piece by a senior fellow at R Street (as in, Republican 
Party) is at least as likely to embody a conservative position on 
geoengineering.  In it, Josiah Neeley objects to geoengineering (though not 
unequivocally) because it would represent the ultimate government 
overreach.  My favorite part: Now imagine the equivalent of the Federal 
Reserve, but for global temperature. Maybe it would be based in Washington 
(shudder); maybe at the United Nations (double shudder). No doubt, it would 
be staffed by the world’s most eminent experts who made it through the 
political vetting process. Yet one wrong move, one over-reaction or 
under-correction, and the planet could turn into a hothouse or be headed 
into a new ice age.

Josh


http://www.rstreet.org/op-ed/geoengineering-the-cold-war-on-global-warming/

BY JOSIAH NEELEY http://www.rstreet.org/author/jneeley/. THE FEDERALIST 
http://thefederalist.com/2015/02/26/geoengineering-the-cold-war-on-global-warming/
. FEBRUARY 27, 2015
Geoengineering: The cold war on global warming

A recent panel of the National Academy of Sciences 
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/11/science/panel-urges-more-research-on-geoengineering-as-a-tool-against-climate-change.html?_r=0
 called 
for increased research into geoengineering. The announcement drew a variety 
of reactions, ranging from “this is proof that mankind is doomed!” to “uh, 
what is geoengineering?” So in the spirit of science, I’ve prepared a brief 
“explainer” on this fascinating and complicated subject.

*What is geoengineering? *

Geoengineering, or climate engineering, is the attempt to alter the earth’s 
climate on a large scale via deliberate human intervention. Specifically, 
geoengineering aims to counteract the effects of global warming. Remember 
in old movies or kids’ television shows 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_vAe9cxru10 when a mad genius creates a 
weather-control device? Well, weather is not climate 
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/02/weather-versus-climate-change-cosmos-video_n_5432366.html,
 
so it’s nothing like that. But basically.

*How would it work? *

A lot of geoengineering proposals do sound like something out of a 
science-fiction movie. The most popular version involves pumping aerosols 
into the upper atmosphere to block some of the incoming sunlight. The idea 
is based on the fact that, just as there are greenhouse gases that trap 
sunlight and make the earth warmer, so there are others (such as sulfuric 
aerosols) that have a cooling effect. An unplanned demonstration of this 
strategy occurred in 1991, when Mount Pinatubo erupted, spewing tons of 
sulfur dioxide into the air 
http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2030804,00.html. 
Over the following 18 months, global temperatures declined by nearly a 
degree Fahrenheit.

Other less-common proposals include dumping iron into the oceans 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_fertilization (to stimulate plankton 
growth), increasing the reflectivity of surfaces 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reflective_surfaces_%28geoengineering%29 and 
deploying giant space umbrellas 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_sunshade to block out the sun (not 
even kidding). Needless to say, the practicality of some of these plans is 
doubtful.

*Who wants to do this? *

Right now, nobody. But a variety of people have argued that geoengineering 
could be a much cheaper solution to global warming than cutting 
greenhouse-gas emissions. Most geoengineering proposals would cost a few 
billion to implement, and would not require painful government-mandated 
emissions reductions. For example, the economist Robert P. Murphy has 
written that “[t]he option of geo-engineering makes it much safer to 
continue using fossil fuels and thereby pass on extra trillions of dollars 
of wealth to the next generation at possibly little or even no cost.” 
http://www.econlib.org/library/Columns/y2009/Murphygeoengineering.html 
Similarly, 
Jim Manzi has advocated for “the development of geo-engineering technology 
that would be available on a ‘break-the-glass-in-case-of-emergency’ basis” 
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2009/08/six_questions_for_jim_manzi
 in 
case warming were to reach dangerous levels.

*Is there a downside? *

Oh, yes. Milton Friedman famously noted that if you put the government in 
charge of the Sahara Desert, in five years there’d be a shortage of sand. 
Geoengineering would give the government control over the planet’s 
thermostat.

Consider an analogy: For the past hundred years, control over the money 
supply has been given to the Federal Reserve. Led by a group of experts in 
economics and business, the Federal Reserve is justified as a means of 
tempering the boom and bust cycle of the pre-central bank 

Re: [geo] Response to Svoboda and Irvine, J Reynolds

[Josh Horton]

Jesse, thanks for posting the Svoboda and Irvine article as well as all 
four commentaries (including mine!).

The question of intent may be misplaced here, because the standard for 
international liability is usually strict, no-fault liability, which would 
almost certainly apply to SRM in practice.  Under this principle, the key 
issue is causation/attribution, not intent.  Attribution will likely be 
difficult, but not impossible -- methods like Fraction Attributable Risk 
are making headway on this front.

Josh

On Wednesday, August 13, 2014 4:00:53 AM UTC-4, Jesse Reynolds wrote:

 My response is one of four to Svoboda and Irvine. In the same issue, there 
 is also a relevant target article by David Morrow 'Starting a flood to stop 
 a fire? Some moral constraints on solar radiation management' with five 
 responses. All are at 
 http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/cepe21/17/2 

 I am unsure of the unstated rules regarding posting articles which are 
 behind firewalls. [If anyone knows, please clarify.] Here I am attaching 
 Svoboda and Irvine and its responses. [I hope that this does not overstep 
 the bounds of sharing.] I would be glad to share David's and those 
 responses if anyone wishes and it is OK. 

 There are a few other recent and forthcoming articles on compensation. I 
 am working on one. See also 
 Clare Heyward, Benefitting from Climate Geoengineering and Corresponding 
 Remedial Duties: The Case of Unforeseeable Harms, Journal of Applied 
 Philosophy, (2014) 
 http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10./japp.12075/abstract 

 Cheers, 
 -Jesse 

 - 
 Jesse L. Reynolds 
 European and International Public Law 
 Tilburg Sustainability Center 
 Tilburg University, The Netherlands 
 Book review editor, Law, Innovation, and Technology 
 email: j.l.re...@uvt.nl javascript: 
 http://works.bepress.com/jessreyn/ 

 -Original Message- 
 From: geoengi...@googlegroups.com javascript: [mailto:
 geoengi...@googlegroups.com javascript:] On Behalf Of Andrew Lockley 
 Sent: 12 August 2014 19:21 
 To: geoengineering 
 Subject: [geo] Response to Svoboda and Irvine, J Reynolds 

 Ethics, Policy  Environment 
 Volume 17, Issue 2, 2014 

 Response to Svoboda and Irvine 

 Full access 
 DOI:10.1080/21550085.2014.926080 Jesse Reynolds Published online: 08 Aug 
 2014 

 In this issue, Svoboda and Irvine (Svoboda  Irvine, 20146. Svoboda, T.,  
 Irvine, P. (2014). Ethical and technical challenges in compensating for 
 harm due to solar radiation management geoengineering. Ethics, Policy and 
 Environment, 17(2), 157–174. 
 [Taylor  Francis Online] 
 View all references) offer the most in-depth consideration thus far of 
 possible compensation for harm from solar radiation management (SRM) 
 geoengineering. This topic is indeed treacherous terrain, pulling together 
 multiple complex debates, ethical and otherwise. Their description of the 
 technical challenges to determining damages and causation in particular are 
 illuminating. The reader cannot help, though, but be left with the sense 
 that both SRM and compensation are futile efforts, bound to do more harm 
 than good. 
 Before proceeding, throughout any consideration of geoengineering, one 
 must always bear in mind that it is under consideration as a possible 
 complementary response (along with greenhouse gas emissions reductions—or 
 ‘mitigation’—and adaptation) to climate change. Climate change poses risks 
 to the environment and humans, among whom the world's poor are the most 
 vulnerable. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change recently 
 concluded that ‘Models consistently suggest that SRM would generally reduce 
 climate differences compared to a world with elevated greenhouse gas 
 concentrations and no SRM …’ 
 (Boucher et al., 20133. Boucher, O., Randall, D., Artaxo, D., Bretherton, 
 C., Feingold, G., Forster, P., … Zhang, X. Y. (2013). 
 Clouds and aerosols. In T. F.Stocker, D.Qin, G. -K.Plattner, M.Tignor, S. 
 K.Allen, J.Boschung… P. M. Midgley (Eds.), Climate change 2013: The 
 physical science basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth 
 Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (pp. 
 571–657). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 

 View all references, p. 575). Therefore, SRM has the potential to reduce 
 harm to the environment and humans, particularly to already disadvantaged 
 groups. However, SRM is imperfect. 
 The primary problem with SI's analysis is that they treat the 
 shortcomings of SRM and of compensation for its potential negative 
 secondary effects as if they were sui generis. In fact, these cited 
 shortcomings are found among three existing policy domains, which happen to 
 intersect at the proposed compensation for SRM's harms. The first such 
 policy domain is socially organized responses to other complex problems, 
 and the provision of public goods in particular. In a key passage, SI 
 write that ‘The potential for SRM 

[geo] National Review Weighs in on Russ George/Haida Gwaii

[Josh Horton]

APRIL 22, 2014 4:00 AM
The Pacific’s Salmon Are Back — Thank Human 
Ingenuityhttp://www.nationalreview.com/article/376258/pacifics-salmon-are-back-thank-human-ingenuity-robert-zubrin
 
Geoengineering could turn our long-barren oceans into a bounty. 
By Robert Zubrin http://www.nationalreview.com/author/robert-zubrin
See here (multiple pages) 
-- 
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/376258/pacifics-salmon-are-back-thank-human-ingenuity-robert-zubrin

Bizarre article from a leading US conservative magazine.

Here's a sample: *The George-Haida experiment is of world-historical 
significance.*

Josh Horton

-- 
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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[geo] Geoengineering in IPCC WGI AR5 Summary for Policymakers

[Josh Horton]

It's finally out and here's what it says about geoengineering:

http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/uploads/WGIAR5-SPM_Approved27Sep2013.pdf

  Methods that aim to deliberately alter the climate system to counter 
climate change, termed geoengineering, have been proposed. Limited evidence 
precludes a comprehensive quantitative assessment of both Solar Radiation 
Management (SRM) and Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) and their impact on the 
climate system. CDR methods have biogeochemical and technological 
limitations to their potential on a global scale. There is insufficient 
knowledge to quantify how much CO2 emissions could be partially offset by 
CDR on a century timescale. Modelling indicates that SRM methods, if 
realizable, have the potential to substantially offset a global temperature 
rise, but they would also modify the global water cycle, and would not 
reduce ocean acidification. If SRM were terminated for any reason, there is 
high 
confidence that global surface temperatures would rise very rapidly to 
values consistent with the greenhouse gas forcing. CDR and SRM methods 
carry side effects and long-term consequences on a global scale. {6.5, 7.7} 
(p. 21)
 Not quite what the Guardian was reporting last week ...

Josh


-- 
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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

[geo] Re: Russia urges UN climate report to include geoengineering

[Josh Horton]

Bill,

Here are some very high-altitude observations on the Russian POV from a 
poster I presented last year.  The takeaway is that there is serious 
tension between Russian interest in geoengineering and the desire to take 
advantage of economic opportunities created by climate change.  There is no 
mention of this underlying tension in the Guardian piece.

Josh



On Thursday, September 19, 2013 3:13:50 PM UTC-4, Bill Stahl wrote:

 In this context it's interesting to note that 1) a freighter just 
 completed the first Asia-to-Europe trip, and 2)  Russia a few days 
 ago announced it is starting the first-ever naval patrols along its arctic 
 coast. It is now  a shipping lane for the first time, a development that I 
 assume is profoundly startling to Russians. 

 Can anyone on this list comment on Yuri Izrael and his work? I wonder if 
 he is hoping to re-freeze that new coastal route and nip arctic economic 
 development in the bud. Or on Russian GE research and POV generally?

 PS: cage-match ETC vs.Putin: bets on who comes out on top?

 On Thursday, September 19, 2013 12:23:09 PM UTC-6, andrewjlockley wrote:

 Russia urges UN climate report to include geoengineering The Russian 
 government is asking for 'planet hacking' to be included in the climate 
 science report, leaked documents show

 Martin Lukacs

 Suzanne Goldenberg

 Adam Vaughan

 Thu 19 September 2013

 Russia is pushing for next week's landmark UN climate science report to 
 include support for controversial technologies to geoengineer the planet's 
 climate, according to documents obtained by the Guardian.

 As climate scientists prepare to gather for the Intergovernmental Panel 
 on Climate Change (IPCC) in Stockholm to present the most authoritative 
 state of climate science to date, it has emerged the Russian government is 
 asking for planet hacking to be included in the report. The IPCC has not 
 included geoengineering in its major assessments before.

 The documents seen by the Guardian show Russia is asking for a conclusion 
 of the report to say that a possible solution of this [climate change] 
 problem can be found in using of [sic] geoengineering methods to stabilise 
 current climate. Russia also highlighted that its scientists are 
 developing geoengineering technologies.

 Geoengineering aims to cool the Earth by methods including spraying 
 sulphate aerosols into the stratosphere to reflect sunlight, or fertilising 
 the oceans with iron to create carbon-capturing algal blooms.

 Such ideas are increasingly being discussed by western scientists and 
 governments as a plan B for addressing climate change, with the new 
 astronomer royal, Professor Sir Martin Rees, calling last week for such 
 methods to buy time to develop sources of clean energy. But the techniques 
 have been criticised as a way for powerful, industrialised nations to dodge 
 their commitments to reduce carbon emissions.

 Some modelling has shown geoengineering could be effective at reducing 
 the Earth's temperature, but manipulation of sensitive planetary systems in 
 one area of the world could also result in drastic unintended consequences 
 globally, such as radically disrupted rainfall.

 Responding to efforts to discredit the climate science with a spoiler 
 campaign in advance of the report, the chairman of the IPCC, Rajendra K 
 Pachauri, said he was confident the high standards of the science in the 
 report would make the case for climate action. He said: There will be 
 enough information provided so that rational people across the globe will 
 see that action is needed on climate change.

 The Russian scientist Yuri Izrael, who has participated in IPCC 
 geoengineering expert groups and was an adviser to the former Russian 
 president Vladimir Putin, conducted an experiment in 2009 that sprayed 
 particles from a helicopter to assess how much sunlight was blocked by the 
 aerosol plume. A planned test in Britain that would have used a balloon 
 attached to a 1km hose to develop equipment for spraying was prevented 
 after a public outcry.

 Observers have suggested that Russia's admission that it is developing 
 geoengineering may put it in violation of the UN moratorium on 
 geoengineering projects established at the Biodiversity Convention in 2010 
 and should be discussed on an emergency basis when the convention's 
 scientific subcommittee meets in Montreal in October.

 Civil society organisations have previously raised concerns that expert 
 groups writing geoengineering sections of the IPCC report were dominated by 
 US, UK and Canadian geoengineering advocates who have called for public 
 funding of large-scale experiments or who have taken out commercial patents 
 on geoenginering technologies. One scientist who served as a group 
 co-chair, David Keith of Harvard University, runs a private geoengineering 
 company, has planned tests in New Mexico, and is publicising a new book 
 called The Case for Climate Engineering.

 

[geo] Re: Linking solar geoengineering and emissions reduction

[Josh Horton]

We're talking about coupling SRM deployment to an extreme level of 
emissions mitigation achieved very rapidly--like some others here I think 
that is laudable in principle but effectively impossible to accomplish in 
practice.  But we're also overlooking the much discussed possibility of 
linking SRM deployment to robust CDR measures.  This would certainly be 
challenging as well but likely less so than an abrupt restructuring of the 
world economy.  Assuming CDR methods worked cost-effectively (a big 
assumption), this could produce the same net result as prohibiting all new 
CO2-emitting devices, while admittedly allowing relatively greater use of 
the atmosphere as a waste dump.

I would be uncomfortable at this stage limiting SRM use only to 
catastrophic, emergency scenarios and disallowing use for peak shaving. 
 For all that has been written about emergency use, it's far from clear 
that this would be workable in practice.  Much more research needs to be 
done on this aspect of SRM.

Josh Horton

On Wednesday, September 11, 2013 12:36:02 PM UTC-4, Ken Caldeira wrote:

 We do not want to be in a situation where a solar geoengineering system is 
 used to enable continued increases in CO2 emissions.

 Therefore, a reasonable demand is that no new smokestacks or tailpipes be 
 built after a solar geoengineering system is deployed.

 Another way of phrasing this is to demand that new construction of all new 
 CO2-emitting devices cease prior to any solar geoengineering system 
 deployment.

 This would help address the concern that solar geoengineering could 
 provide cover for continued expansion of CO2-emitting industries.  

 Norms that would prevent simultaneous solar geoengineering deployment and 
 increasing CO2 emissions would help diminish the likelihood of bad outcomes 
 and could help broaden political support for solar geoengineering research.

 --

 This would limit deployment of solar geoengineering systems to the case of 
 catastrophic outcomes and would not permit use of solar geoengineering 
 for peak shaving amid promises of future reductions in CO2 emissions. 
  Thus, this proposal does have a substantive implications for peak 
 shaving strategies.

 --

 *I am floating this idea without being certain that the formulation 
 presented here is the best possible formulation.*

 ___
 Ken Caldeira

 Carnegie Institution for Science 
 Dept of Global Ecology
 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA
 +1 650 704 7212 kcal...@carnegiescience.edu javascript:
 http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab  @kencaldeira


  

-- 
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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

[geo] Lasers?

[Josh Horton]

Potential GE applications ...?

from the Daily Telegraph: 
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/topics/weather/10268455/Weather-could-be-controlled-using-lasers.html?utm_source=bufferutm_campaign=Bufferutm_content=buffer2eb6autm_medium=twitter

Weather could be controlled using lasersScientists are attempting to 
control the weather by using lasers to create clouds, induce rain and even 
trigger lightning.
[image: Scientists are attempting to control the weather by using lasers to 
create clouds, induce rain and even trigger lightning.]
A laser beam (red) and the cloud of generated particles (illuminated by an 
auxiliary green laser, which makes each particle shine) in a cloud chamber 
Photo: 
J.P. Wolf / University of Geneva
[image: Richard Gray] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/

By Richard Gray http://www.telegraph.co.uk/journalists/richard-gray/, Science 
Correspondent

1:53PM BST 27 Aug 2013

[image: Comments]57 
Commentshttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/topics/weather/10268455/Weather-could-be-controlled-using-lasers.html#disqus_thread

Experts from around the world are to gather at the World Meteorological 
Organisation next month to discuss how powerful laser pulses can be used to 
generate changes in the atmosphere that influence the weather.

Their experiments have shown that intense pulses of light can cause ice to 
form and water to condense, leading to the formation of clouds.

The scientists have now begun testing their equipment outside for the first 
time with extremely short pulses of laser light were fired into the sky.

Researchers have also proved that lightning discharges can be triggered and 
channelled through the air using laser pulses.

They hope the technology could allow lightning during thunderstorms to be 
guided away from sensitive buildings such as power plants or airports.
Related Articles

   - 
   
   'How we made the Chernobyl 
rain'http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1549366/How-we-made-the-Chernobyl-rain.html

   22 Apr 2007
   - 
   
   Singapore haze: Cloud seeding 
explainedhttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/journalists/nick-collins/10134918/Singapore-haze-Cloud-seeding-explained.html

   21 Jun 2013

It could also be used to manipulate the weather by creating clouds and 
triggering rainfall ahead of major public events.

Professor Jean-Pierre Wolf and Dr Jerome Kasparian, both biophotonics 
experts at the University of Geneva, have now organised a conference at the 
WMO next month http://www.laserweatherandclimate.com/ in an attempt to 
find ways of speeding up research on the topic.

They said: Ultra-short lasers launched into the atmosphere have emerged as 
a promising prospective tool for weather modulation and climate studies.

Such prospects include lightning control and laser-assisted condensation.

There is a long history of attempts by scientists to control the weather, 
including using techniques such as cloud seeding.

This involves spraying small particles and chemicals into the air to induce 
water vapour to condense into clouds.

In the 1960s the United States experimented with using silver iodide in an 
attempt to weaken hurricanes before they made landfall.

The USSR was also claimed to have flown cloud seeding 
missionshttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1549366/How-we-made-the-Chernobyl-rain.html
 in 
an attempt to create rain clouds to protect Moscow from radioactive fallout 
from the Chernobyl nuclear disaster.

More recently the Russian Air force has also been reported to have used 
bags of cement to seed clouds.

Before the 2008 Olympic Games in Beijing, the Chinese authorities used 
aircraft and rockets to release chemicals into the atmosphere.

Other countries have been reported to be experimenting with cloud seeding 
to prevent flooding or 
smoghttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/singapore/10133948/Singapore-haze-Indonesia-to-make-it-rain-to-stop-life-threatening-smog.html
.

However, Professor Wolf, Dr Kasparian and their colleagues believe that 
lasers could provide an easier and more controllable method of changing the 
weather.

They began studying lasers for their use as a way of monitoring changes in 
the air and detecting aerosols high in the atmosphere.

Experiments using varying pulses of near infra-red laser light and 
ultraviolet lasers have, however, shown that they cause water to condense.

They have subsequently found the lasers induce tiny ice crystals to form, 
which are a crucial step in the formation of clouds and eventual rainfall.

In new research published in the* Proceedings of the National Academy of 
Sciences http://www.pnas.org/content/110/25/10106*, Professor Wolf said 
the laser beams create plasma channels in the air that caused ice to form.

He said: Under the conditions of a typical storm cloud, in which ice and 
supercooled water coexist, no direct influence of the plasma channels on 
ice formation or precipitation processes could be detected.

Under conditions typical for thin cirrus ice clouds, however, 

[geo] Experiment Currently Taking Place in the Arctic?

[Josh Horton]

Hi everyone,

Near the end of a recent, otherwise unremarkable story about geoengineering 
at RTCC (link below), Piers Forster from Leeds University is quoted as 
follows:

“There is one experiment we’re currently undertaking – we’re trying to look 
at rescuing Arctic Ice by stimulating aeroplanes flying from Spitzbergen in 
Norway – and dump out a lot of Sulphur Dioxide, and we’re trying to look at 
that as a very short term protection against the loss of Arctic Ice.

(http://www.rtcc.org/scientists-warn-earth-cooling-proposals-are-no-climate-silver-bullet/)

Does anyone know what he is talking about?

Josh Horton
joshuahorton...@gmail.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 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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

[geo] Second Haida OIF Test Set for June Cancelled

[Josh Horton]

I think most of us will regard this as a very good development:
 
http://www.timescolonist.com/news/local/dumping-of-iron-into-sea-off-haida-gwaii-suspended-amid-acrimony-1.229839
 
  Dumping of iron into sea off Haida Gwaii suspended amid acrimony 
 
*Judith Lavoie* http://www.timescolonist.com/authors?author=Judith Lavoie/ 
Times Colonist 
May 23, 2013 

   - *Email* javascript:void(0); 
   - *Print* javascript:window.print()

 **
*Previous*http://www.timescolonist.com/news/local/dumping-of-iron-into-sea-off-haida-gwaii-suspended-amid-acrimony-1.229839#story-carousel
 
*Next*http://www.timescolonist.com/news/local/dumping-of-iron-into-sea-off-haida-gwaii-suspended-amid-acrimony-1.229839#story-carousel
 
  
   -   
   -   
   -  

  Controversial U.S businessman Russ George, who orchestrated a dump of 
more than 100 tonnes of iron sulfate into international waters off the 
coast of Haida Gwaii last year, has been fired by the Old Massett-based 
Haida Salmon Restoration Corp.

“We have parted ways,” Old Massett Village chief councillor Ken Rea said in 
an interview.

The unauthorized iron experiment, which was designed to increase salmon 
runs by creating an algae bloom for fish to feed on, led to international 
controversy and accusations of geoengineering.

The Haida Salmon Restoration Corp., which was funded to the tune of $2.5 
million through the Gwaii Trust Society and a village reserve fund, will 
undergo a strategic review, Rea said.

That means greater community input and restructuring the business “so that 
it … effectively responds to legitimate concerns raised by various 
stakeholders around the world,” he said.

“It starts with some bold steps — like parting ways with Russ George,” he 
said.

Old Massett economic development officer John Disney, who will serve as 
interim CEO, said he is confident in the technology but the right 
leadership and business plan are needed.

“We have a responsibility, not only to the shareholders but the citizens of 
Old Massett and Haida Gwaii to get it right,” he said.

However, in a twist, George denied in an email that he had been fired.

“The reports that I have been removed as a director of Haida Salmon 
Restoration Corp. are, unfortunately, inaccurate,” he wrote.

“The other board members of HSRC did not have any authority to remove me as 
a director.”

Ocean Pastures, a company owned by George, holds 48 per cent of HSRC shares 
and has the right to appoint two out of the four board members, he said.

“I shall remain a director of HSRC and look forward to moving the business 
plan of the company forward,” he said.

That will include commercialization of last year’s experiment, he said.

For Rea, the future does not include George.

The strategic review means that the second iron fertilization test, planned 
for June, will not take place, Rea said.

“I can’t say if it will be done again ever. I won’t know until we get the 
results of the strategic review,” he said.

Rea would not speculate whether the village has lost out financially.

“There’s value in the company and value in the data, and we intend to 
preserve that value,” he said.

The unauthorized test was heavily criticized by the Council of the Haida 
Nation and federal Environment Minister Peter Kent, who called it a 
“demonstration of rogue science.”

In March, Environment Canada officials seized scientific data, journals and 
files from the company’s Vancouver headquarters, and the corporation is now 
fighting to have them returned.

It is too early to say whether the algae bloom will mean better salmon 
survival, but anecdotally other marine species are doing well, Rea said.

George previously told Old Massett council that there was money to be made 
through the sale of carbon credits, although there is no proof it is a 
viable method of carbon capture.

It was the second time that George had proposed a carbon-credit scheme for 
Old Massett. The first plan, to cut down alders beside creeks and replace 
them with fast-growing evergreens, was scuttled by Fisheries and Oceans.

George has a history of trying to conduct iron fertilization experiments 
around the world, resulting in his ships being banned from ports by the 
Spanish and Ecuadorian governments.

*jlav...@timescolonist.com* jlav...@timescolonist.com

© Copyright 2013

-- 
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] Re: Oz and the London Convention

[Josh Horton]

This proposal would not ban OIF, rather it would create a procedural 
mechanism for regulating other types of geoengineering under the London 
Convention/London Protocol, while making current voluntary restrictions on 
OIF (i.e., no commercial activities) legally binding.  Here's a brief 
summary from my blog that lays out the essentials as I understand them.

Josh Horton  (http://geoengineeringpolitics.blogspot.com/)

New London Protocol Proposal to Regulate Marine Geoengineering
Australia, Nigeria, and South Korea have jointly proposed 
amendmentshttp://www.smh.com.au/environment/water-issues/australia-seeks-to-limit-ocean-geoengineering-20130515-2jmkn.html
 to 
the London Protocol (LP) that would formally extend the instrument's remit 
beyond ocean fertilization to include other possible forms of marine 
geoengineering (such as enhanced weathering or ocean liming).  The proposal 
defines marine geoengineering broadly as deliberate intervention in the 
marine environment to manipulate natural processes, including to counteract 
anthropogenic climate change and/or its impacts, and that has the potential 
for widespread, long-lasting or severe effects.  A new annex to the 
Protocol would serve as a positive list specifying particular 
geoengineering techniques to be regulated under the LP; techniques not 
included on this list would remain subject to the regime's general 
prohibition on dumping of materials at sea.  The only activity listed in 
the proposed annex is ocean fertilization, which would continue to be 
permitted only in cases of legitimate scientific research.  The proposal 
also includes a generic assessment framework (modeled on the existing 
Assessment Framework for ocean fertilization--see *LC/LP Agrees on Ocean 
Fertilization Assessment 
Frameworkhttp://geoengineeringpolitics.blogspot.com/2010/10/lclp-agrees-on-ocean-fertilization.html
*, 10/19/10) intended to serve as the basis for more specific frameworks 
used to arrive at permitting decisions for other geoengineering approaches 
added to the annex in the future.

In essence, this proposal establishes a procedural mechanism for regulating 
any geoengineering technique involving the introduction of materials to the 
sea, based on processes previously developed to address ocean 
fertilization.  Since the proposal takes the form of amendments to the 
London Protocol, if it is adopted, regulations covering ocean fertilization 
and other technologies would be legally binding rather than voluntary, as 
is currently the case with respect to operative resolutions on ocean 
fertilization.  Parties to the LC/LP will take up the proposal at a meeting 
this October.


On Friday, May 17, 2013 7:23:03 AM UTC-4, Wil Burns wrote:


 FYI, Australian move to ban OIF under the London Convention: 
 http://www.smh.com.au/environment/water-issues/australia-seeks-to-limit-ocean-geoengineering-20130515-2jmkn.html
 -- 
 Dr. Wil Burns, Associate Director
 Master of Science - Energy Policy  Climate Program 
 Johns Hopkins University
 1717 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
 Room 104J
 Washington, DC  20036
 202.663.5976 (Office phone)
 650.281.9126 (Mobile)
 wbu...@jhu.edu javascript:

 http://advanced.jhu.edu/academic/environmental/master-of-science-in-energy-policy-and-climate/index.html
  
 SSRN site (selected publications): http://ssrn.com/author=240348

  
 Skype ID: Wil.Burns

 Teaching Climate/Energy Law  Policy Blog: 
 http://www.teachingclimatelaw.org

  

-- 
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] Haida readying for second round of iron dumping in ocean - News - Times Colonist

[Josh Horton]

One of the more interesting aspects of all this is the spectacle of the ETC 
Group, a self-described defender of indigenous rights, accusing a First 
Nations company of trying to get away with something, to borrow Jim 
Thomas' words.  The typical response to this observation is that the Haida 
have been swindled by Russ George (of whom I am no fan), but this response 
can easily be read as dismissive and disempowering with regard to the 
Haida.  If the Haida have chosen to do this, does that mean ETC Group has 
more insight into indigenous values and worldviews than actual indigenous 
people?  Does the ETC Group just know what's best for them?  That would 
be rich indeed.

Josh Horton

On Saturday, April 27, 2013 3:55:13 PM UTC-4, Greg Rau wrote:

 Or could the SRM crowd offer some solutions? Drop the iron out of the sky 
 (planes, rockets, balloons etc, launched from secure land sites? Simulate 
 volcanic dust?) Monitor the results from satellite and by sensors mounted 
 on commercial cargo ships normally traversing the patch.  Perhaps more 
 importantly, get involvement and buy-in  from the science community, 
 governments, and NGO's to conduct carefully controlled and monitored field 
 studies, rather than launch rogue, pirate operations (at indigenous 
 peoples' expense). May I also suggest that adding ground limestone rather 
 than iron to the ocean (Harvey 2008) might be a safer, less biologically 
 impactful and hence less controversial way to mitigate CO2, though I can't 
 promise increased salmon returns (but neither can George). 
 -Greg

 --
 *From:* Fred Zimmerman geoengin...@gmail.com javascript:
 *To:* Andrew Lockley andrew@gmail.com javascript:
 *Cc:* David Lewis jrando...@gmail.com javascript:; Ken Caldeira 
 kcal...@carnegiescience.edu javascript:; geoengineering 
 geoengi...@googlegroups.com javascript:
 *Sent:* Sat, April 27, 2013 12:11:50 PM
 *Subject:* Re: [geo] Haida readying for second round of iron dumping in 
 ocean - News - Times Colonist

 1) I generally agree with proposition that there is complacency about 
 security.
 2) I do not think it is a good idea to put heavy machine guns on research 
 vessels.
 3) I would extend the concern about security to information security.  


 ---
 Fred Zimmerman
 Geoengineering IT!   
 Bringing together the worlds of geoengineering and information technology
 GE NewsFilter: http://geoengineeringIT.net:8080 


 On Sat, Apr 27, 2013 at 5:53 AM, Andrew Lockley 
 andrew@gmail.comjavascript:
  wrote:

 I have to say, I think those in this field are generally somewhat 
 complacent about security. The animal rights movement shows what can 
 happen. We shouldn't wait until after an attack to beef up security.  Some 
 of the larger conferences or specially convened meetings (eg Asilomar) may 
 be a particularly appealing target for violent extremists.

 In this specific case, my suggestion is that for all the bombast, 
 George's enemies are unlikely to ram his boat if it's firing warning shots 
 at him.  

 I've no particular love for Russ George methods, but killing his crew 
 isn't the way to solve anything.

 As a first step, it would seem reasonable to have SSOs (ship security 
 officers) or weapons on board research vessels where it's legal. A heavy 
 machine gun costs only a few thousand dollars. It's a sad state of affairs 
 when scientists have to be armed, but better armed than dead. The threat 
 level seems to suggest this isn't an over reaction.
  On Apr 27, 2013 6:16 AM, David Lewis jrando...@gmail.comjavascript: 
 wrote:

 Paul Watson wrote a commentary on Russ George entitled *The Return 
 of a Dangerous Ecological 
 Criminal*http://www.seashepherd.org/commentary-and-editorials/2012/10/29/the-return-of-a-dangerous-ecological-criminal-574
  
 published by his Sea Shepherd Society online October 29 2012.  This Watson 
 commentary seems to be all the Toronto Globe and Mail had as a source for 
 Paul Watson's views on Russ George and *geoengineering* as described in 
 their Nov 7 2012 article (I cited previously).   Watson, in his article, 
 states his Sea Shepherd Society did not make any judgement on the 
 scientific merits, if any, of this scheme [Russ George's 2007 plan to use 
 PLANKTOS to dump iron into waters west of the Galapagos Islands].  Watson, 
 apparently, was anxious that Ecuadorian, American and International law 
 *be upheld*.  * (This is what his article states*).  The Globe and Mail 
 reporter couldn't talk to Watson directly because Mr Watson hasn't been 
 seen in public since July when *he skipped bail in Germany*...

 As for ETC, their *Geopiracy: The Case against 
 Geoengineeringhttp://www.etcgroup.org/content/geopiracy-case-against-geoengineering
  
 *webpage is still up.  ETC concludes, obviously, that A moratorium on 
 real-world geoengineering experimentation is urgent, apparently because we 
 don't know what will happen if the *slightest thing* is done that ETC 
 classifies

Re: [geo] Re: Why geoengineering has immediate appeal to China (Guradian)

[Josh Horton]

Even more to the point, see this 
(http://www.scribd.com/doc/131811730/China-and-the-blunt-temptations-of-geoengineering-the-role-of-solar-radiation-management-in-China’s-strategic-response-to-climate-change)
 
current draft article on China and geoengineering:

Some Western scholars have expressed concern that China may already be 
working on unilateral research and implementation of SRM.  Although we 
cannot discount this possibility, we have found no evidence supporting this 
contention in published Chinese literature or our discussions with Chinese 
scientists.  In fact, consideration of SRM currently seems to be confined 
to epistemic communities that are deeply cautious about the possible 
downsides of deliberate intervention into natural systems. (p. 28)

Josh

On Wednesday, March 27, 2013 8:58:33 PM UTC-4, Fred Zimmerman wrote:

 Before we go too far on this China priorities meme let me suggest that 
 we make it a practice of the list to always cite Jason Blackstock's very 
 persuasive post of 11/26/2012

 https://groups.google.com/d/msg/geoengineering/wKAas01rdDA/h2eZpjmvviAJ

 the money quote of which is this from Kingsley Edney:

 So geoengineering and global change is one important research 
 direction among a total of more than 50 that are listed in the field of 
 earth science alone. Once we consider all the other categories of 
 scientific research it seems quite possible that, as Blackstock claims, 
 geoengineering would not make the top 100. If we focus solely on the 
 narrower category of solar radiation management then there is no evidence 
 to claim that SRM is a priority at this stage.

 Fred


 On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 7:23 PM, Bill Stahl bsta...@gmail.comjavascript:
  wrote:

 The comments I have on this excellent article are:
 1,  China is popularly used as an example of a country that will go it's 
 own way on climate issues (and on anything else). This is natural- 
 especially for an Australian like Hamilton! - but it's also true of Canada 
 (as is sometimes overlooked in the battle over the Keystone pipeline). 
 Rather than give up its tar sands it might be willing to be the first to 
 take the plunge into geoengineering. And, unlike China, it has plenty of 
 Arctic territory to give it both acute awareness of permafrost melting and 
 easy entree into high-latitude SRM to cool the Arctic. Given the pace of 
 Arctic melting that issue will be forced long, long before 2035, and 
 because the directly affected zone is so much smaller than that of global 
 SRM the governance barriers are lower (though still high). Canada is then 
 at least as good a candidate for 'first adopter' as China.

 2. That would not directly help China but Hamilton's description suggests 
 that China's interests would lead it to support Canada (or any other 
 high-latitude plunge-taker) to give itself more options later.

 3. Hamilton's hypothetical 2035 scenario describes an interaction between 
 China and the U.S. as one between two isolated states, as if the US would 
 have available a practical option of shooting down planes. But there is no 
 conceivable scenario in which only one country wants to do SRM, and none in 
 which only one opposes it. Let's assume that a large number of low-lying 
 countries (Pacific island states in particular) are ready to cool the 
 Arctic  Greenland, as soon as possible - starting next Thursday afternoon 
 if they can. These 10 or 20 states are shopping around for a larger state 
 or states with the political and technical muscle to implement it - China 
 and Canada, since we've already  mentioned them. A slew of mid-size players 
 sign on for various reasons, leading to a coalition of 30 countries of 
 varying size, location, wealth  motives. Those opposed or undecided will 
 not be invited, as Caldeira et all described in a recent game theory 
 paper.  At the risk of being flippant, let's say they give themselves a 
 noble-sounding title - Alliance for Something or Other Virtuous With a 
 Snappy Acronym - and they pick as their figurehead someone who can 
 persuasively don the mantle of righteousness. The leader of an endangered 
 atoll state would do nicely, even if some relatively 'unsympathetic' 
 country such as China is the real muscle. 

 What will stop them? Surely not some moratorium voted out of a UN 
 committee room a decade or two before. Shooting down planes? Imagine some 
 nation's networks interrupting their regular programming for a Presidential 
 announcement: I have today authorized our armed forces to take action 
 against Fiji, China, Malaysia, American Samoa, Mongolia, Zanzibar, Finland, 
 The Seychelles and ... oh to hell with it, *lots* of others.

 Although I'm unsympathetic to those who oppose any geoengineering 
 research as starting down a slippery slope to full deployment, I have to 
 admit they have a point.





 On Saturday, March 23, 2013 6:26:35 PM UTC-6, andrewjlockley wrote:

 http://www.guardian.co.uk/**environment/2013/mar/22/**
 

[geo] Proposal for NASA to Lead CDR Effort

[Josh Horton]

Curiously, no mention of possible NASA involvement in SRM--seems a bit more 
obvious...

Josh


http://www.project-syndicate.org/online-commentary/nasa-geo-engineering-to-prevent-climate-change-by-jim-hartung

Can NASA Stop Global 
Warming?http://www.project-syndicate.org/online-commentary/nasa-geo-engineering-to-prevent-climate-change-by-jim-hartung
   
   - 
   
http://www.project-syndicate.org/online-commentary/nasa-geo-engineering-to-prevent-climate-change-by-jim-hartung#
   - ***30*
   - ***4*
   - ***8*
   - ***11*
   
LOS ANGELES – In 1961, President John F. Kennedy asserted that the United 
States “should commit itself to achieving the goal…of landing a man on the 
moon and returning him safely to earth,” by the end of the decade. The 
National Aeronautics and Space Administration accepted the challenge. From 
1969 to 1972, NASA’s Apollo program achieved six manned landings on the 
moon – missions that expanded human knowledge, stimulated economic growth, 
bolstered America’s geopolitical standing at a critical time, and inspired 
people worldwide.
[image: This illustration is by Dean Rohrer and comes from a 
href=http://www.newsart.com;NewsArt.com/a, and is the property of the 
NewsArt organization and of its artist. Reproducing this image is a 
violation of copyright 
law.]http://www.project-syndicate.org/default/library/63d5a3ba4ad86aa80fa43c0308d49e63.jpgIllustration
 
by Dean Rohrer

Since then, NASA has repeatedly overcome adversity in pursuit of important 
breakthroughs and achievements, including exploring the solar system with 
robotic spacecraft, peering deep into the universe with space telescopes, 
and building the Space Shuttle and International Space Station. These 
successes far outweigh NASA’s few failures.

But, since the Apollo program, NASA has lacked a clear, overarching goal to 
guide its activities. To drive progress in crucial areas, the agency needs 
a compelling vision that is consequential and relevant to current needs – 
and it is up to US President Barack Obama to define it.

Obama should challenge NASA to address one of today’s most important 
issues, global warming, by developing safe, cost-effective technologies to 
remove carbon dioxide from the planet’s atmosphere and oceans. This mission 
could be accomplished in two phases.**During the first phase, which could 
be completed by 2020, researchers would identify roughly 10-20 candidate 
geo-engineering technologies and test them in small-scale experiments. The 
second phase would include large-scale test demonstrations to evaluate the 
most promising technologies by 2025.

Developing these technologies is crucial, given that, over the last 
half-century, the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased from 
roughly 320 parts per million to almost 400 parts per million, heating up 
the planet and increasing the acidity of the world’s oceans. At this rate, 
the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere will exceed 450 parts per 
million in roughly 25 years.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change estimates that this increase 
will raise the average global temperature by roughly 2°C (3.6°F) over 
pre-industrial levels. It is widely agreed that exceeding this threshold 
would trigger the most devastating consequences of climate change. In other 
words, humanity has less than 25 years to stabilize the concentration of 
CO2 in the atmosphere.

Given this time constraint, decarbonization alone will be insufficient to 
avert irreversible, catastrophic climate change. In 2000-2011, the world 
decarbonized at an average annual rate of 0.8%. The *Massachusetts 
Institute of Technology 
estimateshttp://globalchange.mit.edu/files/document/MITJPSPGC_Rpt169.pdf
*that, given current trends, the concentration of atmospheric CO2 will 
exceed 500 parts per million by 2050, and 800 parts per million by 2100. 
According to a report by the professional services firm 
PricewaterhouseCoopershttp://www.pwc.com/en_GX/gx/low-carbon-economy-index/assets/pwc-low-carbon-economy-index-2012.pdf,
 
even if the world decarbonizes at an annual rate of 3% until 2050, the 
concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere will rise to 750 parts per million, 
triggering an average global temperature increase of 4°C (7.2°F) over 
pre-industrial levels.

So, while the world should reduce its reliance on fossil fuels in favor of 
lower-carbon alternatives as quickly as possible, another approach is 
needed to avoid crossing the two-degree threshold. The best option is to 
develop technologies capable of removing large quantities of CO2 from the 
atmosphere and oceans, offsetting emissions during the transition from 
fossil fuels. NASA is the best organization for this mission for several 
reasons.

Geo-engineering (large-scale intervention in the Earth’s climate system 
aimed at moderating global warming) could have severe unintended 
consequences. Developing such technologies safely and efficiently will 
require the kind of creativity, technical 

Re: [geo] Strategic incentives for climate geoengineering coalitions to exclude broad participation (new paper)

[Josh Horton]

I'm pretty sure the authors didn't intend this article as an endorsement of 
social authoritarianism, but that seems to be the conclusion reached here 
...

Josh Horton

http://www.science20.com/news_articles/geoengineering_committee_time_get_totalitarian-104431

Geoengineering By Committee? Time To Get Totalitarian
By News Staff http://www.science20.com/profile/news_staff | February 22nd 
2013 11:03 AM | 19 
commentshttp://www.science20.com/news_articles/geoengineering_committee_time_get_totalitarian-104431#comments
 | Print http://www.science20.com/print/104431 | 
E-mailhttp://www.science20.com/forward/104431
 | Track 
Commentshttp://www.science20.com/news_articles/trackarticle/104431?destination=node%2F104431
http://www.science20.com/news_articles/feed 
http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php
 Tweet http://twitter.com/share 
News Articles http://www.science20.com/news_articles
*MORE ARTICLES*

   - Alcohol Sales In England Far Higher Than Self-Reported 
Consumptionhttp://www.science20.com/news_articles/alcohol_sales_england_far_higher_selfreported_consumption-104864
   - Can You Give Kids A Choice And Still Have Healthy School 
Lunches?http://www.science20.com/news_articles/can_you_give_kids_choice_and_still_have_healthy_school_lunches-104856
   - Bariatric Surgery Restores Pancreatic Function In Diabetes 
Patientshttp://www.science20.com/news_articles/bariatric_surgery_restores_pancreatic_function_diabetes_patients-104767

All Articles http://www.science20.com/news_articles
*ABOUT NEWS*

News From All Over The World, Right To You...
View News's Profile http://www.science20.com/profile/news_staff
[image: User pic.]News Staff http://www.science20.com/profile/news_staff

Solar geo-engineering is one proposed approach to mitigating the effects of 
climate change - the idea being to deflect some of the sun's incoming 
radiation. 

Ignoring the technology issues, in a world where countries can't even agree 
they contribute to greenhouse gases, the political uncertainties and 
geopolitical questions about who would be in charge of solar 
geo-engineering activity and its goals are daunting. A UN of climate change 
is the worst of all possible worlds. 

Social authoritarianism may be the way to go, according to modeling work 
from Carnegie's Katharine Ricke and Ken Caldeira and Juan Moreno-Cruz from 
the Georgia Institute of Technology. Their game-theoretic computer model 
found that a suitably powerful coalition would have incentive to exclude 
other countries from participating in the decision-making process about 
geo-engineering Earth. 

Though carbon dioxide emissions from the burning of coal, oil, and gas have 
decreased in developed nations, they have been increasing over the past 
decades due to greater emissions by developing nations. Feedbacks aside, no 
one disagrees that CO2 is bad. The idea behind solar geoengineering is to 
constantly replenish a layer of small particles in the stratosphere - 
basically duplicating the effect of volcanic eruptions, which scatter 
sunlight back into space.

Attempts to form coalitions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions have 
repeatedly hit the wall, because it's difficult to get everybody to 
participate in a substantive and meaningful way, Ricke said. Members of 
coalitions to reduce emissions have incentives to include more countries, 
but countries have incentives not to participate, so as to avoid costs 
associated with emission reduction while benefiting from reductions made 
elsewhere.

The model developed by Ricke, Caldeira and Moreno-Cruz found that when it 
comes to geoengineering, the opposite is true. Smaller coalitions would be 
more desirable to the participants, not less, because those members could 
set the target temperature to their liking without having to make everyone 
happy. 

And excluded countries would want to 'get with the program' if they they 
could move the thermostat in the direction that better suits their 
interests. Since the costs of geoengineering are lower than mitigation, 
once a coalition has formed and has successfully implemented 
geoengineering, it would have an incentive to exclude permanently other 
willing participants.  

My view, aside from any technical result, is that it should remain a 
central goal to maintain openness and inclusiveness in geoengineering 
coalitions, so that all people who want a voice in the decision-making 
process are able to have that voice, Caldeira said.

 Published in *Environmental Research Letters*. 

On Saturday, February 23, 2013 8:12:16 PM UTC-5, Ron wrote:

 Katherine:

 Thanks for the very complete response.  Almost nothing left to ask.  I 
 have excised all below except for a few follow-ups.

 --
 *From: *K.Ricke kle...@gmail.com javascript:
 *To: *geoengi...@googlegroups.com javascript:
 *Cc: *kle...@gmail.com javascript:, Ken Caldeira 
 kcal...@gmail.comjavascript:, 
 Juan Moreno-Cruz juan.mor...@econ.gatech.edu javascript:
 *Sent: *Friday, February 22

[geo] Commentary on Ocean Fertilization by IOC Executive Secretary

[Josh Horton]

Hi all,

The Executive Secretary of IOC-UNESCO and others have weighed in on ocean 
fertilization, including the Haida experiment.  Nothing really new here, 
but gives a sense of their position.

Josh Horton

http://climate-l.iisd.org/guest-articles/climate-change-and-geoengineering-ocean-fertilization-practicalities-opportunities-and-threats/

Climate Change and Geoengineering: Ocean Fertilization Practicalities, 
Opportunities and Threats

*posted on: Monday, February 4th, 2013*

by: Wendy Watson-Wright, Executive Secretary, Intergovernmental 
Oceanographic Commission of UNESCO; Jorge Luis Valdes, Head, Ocean 
Sciences; and Henrik Enevoldsen, Program Specialist, Intergovernmental 
Oceanographic Commission of UNESCO

Concern over human-driven climate change and the lack of success in 
constraining greenhouse gas emissions have increased scientific and policy 
interest in geo-engineering - deliberate interventions in the Earth's 
climate system that might moderate global warming. One of the earliest 
proposed carbon-removal techniques is large-scale ocean fertilization.

This is accomplished by adding iron or other nutrients to surface waters. 
The intention is to enhance microscopic marine plant growth on a scale 
large enough to not only significantly increase the uptake of atmospheric 
carbon by the ocean, but also remove it from the atmosphere for long enough 
to provide global climatic benefit. This suggestion grew out of scientific 
ideas developed in the late 1980s, based on analyses of natural, long-term 
climate changes (i.e., ice age cycles) and experiments that provided new 
insights into the natural factors that limit ocean productivity, and 
thereby control the cycling of carbon between sea and sky.

*Major political and ethical challenges*

Unfortunately, the practicalities, opportunities and threats associated 
with ocean fertilization are only partly understood, and will in all 
likelihood include unintended ecological consequences, which in turn can 
pose important political, social and ethical challenges. Small-scale field 
experiments and associated modelling have shown that the likely maximum 
benefits of ocean fertilization as a negative emissions technique are 
modest in relation to anthropogenic climate forcing. It would also be 
highly challenging to quantify with acceptable accuracy the amount of 
carbon removed from circulation on a long-term basis, and in particular to 
adequately monitor unintended impacts over large space and time-scales.

Meeting the political, ethical and regulatory challenges of 
geo-engineering, including ocean fertilization, requires building toward an 
international governance framework to ensure that research of this nature 
is conducted responsibly and transparently. A global and effective 
regulatory mechanism is needed to be put in place for ocean fertilization, 
other than for small-scale scientific research studies within coastal 
waters.

The United Nations General Assembly has encouraged States to support 
further study and to enhance understanding of ocean fertilization 
(Resolution 62/215; December 2007). Four UN entities have major interests 
in this topic: the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission of UNESCO 
(IOC), the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), the London Convention 
and Protocol (LC/LP) and the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). 
Together they cover the spectrum of marine science, marine conservation and 
pollution regulation.

*Ocean fertilization activities on hold*

In response to concerns that large-scale ocean fertilization might be 
attempted before its consequences were fully understood, and upholding the 
precautionary principle, the Parties to the CBD decided in 2008 that no 
further ocean fertilization activities for whatever purpose should be 
carried out in non-coastal waters until there is stronger scientific 
justification, assessed through a global regulatory mechanism. Such a 
regulatory framework is now being developed by the LC/LP.

The IOC has been closely involved in CBD and LC/LP discussions. Our 2009 
publication, Ocean Fertilization: A Scientific Summary for Policy Makers, 
was commissioned in conjunction with the Surface Ocean - Lower Atmosphere 
Study (SOLAS), the International Commission on Atmospheric Chemistry and 
Global Pollution (ICACGP), the World Climate Research Programme (WCRP), the 
International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme (IGBP) and the Scientific 
Committee on Oceanic Research (SCOR) of the International Council for 
Science (ICSU). It includes in its key messages that 'large-scale 
fertilization could have unintended (and difficult to predict) impacts, not 
only locally... but also far removed in space and time. Impact assessments 
need to include the possibility of such 'far-field' effects on biological 
productivity, sub-surface oxygen levels, biogas production and ocean 
acidification'.

Despite this, an uncontrolled geo-engineering project was carried out in 
July

Re: Fw: [geo] New Draft CCS Methodology from ACR Covers DAC

[Josh Horton]

Hi Greg,

Your point is well taken, but I come at EOR from a different perspective, 
as the only significant source of demand for CO2 from direct air capture 
for the foreseeable future, and thus as the key current driver for DAC 
technology development.  A while back I wrote about this on my blog 
(http://geoengineeringpolitics.blogspot.com/2012/04/dac-and-eor.html)--here's 
a snippet summarizing my view:

The reality of DAC today is stated succinctly by Gunther: air-capture 
technology has become *a solution in search of a market*, while its backers 
wait for the world to get serious about climate 
threathttp://www.marcgunther.com/2012/03/11/direct-air-capture-of-co2-is-becoming-a-business-for-better-or-worse/#more-10795
 
(boldface original).  And the reality of the CO2 market today is that it is 
dominated by demand for use in EOR--there are currently more than 100 EOR 
projects in operation paying $20-40 per ton of CO2, and the key constraint 
on future growth is lack of CO2 injectant supply.  Like any other firm, for 
DAC start-ups to be successful they will need to be financially viable, and 
the surest road to financial viability in the foreseeable future is 
supplying CO2 to the EOR market.  Other markets are either too small (for 
example, greenhouses) or too embryonic (algae-based biofuels), and support 
from the carbon allowance market is essentially nonexistent.  Right now, 
EOR is the only meaningful game in town, and represents the only realistic 
option for DAC technology developers and their financial backers.  To swear 
off involvement in EOR would deprive DAC of its most powerful motive force, 
and may well permanently consign DAC technology to the drawing-board.

The quote is from Marc Gunther's e-book Suck It Up.

Josh

On Thursday, January 3, 2013 12:36:23 PM UTC-5, Greg Rau wrote:


 Thanks, Josh.  Anyone who really cares about stabilizing air CO2 needs to 
 be aware that in typical CO2-EOR the equivalent of 3 tonnes of CO2 
 ultimately are released to the atmosphere via product combustion for every 
 tonne CO2 injected.  Such activity is therefore a strong CO2 source not a 
 net CO2 sink, a feature that is completely ignored in the oh-so-detailed 
 equations offered here* to calculate carbon credits. To be touted as part 
 of a Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction strategy qualifying for carbon 
 credits, on par with non-EOR geologic CO2 injection and storage, is 
 something I find outrageous and offensive.  It's one thing to facilitate 
 fossil energy (and carbon) extraction and give the fossil fuel industry yet 
 another subsidy, but it is shameful to do this under the guise of and 
 monetary crediting for CO2 emissions reduction.  
 Anyone care to join me in sending a comment on this report to Winrock 
 International**,  a...@winrock.org javascript:?

 -Greg

 *
 http://americancarbonregistry.org/carbon-accounting/css-for-oil-and-gas-reservoirs-public-comment

 **
 Winrock promotes sustainable use and management of natural resources to 
 support the food and income needs of growing populations and the health of 
 the planet. These activities encompass a broad range of programs and 
 services.
 Clean Energy
 Ecosystem Services
 Forestry  Natural Resource Management

 And Winrock is apparently willing to perform other activities, if the 
 price is right.  - G

  From: Josh Horton joshuah...@gmail.com javascript:
 Reply-To: joshuah...@gmail.com javascript: 
 joshuah...@gmail.comjavascript:
 
 Date: Wednesday, January 2, 2013 9:52 AM
 To: geoengineering geoengi...@googlegroups.com javascript:
 Subject: [geo] New Draft CCS Methodology from ACR Covers DAC
  
  An interesting note for those who follow direct air capture -- American 
 Carbon Registry has released a draft CCS methodology that explicitly covers 
 DAC.  To my knowledge, this is the first offset methodology that makes 
 specific provision for DAC activities.  There is a public comment period 
 that runs through the end of January: 

  
 http://americancarbonregistry.org/carbon-accounting/carbon-capture-and-storage-in-oil-and-gas-reservoirs
  
  Josh Horton
 joshuah...@gmail.com javascript:

 -- 
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
 geoengineering group.
 To view this discussion on the web visit 
 https://groups.google.com/d/msg/geoengineering/-/DnPRghAoVmwJ.
 To post to this group, send email to geoeng...@googlegroups.comjavascript:
 .
 To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
 geoengineeri...@googlegroups.com javascript:.
 For more options, visit this group at 
 http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
geoengineering group.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/geoengineering/-/gpcALg4j6AAJ.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
geoengineering+unsubscr

[geo] New Draft CCS Methodology from ACR Covers DAC

[Josh Horton]

An interesting note for those who follow direct air capture -- American 
Carbon Registry has released a draft CCS methodology that explicitly covers 
DAC.  To my knowledge, this is the first offset methodology that makes 
specific provision for DAC activities.  There is a public comment period 
that runs through the end of January:

http://americancarbonregistry.org/carbon-accounting/carbon-capture-and-storage-in-oil-and-gas-reservoirs

Josh Horton
joshuahorton...@gmail.com

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
geoengineering group.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/geoengineering/-/DnPRghAoVmwJ.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.

Re: [geo] Chicago Tribune - Geo-engineering wins scant enthusiasm at U.N. climate talks - Chicago Tribune

[Josh Horton]

I wonder if Pachauri's comments signal something about the IPCC's work on 
geoengineering for AR5.  In 2009, he said At some point we will have to 
cross over and start sucking some of those [greenhouse] gases out of the 
atmosphere.http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/health/suck-co2-from-air-to-save-world-from-global-warming-says-pachauri_100282510.html
 
 Has he changed his tune?

Josh


On Sunday, December 2, 2012 9:44:01 AM UTC-5, Stephen Salter wrote:

 Hi All 

 If somebody suggested a great way to stop the rise of ocean acidity 
 would Jean-Pascal van Ypersele, a vice-chair of the IPCC, claim that is 
 does nothing about rising temperatures? 

 Stephen 




 Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design School of Engineering 
 University of Edinburgh Mayfield Road Edinburgh EH9 3JL Scotland 
 s.sa...@ed.ac.uk javascript: Tel +44 (0)131 650 5704 Cell 07795 203 195 
 WWW.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs 

 On 02/12/2012 13:19, Andrew Lockley wrote: 
  
  
 http://my.chicagotribune.com/#story/sns-rt-us-climate-talks-geoengineeringbre8b103y-20121202/
  
  
  Geo-engineering wins scant enthusiasm at U.N. climate talks 
  
  Environment Correspondent Alister Doyle,Reuters11:06 am, December 2, 
  2012DOHA 
  
  Cheap, short-cut ideas to cool the planet such as shading sunlight are 
  failing to win support from U.N. delegates looking to improve on the 
  slow progress made by existing technologies.Many scientists say the 
  proposed solutions, known as geo-engineering, are little understood 
  and might have side effects more damaging than global warming, which 
  is projected to cause more floods, heatwaves, droughts and rising sea 
  levels.Let's first use what we know, said Christiana Figueres, head 
  of the U.N. Climate Change Secretariat, dismissing suggestions that it 
  was time to try geo-engineering to halt a rise in greenhouse gas 
  emissions.There are so many proven technologies we know exist that 
  are tried and true that have not been used to their maximum 
  potential, she told Reuters. To begin with, the simplest is energy 
  efficiency.Geo-engineering options include adding sun-reflecting 
  chemicals to the upper atmosphere to mimic the effect of big volcanic 
  eruptions that mask the sun, or fertilizing the oceans to promote the 
  growth of algae that soak up carbon from the air.Among other ideas, a 
  giant mirror could be placed in space to block some sunlight or sea 
  spray could be injected into the air to create clouds whose white tops 
  would reflect sunlight.Let's face it, geo-engineering has a lot of 
  unknowns, Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the U.N.'s panel of climate 
  scientists, told Reuters on the sidelines of U.N.-led climate change 
  talks among 200 nations in Doha from November 26-Dec 7.How can you go 
  into an area where you don't know anything? he said. The 
  Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is examining 
  geo-engineering in depth for the first time as part of a major report 
  due in 2013 and 2014.Still, one study by U.S. scientists in August 
  indicated that planes or airships could carry a million tonnes a year 
  of sun-dimming sulfate materials high into the atmosphere for an 
  affordable price tag of below $5 billion.CHEAPERThat would be far 
  cheaper than policies to cut world greenhouse gas emissions, estimated 
  to cost between $200 billion and $2 trillion a year by 2030, they 
  wrote in the journal Environmental Research Letters.If you are 
  looking at solutions you could look at solar energy, said Mira 
  Mehrishi, head of India's delegation in Doha. It's a little premature 
  to start looking at geo-engineering.There's a lot of skepticism 
  about geo-engineering, said Artur Runge-Metzger of the European 
  Commission. Research is necessary to see if it could be viable in one 
  way or other.U.N. negotiations on slowing global warming have been 
  running since a U.N. Climate Convention was agreed in 1992.One problem 
  is that adding sulfates - a form of pollution - to the air would not 
  slow an acidification of the oceans since concentrations of greenhouse 
  gases led by carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would keep building 
  up.Some carbon dioxide, absorbed into the oceans, reacts to form 
  carbonic acid. That erodes the ability of creatures from clams or 
  mussels to lobsters and crabs to build their protective shells. In 
  turn, that could disrupt marine food chains.You might temporarily 
  delay the warming but you are certainly not going to help the oceans 
  at all, said Jean-Pascal van Ypersele, a vice-chair of the IPCC, of 
  using sulfates. Ocean acidification is a real emerging issue.A mask 
  of pollution might help some crops by reducing heat stress but it 
  might have other side-effects, for instance, by disrupting Monsoon 
  patterns. That could bring disputes between countries that benefited 
  and others that suffered.And Van Ypersele said that, if 
  geo-engineering went wrong and needed to be shut down after a few 
 

[geo] Public Perception of Climate Geoengineering in Japan as Revealed in an Online Survey :

[Josh Horton]

As someone pointed out to me, this survey was conducted just before Fukushima, 
so it's a good bet that opinions on geoengineering have become more hostile, at 
least for now.

Josh Horton

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
geoengineering group.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/geoengineering/-/vZ5FnuVypKMJ.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.

Re: [geo] Re: UN agreement urges caution over geoengineering tests | RTCC - Responding to Climate Change

[Josh Horton]

The LC/LP Conference of the Parties (COP) is scheduled to run from October 
29 to November 2.  I don't know much about the agenda--maybe Chris Vivian 
can offer something?

Josh

On Friday, October 19, 2012 11:59:30 AM UTC-4, andrewjlockley wrote:

 We could do with more posts on this list about how folks can influence 
 this process - and similar ones.

 Bearing in mind the expertise on this list, there's very little briefing 
 on the list for proactive involvement. I'm not sure.whether the scientists 
 are engaged in the political process properly. 

 Anyone know of upcoming political events that people should be feeding in 
 to?

 A
  On Oct 19, 2012 4:48 PM, Josh Horton joshuah...@gmail.comjavascript: 
 wrote:

 There are several inaccuracies in this report, but from this and other 
 sources it *looks like* things will remain much as they were before. 
  ETC Group and its allies were pushing for a full test ban, but they didn't 
 get it.  Instead, parties will reaffirm the 2010 moratorium, including 
 its non-binding status.  So we're basically back to where we were before 
 the Russ George/Haida OIF story broke.  Of course all this still needs to 
 be adopted by the full COP.

 Josh Horton
 joshuah...@gmail.com javascript:
 http://geoengineeringpolitics.blogspot.com/

 On Friday, October 19, 2012 5:31:30 AM UTC-4, andrewjlockley wrote:

 http://www.rtcc.org/**technology/un-agreement-urges-**
 caution-over-geoengineering-**tests/http://www.rtcc.org/technology/un-agreement-urges-caution-over-geoengineering-tests/

 UN agreement urges caution over geoengineering tests

 18 October 2012
 By Tierney Smith
 RTCC in Hyderabad

 Guidelines on the deployment of geoengineering have been agreed at the 
 UN biodiversity summit in Hyderabad following intense 
 negotiations.Countries agreed on a text that specifies what geoengineering 
 means, outlines when it should be used, acknowledges its potential impacts 
 on biodiversity and the potential cross-border consequences of its use.The 
 document stresses the priority of addressing climate change through 
 mitigation measures, such as increasing natural carbon sinks, and calls on 
 all experiments to take into account international laws and conventions, 
 including the UNFCCC, the UN’s climate change convention.It also reaffirms 
 the decisions taken at COP10 in Nagoya that called for scientific evidence 
 for the need of geoengineering before any experiments take 
 place.Geoengineering is designed to tackle the effects of climate change by 
 either removing CO2 from the air – by pulling gas from the atmosphere or 
 increasing absorption in the sea – or limiting the amount of sunlight 
 reaching the earth’s surface.Large scale projects are still largely in the 
 concept phase but given the deadlocked state of mitigation efforts, many 
 think geoengineering will be essential for the world to avoid dangerous 
 climate change.The document aims to address the potential impacts to 
 biodiversity from large scale geoengineering projects aimed at mitigating 
 climate change (Source: CBD/Flickr)This agreement  will come as unwanted to 
 news to the companies and countries wanting to invest in these technologies 
 as climate change predictions worsen. This year there have been two major 
 efforts to test methods of sucking CO2 from the atmosphere.In May a 
 UK-backed project that planned to inject 150 litres of water into the 
 atmosphere to create a cooling effect was cancelled at the last minute over 
 concerns that certain researchers had a conflict of interest.But in July, 
 the largest experiment to date took place off the west coast of Canada when 
 100 tonnes of iron sulphate was dumped into the ocean. Iron in the sea can 
 create a ‘bloom’ of plankton that absorbs carbon dioxide and then sinks to 
 the ocean bed – storing the carbon there.Scientists have, however, raised 
 concerns that it can harm ecosystems, produce lifeless waters and 
 worsen ocean acidification. It was also revealed earlier this week that 
 the Canadian government may have known of the plans before they went 
 ahead.The test was criticised by the international community who said the 
 experiments breached moratoriums of two UN conventions, one under the CBD – 
 set out in the Nagoya outcome – and the other in the 1972 London 
 Convention that prohibits the for-profit dumping of iron into the sea.Test 
 banAhead of the conference, groups including Bolivia, the Philippines and 
 African nations, as well as indigenous peoples groups called for an 
 enforceable test ban on geoengineering experiments.However, the paragraph 
 calling on parties to ensure all tests of geoengineering technologies take 
 place in “controlled laboratory conditions” was removed from the text, 
 despite protests from countries including Peru and Argentina.Countries 
 traded giving up the paragraph with text that ‘reaffirms’ – over a weaker 
 ‘recalls’ – decisions agreed in Nagoya:“No climate-related geo-engineering

[geo] Re: m.guardian.co.uk

[Josh Horton]

I'm no fan of Guardian reporting on GE, but note that this story is a year 
old (published 10/6/11).

Josh

On Thursday, October 11, 2012 8:44:09 PM UTC-4, andrewjlockley wrote:

 Posters note: The Guardian has forgotten to take its medicine again. 
 Apparently David K, Ken C and John S are about to take over the world and 
 get really rich. This sounds awesome fun and I'd love to join in.

 A 


 http://m.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2011/oct/06/us-push-geoengineering?cat=environmenttype=article

 12.10.12

 Big names behind US push for geoengineering

 A coalition representing the most powerful academic, military, scientific 
 and corporate interests has set its sights on vast potential profitsBritish 
 scientists have pulled back from geoengineering projects but the US is 
 forging ahead. Photograph: Gallo Images/Getty ImagesJohn VidalGuardian 
 Weekly, Thu 6 Oct 2011 12.04 BSTBlogpostShare on twitterShare on 
 facebookShare on emailMore Sharing Services0UK scientists last week 
 postponedone of the world's first attempts to physically manipulate the 
 upper atmosphere to cool the planet. Okay, so the Stratospheric Particle 
 Injection for Climate Engineering project wasn't actually going to spray 
 thousands of tonnes of reflective particles into the air to replicate a 
 volcano, but the plan to send a balloon with a hose attached 1km into the 
 sky above Norfolk was an important step towards the ultimate techno-fix for 
 climate change.The reason the British scientists gave for pulling back was 
 that more time was needed for consultation. In retrospect, it seems bizarre 
 that they had only talked to a few members of the public. It was only when 
 60 global groups wrote to the UK governmentand the resarch groups behind 
 the project requesting cancellation that they paid any attention to 
 critics.Over the Atlantic, though, the geoengineers are more gung-ho. Just 
 days after the British got cold feet, the Washington-based thinktank 
 the Bipartisan Policy Center (BPC)published a major report calling for the 
 United States and other likeminded countries to move towards large-scale 
 climate change experimentation. Trying to rebrand geoengineering as 
 climate remediation, the BPC report is full of precautionary rhetoric, 
 but its bottom line is that there should be presidential leadership for the 
 nascent technologies, a coalition of willing countries to experiment 
 together, large-scale testing and big government funding.So what is the BPC 
 and should we take this non-profit group seriously? For a start these guys 
 - and they are indeed mostly men - are not bipartisan in any sense that the 
 British would understand. The operation is part-funded by big oil, 
 pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, and while it claims to 
 represent a consensus among what have historically been divergent 
 views, it appears to actually represent the most powerful US academic, 
 military, scientific and corporate interests. It lobbies for free trade, US 
 military supremacy and corporate power and was described recently as a 
 collection of neo-conservatives, hawks, and neoliberal interventionists 
 who want to make war on Iran.Their specially convened taskforce is, in 
 fact, the cream of the emerging science and military-led geoengineering 
 lobby with a few neutrals chucked in to give it an air of political 
 sobriety. It includes former ambassadors, an assistant secretary of state, 
 academics, and a chief US climate negotiator.Notable among the group is 
 David Whelan, a man who spent years in the US defence department working on 
 the stealth bomber and nuclear weapons and who now leads a group of people 
 as Boeing's chief scientist working on ways to find new solutions to 
 world's most challenging problems.There are signs of cross US-UK 
 pollination – one member of the taskforce is John Shepherd, who recently 
 wrote for the Guardian: I've concluded that geoengineering research – and 
 I emphasise the term research – is, sadly, necessary. But he cautioned: 
 what we really need is more and better information. The only way to get 
 that information is through appropriate research.It also includes several 
 of geoengineering's most powerful academic cheerleaders. Atmosphere 
 scientist Ken Caldeira, from Stanford University, used to work at the 
 National laboratory at Livermore with the people who developed the 
 ill-fated star wars weapons. Together with David Keith, a researcher at 
 the University of Calgary in Canada, who is also on the BPC panel, Caldeira 
 manages billionaire Bill Gates's geoengineering research budget. Both 
 scientists have patents pending on geoengineering processes and both were 
 members of of the UK Royal Society's working group on geoengineering which 
 in 2009 recommended more research. Meanwhile, Keith has a company 
 developing a machine to suck CO2 out of the year and Caldeira has patented 
 ideas to stop hurricanes forming.In sum, this coalition of US 

Re: [geo] Does Geoengineering Present a Moral Hazard? by Albert Lin :: SSRN

[Josh Horton]

This article makes for an interesting read but is based on some fuzzy 
logic.  To my knowledge, the limited empirical data available on moral 
hazard in the geoengineering context (Ipsos MORI, work by Dan Kahan, etc.) 
all suggest that the issue is pretty inconsequential.  But here the author 
simply dimisses that data in favor of purely theoretical psychological 
considerations from which he derives bold and confident predictions that 
moral hazard is real and deeply problematic: Heuristics and biases will 
influence risk perceptions among the general public, fostering 
overconfidence in seemingly easy technological 'solutions' and neglect of 
accompanying risks, and cultural cognition will lead persons of 
hierarchical and individualistic orientations to favor geoengineering over 
other climate policy options (pp. 23-24).  Whatever happened to basing 
predictions on facts and observations?

Josh Horton

On Thursday, September 27, 2012 1:48:14 PM UTC-4, Mike MacCracken wrote:

  Initial reactions to the abstract:

 While many of the geoengineering approaches might be said to be 
 unconventional (even though virtually all imitate some natural or existing 
 phenomenon) and untested (at least untested adequately), this charge that 
 the proposals are risky seems to me to need to be put in the context of the 
 very great risks created by the increasing concentrations of GHGs (indeed, 
 even by sustaining the concentrations that we have) for which 
 geoengineering approaches are intended to reduce the likelihood. This issue 
 is not geoengineering or not, but human-induced climate change due to GHGs 
 with or without various approaches to geoengineering. There will be 
 different consequences depending on the choices made, and the issue would 
 seem to be the relative consequences (very likely all negative compared to 
 having human-induced GHG emissions being near zero). And yes, governance 
 aspects and moral hazard and Man-nature perspectives, etc. are different 
 too, and so is the likelihood of international actions on cutting 
 emissions, etc., so a lot to consider. But the critical matter this is a 
 relative risk issue—and saying that geoengineering alone (as done here) is 
 (inherently) risky seems to me to be an unfortunate way to start off the 
 consideration.

 Mike MacCracken


 On 9/27/12 5:09 AM, Andrew Lockley andrew.lock...@gmail.com wrote:

 http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2152131

 Albert Lin 

 University of California, Davis - School of Law
 August 23, 2012
 Ecology Law Quarterly, Forthcoming 

 Abstract: 
  Geoengineering, a set of unconventional, untested, and risky proposals 
 for responding to climate change, has attracted growing attention in the 
 wake of our collective failure so far to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions. 
 Geoengineering research and deployment remain highly controversial, 
 however, not only because of the risks involved, but also because of 
 concern that geoengineering might undermine climate mitigation and 
 adaptation efforts. The latter concern, often described as a moral hazard, 
 has been questioned by some but not carefully explored. This article 
 examines the critical question of whether geoengineering presents a moral 
 hazard by drawing on empirical studies of moral hazard and risk 
 compensation and on the psychology literature of heuristics and cultural 
 cognition. The article finds it likely that geoengineering efforts will 
 undermine mainstream strategies to combat climate change and suggests 
 potential measures for ameliorating this moral hazard.

 Number of Pages in PDF File: 39

 Keywords: 
 geoengineering, climate change, moral hazard, risk compensation

 Accepted Paper Series

 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
geoengineering group.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/geoengineering/-/p_f701RG3DIJ.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.

[geo] Re: UK GOVERNMENT VIEW ON GEOENGINEERING RESEARCH Department of Energy and Climate Change

[Josh Horton]

This is an important development, particularly in light of the SPICE 
affair.  It's good to see a statement of unequivocal support for research. 
 It will be interesting to see whether any additional UK funding is 
forthcoming (I suspect not) or whether this has any effect in the US (maybe 
post-election?).

Josh

Josh Horton
joshuahorton...@gmail.com
http://geoengineeringpolitics.blogspot.com/


On Friday, September 28, 2012 5:25:18 AM UTC-4, andrewjlockley wrote:


 http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/about/science/activities/climate_change/ger/ger.aspx

 GOVERNMENT VIEW ON GEO-ENGINEERING RESEARCH

  Geo-engineering proposals to counter climate change are attracting 
 growing attention, yet the scientific evidence base to inform a rational 
 debate on their merits or otherwise is currently limited.Geo-engineering 
 can be described as the deliberate intervention in the planetary 
 environment of a nature and scale intended to counteract man-made climate 
 change and/or its impacts. A wide range of different techniques may be 
 encompassed by this term and can be broadly placed into two categories: 
 those techniques that aim to remove carbon dioxide and other greenhouse 
 gases directly from the atmosphere, and those that aim to reflect some of 
 the Sun’s energy that reaches Earth back into space.Based on the evidence 
 currently available, it is premature to consider geo-engineering as a 
 viable option for addressing climate change. The priority is, and must be, 
 to tackle the root cause by reducing emissions of greenhouse gases from 
 human activities and adapting to those impacts that are unavoidable. 
 Mitigation of climate change, by reducing emissions and protecting natural 
 carbon sinks, remains the surest way of increasing our chances of avoiding 
 dangerous climate change in the future.Some, including scientists, have 
 suggested that in the future geo-engineering may have a role to play in 
 supplementing our efforts to mitigate climate change. However, for most 
 techniques, current understanding of the costs, feasibility, environmental 
 and societal impacts is limited.International regulation of geo-engineering 
 is currently inadequate. A specific international legal instrument to 
 regulate geo-engineering is not currently available, and work is underway 
 to examine how existing instruments could be used. Therefore the Government 
 has supported the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) in their review 
 of existing regulatory instruments, and has contributed to work under the 
 London Protocol on the prevention of marine pollution by dumping of wastes 
 and other matter to regulate ocean fertilisation research and develop a 
 framework to assess its potential impacts on the marine environment.Should 
 the need ever arise to deploy geo-engineering techniques in the future, a 
 thorough understanding of all the options available to counteract dangerous 
 climate change and knowledge of their risks and benefits will be needed. 
 This understanding can only be developed through relevant, careful and 
 responsible multi-disciplinary research. The Government is supportive of 
 the need to undertake such studies, in accordance with Decision X/33 and 
 Article 14 of the CBD1 and relevant agreements such as the London 
 Convention and its Protocol.Research and ongoing dialogue with the public 
 and other key stakeholders, is vital to inform future policy and 
 decision-making. The conduct of research does not imply an intention to 
 deploy geo-engineering.

 FURTHER READING:

 Command paper 7936: Government response to the House of Commons Science 
 and Technology Select Committee 5th report of session 2009-10: The 
 regulation of geoengineering[External link].The Royal Society (2009): 
 Geoengineering the climate: science, governance and uncertainty[External 
 link].Natural Environment Research Council (NERC)/Sciencewise public 
 dialogue exercise on geoengineering: Experiment Earth? A report on a public 
 dialogue on Geoengineering[External link].Pursuant to the Decision X/33 on 
 the application of geo-engineering approaches adopted by the Parties to the 
 Convention on Biological Diversity in October 2010; no climate-related 
 geo-engineering activities that may affect biodiversity should take place, 
 until there is an adequate scientific basis on which to justify such 
 activities and appropriate consideration of the associated risks for the 
 environment and biodiversity and associated social, economic and cultural 
 impacts, with the exception of small scale scientific research studies that 
 would be conducted in a controlled setting in accordance with Article 3 of 
 the Convention, and only if they are justified by the need to gather 
 specific scientific data and are subject to a thorough prior assessment of 
 the potential impacts on the environment.


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
geoengineering group.
To view

[geo] WWF Now Supports Geoengineering Research

[Josh Horton]

Hi everyone,

This is significant news - the Climate Change Programme Manager at WWF-UK 
stated the following yesterday on the Huffington Post:

So alongside our main efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions through 
smarter use of sustainable energy and through reducing and reversing 
deforestation, WWF is cautiously supporting research into geo-engineering 
approaches in order to find out what is possible.

Here's the link to the full post 
- 
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/jon-taylor/geoengineering-climate-change_b_1873231.html

WWF is arguably the most influential environmental NGO in the world, so 
publicly stating this position could open up a lot of political space for 
useful engagement and help create breathing room for small-scale 
experiments and field tests.

Josh Horton

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
geoengineering group.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/geoengineering/-/b6mD-oALLsUJ.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.

[geo] Re: Dan Kahan's draft paper showing negative moral hazard - Geoengineering and the Science Communication Environment: A Cross-Cultural Experiment

[Josh Horton]

In addition to the moral hazard issue, this study also presents evidence 
suggesting that discussions of geoengineering can have a depolarizing 
effect on the wider climate change debate.  In essence, the argument is 
that geoengineering doesn't carry the same amount of cultural/political 
baggage as other, more charged aspects of the climate debate (for example, 
implicit anti-capitalism), and so allows for a less intense, more 
deliberative focus on the facts.  The authors point out that this doesn't 
necessarily lead to greater support for geoengineering, just a more 
considered debate.

Josh Horton



On Wednesday, August 22, 2012 2:52:25 AM UTC-4, andrewjlockley wrote:

 Dan Kahan seeks prepublication comments of the folloing paper (abs 
 below): http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1981907# 

 This is the 3rd or 4th study I've seen (including my own) which found 
 negative moral hazard.  There have been no findings of positive moral 
 hazard in any study of which I'm aware. 

 Dan works on the Yale cultural cognition project 
 http://www.culturalcognition.net/  Please note his email, cc and 
 dan@yale.edu javascript: for comments. 

 Thanks 

 A 

 Abstract: 
 We conducted a two-nation study (United States, n = 1500; England, n = 
 1500) to test a novel theory of science communication. The cultural 
 cognition thesis posits that individuals make extensive reliance on 
 cultural meanings in forming perceptions of risk. The logic of the 
 cultural cognition thesis suggests the potential value of a 
 distinctive two-channel science communication strategy that combines 
 information content (“Channel 1”) with cultural meanings (“Channel 2”) 
 selected to promote open-minded assessment of information across 
 diverse communities. In the study, scientific information content on 
 climate change was held constant while the cultural meaning of that 
 information was experimentally manipulated. Consistent with the study 
 hypotheses, we found that making citizens aware of the potential 
 contribution of geoengineering as a supplement to restriction of CO2 
 emissions helps to offset cultural polarization over the validity of 
 climate-change science. We also tested the hypothesis, derived from 
 competing models of science communication, that exposure to 
 information on geoengineering would provoke discounting of 
 climate-change risks generally. Contrary to this hypothesis, we found 
 that subjects exposed to information about geoengineering were 
 slightly more concerned about climate change risks than those assigned 
 to a control condition. 

 Number of Pages in PDF File: 41 

 Keywords: climate change, geoengineering, cultural cognition, risk 
 perception 


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
geoengineering group.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/geoengineering/-/WY24Zt6j0NQJ.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.

[geo] New Survey Data from Brookings

[Josh Horton]

Hi all,

The Brookings Institution has released a short report on a recent US survey 
on geoengineering (and adaptation).  Here's the link:
http://www.brookings.edu/research/papers/2012/05/30-geo-engineering-rabe-borick

Their findings appear less friendly toward geoengineering (e.g., 69% agree 
it will do more harm than good, 17% disagree, 14% unsure) than those 
published last year by Mercer, Keith, and Sharp 
(http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/6/4/044006).  But the Brookings 
questions are more predictive in nature and a lot more vague, and don't 
provide respondents with any context or even description of 
geoengineering--it speaks of adding materials to the atmosphere.  I think 
Mercer/Keith/Sharp gives a better indication of current attitudes toward 
geoengineering, both concern about deployment and support for research.

Josh Horton
joshuahorton...@gmail.com
http://geoengineeringpolitics.blogspot.com/

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
geoengineering group.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/geoengineering/-/mVCa2ULGTG0J.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.

[geo] Re: More SPICE

[Josh Horton]

There's no question that geoengineering and intellectual property 
(especially as it relates to SRM) is a complicated issue, but it's worth 
noting that intellectual property per se did not derail the SPICE field 
test.  Rather, according to the facts that have been made public, it was a 
(contested) violation of EPSRC IP rules, i.e., failing to disclose a patent 
application, that led to cancellation of the field trial.  This is 
different from a scenario in which an experiment is cancelled due to 
objections to the application of an IP framework to SRM geoengineering, 
which is how some are portraying the SPICE debacle.

That's not to say that EPSRC IP rules strike the right balance, or that 
patents should even be permissible when it comes to SRM, only that the IP 
regime itself does not appear to be responsible for the cancellation.

Josh Horton
joshuahorton...@gmail.com

On Wednesday, May 23, 2012 2:26:11 PM UTC-4, Greg Rau wrote:

 A charter for geoengineering

 Nature

 485,

 415

 (24 May 2012)

 doi:10.1038/485415a

 Published online

 23 May 2012 

 A controversial field trial of technology to mitigate climate change has 
 been cancelled, but research continues. A robust governance framework is 
 sorely needed to prevent further setbacks.

 Geoengineering research has a problem. That much should be clear following 
 last week's cancellation of a field trial for the Stratospheric Particle 
 Injection for Climate Engineering (SPICE) project. The solutions to this 
 problem are not so obvious, but they must be found — and fast.

 The SPICE field trial was supposed to involve spraying water into the 
 atmosphere at an altitude of 1 kilometre using a balloon and hosepipe, as 
 part of a host of work exploring whether it is possible to mitigate global 
 warming by introducing particles into the stratosphere to reflect some of 
 the Sun's energy away from Earth.

 But the field trial — which is only a small part of the overall SPICE 
 project — became bogged down in protests and delays almost as soon as it 
 was announced. Last week, as first reported by *Nature*, the project's 
 lead investigator announced that it was being abandoned, citing concerns 
 about intellectual-property rights, public engagement and the overall 
 governance regime for such work.

 Colleagues have leapt to the defence of the SPICE team, and praised its 
 decision to continue with the theoretical strands of its work. Indeed, the 
 researchers have acted with commendable honesty. But the SPICE issue is a 
 perfect example of the problems that will persist until geoengineers grasp 
 the nettle of regulation and oversight.

 We have been here before. Work on 'fertilizing' the oceans to promote 
 blooms of phytoplankton that would lock up carbon dioxide ran into similar 
 protests and governance wrangles. In 2009, an experiment to test the idea 
 by dumping tonnes of iron sulphate into the Southern Ocean caused huge 
 public disquiet and went ahead only after further discussions.

 “Problems will persist until geoengineers grasp the nettle of regulation 
 and oversight.”

 Researchers argue that 'geoengineering' is a falsely inclusive term. They 
 say that SPICE-style 'solar-radiation management' is completely different 
 from ocean fertilization, and different again from carbon capture. But 
 these technologies have similar aims and, when it comes to rules and 
 regulations, they probably need to be dealt with together.

 The geoengineering community has tried to bring some discipline to the 
 emerging field. The 'Oxford Principles' — developed in 2010 by researchers 
 at the University of Oxford, UK — offer some useful ground rules. They say 
 that geoengineering should be regulated as a public good; there should be 
 public participation in decision-making; research should be disclosed and 
 results published openly; impacts should be assessed independently; and 
 decisions to deploy the technologies should be made within a robust 
 governance framework.

 These are excellent principles. But they are vague, and cannot serve as a 
 guide to conducting specific experiments in such a broad field.

 A meeting of geoengineers in Asilomar, California, in 2009 — influenced by 
 a meeting at the same location in 1975, when researchers hashed out 
 guidelines for genetic engineering — produced similarly vague 
 recommendations, such as the need to conduct research openly and to consult 
 the public when planning research. It also called for governments to “when 
 necessary, create new mechanisms for the governance and oversight of 
 large-scale climate engineering research activities”.

 The SPICE fiasco starkly demonstrates the need for such mechanisms. For a 
 project of such high profile to founder on problems of intellectual 
 property, regulation or public protest would be bad enough. That it ran 
 into difficulties in all three areas shows an underlying problem.

 Of the issues raised, intellectual property may turn out

[geo] Re: EGU methane session

[Josh Horton]

Did anyone on the list attend this EGU ESAS methane session?  If not, has 
anyone seen relevant coverage or picked up any related information?  I know 
this topic is of great interest to many group members, myself included.

Josh Horton


On Tuesday, April 17, 2012 7:17:10 AM UTC-4, andrewjlockley wrote:


 http://arctic-news.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/highlights-of-egu-general-assembly-2012.html?m=1

 Highlights of EGU General Assembly 2012

 If you will be attending the European Geosciences Union (EGU) General 
 Assembly on April 25, 2012, make sure to attend, from 14:00 to 14:15 in 
 room 23, the presentation:

 Methane release from the East-Siberian Arctic Shelf and its connection 
 with permafrost and hydrate destabilization: First results and potential 
 future developments by Natalia Shakhova and Igor Semiletov

 The East Siberian Arctic Shelf (ESAS) is home to the world’s largest 
 hydrocarbon stocks, which consist of natural gas, coal bed methane (CH4), 
 and shallow Arctic hydrates. Until recently, the ESAS was not considered a 
 CH4 source due to the supposed impermeability of sub-sea permafrost, which 
 was thought to completely isolate the CH4 beneath from modern 
 biogeochemical cycles.

 However, the ESAS represents an enormous potential CH4 source that could 
 be responsive to ongoing global warming. Such response could occur in 
 substantially shorter time than that of terrestrial Arctic ecosystems, 
 because sub-sea permafrost has experienced long-lasting destabilization 
 initiated by its inundation during the Holocene ocean transgression. ESAS 
 permafrost stability and integrity is key to whether sequestered ancient 
 carbon escapes as the potent greenhouse gas CH4.

 Recent data suggest the sub-sea permafrost is currently experiencing 
 significant changes in its thermal regime. For example, our recent data 
 obtained in the ESAS during the drilling expedition of 2011 showed no 
 frozen sediments at all within the 53 m long drilling core at water 
 temperatures varying from -0.6˚C to -1.3˚C.

 Unfrozen sediments provide multiple potential CH4 migration pathways. We 
 suggest that open taliks have formed beneath the areas underlain or 
 influenced by the nearby occurrence of fault zones, under paleo-valleys, and 
 beneath thaw lakes submerged several thousand years ago during the ocean 
 transgression. Temporary gas migration pathways might occur subsequent to 
 seismic and tectonic activity in an area, due to sediment settlement and 
 subsidence; hydrates could destabilize due to development of 
 thermokarst-related features or ice-scouring.

 Recently obtained geophysical data identified numerous gas seeps, mostly 
 above prominent reflectors, and the ubiquitous occurrence of shallow 
 gas-charged sediments containing numerous gas chimneys, underscoring the 
 likelihood that the ability of sub-sea permafrost to capture CH4 released 
 from the seabed is failing.

 Available data suggest the ESAS sub-sea permafrost is currently leaking a 
 substantial amount of CH4. We propose that a few different types of CH4 
 exist, and are becoming involved in the modern carbon cycle due to 
 permafrost destabilization in the ESAS: modern biogenic CH4 produced from 
 ancient substrate, relatively old biogenic CH4 mobilized from hydrate 
 deposits, and old thermogenic CH4 accumulated within seabed deposits. 
 Isotopic data obtained by sampling CH4 in the water column and atmospheric 
 CH4 in close proximity to the sea surface confirm the contribution from 
 different sources, and demonstrate that the isotopic signature of CH4 from 
 the ESAS can be used to create an interpretive plot for defining hydrates. 
 CH4 fluxes could occur as numerous weak seeps, as large areas of strong 
 bubble plumes, or as sites where CH4 releases are flare- or torch-like and 
 the emissions are non-gradual.

 Due to the shallow and oligotrophic nature of the ESAS, the majority of 
 aqueous CH4 may avoid biological oxidation in the water column and escape 
 to the atmosphere.

 Further investigations should be focused on quantifying the total CH4 pool 
 of the ESAS, improving our understanding of the mechanisms responsible for 
 sub-sea permafrost destabilization and gas migration pathways formation, 
 and decreasing uncertainties regarding the current CH4 emission mode and 
 its future alteration by progressing permafrost degradation.

 Geophysical Research Abstracts Vol. 14, EGU2012-3877-1, 2012 EGU General 
 Assembly 2012

 Above presentation is part of the session: Methane cycling in marine and 
 terrestrial systems which also features, as part of the poster program: 
 Display Time: Wednesday, 25 Apr 08:00–19:30 Attendance Time: Wednesday, 25 
 Apr 17:30–19:00 Poster Area BG

 First drilling subsea permafrost in the southeastern Laptev Sea, the East 
 Siberian Arctic Shelf: results and challenges by Igor Semiletov, et al. 
 highlighting the following two challenges:

 1) observed Arctic warming in early 21st century is stronger

[geo] Re: geoengineers as God(s)?

[Josh Horton]

Fair enough, but I don't know of any researchers in this field (as 
represented by those on this list) who propose to play God or make 
deployment decisions about geoengineering.  Scientists and engineers 
propose to develop different options for managing risk, and leave it to 
accountable decision-makers (political leaders) to choose the path forward. 
 So the title and premise of the article are mistaken from the outset.

Josh

On Wednesday, April 25, 2012 10:41:05 AM UTC-4, Christopher Preston wrote:

 Like it or not, the ‘playing God’ frame is widely used to raise 
 questions about a certain types of technology  (e.g. biotechnology and 
 synthetic biology).  If you don’t take the ‘God’ part literally, the 
 framing can be thought of in secular terms as raising questions about 
 the proper role humans should adopt in relation to planetary 
 processes.  It seems to me that this remains an open question….. and 
 some legitimate ethical discussions could take place. 

 On Apr 24, 7:32 pm, Mike MacCracken mmacc...@comcast.net wrote: 
  What a truly terrible title (or maybe tag line) for an article in a 
 science 
  magazine. 
  
  Both greenhouse gas induced climate change, and the proposed response to 
 it, 
  are, or would be, a result of humans relying on the laws of physics and 
  chemistry‹not some sort of super power. Whom does the article say is 
 causing 
  the change‹human activities or God? Is not causing the change with GHGs 
 and 
  choosing not to act to control emissions ³playing² God? And ³play² makes 
  this all sound like a little game when the discussion is much more 
 serious. 
  And no way are engineers saying they are in charge, so they miss all the 
  discussion on governance, etc. 
  
  I¹ll agree I am a literalist because scientists try to be precise in 
 their 
  use of words (it might be interesting to ask them to define ³God²--their 
  capital letter). Really poorly title choice, in my view. 
  
  Mike MacCracken 
  
  On 4/24/12 9:05 PM, RAU greg gh...@sbcglobal.net wrote: 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
   ET asks whether engineers should play God, making fundamental 
 changes to the 
   environment and attempting to control climate change.  
  
   Should engineers control the eco-system? 
   23 April 2012By Anne Harris 
   With the visible effects of climate change growing, is it time for 
 engineers 
   to step in and make fundamental changes to the eco-system? 
   Anyone who has delved into the morass of conflicting reports and 
 opinions that 
   surround the thorny issue of climate change will readily admit that 
 plain 
   Œtruth¹ is not easy to come by. There are many fields in science where 
   controversies still remain. This is healthy for science. It keeps us 
 on our 
   toes and forces us to question our assumptions and models. So it is 
 revealing 
   that, when it comes to climate change, the overwhelming majority of 
 scientists 
   acknowledge that it is taking place, that it is potentially 
 catastrophic and 
   is, in all likelihood, caused by humans. 
  
   Having given this acceptance, the next question on scientists¹ lips is 
 whether 
   anything can be done. The drive is on, albeit grudgingly and at an 
 agonisingly 
   torpid pace, to limit the volume of greenhouse gases that are pumped 
 into the 
   atmosphere, but that alone is unlikely to be sufficient. What is 
 really 
   required is a solution that will reverse the climate-change effects, 
 and this 
   has been dubbed Œgeoengineering¹. 
  
   much more here:  http://eandt.theiet.org/magazine/2012/04/index.cfm

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
geoengineering group.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/geoengineering/-/ZMmtIPXOMjAJ.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.

[geo] Re: new CBD report on impacts on biodiversity, and more

[Josh Horton]

Here's the new CBD regulatory report to supplement Jesse's list:
http://www.cbd.int/doc/meetings/sbstta/sbstta-16/information/sbstta-16-inf-29-en.pdf

Josh

On Tuesday, April 10, 2012 8:12:53 AM UTC-4, Jesse Reynolds wrote:

 Returning from a holiday weekend, there's a bundle of stuff at my twitter 
 feed (http://twitter.com/geoengpolicy) and below. This seems rather 
 relevant:

 Impacts of climate-related geoengineering on biological diversity
 CBD 2012 
 SUBSIDIARY BODY ON SCIENTIFIC, 
 TECHNICAL AND TECHNOLOGICAL ADVICE
 Sixteenth meeting
 Montreal, 30 April-5 May 2012

 http://www.cbd.int/doc/meetings/sbstta/sbstta-16/information/sbstta-16-inf-28-en.pdf

 Best,
 - Jesse

 23m J Reynolds ‏ @geoengpolicy  Reply  Delete  Favorite · Open
 Governance and equity in the development and deployment of negative 
 emissions technologies #geoengineering http://bit.ly/Hsj3Y0 [PDF]

 37m J Reynolds ‏ @geoengpolicy  Reply  Delete  Favorite · Open
 Reflective roofs and pavements SRM #geoengineering http://bit.ly/HwD6Kv

 41m J Reynolds ‏ @geoengpolicy  Reply  Delete  Favorite · Open
 Australia's office chief scientist paper: #geoengineering would not work, 
 and poses risk http://bit.ly/Iv5ya4 [PDF]

 55m J Reynolds ‏ @geoengpolicy  Reply  Delete  Favorite · Open
 Metaphors we die by? #Geoengineering, metaphors, and the argument from 
 catastrophe http://bit.ly/Huaktm [PDF]

 1h J Reynolds ‏ @geoengpolicy  Reply  Delete  Favorite · Open
 Sucking carbon dioxide out of the air: Neat idea, but impractical 
 @bradplumer on CDR #geoengineering http://wapo.st/IdIsG6


 -
 Jesse L. Reynolds, M.S.
 PhD Candidate
 European and International Public Law
 Tilburg Sustainability Center
 Tilburg University, The Netherlands
 email: j.l.reyno...@uvt.nl
 http://www.tilburguniversity.edu/webwijs/show/?uid=j.l.reynolds
 http://twitter.com/geoengpolicy



-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
geoengineering group.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/geoengineering/-/Vn6T4HzC6CgJ.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.

[geo] Re: Stoat strongly criticises AMEG

[Josh Horton]

I agree with Nathan that we shouldn't lose sight of the methane issue, 
which is the motive force behind AMEG's assertions and activities.  In this 
regard, here is a short excerpt from something I posted in December:
*
*
*While declaring a methane emergency and calling for immediate action is 
rooted in good intentions, such advocacy is both premature and misguided. 
In scientific terms, the available evidence simply does not support 
assertions that a worst-case scenario is unfolding. Shakhova and Semiletov 
have discovered an important phenomenon in the ESAS, but there are no data 
to indicate that this is a new phenomenon, or that methane venting is 
increasing at a statistically significant rate, or that venting is tightly 
connected to sea-ice retreat and the ice-albedo feedback. Arctic climate 
expert Ed Dlugokencky has written that There is no evidence from our 
atmospheric measurements that there has been a significant increase in 
emissions during the past 20 years from natural methane sources in the 
Arctic so 
far.http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/12/19/392242/carbon-time-bomb-in-arctic-new-york-times-print-edition-gets-the-story-right/
 
Ice expert Richard Alley states the physical understanding agrees with the 
paleoclimatic data that methane can be an important feedback but isn't 
likely to have giant rapid climate-changing 
belches.http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/28/more-views-on-global-warmin-and-arctic-methane/#more-4
 
Even Shakhova and Semiletov urge restraint: we have never stated that the 
reason for the currently observed methane emissions were due to recent 
climate change. ... We would urge people ... not jump to conclusions and be 
open to the idea that new observations may significantly change what we 
understand about our 
world.http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/27/leaders-of-arctic-methane-project-clarify-climate-concerns/
*
*
*
*Demands for quick deployment are also politically unwise. Given the 
mainstream scientific views described above, such calls will not be heeded, 
but instead will be attributed to the scientific 
fringehttp://www.newscientist.com/article/dn21275-call-for-arctic-geoengineering-as-soon-as-possible.html,
 
which could in turn contribute to the marginalization of the broader 
geoengineering community. This would be especially tragic if compelling 
evidence subsequently emerges that we are indeed at an Arctic tipping 
point: climate remediation solutions may be dismissed as the 
science-fiction fantasies of doomsday prognosticators, even if the 
underlying engineering is sound and deployment warranted by an objective 
reading of events. Monitoring of Arctic methane venting should be 
increased, and research on global and regional geoengineering schemes 
should be intensified, but assertions that we are on the brink of calamity 
and must act now should cease. There is a difference between vigilance and 
alarmism, and the Arctic Methane Emergency Group is rapidly drifting toward 
the latter.*

(see here for the full post including links -- 
http://geoengineeringpolitics.blogspot.com/2011/12/arctic-methane-emergencies-and-alarmism.html)

I'm not aware of any subsequent developments that warrant revising these 
statements.  A close look at the methane issue gives us even more reason to 
question the claims put forward by AMEG, and perhaps for AMEG to reconsider 
its approach.

Josh Horton


On Sunday, March 18, 2012 7:59:29 AM UTC-4, Andrew Lockley wrote:

 This is very damning. I have also asked John several times to clarify the 
 membership of the group and he has not done so.  Bearing in mind the high 
 media profile of the AMEG group, the issue is a major threat to the public 
 credibility of the entire geoengineering research community.

 http://t.co/OZnj6dMM 

 Arctic Methane Emergency Group? Posted on: March 17, 2012 4:16 PM, by 
 William M. Connolley

 From Climate 'tech fixes' urged for Arctic methane I find ameg.me who say:

 AMEG POSITION DECLARATION OF EMERGENCY We declare there now exists an 
 extremely high international security risk* from abrupt and runaway global 
 warming being triggered by the end-summer collapse of Arctic sea ice 
 towards a fraction of the current record and release of huge quantities of 
 methane gas from the seabed. Such global warming would lead at first to 
 worldwide crop failures but ultimately and inexorably to the collapse of 
 civilization as we know it. This colossal threat demands an immediate 
 emergency scale response to cool the Arctic and save the sea ice. The 
 latest available data indicates that a sea ice collapse is more than likely 
 by 2015 and even possible this summer (2012). Thus some measures to counter 
 the threat have to be ready within a few months.

 So who are these bozos? (Note: I've been fairly dismissive about methane 
 before). Aunty says Scientists told UK MPs this week... At a meeting in 
 Westminster organised by the Arctic Methane Emergency Group (Ameg), Prof

[geo] Re: We are top story on BBC environmental news

[Josh Horton]

The idea of putting dust particles into the stratosphere to reflect 
sunlight, mimicking the cooling effect of volcanic eruptions, would in fact 
be disastrous for the Arctic, said Prof Salter, with models showing it 
would increase temperatures at the pole by perhaps 10C.

That's a pretty strong statement--what's the evidence for this?

Josh Horton



On Saturday, March 17, 2012 6:25:22 AM UTC-4, Andrew Lockley wrote:

 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-17400804 

 Climate 'tech fixes' urged for Arctic methane

 By Richard Black Environment correspondent, BBC News

 An eminent UK engineer is suggesting building cloud-whitening towers in 
 the Faroe Islands as a technical fix for warming across the Arctic.

 Scientists told UK MPs this week that the possibility of a major methane 
 release triggered by melting Arctic ice constitutes a planetary emergency.

 The Arctic could be sea-ice free each September within a few years.

 Wave energy pioneer Stephen Salter has shown that pumping seawater sprays 
 into the atmosphere could cool the planet.

 The Edinburgh University academic has previously suggested whitening 
 clouds using specially-built ships.

 At a meeting in Westminster organised by the Arctic Methane Emergency 
 Group (Ameg), Prof Salter told MPs that the situation in the Arctic was so 
 serious that ships might take too long.

 I don't think there's time to do ships for the Arctic now, he said.

 We'd need a bit of land, in clean air and the right distance north... 
 where you can cool water flowing into the Arctic.

 Favoured locations would be the Faroes and islands in the Bering Strait, 
 he said.

 Towers would be constructed, simplified versions of what has been planned 
 for ships.

 In summer, seawater would be pumped up to the top using some kind of 
 renewable energy, and out through the nozzles that are now being developed 
 at Edinburgh University, which achieve incredibly fine droplet size.

 In an idea first proposed by US physicist John Latham, the fine droplets 
 of seawater provide nuclei around which water vapour can condense.

 This makes the average droplet size in the clouds smaller, meaning they 
 appear whiter and reflect more of the Sun's incoming energy back into 
 space, cooling the Earth.

 On melting ice

 The area of Arctic Ocean covered by ice each summer has declined 
 significantly over the last few decades as air and sea temperatures have 
 risen.

 For each of the last four years, the September minimum has seen about 
 two-thirds of the average cover for the years 1979-2000, which is used a 
 baseline. The extent covered at other times of the year has also been 
 shrinking.

 What more concerns some scientists is the falling volume of ice.

 Analysis from the University of Washington, in Seattle, using ice 
 thickness data from submarines and satellites, suggests that Septembers 
 could be ice-free within just a few years.

 Data for September suggests the Arctic Ocean could be free of sea ice in a 
 few years

 In 2007, the water [off northern Siberia] warmed up to about 5C (41F) in 
 summer, and this extends down to the sea bed, melting the offshore 
 permafrost, said Peter Wadhams, professor of ocean physics at Cambridge 
 University.

 Among the issues this raises is whether the ice-free conditions will 
 quicken release of methane currently trapped in the sea bed, especially in 
 the shallow waters along the northern coast of Siberia, Canada and Alaska.

 Methane is a much more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, though 
 it does not last as long in the atmosphere.

 Several teams of scientists trying to measure how much methane is actually 
 being released have reported seeing vast bubbles coming up through the 
 water - although analysing how much this matters is complicated by the 
 absence of similar measurements from previous decades.

 Nevertheless, Prof Wadhams told MPs, the release could be expected to get 
 stronger over time.

 With 'business-as-usual' greenhouse gas emissions, we might have warming 
 of 9-10C in the Arctic.

 That will cement in place the ice-free nature of the Arctic Ocean - it 
 will release methane from offshore, and a lot of the methane on land as 
 well.

 This would - in turn - exacerbate warming, across the Arctic and the rest 
 of the world.

 Abrupt methane releases from frozen regions may have played a major role 
 in two events, 55 and 251 million years ago, that extinguished much of the 
 life then on Earth.

 Meteorologist Lord (Julian) Hunt, who chaired the meeting of the All Party 
 Parliamentary Group on Climate Change, clarified that an abrupt methane 
 release from the current warming was not inevitable, describing that as an 
 issue for scientific debate.

 But he also said that some in the scientific community had been reluctant 
 to discuss the possibility.

 There is quite a lot of suppression and non-discussion of issues that are 
 difficult, and one of those is in fact methane, he said

[geo] Kiribati Buying Land in Fiji as Climate Insurance

[Josh Horton]

Apparently it's come to this ...

On a related note, up until a few weeks ago I was involved in exploratory 
work looking to engage the President of the Maldives on political advocacy 
for geoengineering research (and perhaps even actual research on 
micro-bubble technology) via a direct connection ... then he was overthrown 
in a coup.  http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-16945764

Josh Horton
joshuahorton...@gmail.com


http://www.unisdr.org/archive/25649

Migration not a matter of choice but survival, says Kiribati President*By 
Brigitte Leoni*

*BANGKOK, 15 March 2012* - Following a recent decision by its Cabinet to 
buy land in Fiji as 'climate change insurance' for its population, Kiribati 
President, Anote Tong has called on the international community to address 
the effects of climate change that could wipe out the entire Pacific 
archipelago. 

While the governments of both the Pacific island nations are currently in 
talks about the nearly 6,000 acres of fertile land on Fiji's main island, 
Viti Levu which is being offered by a church group for $9.6 million, 
President Tong hopes that it will never be necessary for the 103,000 people 
of Kiribati to leave. 

The move comes three years after President Tong took centre stage at the 
Global Platform for Disaster Risk Reduction to implore the international 
community to take effective action against climate change before it became 
too late for Kiribati and other small island developing states of the 
Pacific. 

This week he told the media: We would hope not to put everyone on one 
piece of land, but if it became absolutely necessary, yes, we could do it. 
It wouldn't be for me, personally, but would apply more to a younger 
generation. For them, moving won't be a matter of choice. It's basically 
going to be a matter of survival. 

Jerry Velasquez, Head of UNISDR Asia Pacific, believes that now is not time 
to give up. We still have time to build community resilience and press on 
with efforts to mitigate catastrophic climate change before it's too late. 
Climate migration, if it has to happen, should be an adaptation option for 
resilient communities, he said.

Kiribati is at the heart of the debate on climate change. Many of its 
atolls rise just 2.0 metres above sea level. It is comprised of 33 tiny 
islands scattered across the ocean with more than half its population 
crowded onto one island - South Tarawa, the capital. 

This recent development in Kiribati comes on the heels of a new Asia 
Development Bank (ADB) report released last week, which states that 
low-lying Pacific islands will be extremely vulnerable to sea-level rise, 
high intensity cyclones, and storm surges. 

The report, Addressing Climate Change and Migration in Asia and the Pacific 
highlights that with warmer seas, more intense cyclones could become a 
pattern. It further predicts widespread coastal inundation for Kiribati's 
main island. 

Released at the Second Asia-Pacific Climate Change Adaptation Forum in 
Bangkok, the report identifies Kiribati, Tuvalu, and Papua New Guinea as 
Pacific migration hotspots due to climate change. 

Kiribati and Tuvalu face the highest threat from sea-level rise while Papua 
New Guinea is expected to experience greater risk from flash flooding 
across the highlands and coastal flooding along the south coast, according 
to the report. 

According to ADB some 42 million people in the Asia Pacific region were 
displaced by environmental disasters in the past two years. Larger 
countries will also face tough migration challenges due to climate change 
in the coming years. India, for example, has the highest number of people 
who may be affected by rising sea levels; thirty seven million of its 
citizens may be impacted by climate change by 2050. 

If we cannot save Kiribati tomorrow, we will also be obliged to move 
millions of people from Dhaka, the capital of Bangladesh, Manila, the 
capital of the Philippines and many other cities in the world sooner or 
later'', said Jerry Velasquez. 

Over the last five years, President Tong has continued to stress that his 
country may become uninhabitable by the 2050s due to rising sea levels and 
salination provoked by climate change. 

On Abaiang, one of Kiribati's remote outer islands, an empty sandbar is 
evidence of the encroaching sea. There was a village there once called 
Tebunginako. Residents were forced to relocate after the sea ruined crops 
and drinking water. Then a large storm destroyed their houses. Some of the 
villagers have rebuilt further inland; others have scattered for good.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
geoengineering group.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/geoengineering/-/wGDrZfdwGFkJ.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group

[geo] Re: Emerging consensus on geo-engineering

[Josh Horton]

Ben,

With respect to your original question, I think Alan's right that it's
important to distinguish geoengineering research from geoengineering
deployment.  I also think it's inaccurate to speak of an economic/
scientific community--in my experience these are two distinct
knowledge communities with different assumptions and worldviews.  My
impression is that there is still limited familiarity with
geoengineering among scientists as a whole, and even less among
economists.  But to the extent there is awareness, Ken's
characterization seems fair--growing support for research, little
support for deployment.

In addition, rather than speaking of an emerging consensus, it might
be better to say that discussions of geoengineering have attained
greater legitimacy over time.

Josh Horton



On Mar 3, 5:08 am, Andrew Lockley and...@andrewlockley.com wrote:
 I strongly believe you should publish this as a formal paper.  There are
 social policy journals which represent perhaps a more appropriate route
 than climate science journals.

 It would seem that a statistical test for significance, plus a formal
 statement of hypotheses, would be appropriate.

 I'd personally be happy to work on this.

 NB The fact that you survey the perceived causes of climate change is of
 great general media interest. We should ensure the general public are
 regularly reminded of the scientific opinion on AGW. If scientists don't
 tell the truth, they'll only hear the Fox News version.

 A
 On Mar 3, 2012 6:45 AM, David Mitchell david.mitch...@dri.edu wrote:







  Dear Ken et al.,

  In July of 2010 the American Meteorol. Soc. had its Cloud Physics
  Conference and Atmospheric Radiation Conference combined into a single
  conference in Portland Oregon, and on Thursday evening of that conference
  week an informal discussion was held on climate engineering with 94
  scientists in attendence.  The convenors of this meeting, Greg McFarquhar
  and myself, provided each participant with a questionaire on climate
  engineering that was deposited into the ballot box at the end of the
  event.  We thought the results of this survey would be of interest to the
  editors of the AMS Bulletin (BAMS), who seemed initially interested but
  then became non-responsive; it has been well over a year since we have
  heard from them.  So since BAMS does not want this, Greg and I felt that it
  would be appropriate to share this survey/questionaire with this
  geo-group.  Attached is the proposal we sent to BAMS that includes the
  questionaire on attitudes towards climate engineering.  I think you will
  find some of your impressions reflected in this survey.

  The group discussion addressed all types of climate engineering but was
  more focused on marine stratus cloud brightening and cirrus removal since
  these were mostly cloud physicists.
  Enjoy!
  David Mitchell
  Associate Research Professor
  Desert Research Institute
  Division of Atmospheric Sciences
  2215 Raggio Parkway
  Reno, Nevada, USA
  Phone: 775-674-7039
  E-mail: david.mitch...@dri.edu

  - Original Message -
  From: Ken Caldeira kcalde...@carnegie.stanford.edu
  Date: Friday, March 2, 2012 17:49
  Subject: Re: [geo] Emerging consensus on geo-engineering
  To: voglerl...@gmail.com
  Cc: euggor...@comcast.net, theseglyphsaredu...@gmail.com, geoengineering 
  geoengineering@googlegroups.com

   In going around and giving talks on this sunshade geoengineering, I
  find scientists with relevant skills much more interested in doing relevant
  research.

   A few years ago, my sense is that scientists felt this was a pariah
  subject, and they did not want to engage in research relevant to the topic.
  There is of course a sample bias in the people who come to my talks, but I
  sense that many more scientists feel that they have something to contribute
  to improving scientific understanding of the issues surrounding sunshade
  geoengineering.

   That said, I come across almost no scientists who are in favor of
  deployment at this time.

   My sense is that there is an increase in support for at least limited
  research (and less of an opposition to research) but very little support
  for active development of a deployment capability.

   This is how I feel so I might of course just be seeing a reflection of
  myself in the people that I speak with.

   ___
   Ken Caldeira

   Carnegie Institution Dept of Global Ecology
   260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA
   +1 650 704 7212 kcalde...@carnegie.stanford.edu
  http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralabhttp://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab
  @kencaldeira

  * YouTube:*
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9LaYCbYCxo Climate change and the
  transition from coal to low-carbon 
  electricityhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9LaYCbYCxo
   Crop yields in a geoengineered 
   climatehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-0LCXNoIu-c

   On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 3:02 PM, Michael Hayes voglerl...@gmail.comwrote:

   Hello Ben et

[geo] Re: Fwd: Environmental Audit Inquiry - comments to the Members

[Josh Horton]

Here is a recent post on this topic from my blog, that might be of
interest to some of you ...

http://geoengineeringpolitics.blogspot.com/2012/02/environmental-audit-committee-hearing.html

Saturday, February 25, 2012

Environmental Audit Committee Hearing in the UK

Earlier this week, the UK House of Commons Environmental Audit
Committee held a hearing on Protecting the Arctic (available for
viewing here). The session focused on threats to the Arctic posed by
climate change and potential responses. Key topics included tipping
points, sea-ice retreat, methane releases, and geoengineering. The
proceedings were very much in line with recent discussions about a
supposed methane emergency in the Arctic (see Arctic Methane,
Emergencies, and Alarmism, 12/29/11), and cast a decidedly negative
light on calls by the Arctic Methane Emergency Group (AMEG) for near-
term deployment of geoengineering technologies to avert impending
climate catastrophe.

After initial remarks on tipping points (by Tim Lenton, University of
Exeter) and sea-ice retreat (by Peter Wadhams, University of
Cambridge), John Nissen, founder and Chair of AMEG, argued that
recently detected methane plumes in the East Siberian Arctic Shelf
(ESAS) may signal the onset of runaway climate change, and hence
regional stratospheric aerosol and cloud brightening schemes must be
implemented as soon as possible. Lenton, arguably the world's leading
authority on climate tipping points, was quick to dismiss the
nightmare scenario laid out by Nissen, stating that I don't think the
alarmist story adds up in what I've seen (15:20:33). Lenton was
hugely skeptical of proposed geoengineering deployment in the Arctic.
Caroline Lucas MP, leader of the Green Party, questioned Nissen about
the possible risks of geoengineering proposed by AMEG, and expressed
serious reservations about Arctic deployment. Wadhams, an expert on
sea ice and also a member of AMEG, was caught uncomfortably between
the two positions, deeply concerned about positive feedbacks and
nonlinearities, but seeming to lack enthusiasm for immediate
deployment. (Wadhams did not fully articulate his views on
geoengineering, and one wonders how forcefully he backs the aggressive
demands put forward by AMEG.)

On balance, geoengineering did not fare well in the hearing. This is
not surprising given that its implementation in the Arctic is clearly
premature at present. The absence of support from the scientific
establishment for rapid implementation ought to signal to advocates of
Arctic deployment that the case for action now is not persuasive, and
calls for geoengineering in the near future are unwise. Unfortunately,
AMEG and its sympathizers may draw the opposite conclusion, and
redouble their efforts to convince skeptical scientists and
policymakers that the end is nigh, further marginalizing
geoengineering in the process.


In addition, here is a link to a post by Matt Watson (head of SPICE),
who uses my piece as a starting point to articulate his own views on
the subject:

http://thereluctantgeoengineer.blogspot.com/2012/02/ameg.html


Josh Horton
joshuahorton...@gmail.com
http://geoengineeringpolitics.blogspot.com/


On Feb 24, 1:34 pm, Douglas Spence dspenc...@gmail.com wrote:
 arctic-news.blogspot.com/2012/02/protecting-arctic.html

 Is that the right link? (assuming it remains available, I find it ever
 harder to remain informed on these matters)

 Frankly I think if you expect a meaningful and productive response from
 governments (or people en masse) you are grossly misjudging human behaviour.

 I listened to the video there, and for what it's worth I agree with John
 Nissen, assuming I correctly understood him to be saying that civilisation
 is on a path to absolute failure within the near future (coming years, not
 decades).

 I do not agree that it is possible or probable that we can prevent this.

 I also probably can't contribute to discussions in this group as I'm not a
 scientist and my focus is very much on that complete failure scenario (and
 has been for some years).

 On that note, if anyone has anything to better help me understand the
 regional consequences of abrupt release of large volumes of methane I'd
 like to know. For example a few of my questions:
 - is hydrogen sulphide a concern and if so, on what timescales and in what
 general regions?
 - is methane outgassing likely to reach levels where it can form large
 scale explosive mixtures with the atmosphere?
 - if hydrogen sulphide is produced, is there a risk to the ozone layer and
 over what timescale?

 I appreciate it's a long shot, since established science seemed to be
 saying only a few years ago that the sea ice would last until the end of
 the century...

 Regards,
 Douglas

 On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 8:01 AM, Andrew Lockley 
 and...@andrewlockley.comwrote:



  I went. Lenton and Wadhams gave evidence, as well as Nissen. It was
  surprisingly moderate.

  The MPs seemed semi-well-informed, but seemingly more concerned

[geo] Re: Fwd: Environmental Audit Inquiry - comments to the Members

[Josh Horton]

This letter is heartening to see, as many of us are very uncomfortable
with the notion of near-term deployment in the Arctic.  Did anyone
attend this hearing?  I know John Nissen was scheduled to be a
witness.  Is this available for viewing online?

Josh Horton

On Feb 23, 11:20 am, Andrew Lockley and...@andrewlockley.com wrote:
 As sent to UK environmental audit committee.

  From: Hugh Coe hugh@manchester.ac.uk
  Date: 21 February 2012 02:59:50 GMT
  To: wall...@parliament.uk wall...@parliament.uk, 

 peter.aldous...@parliament.uk peter.aldous...@parliament.uk, 
 z...@zacgoldsmith.com z...@zacgoldsmith.com, 
 caroline.nokes...@parliament.uk caroline.nokes...@parliament.uk, 
 neil.carmichael...@parliament.uk neil.carmichael...@parliament.uk, 
 caroline.lucas...@parliament.uk caroline.lucas...@parliament.uk, 
 ucas...@parliament.uk ucas...@parliament.uk, paul.uppal...@parliament.uk
 paul.uppal...@parliament.uk, martin.caton...@parliament.uk 
 martin.caton...@parliament.uk, whitehe...@parliament.uk 
 whitehe...@parliament.uk, cla...@parliament.uk cla...@parliament.uk, 
 perciv...@parliament.uk perciv...@parliament.uk, 
 sher...@sheryllmurray.com sher...@sheryllmurray.com, 
 sheryll.murray...@parliament.uk sheryll.murray...@parliament.uk, 
 off...@simonwright.org.uk off...@simonwright.org.uk, 
 simon.wright...@parliament.uk simon.wright...@parliament.uk, 
 rich...@richardbenyon.com rich...@richardbenyon.com, 
 richard.benyon...@parliament.uk richard.benyon...@parliament.uk, 
 m...@marklazarowicz.org.uk m...@marklazarowicz.org.uk, 
 mark.spencer...@parliament.uk mark.spencer...@parliament.uk, Lenton,
 Timothy t.m.len...@exeter.ac.uk, p...@damtp.cam.ac.uk 
 p...@damtp.cam.ac.uk, John Latham john.latha...@manchester.ac.uk, 
 s.sal...@ed.ac.uk s.sal...@ed.ac.uk, a...@env.leeds.ac.uk 
 a...@env.leeds.ac.uk, Brian Launder brian.laun...@manchester.ac.uk, 
 tom.choular...@manchester.ac.uk tom.choular...@manchester.ac.uk



  Subject: Environmental Audit Inquiry - comments to the Members

  Dear Members of the the Environmental Audit Inquiry
  We understand that you will be considering an evidence session titled
  Protecting the Arctic on Tuesday 21st February.

  There is a mounting evidence that significant changes are occurring in
  the Arctic and we are pleased that your Committee is considering this in
  detail.  However, we would like to stress that whilst such indicators of
  rapid change are a major cause for concern, implementing any
  geoengineering approach to adjust an Arctic warming on the basis of its
  undemonstrated, causal effects on rapid Arctic change should not be
  considered at this time. Any such scheme needs to have its concepts
  rigorously challenged and then undergo rigorous, peer reviewed testing
  and scrutiny before any consideration of its use takes place.
  Systematic, deliberate modification of climate is, itself, likely to
  have effects on global weather systems, including large scale changes to
  regional rainfall.  Such changes have been shown to occur in climate
  model simulations but as the key processes remain poorly understood at
  the present time, the climate models, our only predictive tools, are at
  present unable to provide a reliable means of quantifying the magnitude
  of the changes that may occur.  Until this can be done and the balance
  of risks be well understood we strongly urge that a geoengineering
  solution of any kind is not to taken forward to address changing Arctic
  temperatures.

  Nevertheless, the increased evidence that such major changes may occur
  and the lack of progress in mitigating CO2 induced climate change means
  that investing in research into the viability of geoengineering is both
  very important and timely.  Furthermore, it is important that Government
  does support the area, as the evidence base needs to be considered free
  from vested interests.

  We thankyou for your considerating our short note
  yours sincerely

  Professor John Latham, UCAR, Boulder, USA
  Professor Tom Choularton, University of Manchester
  Professor Brian Launder, FRS, University of Manchester
  Professor Hugh Coe, University of Manchester
  Stephen Salter, University of Edinburgh
  Dr Alan Gadian, University of Leeds- Hide quoted text -

 - Show quoted text -

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
geoengineering group.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.

[geo] Re: more on CBD: geoengineering impacts and regulatory framework

[Josh Horton]

I finally had a chance to take another look at the regulatory study.
I think this is an improvement compared to earlier versions, portions
of which came across as ideological and one-sided.  Maybe some of the
comments helped to restore some neutrality.  In any event, this is a
more balanced document than previous iterations.

I had a similar reaction to the section on the precautionary principle
(KM-8) flagged by Ken; here are the comments I submitted on that
point:

The first sentence of KM-8 states “the implications of its [the
precautionary principle] application to geo-engineering may be
unclear,” but should read “the implications of its application to geo-
engineering are unclear.”  Disagreement on these implications is well-
established and widely recognized, and using the words “may be”
unfairly biases the key message against the view that geoengineering
is warranted by the precautionary principle.

Similarly, the last sentence states “an interpretation in support of
geo-engineering or pursuing further geo-engineering research would not
be evidently contrary to the wording,” but should instead read “an
interpretation in support of geo-engineering or pursuing further geo-
engineering research is also consistent with the wording.”  The phrase
“would not be evidently contrary to” is inelegant and suggests that
geoengineering may be implicitly contrary to the wording, which again
clearly biases the key message against geoengineering.

The precautionary principle has two legitimate interpretations in this
context, neither one of which is objectively “true.”  This key message
and the broader study should remain neutral on this point.


Josh Horton
joshuahorton...@gmail.com
http://geoengineeringpolitics.blogspot.com/


On Jan 30, 3:59 am, Ken Caldeira kcalde...@carnegie.stanford.edu
wrote:
 It should be noted that the CBD is requesting input on two different
 documents, on on geoengineering impacts and one of regulatory
 framework.Documents and instructions are 
 here:http://www.cbd.int/climate/geoengineering/review/

 -
 *
 *My main issue with CBD statements on this matter (see 'regulatory
 framework' document, paragraph KM-8) is implications drawn from the
 following sentence:*

 **Under the CBD, the precautionary approach has been introduced recognizing
 that “where there is a threat of significant reduction or loss of
 biological diversity, lack of full scientific certainty should not be used
 as a reason for postponing measures to avoid or minimize such a threat”. *

 Many people believe that temperature increases resulting from greenhouse
 gas emissions pose a threat of significant reduction or loss of biological
 diversity, perhaps most acutely for Arctic ecosystems.

 Various people have proposed deploying 'geoengineering' measures to avoid
 or minimize the threat that greenhouse gases pose to these ecosystems.
 Should the lack of full scientific certainty be used as a reason to
 postpone deploying these measures?

 Is the most cautious course of action self-evident? Which is being more
 cautious: artificially keeping the Arctic cool vs. letting the Arctic melt?

 Lack of full scientific certainty is a reason I would give for wanting to
 postpone such action.

 With respect to the threat that Arctic melting poses for Arctic
 biodiversity, some in the CBD are apparently arguing that we should be
 postponing
 measures to avoid or minimize such a threat”, based on a statement about
 not postponing such measures.

 

 In some readings, the 'precautionary approach' is encapsulated in the
 concept that if one cannot assure a positive outcome, one should not act.
 However, life is a gamble and every action (or inaction) entails risk. The
 best thing we as a society can do is to try to create bets where the odds
 are in our favor, and then bet sensibly.

 From my perspective, the odds offered by deployment aerosol-based
 geoengineering proposals do not yet look all that attractive. In the
 future, it is possible the odds may look different.

 ___
 Ken Caldeira

 Carnegie Institution Dept of Global Ecology
 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA
 +1 650 704 7212 
 kcalde...@carnegie.stanford.eduhttp://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab @kencaldeira

 *YouTube:*
 Crop yields in a geoengineered
 climatehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-0LCXNoIu-c
 Influence of sea cucumbers on a coral reef CaCO3
 budgethttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-FSd4zy8iMo

  draft-study-impacts-geoengineering-second-review-en.docx
 3109KViewDownload

  draft-study-regulatory-framework-geoengineering-second-review-en.docx
 218KViewDownload

  template-comments-geoeng-study-impacts-en.doc
 58KViewDownload

  template-comments-geoeng-study-regulatory-en.doc
 73KViewDownload

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
geoengineering group.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
geoengineering

[geo] Re: Facebook

[Josh Horton]

Ken's right, the Facebook group is an official extension of the CBD-
sponsored Climate Frontlines forum on geoengineering for indigenous
peoples and local communities.  (Climate Frontlines is sponsored by
UNESCO.)  We'd do well to keep an eye on the proceedings.  I've been
monitoring the Climate Frontlines comments section, and haven't seen
anything too egregious yet.

As a reminder, all of this is intended to feed into the current CBD
review and consultation process.

Josh

On Feb 10, 6:20 am, Ken Caldeira kcalde...@carnegie.stanford.edu
wrote:
 Seems to be created by this group:  http://www.climatefrontlines.org/
 *
 A global forum for indigenous peoples, small islands and vulnerable
 communities*

 You can read more about this here:

 http://www.handsoffmotherearth.org/2012/02/online-discussion-forum-fo...

 Josh Horton pointed to this in a posting to this group on Feb 3, referring
 to a somewhat more neutral source:

 http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering/browse_thread/thread/17...

 ___
 Ken Caldeira

 Carnegie Institution Dept of Global Ecology
 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA
 +1 650 704 7212 
 kcalde...@carnegie.stanford.eduhttp://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab @kencaldeira

 *YouTube:*
 Crop yields in a geoengineered
 climatehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-0LCXNoIu-c
 Influence of sea cucumbers on a coral reef CaCO3
 budgethttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-FSd4zy8iMo

 On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 2:58 AM, Andrew Lockley 
 and...@andrewlockley.comwrote:



  There's a Facebook group called 'Engineering the climate? What impacts?
  What benefits?'

  It seems to be a more international and cross cultural perspective than
  this group, with multilingual postings.

  I've joined

  A

  --
  You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
  geoengineering group.
  To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
  To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
  geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
  For more options, visit this group at
 http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.- Hide quoted text -

 - Show quoted text -

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
geoengineering group.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.

[geo] CBD Online Discussion Forum – Please Take Note

[Josh Horton]

Hi Group,

The CBD Secretariat has announced an online discussion forum for
indigenous and local communities to talk about geoengineering (see
notification and links below).  This forum is intended to tie directly
into the draft scientific report currently under review, which in turn
will inform the CBD's more general reconsideration of its moratorium
on geoengineering activities later this year.  ETC Group/HOME have
identified this forum as an opportunity to influence the debate, and
have alerted partner organizations accordingly.  Given the process by
which the CBD moratorium was imposed, and the questionable tactics
used by some opponents of geoengineering research, I encourage
everyone to monitor this forum closely, and to contest any inaccurate
or misleading statements that might be made.  It is important that the
conversation among indigenous peoples, small island states, and local
communities proceeds in an open and honest manner, free from
distortions and undue outside influences.


http://www.cbd.int/doc/notifications/2012/ntf-2012-021-8j-en.pdf

http://www.climatefrontlines.org/

N O T I F I CAT I O N
Online Discussion Forum for Indigenous and Local Communities
on the possible impacts of geo-engineering techniques on biodiversity
and associated social, economic and cultural considerations
Dear Madam/Sir,
The tenth meeting of the Conference of the Parties (COP) to the
Convention on Biological
Diversity (CBD) adopted decision X/33, which includes the issue of
climate-related geo-engineering as it
relates to the achievement of the objectives of the CBD. The relevant
paragraphs are annexed.
In particular, the Executive Secretary was requested to compile and
synthesize available scientific
information, and views and experiences of indigenous and local
communities and other stakeholders, on
the possible impacts of geo-engineering techniques on biodiversity and
associated social, economic and
cultural considerations, and options on definitions and understandings
of climate-related geo-engineering
relevant to the CBD; and to make it available for consideration at the
meeting of the Subsidiary Body on
Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice (SBSTTA), 30 April - 5
May 2012, Montreal, Canada, as
well as COP 11 .
In order to assist with this, I have the pleasure to inform you that
an Online Discussion Forum on
the possible impacts of geo-engineering techniques on biodiversity and
associated social, economic and
cultural considerations for indigenous and local communities will be
held from 2 February to 2 March
2012 through the Climate Frontlines Online Forum
(www.climatefrontlines.org ).
The Climate Frontlines online forum is an electronic participation
tool developed by UNESCO,
in partnership with Secretariat of the CBD, the Secretariat of the
United Nations Permanent Forum on
Indigenous Issues and the Office of the High Commissioner for Human
Rights, to draw attention to
community level observations of climate change and to strengthen the
voices of vulnerable communities
in global climate change debates.
In order to participate, please visit the Climate Frontlines online
forum link on geo-engineering at
www.climatefrontlines.org. An abstract has been posted to the web-page
in order to provide context and
stimulate discussion. Participants, particularly those not familiar
with the issue, may also wish to read the
draft background studies at http://www.cbd.int/climate/geoengineering/review/.
Participants are
encouraged to register in advance by contacting Ms Jennifer Rubis at
j.ru...@unesco.org .
I wish to invite all National Focal Points, indigenous and local
community organizations, nongovernmental
organizations, academics, other interested parties, and in particular
indigenous and local
communities and their representatives to participate in the
discussions.
I thank you in advance for your participation and for your continued
support to the work of the
Convention.
Please accept, Madam/Sir, the assurances of my highest consideration.
Ahmed Djoghlaf
Executive Secretary



Josh Horton
joshuahorton...@gmail.com
http://geoengineeringpolitics.blogspot.com/

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
geoengineering group.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.

[geo] Re: CBD report on geoengineering and biodiversity

[Josh Horton]

Just a quick note on process - please make sure you use the official
template available at the address below to submit your comments - this
is the only way to ensure they will reach the CBD Secretariat.

http://www.cbd.int/climate/geoengineering/review/

Josh

On Feb 1, 3:33 am, Chris chris.viv...@cefas.co.uk wrote:
 Wit reference to the text on climate change threats to species
 extinction:

 *Climate change poses an increasingly severe range of threats to
 biodiversity and ecosystem services, with ~10% of species estimated to
 be
 at risk of extinction for every 1⁰C rise in global mean temperature.*

 This text in the main part of the report is referenced to a CBD
 Technical Report 'Connecting Biodiversity and Climate Change:
 Mitigation and Adaptation' Report of the Second Ad Hoc Technical
 Expert Group on Biodiversity and Climate Change, CBD Technical Series
 report No. 41. However, when you look into that report you find that
 the text derives from IPCC AR4! The text in the CBD report reads:

 *Information in Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental
 Panel on Climate Change
 (IPCC AR4) suggests that approximately 10% of species assessed so far
 will be at an increasingly
 high risk of extinction for every 1°C rise in global mean temperature,
 within the range of future
 scenarios modelled in impacts assessments (typically 5°C global
 temperature rise).*

 Chris Vivian
 chris.viv...@cefas.co.uk

 On Jan 27, 5:38 pm, Ken Caldeira kcalde...@carnegie.stanford.edu
 wrote:



  On a quick read, it seems mostly sensible.  A few points (which I should
  make formally):

  *Climate change poses an increasingly severe range of threats to
  biodiversity and ecosystem services, with ~10% of species estimated to be
  at risk of extinction for every 1⁰C rise in global mean temperature.*

  My guess is that this statement is hard to support empirically. The
  argument would need to be about rates of change and not amounts of change.
  For example, we did not see 30 to 50% of species going extinct as a result
  of the 3 to 5 C warming coming out of the last glacial. This statement
  might be more supportable if it were phrased in terms of rates of change
  (e.g., for every 1 C per century increase in the rate of warming) which
  was probably implicit in the minds of the writers.

  *Enhanced weathering would involve large-scale mining and transportation of
  carbonate and silicate rocks, and the spreading of solid or liquid
  materials on land or sea with major impacts on terrestrial and coastal
  ecosystems and, in some techniques, locally excessive alkalinity in marine
  systems.*

  I do not know of any evidence that spreading carbonate or silicate minerals
  in the land or sea would have major impacts on terrestrial and coastal
  ecosystems. Those of us who have considered using such approaches to
  ameliorate effects of ocean acidification on coastal communities have been
  somewhat dismayed at the difficulty of obtaining significant impact on
  coastal ecosystems -- impacts, by the way, that are anticipated to be
  beneficial to these ecosystems.  The authors could echo the language from
  the afforestation bullet -- i.e., impacts (postitive and negative) would
  depend on the method and scale of implementation.

  *Ocean storage of biomass (e.g. crop residues) would likely have negative
  impacts on biodiversity.*

  I do not know of any evidence to support this contention. While it could be
  true, I would guess that adoption of this approach would make the seafloor
  a more heterogeneous place and bring food to the seafloor. Both of these
  things could increase biodiversity. That said, we should not fall into the
  trap of thinking that more biodiversity is necessarily good. Introduced
  species often increase local biodiversity. The issue is helping natural
  ecosystems to persist, not increasing biodiversity.

  *The very fact that the international community is presented with
  geo-engineering as a potential option to be further explored is a major
  social and cultural issue*.* *

  Is this intended to be an empirically testable statement? If so, how do I
  determine what is a major social and cultural issue? War, poverty, justice,
  freedom, geoengineering?

  *Climate change could be addressed by a rapid and significant reduction in
  greenhouse gas emissions through a transition to a low-carbon economy with
  overall positive impacts on biodiversity. Measures to achieve such a
  transition would avoid the adverse impacts of climate change on biodiversity
  *.

  Even with a hypothetical rapid transition, much more climate change is in
  the pipeline. Should read: Measures to achieve such a transition would
  REDUCE adverse impacts of climate change on biodiversity. 

  *The deployment of geo-engineering techniques, if feasible and effective,
  could reduce some aspects of climate change and its impacts on
  biodiversity. At the same time, geo-engineering techniques are associated
  with 

[geo] Soil Carbon Sequestration

[Josh Horton]

Carbon farming continues to gain momentum ...

http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTCARBONFINANCE/Resources/New_Soil_Carbon_Methodology_Approved.pdf

New Soil Carbon Methodology Approved
World Bank and partners help smallholder farmers increase
productivity and revenue
Washington, January 30, 2012 –A new methodology to encourage
smallholder farmers in Kenya –
and potentially worldwide -- to adopt improved farming techniques,
boost productivity, increase
their resilience to climate change, and earn carbon credits, has been
given international approval.
The Verified Carbon Standard approved this first methodology on soil
carbon, a new approach
for sustainable agricultural land management (SALM) practices. The
methodology was
developed by the World Bank for the Smallholder Agriculture Carbon
Finance Project run by the
non-governmental organization Vi Agroforestry in western Kenya. The
pilot, involving more
than 60,000 smallholders who are farming 45,000 hectares of land, is
run together with
smallholder farmers and supported by the World Bank’s BioCarbon Fund.
Farmers in western Kenya experience the dire effects of climate change
first hand every day,
through drought and the decline of soil fertility that can be so
severe as to seriously threaten their
livelihoods.
“Our aim is to combat erosion and enrich degraded soil,” said Bo
Lager, Programme Director,
Vi Agroforestry. “The project farmers are increasing soil carbon and
organic matter through
mulching, cover crops, manure and plant waste management.”
These measures improve soil water infiltration and holding capacity,
as well as nutrient supply
and soil biodiversity. Better soils raise farm yields and incomes,
improving food security, and
should make agriculture more resilient to climate change. Further SALM
techniques such as less
plowing also reduce the release of carbon dioxide. “Smallholders can
earn carbon credits for
that,” added Lager. “Carbon finance helps make the project financially
sustainable.”
“Given the limited leverage of carbon finance for the agricultural
sector to date, this is an
important step in promoting linkages between agricultural
productivity, adaptation and climate
change mitigation,” said Joëlle Chassard, Manager of the World Bank’s
Carbon Finance Unit.
“The SALM methodology is a major step forward”, said Professor Pete
Smith, a Convening
Lead Author for the IPCC, based at Aberdeen University, UK. “Most
importantly, it extends
carbon finance to smallholders. It also enables cost-effective
monitoring of soil productivity
improvements, which can be particularly difficult across remote farms
in developing countries.”
“Carbon solutions need to be easily scalable, which requires broadly
applicable methodologies
and robust finance mechanisms”, pointed out Mike Robinson, Chief
Science Advisor at the
Syngenta Foundation for Sustainable Agriculture, a contributor to the
World Bank’s
BioCarbon Fund. “We see considerable potential for SALM replication
across Africa and
beyond.”
“The validation of this new methodology by the VCS is an important
achievement and a first step
to demonstrate the potential of carbon finance for rural development.
Soil carbon is of
fundamental importance not only to soil fertility, sustainable
agriculture and the development of
rural populations, particularly in Africa, but it is also strategic
for climate chage mitigation,”
said Jean-Luc François, Manager of the agriculture, rural development
and biodiversity
division at the Agence française de développement.


Josh Horton

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
geoengineering group.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.

[geo] Re: Crop yields in a geoengineered climate (notes from the blogosphere ...)

[Josh Horton]

I am traveling and have not had a chance to read the Pongratz article
closely yet, but it looks like the comparison is between a control
scenario, a 2xCO2 world, and a 2xCO2 + stratospheric aerosols world.
This is common practice, and the analytical logic is clear, however
presenting model runs this way plays into the hands of critics who
mischaracterize the policy choice as between mitigation and
geoengineering.  Opponents point to these results and portray
researchers as supporting geoengineering as an alternative to
mitigation - or else why wouldn't emissions cuts be represented in
the models?  Couldn't modelers include mixed mitigation/
geoengineering scenarios as a routine feature of such studies, to make
it harder for critics to misrepresent things?  After all, almost no
one is arguing for intervention without emissions cuts.

Josh Horton
joshuahorton...@gmail.com
http://geoengineeringpolitics.blogspot.com/


On Jan 24, 4:09 pm, rongretlar...@comcast.net wrote:
 Ken and list:

 1. I have enjoyed the Pongratz article sent recently which is the subject 
 of this NPR interview given below. In it, Dr. Pongratz, you and your 
 co-authors did a pretty good job of separating SRM from Geoengineering. 
 (I don't think the phrase CDR appeared, however) This is to again hope that 
 all authors doing fine work like yours at Carnegie go out of their way to say 
 that Geoengineering has both SRM and CDR parts.
 like
 2. The NPR interview below does not do that at all. Fortunately the other two 
 (bitsof science and smartplanet) do at least use the terms SRM and 
 sunshade. All of them fail to mention that CDR is a second (and much less 
 controversial) part of Geoengineering.

 3. I mention this mainly because your Carnegie team is (I think correctly) 
 not arguing for any SRM at this time. However, there are many on this list 
 who think we are ready now for an accelerated push on CDR.

 4. I also have hopes that your modeling work can be extended into the CDR 
 world. We need such modeling - urgently.

 As previously, thanks for alerting us - and (especially) making your Carnegie 
 papers available - to the list.

 Ron



 - Original Message -
 From: Ken Caldeira kcalde...@carnegie.stanford.edu
 To: geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.com
 Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2012 9:59:00 AM
 Subject: [geo] Crop yields in a geoengineered climate (notes from the 
 blogosphere ...)

 Some coverage in the blogosphere of our recent paper from Nature Climate 
 Change (attached):

 http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2012/01/20/145535536/geoengineered-f...
 Geoengineered Food? Climate Fix Could Boost Crop Yields, But With Risks

 For a few years now, a handful of scientists have been proposing grandiose 
 technological fixes for the world's climate to combat the effects of global 
 warming — schemes called geoengineering .

 Climate change has the potential to wreak all kinds of havoc on the planet, 
 including the food system. Scientists predict that two variables farmers 
 depend on heavily — temperature and precipitation — are already changing and 
 affecting food production in some arid parts of the world where there isn't a 
 lot of room for error. And if the problem worsens on a larger scale, it could 
 do a lot of damage to agricultural yields and food security.

 At some point, governments may decide to do something desperate to protect 
 our food and our people, Ken Caldeira , an environmental scientist at 
 Stanford University, tells The Salt. And that something desperate could be 
 geoengineering.

 One proposal scientists are batting around is to fill the upper atmosphere 
 with tiny particles that could scatter sunlight before it reaches, and warms, 
 the Earth's surface. Sulfate droplets inside volcanic ash clouds already do 
 this naturally. So the idea is that a few million tons of sulfates, sprayed 
 into the stratosphere by airplanes, could produce the same effect 
 artificially.

 Scientists have been messing with local weather for decades. China does it 
 all the time, most infamously during the 2008 Olympics . But around 2006, the 
 notion of doing it on a global scale got more traction, especially when Nobel 
 laureate Paul Crutzen got behind it . A backlash ensued, as many pointed out 
 that tampering with such a complex system was far too risky.

 Caldeira began studying geoengineering with the intent of proving that it's a 
 bad idea. But his new research suggests that manipulating the climate could 
 actually produce benefits, at least for food production. For instance: a 
 study from his lab, published Sunday in Nature Climate Change , compares the 
 effect on the global food supply of unmitigated global warming versus 
 geoengineering.

 The result? Crop yields of wheat, rice and corn would actually get a boost 
 from geoengineering.

 Julia Pongratz , a post-doc researcher, led the study. She used computer 
 climate models to simulate a doubling of carbon dioxide levels

[geo] Big News on Criegee Biradicals?

[Josh Horton]

From Reuters ...

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/12/us-molecule-climate-idUSTRE80B1U820120112

New molecule could help cool planet

By Nina Chestney
LONDON | Thu Jan 12, 2012 2:02pm EST
(Reuters) - A new molecule has been detected in the earth's atmosphere
which could help produce a cooling effect, scientists said, but it
remains to be seen whether it can play a major role in tackling global
warming.

The molecule can convert pollutants, such as nitrogen dioxide and
sulphur dioxide, into compounds which can lead to cloud formation,
helping to shield the earth from the sun, the researchers said.

Over the past century, the earth's average temperature has risen by
0.8 degrees Celsius. Scientists say the increase must be limited to
below two degrees Celsius this century to prevent rising sea levels
and other unwelcome consequences.

But mainstream ways of curbing warming, such as renewable power and
energy efficiency, are not delivering results fast enough.

In a paper published in the journal Science on Thursday, researchers
from the Universities of Manchester and Bristol, and the U.S.-based
Sandia National Laboratories detected the new molecules, called
Criegee biradicals, using a powerful light source 100 million times
stronger than the sun.

We found the biradicals could oxidise sulfur dioxide, which
eventually turns into sulphuric acid, which has a known cooling
effect, Carl Percival, one of the study's authors and a reader in
atmospheric chemistry at the University of Manchester, told Reuters.

However, it is too early to predict how many molecules would have to
be formed to make a substantial impact on the world's temperature and
their safety would have to be tested.

The effects of cloud formation on the climate are also still far from
understood.

COOLING OFF

When Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines erupted in 1991 it released
huge amounts of sulphur dioxide, which formed a haze of sulphuric
acid. This reduced the amount of sunlight which was able to reach the
earth by about 10 percent, lowering global temperatures by around 0.5
degrees Celsius over two years.

However, high concentrations of sulphur dioxide injected into the
atmosphere by large explosions could also cause lung ailments, acid
rain, and the depletion of the earth's protective ozone layer.

The biradicals themselves are not a geo-engineering candidate,
Percival said, referring to radical ways of cooling the planet down,
such as artificial volcanoes or whitening the clouds to make them
reflect more sunlight.

The molecules detected by the research team occur naturally in the
presence of alkenes, chemical compounds which are mostly released by
plants.

Plants will release these compounds, make the biradicals and end up
making sulphuric acid, so in effect the ecosystem can negate the
warming effect by producing these cooling aerosols, Percival said.

The greatest cooling effect could be potentially felt in areas where
there are high concentrations of both alkenes and pollutants, which
enable the biradicals to react.

(The effect) would really kick in hot spots like Hong Kong or
Singapore, Percival said.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
geoengineering group.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.

[geo] Re: more clarity on the questions surrounding Arctic methane.

[Josh Horton]

Andy,

Thanks for posting this communication from Semiletov and Shakhova -
they clearly urge caution when interpreting their findings:

We would first note that we have never stated that the reason for the
currently observed methane emissions were due to recent climate
change.

We have been working in this scientific field and this region for a
decade. We understand its complexity more than anyone.

All models must be validated by observations. New data obtained in
our 2011 cruise and other unpublished data give us a clue to
reevaluate if the scale of methane releases from the East Siberian
Arctic Shelf seabed is assessed correctly (papers are now in
preparation). This is how science works: step by step, from hypothesis
based on limited data and logic to expanded observations in order to
gain more facts that could equally prove or disprove the hypothesis.
We would urge people to consider this process, not jump to conclusions
and be open to the idea that new observations may significantly change
what we understand about our world.

None of this means methane plumes aren't a serious problem, but their
comments hardly support near-term Arctic deployment.

Josh Horton
joshuahorton...@gmail.com



On Dec 27, 5:13 pm, Andrew Revkin rev...@gmail.com wrote:
 The researchers who've been out in the slushy waters off Siberia have
 offered some clarity after a lot of media torquing.

 December 27, 2011, *12:54 PM*Leaders of Arctic Methane Project Clarify
 Climate 
 Concernshttp://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/27/leaders-of-arctic-methan...
 By ANDREW C. REVKINhttp://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/author/andrew-c-revkin/

 I’ve been in touch with Natalia
 Shakhovahttp://www.iarc.uaf.edu/people/nshakhova
  and Igor Semiletov http://www.iarc.uaf.edu/people/igorsm, the intrepid
 Russian researchers, based at the International Arctic Research Center in
 Fairbanks, Alaska, who for more than a decade have been leading an
 important international projecthttp://research.iarc.uaf.edu//index.php
  analyzing methane plumes rising from the
 seabedhttp://www.nsf.gov/news/news_images.jsp?cntn_id=116532org=NSF
 in
 the shallow Arctic waters spreading north from eastern Siberian shores.
 (Here’s video of
 Shakhovahttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eD8hU-lbqpEfeature=player_embedded#!
 describing
 the methane releases and their work.)

 As I wrote 
 recentlyhttp://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/14/methane-time-bomb-in-arc...,
 “Given that methane, molecule for molecule, has at least 20 times the
 heat-trapping properties of carbon dioxide, it’s important to get a handle
 on whether these are new releases, the first foretaste of some great
 outburst from thawing sea-bed stores of the gas, or simply a longstanding
 phenomenon newly observed.”

 After their expedition this summer, Shakhova and Semiletov presented their
 latest observations at the American Geophysical Union fall
 meetinghttp://sites.agu.org/fallmeeting/media-center/virtual-newsroom/
 in
 San Francisco early this month, describing vastly larger methane releases
 in the mid-outer continental shelf than they had seen before in shallower
 water, leading to a fresh burst of
 headlineshttp://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/shock-as-retr...
 about
 risks of runaway warming.

 Shakhova and Semiletov, whose earlier analysis of methane in the
 regionhttp://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=116532
  was published in
 Sciencehttp://www.sciencemag.org/content/327/5970/1246.abstract last
 year, had been unavailable for comment when I was preparing my piece, as
 they had gone on vacation shortly after their presentation. When they were
 back on the grid they got my e-mail inquiries and saw the post. Their
 response clarifies their differences with other research groups and
 emphasizes the importance of critically evaluating scientific findings
 before rushing to conclusions, either alarming or reassuring. One clear
 message, which I endorse, is the need to sustain the kind of fieldwork
 they’re doing.

 Whether the issue is tracking Arctic methane or American stream
 flowshttp://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/08/29/irenes-rain-impacts-come...,
 there’s a vital need for sustained, consistent observations, but —
 unfortunately — there’s a two-edged bias against such investments, given
 the appeal of focusing on science’s frontiers and the tendency to target
 monitoring programs — which are akin to bridge
 maintenancehttp://ascelibrary.org/proceedings/resource/2/ascecp/421/41186/27_1?i...
 —
 when looking to cut budgets. That’s all fine until the bridge groans and
 buckles, of course.

 Here is the contribution from Semiletov and Shakhova: Read
 more…http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/27/leaders-of-arctic-methan...

 *
 *

 *_*
 *
 *
 ANDREW C. REVKIN
 Dot Earth blogger, The New York Timeshttp://www.nytimes.com/dotearth
 Senior Fellow, Pace Acad. for Applied Env. Studies
 Cell: 914-441-5556 Fax: 914-989-8009
 Twitter: @revkin Skype: Andrew.Revkin

-- 
You

[geo] Re: UK Independent: Russian team shocked at scale of methane plumes

[Josh Horton]

 indicator at all of the seriousness of what is
 going on. It certainly is indisputable that hydrate release could
 become devastating, and the leading experts keep finding larger and
 larger plumes as they keep looking - simply put, if those are caused
 by the contemporary local conditions, then that's a feedback loop, and
 then their increase constitutes grounds for considering it the
 beginnings of a potential runaway situation.

 The kind of thing I was proposing could hardly create some
 frankenclimate, and is no different than what is allowed to go on
 all over the planet all the time. Since it is relatively harmless, and
 the fear is of something catastrophic, it seems like an obvious sense
 of prudence to act - and sooner rather than later.

 Nathan

 On Dec 18, 6:30 pm, Josh Horton joshuahorton...@gmail.com wrote:



  Nathan, John, et al.,

  One aspect of the methane issue bothers me in particular: is there
  evidence indicating a significant increase in the rate of methane
  release in the ESAS over the past decade?  Anecdotal evidence from the
  most recent Russian expedition suggests an increased rate of release,
  but hard data will not be available until next spring.  Such data may
  have been included in the recent Shakhova et al. AGU poster, but so
  far I have been unable to obtain it.

  Were comparable measurements taken at identical locations in 2003-2008
  (basis for the initial findings) and in 2011 (basis for recent
  Semiletov comments)?  Was there a significant increase in the volume
  of methane released at these locations over these periods?  If so, is
  such an increase inconsistent with the Dmitrenko thaw hypothesis
  (noted by Andy Revkin)?  Until we have answers to these questions, I
  hesitate to jump to any conclusions.  Maybe you have information I
  have overlooked?

  Josh Horton
  joshuahorton...@gmail.comhttp://geoengineeringpolitics.blogspot.com/

  On Dec 18, 4:06 pm, Nathan Currier natcurr...@gmail.com wrote:

   Hi, John  list –

   Until now, my view has generally been that we should try like crazy to
   get
   some rapid SLCF declines, by promoting a separate near-term-focused
   emissions strategy,
   in an attempt to blunt accelerating arctic methane emissions, while at
   the same time
   researching geoengineering techniques, which would probably still be
   needed at some point later
   down the road. The hope was that the need could be pushed a few
   decades off, if a strong
   CH4/BC program – something considerably stronger than the GMF or the
   GMI –
   were started up soon enough.

   But I am now coming more and more to your position, John – I now think
   that a local-scale
   intervention should probably be pursued as quickly as possible. I
   still believe that everyone
   interested in the goals of this list should also be thinking about how
   SLCF reduction can
   somehow be expedited, since it is ultimately the cheapest, safest -RF
   there is, in that every
   dollar spent on it goes at the same time both to solving our long-term
   climate problem
   (and is thus in any case essential), and also mitigates the immediate
   “feedback crisis”
   we are increasingly in, to use Wasdell’s apt term.

   But I would have to agree that it is now becoming more and more
   rational to want to
   act right away, albeit on a local scale. Moreover, those promoting the
   views of
   ‘nay-sayer’ scientists on ESAS dangers, like Andy Revkin at the NYT,
   are starting
   to look less and less rational, almost desperate, and reading his post
   of a few days ago,
   linked below, in fact only convinced me that his attitude is really no
   longer tenable.

  http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/14/methane-time-bomb-in-arc...

   A year and a half earlier, Revkin had a post of much the same gist:

  http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/05/the-heat-over-bubbling-a...

   I’m not sure how Ed Dlugokensky and Euan Nisbet really feel about
   being used to promote complacency
   about this now, as Euan Nisbet has long been concerned about it
   (although very wary of any geoengineering),
   and I gather from powerpoints of Dlugokensky I have seen that he
   really is, too.

   To summarize, the key justifications for this “don’t worry about it”
   attitude on ESAS methane emissions have
   been and still are:

   1. the methane plumes might not be new, merely newly observed.

   2. these emissions still count for but a small fraction of the global
   methane budget.

   3. the driver of these emissions is actually not contemporary warming,
   but adjustment of the underlying
   hydrate stability zone to the re-submergence of the shelf ~8,000/ya.

   First, 2. brings  pretty cold comfort, like telling someone that a
   tumor growing in them is still
   but a tiny fraction of their body weight. It’s almost irrelevant. If
   they intend to 'wait and see' until arctic methane
   emissions perhaps ARE a substantial fraction of all global natural
   emissions

[geo] Re: UK Independent: Russian team shocked at scale of methane plumes

[Josh Horton]

Nathan, John, et al.,

One aspect of the methane issue bothers me in particular: is there
evidence indicating a significant increase in the rate of methane
release in the ESAS over the past decade?  Anecdotal evidence from the
most recent Russian expedition suggests an increased rate of release,
but hard data will not be available until next spring.  Such data may
have been included in the recent Shakhova et al. AGU poster, but so
far I have been unable to obtain it.

Were comparable measurements taken at identical locations in 2003-2008
(basis for the initial findings) and in 2011 (basis for recent
Semiletov comments)?  Was there a significant increase in the volume
of methane released at these locations over these periods?  If so, is
such an increase inconsistent with the Dmitrenko thaw hypothesis
(noted by Andy Revkin)?  Until we have answers to these questions, I
hesitate to jump to any conclusions.  Maybe you have information I
have overlooked?

Josh Horton
joshuahorton...@gmail.com
http://geoengineeringpolitics.blogspot.com/


On Dec 18, 4:06 pm, Nathan Currier natcurr...@gmail.com wrote:
 Hi, John  list –

 Until now, my view has generally been that we should try like crazy to
 get
 some rapid SLCF declines, by promoting a separate near-term-focused
 emissions strategy,
 in an attempt to blunt accelerating arctic methane emissions, while at
 the same time
 researching geoengineering techniques, which would probably still be
 needed at some point later
 down the road. The hope was that the need could be pushed a few
 decades off, if a strong
 CH4/BC program – something considerably stronger than the GMF or the
 GMI –
 were started up soon enough.

 But I am now coming more and more to your position, John – I now think
 that a local-scale
 intervention should probably be pursued as quickly as possible. I
 still believe that everyone
 interested in the goals of this list should also be thinking about how
 SLCF reduction can
 somehow be expedited, since it is ultimately the cheapest, safest -RF
 there is, in that every
 dollar spent on it goes at the same time both to solving our long-term
 climate problem
 (and is thus in any case essential), and also mitigates the immediate
 “feedback crisis”
 we are increasingly in, to use Wasdell’s apt term.

 But I would have to agree that it is now becoming more and more
 rational to want to
 act right away, albeit on a local scale. Moreover, those promoting the
 views of
 ‘nay-sayer’ scientists on ESAS dangers, like Andy Revkin at the NYT,
 are starting
 to look less and less rational, almost desperate, and reading his post
 of a few days ago,
 linked below, in fact only convinced me that his attitude is really no
 longer tenable.

 http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/14/methane-time-bomb-in-arc...

 A year and a half earlier, Revkin had a post of much the same gist:

 http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/05/the-heat-over-bubbling-a...

 I’m not sure how Ed Dlugokensky and Euan Nisbet really feel about
 being used to promote complacency
 about this now, as Euan Nisbet has long been concerned about it
 (although very wary of any geoengineering),
 and I gather from powerpoints of Dlugokensky I have seen that he
 really is, too.

 To summarize, the key justifications for this “don’t worry about it”
 attitude on ESAS methane emissions have
 been and still are:

 1. the methane plumes might not be new, merely newly observed.

 2. these emissions still count for but a small fraction of the global
 methane budget.

 3. the driver of these emissions is actually not contemporary warming,
 but adjustment of the underlying
 hydrate stability zone to the re-submergence of the shelf ~8,000/ya.

 First, 2. brings  pretty cold comfort, like telling someone that a
 tumor growing in them is still
 but a tiny fraction of their body weight. It’s almost irrelevant. If
 they intend to 'wait and see' until arctic methane
 emissions perhaps ARE a substantial fraction of all global natural
 emissions, they would clearly be waiting too long.
 The relevant questions are whether the tumor is growing, how fast it
 is growing, and what is driving the growth.

 Let’s say highly organized observations are only a half-decade old in
 the area. Initially, we were in a black hole
 of ignorance, so we say it was then 50/50 whether the tumor was
 cancerous. But the more we keep finding
 larger plumes, the less likely it becomes that a sequential growth of
 what we are finding is mere
 chance, based on randomly finding things, and the more likely it
 becomes that this sequential growth
 reflects current changes based on current conditions. Leading on-the-
 ground researchers seem to keep
 finding larger plumes. It's no longer 50/50.

 Moreover, and most significantly, the reassuring mechanism proposed to
 explain such emissions doesn’t
 really seem to fit well with what we see, because if there is an
 emerging pattern of finding the biggest hotspots
 around river mouths, that certainly

[geo] How Concerned Should We Be About Methane Plumes?

[Josh Horton]

Hi all,

There has been a lot of talk about ESAS methane plumes over the past
few months.  I know John Nissen believes this is a significant
development, and Russian researchers are shocked at what they've
observed, but what do others in the group (particularly scientists)
think about these plumes, accelerating sea-ice retreat, etc.?  Is this
just something for us to monitor closely going forward, or should we
be seriously concerned about what this portends for the near future?

Josh Horton
joshuahorton...@gmail.com

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
geoengineering group.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.

[geo] Sir David Attenborough Calls Geoengineering Fascist

[Josh Horton]

On a BBC interview show ...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/8949297/Sir-David-Attenborough-says-geo-engineering-solutions-to-climate-change-are-fascist.html


Sir David Attenborough says geo-engineering solutions to climate
change are 'fascist'

Sir David Attenborough, the wildlife presenter, has described high-
tech “geo-engineering” solutions to climate change as “fascist”
because they put too much power in the hands of advanced nations.

Sir David, 85, said he believed that global warming was inevitable but
that everything possible should be done to slow the process.
However, he added that said that large-scale geoengineering projects -
such schemes to remove carbon monoxide from the atmosphere – were
problematic.
Speaking on the BBC’s Andrew Marr Show yesterday, he said:
“Geoengineering is a very difficult thing because what that means is
that you allow one nation or, indeed, one small group within that
nation to determine what's going to happen to the whole globe.
”And they may say 'Yes, we are absolutely confident about the science'
but what about all those other people who don't know about that?
“It's, dare I say the word, fascist.”

Sir David’s latest work is the Frozen Planet series, the final
instalment of which was broadcast last week.
Frozen Planet - and its presenter – have been criticised for promoting
opinions on global warming.
Lord Leach of Fairford, a Tory peer who claims global warming is
debatable, said: “He’s very endearing but I don't think there's any
truth to what he says - he has no idea about it.
“The fact is you can be jolly nice to monkeys but it isn't the same as
knowing what you're talking about on climate change.”
Sir David also had an exchange of views with Lord Lawson, the former
Chancellor, who accused the presenter of “sensationalism”.
Speaking on the Marr show, Sir David said: “If you go and ask people
who are living up there whether it’s happening they don’t have any
doubt.
“There isn’t any question but that the poles are warming.
“The North Pole is warming. The South Pole is a different thing. The
South Pole is a huge ice cap miles thick and to some extent it makes
its own weather but it is quite possible that within the next 20 or 30
years that North Pole in winter will remain open so you will be able
to sail from the Atlantic to the Pacific.
“It means extinction for the polar bears but you might say “What does
it mean for world trade?” and killer whales will be able to travel
[between the two].
“We should be trying to reduce the rate at which the planet warms. We
aren’t going to be able to stop it, that’s for sure. All we are going
to be able to do is slow it down.”


Josh Horton
joshuahorton...@gmail.com

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
geoengineering group.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.

Re: Fwd: [geo] U.S. Defense Science Board Emphasizes Risk of Unilateral Climate Engineering

[Josh Horton]

Looking strictly at the geoengineering section in Appendix B, I find
the analysis pretty thin and a little sloppy (Solar Radiation
Management techniques ... seek to increase the amount of the solar
radiation reflected back into space thus increasing the Earth's albedo
by a small percentage to offset the effects of increased greenhouse
gases).  Extrapolating from cloud-seeding during the Beijing Olympics
to the threat of unilateral SRM deployment is a pretty big leap.

Josh Horton
joshuahorton...@gmail.com
http://geoengineeringpolitics.blogspot.com/


On Nov 21, 2:37 pm, rongretlar...@comcast.net wrote:
 William and list:

 I happened to have received as separate notification of the DoD report you 
 have identified below and have skimmed the 175 pages. My link was 
 tohttp://www.fas.org/irp/agency/dod/dsb/climate.pdf- and seemed to download a 
 little faster than the one you give below.

 The title is Trends and Implications of Climate Change for National and 
 International Security. There is no well defined author, but there are four 
 staff persons from the DC-based firm Science Applications, Inc (This is NOT 
 SAIC). The full study panel (mostly military from all the services) began 
 work in the spring of 2010. As you noted, there is some material on China, 
 but by far the greatest emphasis is on Africa. There are some climate 
 impact maps for Africa that are the best I can recall seeing. (This emphasis 
 because of the part of DoD that co-sponsored the report.)

 I found this to be as strong a statement on urgency as from any US government 
 agency I can recall. Hence I think it can be important - perhaps especially 
 in the US House - to convert the opinions of some in Congress who might 
 believe DoD on a climate topic.. I hope a hearing can be arranged for this 
 pretty definitive study.

 There is really very little in the main report on what to do, but Appendix A 
 is entitled Climate Information System Needs, with 29 pages - and is noting 
 that not much money really is going into climate information. Then Appendix B 
 (Special topics) has nine pages on tipping points and Geoengineering. Not 
 much new detail, but all fairly supportive of geoengineering. I look through 
 these sorts of reports of course looking for Biochar, and found it only on 
 the very last page (p138) in a diagram showing 7 CDR alternatives. The 
 previous figure shows 6 SRM alternatives. There are probably/possibly some 
 more errors in the text, but the only one I found was in reversing the titles 
 of these two figures.

 The last few pages of the report describe the intent of the Defense Science 
 Board committee and the membership. It seems possible that the most key 
 person was Dr. William Howard, listed as a consultant and co-chair. The CIA 
 was listed as a participant - and I'll bet the CIA does indeed have some good 
 climate information they could be sharing.

 I searched around a bit for more DoD material on climate and found nothing as 
 urgent or current (this report being labeled Oct. 2011). But, I found this 
 additional report looked pretty good on monitoring CO2 
 emissions:http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/dod/jason/emissions.pdf

 There was emphasis at one site on the transmittal 2-pager from the two 
 co-chairs - which sai d this:

 The recommendations fall into five main areas:
 • The need for developing a robust climate information system
 • Instituting water security as a core element of DOD strategy

 • Roles of the national security community, including the intelligence 
 community, the Department of State, and the White House
 • Guidance and DOD organization to address the full range of international 
 climate change-related issues and their impact on the evolution of DOD’s 
 missions
 • Combatant command roles, responsibilities, and capacities 

 I also found the report 
 at:http://www.scribd.com/doc/72728850/Trend-and-Implications-of-Climate-...

 I also found that Joe Romm, a few days ago, also caught this report 
 (seehttp://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/11/17/370727/defense-science-board...) 
 - but there is not much there by Joe. He doesn't make it as big a 
 breakthrough as I am (still) thinking it is.

 If anyone can identify more on whether this report is really important, I 
 think that information could be helpful to this list

 Ron







 - Original Message -
 From: William Pentland wpentl...@gmail.com
 To: geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.com
 Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2011 7:24:35 PM
 Subject: [geo] U.S. Defense Science Board Emphasizes Risk of Unilateral 
 Climate Engineering

 The U.S. Defense Science Board's new report on security implications
 of climate change concludes that there is significant potential for
 unilateral geoengineering activity. The discussion focuses on
 China's propensity to attempt modifying weather in Beijing and other
 areas. The full report is available 
 athttp://www.acq.osd.mil/dsb/reports2000s.htm

 --
 You received this message

[geo] Re: GE governance

[Josh Horton]

On a related note, here's the UK government response to the HOME
letter mentioned in Nature, which amounts to a pretty thorough
rejection of ETC Group.

http://www.handsoffmotherearth.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Helena-Paul-1.pdf


Josh Horton



On Nov 17, 2:15 pm, Rau, Greg r...@llnl.gov wrote:
 Environmental science: Good governance for geoengineering

  *   Phil Macnaghten 
 http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v479/n7373/full/479293a.html?WT 1 
 http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v479/n7373/full/479293a.html?WT
  *    Richard Owen 
 http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v479/n7373/full/479293a.html?WT 2 
 http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v479/n7373/full/479293a.html?WT
  *   Affiliations 
 http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v479/n7373/full/479293a.html?WT
  *   Corresponding authors 
 http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v479/n7373/full/479293a.html?WT

 Phil Macnaghten and Richard Owen describe the first attempt to govern a 
 climate-engineering research project.

 Climate-engineering research must have strong governance if it is to proceed 
 safely, openly and responsibly1 
 http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v479/n7373/full/479293a.html#ref1 , 2 
 http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v479/n7373/full/479293a.html#ref2 . 
 But what this means in practice is not clear. The Stratospheric Particle 
 Injection for Climate Engineering (SPICE) study demonstrates the difficult 
 judgements involved. As chairman of the panel that supported decisions by the 
 UK Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) as to whether 
 and how this project should proceed (P.M.), and the architect of the 
 project's governance process (R.O.), we draw lessons from these challenges.

 In mid-September 2011, SPICE announced the go-ahead for the United Kingdom's 
 first field trial of climate-engineering technology. SPICE aims to assess 
 whether the injection of sulphur particles into the stratosphere would mimic 
 the cooling effects of volcanic eruptions and provide a possible means to 
 mitigate global warming. An equipment test — spraying water at a height of 1 
 kilometre — was proposed (see 'SPICE field trial'). No climate engineering 
 would result from the test, but response to the announcement was dramatic, 
 and the project was soon at the centre of a storm of criticism.

 [cid:3404373349_35757568]
 Careful review
 On 26 September 2011, the EPSRC, one of the study's main funders, postponed 
 the trial after a review. Later the same day, the council received a letter 
 and open petition3 
 http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v479/n7373/full/479293a.html#ref3 , 
 also sent to UK energy and climate-change secretary Chris Huhne and signed by 
 more than 50 non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and civil-society 
 organizations, demanding that the project be cancelled. The signatories saw 
 the research as a first, unacceptable step towards a fix that would deflect 
 political and scientific action away from reducing greenhouse-gas emissions. 
 Others, by contrast, saw the research as urgently needed to find possible 
 ways of coping with climate change4 
 http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v479/n7373/full/479293a.html#ref4 . 
 The question at the heart of this debate was: should work in this 
 controversial field proceed at all, and if so, under what conditions?

 The strong feelings about the first test of SPICE's equipment show how 
 important it is to have robust governance, and for scientists and funders to 
 ensure that the public and other parties are consulted at the earliest 
 opportunity. This is an unfamiliar and difficult process, but it is crucial 
 for the evaluation of climate-engineering approaches.

 SPICE was conceived in March 2010 at an EPSRC interdisciplinary workshop, at 
 which researchers were invited to develop innovative geoengineering 
 proposals. The project's funding incorporated field testing, but release of 
 money was conditional upon it passing a 'stage-gate' review — a governance 
 process in which funding for each phase of research and development is 
 preceded by a decision point. To pass the review, SPICE scientists were 
 required to reflect on the wider risks, uncertainties and impacts surrounding 
 the test and the geoengineering technique to which it could lead — 
 solar-radiation management.

 On 15 June 2011, the stage-gate panel (including atmospheric scientists, 
 engineers and social scientists, as well as an adviser to an environmental 
 NGO) evaluated the SPICE team's response to five criteria for responsible 
 innovation. These were that: the test-bed deployment was safe and principal 
 risks had been identified, managed and deemed acceptable; the test-bed 
 deployment was compliant with relevant regulations; the nature and purpose of 
 SPICE would be clearly communicated to all relevant parties to inform and 
 promote balanced discussion; future applications and impacts had been 
 described, and mechanisms put in place

[geo] Re: Advice to GE decision makers: More BAU?

[Josh Horton]

Ron,

I agree with your assessment, this report is a solid handbook for
policymakers that lays out the basic issues without oversimplifying
them.  The five geoengineering scenarios (No Geoengineering, Safe
CDR Only, Technology Transformation, Insurance Policy, Needed Soon)
are a useful way to map the evolving debate.  Some of the
recommendations seem loosely connected to the report content--for
example, Do not allow geoengineering to be used as a source of carbon
offsets, because this would divert effort from emissions
reduction (p. 42) is pretty sweeping and requires much more
elaboration.  All in all, though, this is a very helpful document that
I hope makes the rounds inside the beltway.

Josh



On Nov 11, 7:02 pm, rongretlar...@comcast.net wrote:
 Dr. Rau and cc's (including the author, R. Olson, of the Wilson Center report)

 This is mainly to thank you for the lead to the report identified below and 
 to urge others to take this report seriously. It has done a better job of 
 summarizing a lot of SRM policy issues than anything I know of earlier (eg 
 Royal Society, NAS, etc - all referenced).

 It is well written - little repetition. It contains a minimum of technical 
 material on each of the SRM and CDR approaches, but enough. The emphasis is 
 on SRM. I found only a few cases where it was unclear whether 
 Geoengineereing really meant SRM. I am left with the impression that CDR 
 will be involved in decisions on SRM policy - but the CDR policy issues can 
 be thought of very differently. They are not much covered and don't seem to 
 be needing much new policy

 There were two new CDR approaches I have not seen anywhere else. One is the 
 last on p 12 in Table 2 - called Magnetic levitation of CO2, saying about it: 
  Using Earth’s magnetic field, given a helping hand by lasers and microwave 
 beams, as a conveyor belt that vents CO2 molecules into space . Reference is 
 given to the 2009 Lenton-Vaughn article, but I don't think it is mentioned 
 there. Googling got me to a UCLA emeritus Professor Alfred Wong, Dr. Olson is 
 not in any way endorsing this approach, but I wonder if any list member can 
 affirm that this is deserving of being included in a list of CDR approaches. 
 It doesn't seem to have any active proponents.

 The other was closely to my own interest. On page 4, Box 1, we have:

 Unders t anding this leads to recognition that const r ucti v e approa c hes 
 m a y appear laterally from ma n y parts of the whole socio-te c hnical e n 
 vironment, and that the best approa c hes will usually h av e beneficial e f 
 f ects across a wide range of problems and potential oppor t unities. F or e 
 xample, emerging methods to produce “cul t ured” or “in vitr o ” meat from 
 stem cells in f actories m a y h av e the potential to h av e large climatic 
 impacts as w ell as being healthie r , less polluting and more humane than co 
 nv entional meat production methods. F at content could easily be controlled. 
 T he incidence of f ood-borne disease could be dramatical - ly reduced, 
 thanks to strict quali t y control r ules that are impossible to introduce in 
 modern animal f arms, slaughterhouses and meat pa c king plants. T he use of 
 hormones and antibiotics w ould be unnecessa r y . Methane releases from li v 
 esto c k – a major contributor to climate c hange – could be eliminated, 
 along with pollution from confined animal- f eeding operations and c hemical 
 use in gr o wing f eed crops. Demands f or w ate r , energy and other 
 resources could be cut sharpl y . Large land areas could be freed to plant v 
 ege t a tion that is mu c h more e f f ecti v e than f ood crops in cap t 
 uring and storing carbon. 9 T his strategy w ould not be recogni z ed as 
 “geoengineering” as the w ord is usually defined tod a y . But gi v en its 
 impact on methane emissions, carbon storage, land use, w ater c y cles and 
 other Earth s y stems, this is arguably a more com prehensi v e 
 “geoengineering” strategy than a n y te c hnologies listed in the traditional 
 litera t ure.

 [RWL: Should this replace Prof. Wong's approach in the CDR category? Are 
 there any other Geoengineering technologies we are missing?

 A few more comments coming later - but I wonder if others had the same 
 positive feelings about a well-done report addressed to the right group - 
 Policy Makers.

 Ron



 - Original Message -
 From: Greg Rau r...@llnl.gov
 To: geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.com

 Cc: david rejeski david.reje...@wilsoncenter.org, bol...@altfutures.com, 
 perso...@gao.gov, Jane Long janecsl...@gmail.com
 Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2011 10:09:47 AM
 Subject: [geo] Advice to GE decision makers: More BAU?

 Advice to GE decision makers: More BAU? “It [the report*] recommends that 
 policymakers consider geoengineering as a third strategy, to use only if 
 clearly needed.
 Likewise, governments should not fund geoengineering research at the expense 
 of research and development of 

[geo] Re: More anti-science from ETC

[Josh Horton]

How intrinsically risky is geoengineering? The risk is proportional
to the planetary scale upon which it would operate and, like nuclear
war, its effects are not reversible or predictable. *Scientists agree
that the outcome of geoengineering cannot be certain, therefore, the
risk is commensurate with that of nuclear war.*

Commensurate with nuclear war?  This statement is simply ridiculous.
ETC Group is trying to equate geoengineering technologies with WMDs,
but here we see this argument taken to its logical, patently absurd
conclusion.  This is embarrassing.

Josh Horton
joshuahorton...@gmail.com
http://geoengineeringpolitics.blogspot.com/


On Nov 8, 2:28 pm, Mike MacCracken mmacc...@comcast.net wrote:
 Dear Gregory B‹On the reduced solar, it all depends what one measures.

 An important side effect of a layer intended to reflect back out into space
 about 1% of the incoming solar radiation would be to reduce the downward
 direct radiation by roughly 10% and shift that into forward-scattered
 diffuse radiation that is not useful at all in mirror-based solar
 concentrating technologies. So, there can certainly be a noticeable
 impact‹whether from volcanic eruptions (where it has been measured) or from
 human injection (which has not yet been measured). Indeed, it is this
 scattering that gives such beautiful orange sunrises and sunsets while
 whitening the sky somewhat when the Sun is overhead.

 Mike

 On 11/8/11 1:25 PM, Gregory Benford xbenf...@gmail.com wrote:



  We're all aware that the moral hazard argument has no real evidence for it 
  and
  plenty of ambiguity.

  As for There are also direct impacts on other mitigation responses, such as
  less effective solar power in the presence of solar radiation management
  techniques. -- this is a tiny effect, about 1%, not worth worrying about.

  Gregory Benford

  On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 10:06 AM, Ben Hale bh...@colorado.edu wrote:
  Hey Nils:

  I'm working on a paper on the moral hazard argument against geoengineering
  at this very moment, essentially arguing that the moral hazard objection is
  beset with complications of ambiguity, vagueness, and accuracy. Would you
  mind passing along this paper to me?

  Thanks!

  Best,
  Ben

  Benjamin Hale
  Assistant Professor
  Philosophy and Environmental Studies
  University of Colorado, Boulder
  Tel: 303 735-3624 tel:303%20735-3624 ; Fax: 303 735-1576
  tel:303%20735-1576
 http://www.practicalreason.com
 http://cruelmistress.wordpress.com
  Ethics, Policy  Environment

  -Original Message-
  From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com
  [mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Motoko M.
  Sent: Tuesday, November 08, 2011 7:14 AM
  To: geoengineering
  Subject: [geo] Re: More anti-science from ETC

  Has anyone evidence for this ETC-statement? If yes, then this would be
  the moral hazard working. But I do not know any actual proof.

  Could geoengineering's development/deployment negatively impact other
  responses
  to climate change? - All parties recognize that the prospect of even
  temporary
  technological fixes to climate change encourages some governments and
  industries to
  lower their (already weak) commitment to mitigation and adaptation.
  Further, if
  technological alternatives are thought to be cheaper, other options
  and funds will attract
  less support. There are also direct impacts on other mitigation
  responses, such as less
  effective solar power in the presence of solar radiation management
  techniques. [ETC proposal Nov 4. 2011, p. 12]

  Best
  Nils

  --
  You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
  geoengineering group.
  To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
  To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
  geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
  mailto:geoengineering%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com .
  For more options, visit this group at
 http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.

  --
  You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
  geoengineering group.
  To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
  To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
  geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
  mailto:geoengineering%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com .
  For more options, visit this group at
 http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.- Hide quoted text -

 - Show quoted text -

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
geoengineering group.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.

[geo] Occupy Wall Street Goes After Geoengineering

[Josh Horton]

Hi everyone,

Whatever your views, it was only a matter of time ...

(John Bellamy Foster is editor of the socialist Monthly Review)

http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/2011/foster291011.html


Capitalism and Environmental Catastrophe
by John Bellamy Foster

John Bellamy Foster and Fred Magdoff at Occupy Wall Street.  Photo by
Carrie Ann Naumoff
This is a reconstruction from notes of a talk delivered at a teach-in
on The Capitalist Crisis and the Environment organized by the
Education and Empowerment Working Group, Occupy Wall Street, Zuccotti
Park (Liberty Plaza), New York, October 23, 2011.  It was based on a
talk delivered the night before at the Brecht Forum.  Fred Magdoff
also spoke on both occasions.

The Occupy Wall Street movement arose in response to the economic
crisis of capitalism, and the way in which the costs of this were
imposed on the 99 percent rather than the 1 percent.  But the highest
expression of the capitalist threat, as Naomi Klein has said, is its
destruction of the planetary environment.  So it is imperative that we
critique that as well.1

I would like to start by pointing to the seriousness of our current
environmental problem and then turn to the question of how this
relates to capitalism.  Only then will we be in a position to talk
realistically about what we need to do to stave off or lessen
catastrophe.

How bad is the environmental crisis?  You have all heard about the
dangers of climate change due to the emission of carbon dioxide and
other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere -- trapping more heat on
earth.  You are undoubtedly aware that global warming threatens the
very future of the humanity, along with the existence of innumerable
other species.  Indeed, James Hansen, the leading climatologist in
this country, has gone so far as to say this may be our last chance
to save humanity.2

But climate change is only part of the overall environmental problem.
Scientists, led by the Stockholm Resilience Centre, have recently
indicated that we have crossed, or are near to crossing, nine
planetary boundaries (defined in terms of sustaining the
environmental conditions of the Holocene epoch in which civilization
developed over the last 12,000 years): climate change, species
extinction, the disruption of the nitrogen-phosphorus cycles, ocean
acidification, ozone depletion, freshwater usage, land cover change,
(less certainly) aerosol loading, and chemical use.  Each of these
rifts in planetary boundaries constitutes an actual or potential
global ecological catastrophe.  Indeed, in three cases -- climate
change, species extinction, and the disruption of the nitrogen cycle
-- we have already crossed planetary boundaries and are currently
experiencing catastrophic effects.  We are now in the period of what
scientists call the sixth extinction, the greatest mass extinction
in 65 million years, since the time of the dinosaurs; only this time
the mass extinction arises from the actions of one particular species
-- human beings.  Our disruption of the nitrogen cycle is a major
factor in the growth of dead zones in coastal waters.  Ocean
acidification is often called the evil twin of climate change, since
it too arises from carbon dioxide emissions, and by negatively
impacting the oceans it threatens planetary disruption on an equal
(perhaps even greater) scale.  The decreased availability of
freshwater globally is emerging as an environmental crisis of
horrendous proportions.3

All of this may seem completely overwhelming.  How are we to cope with
all of these global ecological crises/catastrophes, threatening us at
every turn?  Here it is important to grasp that all of these rifts in
the planetary system derive from processes associated with our global
production system, namely capitalism.  If we are prepared to carry out
a radical transformation of our system of production -- to move away
from business as usual -- then there is still time to turn things
around; though the remaining time in which to act is rapidly running
out.

Let's talk about climate change, remembering that this is only one
part of the global environmental crisis, though certainly the most
urgent at present.  Climate science currently suggests that if we burn
only half of the world's proven, economically accessible reserves of
oil, gas, and coal, the resulting carbon emissions will almost
certainly raise global temperatures by 2° C (3.6° F), bringing us to
what is increasingly regarded as an irreversible tipping point --
after which it appears impossible to return to the preindustrial
(Holocene) climate that nourished human civilization.  At that point
various irrevocable changes (such as the melting of Arctic sea ice and
the ice sheets of Greenland and Antarctica, and the release of methane
from the tundra) will become unstoppable.  This will speed up climate
change, while also accelerating vast, catastrophic effects, such as
rising sea levels and extreme weather.  Alternatively, if our object
is the rational one of 

[geo] Re: Can We Test Geoengineering? paper and YouTube videos

[Josh Horton]

In his earlier email, Ron wrote that The uncertainty Doug found about
(for instance) rainfall impacts in India, strikes me as pretty strong
proof that the impacts are almost certain to be negative for some
groups/countries. Did I miss something? Is there anything in this
paper that SRM proponents would find supportive?

I had a different take on this aspect of the article.  As I read it,
the argument is that some regional impacts, for example, changes in
monsoons over the subcontinent, would likely be more pronounced over
the short term than the long term, since they are a function of the
temperature differential between land and ocean.  Land warms more
quickly than ocean, so this differential would be highest at the
beginning of an intervention, but over time the differential would
shrink as the ocean caught up, and this type of impact would moderate.

From the perspective of an SRM proponent, therefore, the news would be
good insofar as some initial costs of deployment would appear to
decrease over time.

Josh Horton
joshuahorton...@gmail.com

On Oct 22, 11:30 am, Hawkins, Dave dhawk...@nrdc.org wrote:
 My comment is not an argument against doing SRM research.  It is an
 argument against trying to persuade people that SRM research is no
 different than tests of any other new technical systems.  I doubt that
 is what Ken intended but I want to point out the importance of careful
 articulation of the rationales for SRM research and, more importantly,
 the need to acknowledge that SRM research will require extraordinary
 efforts to minimize risks that could emerge in course of such research
 at levels designed to produce significant forcing.

 From: Mike MacCracken [mailto:mmacc...@comcast.net]
 Sent: Saturday, October 22, 2011 11:16 AM
 To: Hawkins, Dave; Ken Caldeira
 Cc: Doug MacMynowski; rongretlar...@comcast.net; Geoengineering;
 nadine.brachat...@sowi.uni-stuttgart.de
 Subject: Re: [geo] Can We Test Geoengineering? paper and YouTube videos

 True-but we also don't know nearly everything about what ongoing GHG
 emissions will bring, so what we need to work toward, in my view, is a
 relative risk analysis. Not at all easy to do, but the question is not
 really SRM or not, but GHG without or with SRM.

 Mike

 On 10/22/11 8:49 AM, David Hawkins dhawk...@nrdc.org wrote:

 Ken,
 You argue that we won't know everything about SRM deployment ahead of
 time but this is no different than any test that is done of anything.
 I don't think this is helpful as a response to concerns about the
 challenges of designing protocols for an SRM research program.  
 There are real differences in the risk profile for SRM tests that are
 intended to produce detectable forcing.  This needs to be acknowledged
 and a research program needs to examine whether effective approaches to
 manage these risks can be developed.
 David

 Sent from my iPad

 On Oct 22, 2011, at 6:39 AM, Ken Caldeira kcalde...@gmail.com wrote:

 As Doug states below and I pointed out in our YouTube discussion, the
 question Can geoengineering be tested? is either trivially true or
 trivially false depending on what you mean by tested.

 If by Can geoengineering be tested? we mean Is it in principle
 possible to perform tests that would give us more information about the
 likely consequences of an SRM deployment?, the answer is of course
 'yes'.

 If by this question we mean Is it in principle possible to know
 everything one would like to know about the consequences of an SRM
 deployment prior to the deployment?, the answer is of course 'no'.

 Fundamentally, this is no different than any test that is ever done of
 anything. Every test is designed to give us useful information; some
 tests are more useful than others; no test gives you the same
 information as a full deployment.

 ___
 Ken Caldeira

 Carnegie Institution Dept of Global Ecology
 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA
 +1 650 704 7212 tel:%2B1%20650%20704%207212
 kcalde...@carnegie.stanford.edu mailto:kcalde...@carnegie.stanford.edu

 http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab
 http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab   @kencaldeira

 See our YouTube:
 Sensitivity of temperature and precipitation to frequency of climate
 forcing: Ken Caldeira http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kDRYM_5S0AE
 Her lab, mules, and carbon capture and storage: Sally Benson speaks to
 Near Zero http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oMJJn6eP8J0

 On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 2:06 PM, Doug MacMynowski

 macma...@cds.caltech.edu mailto:macma...@cds.caltech.edu  wrote:

 Hi Ron,

 My thanks for your comments too.  Re your specific concern about CDR, I
 think that to the extent that those outside this list have an opinion
 associated with the word geoengineering, it is most likely associated
 with SRM, at least if they have negative connotations with the word.  So
 I would agree that there's no advantage to CDR folk to use the word
 geoengineering.  And personally, I see no disadvantage to SRM to use the
 word

[geo] Re: HOME article

[Josh Horton]

I don't agree with many of Joe Romm's positions, but I have to admit
this is a pretty effective piece.  Most of us are familiar with the
terminological arguments over geoengineering vs. climate
engineering vs. ..., but introducing yet another term to the general
public like this begins to feel like a hoodwink.  I also noted with
some unease the use of the word coalition in the report, although I
can't think of anything better at the moment.  Lopsidedness and
clubbiness are also fair charges.  I generally agree with the
conclusions of the BPC report, but unfortunately some of these
criticisms stick.

I also think it's smart of HOME to repost this article by Romm rather
than offer original content and commentary, as the credibility of HOME
is questionable at best.

Josh Horton
joshuahorton...@gmail.com
http://geoengineeringpolitics.blogspot.com/


On Oct 8, 7:00 pm, Andrew Lockley andrew.lock...@gmail.com wrote:
 I in no way endorse any of HOME's content.  But here it is anyway.

 A

 Ethicist quit geoengineering panel and other thoughts from Climate Progress

 http://www.handsoffmotherearth.org/2011/10/ethicist-quit-geoengineeri...

 Exclusive: Dysfunctional, Lop-Sided Geoengineering Panel Tries to Launch
 Greenwashing Euphemism, “Climate Remediation”

 By Joe Romm on Oct 6, 2011 at 3:48 pm | [ original article ]

 Revealing Interview with Ethicist Who Withdrew from Panel, Equally Revealing
 Article by Panel Member on Report’s Dysfunctional Process

 Earlier this week a panel of experts released a report calling for more
 research into geoengineering — directly manipulating the Earth’s climate to
 minimize the harm from global warming. This panel, put together by the
 Bipartisan Policy Center, inanely — and pointlessly — tried to rename
 “geoengineering” as “climate remediation.”

 Geoengineering is not a remedy. No one should try to leave the public with
 any such impression.

 Frankly, it would be more literally accurate to rename geo-engineering
 “smoke and mirrors,” as those are two of the most widely discussed measures
 for managing incoming solar radiation.

 Climate Progress has an exclusive interview with Prof. Stephen Gardiner, an
 ethicist who has written extensively on climate change and geoengineering —
 and who withdrew from the panel earlier this year. I contacted him when I
 learned he had originally been on the panel. He confirmed “I was indeed
 originally on the panel.” He “withdrew in March of this year when it became
 clear to me that there wasn’t going to be movement on some of the report’s
 recommendations, and I wouldn’t be able to endorse them.”

 I also interviewed a number of the leading experts on geoengineering for
 this post, including a panel member, Ken Caldeira. I will publish his
 response in full in a subsequent post.

 As science advisor John Holdren reasserted in 2009 of strategies such as
 aerosol injection or space mirrors — called solar radiation management (SRM)
 these days — “The ‘geo-engineering’ approaches considered so far appear to
 be afflicted with some combination of high costs, low leverage, and a high
 likelihood of serious side effects.”

 I appreciate that since a serious mitigation effort appears to be
 non-imminent, people are casting about for other ways to avoid multiple
 catastrophes (see “Real adaptation is as politically tough as real
 mitigation, but much more expensive and not as effective in reducing future
 misery“). But geo-engineering without aggressive mitigation makes even less
 sense than adaptation without aggressive mitigation (see Caldeira calls the
 vision of Lomborg’s Climate Consensus “a dystopic world out of a science
 fiction story”). So I’m glad the panel stated upfront:

 This task force strongly believes that climate remediation technologies are
 no substitute for controlling risk through climate mitigation (i.e.,
 reducing emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases) and climate
 adaptation (i.e., enhancing the resilience ofhuman-made and natural systems
 to climate changes)

 I don’t think it’s terribly surprising that a panel stacked with advocates
 of geoengineering research (and some actual researchers) ends up advocating
 for more research into geoengineering. A number of people I talked to raised
 questions about the composition of the panel and the lack of disclosure that
 some of the panel members have a financial interest in geoengineering
 research (see below).

 Many thought the effort of the “Task Force on Climate Remediation” to
 replace the term geoengineering was particularly misguided.

 Here are the comments of journalist Jeff Goodell, author of the
 award-winning (!) book, How to Cool the Planet: Geoengineering and the
 Audacious Quest to Fix Earth’s Climate:

 The phrase “climate remediation” is almost as bad as the phrase “clean
 coal.” In both cases, it’s a phrase that reeks of spin and marketing. And
 while I can understand why Big Coal wants to push it, I think it was a
 mistake for this panel

[geo] Interesting EU Biochar Project

[Josh Horton]

Apparently EuroChar has been underway since the beginning of this
year.  I had not previously run across it.

Josh


http://cordis.europa.eu/fetch?CALLER=FP7_PROJ_ENACTION=DDOC=1CAT=PROJQUERY=0132e028e623:102a:252b68b1RCN=97271

Project description
In the context of climate change mitigation, technologies for removing
the CO2 from the atmosphere are key challenges. The transfer of carbon
from the atmosphere into useful carbon deposits is currently one
promising option. Transferring biomass to carbon-rich materials with
potential mega-scale application is an option to sequester carbon from
plant material, taking it out of the short-term carbon cycle and
therefore binding CO2 efficiently and even in a useful, productive,
way into longer term non-atmospheric carbon pools. EuroChar will
investigate carbon sequestration potentials that can be achieved by
transforming plant biomass into charcoal (or Biochar) and add that to
agricultural soils. Biochar production will be demonstrated using
thermochemical (TC) or hydrothermal carbonization processes (HTC) that
can produce energy and store 15 to 20% of the Carbon originally
contained in the biomass. Detailed ISO-accredited whole Life Cycle
Assessment will be carried out according to the International
Reference Life Cycle Data System (ILCD) Handbook on LCA, for both TC
and HTC production systems to evaluate the net Carbon sequestration
capacity associated to Biochar production. Physico-chemical properties
of Biochar will be analysed in a series of laboratory studies that
will use standardized analytical protocols, and a specific phyto-
toxicity test will be made using molecular approaches involving a
model plant.

Part of the study will also address the short versus long-term
stability of Biochar using recently produced and aged charcoal samples
coming from archaeological sites. Specific investigations will also be
made to assess Biochar decomposition using CO2-efflux measurements
from 13C labelled Biochar. Three large-scale field experiments will be
made in Italy, France and UK to analyse realistic scale application
of Biochar. Up-scaling will be considered by scenario analyses that
will both consider the potential C-sequestration actually achievable
at the European scale and the climate warming balance associated to
carbon sequestration and potential changes in the mean surface albedo,
due to massive use of Biochar as soil amendant. A number of
stakeholders will be involved to review project's activities. For this
the EuroChar Stakeholder Committee will be created and met
periodically during annual project meetings. Dissemination activities
will be implemented to make project's results available to a wider
audience and the media.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
geoengineering group.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.

[geo] After BPC?

[Josh Horton]

Ken and others,

I think the BPC report is strong and sensible, but I wonder if
anything is planned to follow up on its recommendations.  The report
does a good job communicating the urgent need for a federal research
program, going so far as to call for action in the FY2013 budget,
however it's silent on next steps.  Do you know if the BPC or any Task
Force members plan to engage with key players such as OSTP,
congressional staff, etc.?  It would be a shame to miss this
opportunity.

Josh Horton
joshuahorton...@gmail.com
http://geoengineeringpolitics.blogspot.com/

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
geoengineering group.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.

[geo] Re: New report(s) on carbon dioxide removal

[Josh Horton]

Duncan,

Repeating what others have already said, kudos on your report, which
represents a great first step toward a systematic comparison of
competing CDR technologies/NETs.  One of your main policy conclusions
is that NETs should be excluded from carbon markets due to the
possible (probable?) effects of offsets.  If carbon markets are off
the table, how else do you propose to achieve large-scale deployment
of these various technologies?

Josh Horton
joshuahorton...@gmail.com
http://geoengineeringpolitics.blogspot.com/


On Sep 28, 11:49 pm, Ning Zeng z...@atmos.umd.edu wrote:
 Ron:

 At this stage, I'm not sure how meaningful it is to say which method
 is better. One should be particularly careful with inferring which is
 better based on single criteirion comparison. So I thought Duncan's
 analysis is nice in trying to look at many aspects simultaneously. We
 should also look at factors/constraints that could 'kill' an idea,
 though this has its own danger of taking something off the table by
 subjective choice. My feeling is that ultimately many of these
 methods, or some aspects of them will be useful and each will have its
 own niche depending on the local circumstances..

 Another thing is of course that, we need to know more how these
 technologies work in the real world by a lot more research and demo
 projects.

 Best!
 -Ning Zeng

 On Sep 28, 2:16 pm, rongretlar...@comcast.net wrote:



  Duncan, Ning, list:

  I wholeheartedly support the idea of sequestering through forestry 
  products. The analysis of them is straightforward. But the potential is 
  obviously quite limited compared to the GtC/yr values in your (Duncan's) 
  recent report. So this seems like a good opportunity to ask Duncan what the 
  criteria should be for evaluating different NET (CDR) options. I hope 
  others will answer the following methodology questions as well.

  2. Dr. Zeng obviously feels that ground burial is better (being cheaper as 
  a NET (Negative Emissions Technology) and more widely applicable) than the 
  BECCS approach which I believe Duncan has favored in his report. Duncan's 
  likely reasoning: BECCS uses the same (tree) resource both for 
  carbon-neutral replacement of fossil fuels at electrical power plants and 
  then captures almost as much in a carbon-negative placement of the 
  resulting CO2 deep underground. Presumably Duncan (maybe most on this list) 
  would say that the large gain in carbon neutrality (with monetary income to 
  offset part of the sequestration costs) more than balances the small (?) 
  loss in carbon negativity. But is there a more specific definition of 
  better here? How would Dr. Zeng rebut the argument that we need biomass 
  for its energy content? Does it include questions about the eventual 
  success of CCS?

  3. I think almost the same questions would be asked by those favoring ocean 
  burial of biomass. I presume that ocean or pit burial are roughly 
  equivalent - and the preference would be based on location (and resulting 
  cost differences). But both have foregone the carbon-neutral energy 
  contribution. Nevertheless, I can understand both the pit and ocean burial 
  proponents' concerns, as they are focusing on NET (carbon negativity). I 
  hope Duncan can first address this narrow issue of combining 
  carbon-neutrality and carbon-negativity; in discussing and comparing NETs, 
  should carbon-neutral benefits be part of the dialog and/or exactly how 
  should they be balanced?

  4. But along comes Biochar - and it further confuses the debate by saying 
  that other criteria should also prevail besides the neutral (Energy) - and 
  negative carbon issue above. Biochar is almost as good as BECCS on both 
  carbon-negativty and carbon-neutrality (much of biomass energy value is in 
  the hydrogen content which both capture, and BECCS has some energy losses 
  in capture). But overall, Biochar proponents can agree that BECCS is 
  superficially able to impact more CO2 than can Biochar. But I say 
  superficially because Biochar out-year benefits seem to have a chance of 
  overcoming the first-year advantages of both BECCS and burial. Many of 
  those are spelled out by Duncan, but they do not seem to have made their 
  way into the numerical computation on either carbon neutral or carbon 
  negative sides of the ledger.

  5. I will send more on this to Duncan (others please let me know if they 
  want to see this), but I think it likely that most readers will know that 
  anthropogenic Amazonian Terra Preta soils (not mentioned by Duncan) are 
  today several times more productive than the poor parent soils from which 
  they were constructed. Increased Ag production may be replaced in some 
  already excellent soils by a halving of fertilizer needs. Nitrous Oxide, 
  methane, and nutrient capture are other carbon-equivalent out-year 
  continuing benefits that do not appear in Duncan's analyses - some with 
  long term offsetting dollar income values

[geo] Monbiot Claims SAI already tested ... with catastrophic results

[Josh Horton]

I'm no climate scientist, but seems like a bit of a stretch ...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/sep/02/giant-balloon-and-hosepipe-geoengineering

A balloon and hosepipe as the answer to climate change? It's just pie
in the sky
Increasingly bizarre attempts at geo-engineering simply deflect
attention from the fact we need to cut greenhouse gases


George Monbiot
guardian.co.uk,  Friday 2 September 2011 08.01 EDT
Article history

A team of British academics will undertake the world's first major
'geo-engineering' field test in the next few months
It's atmospheric liposuction: a retrospective fix for planetary over-
indulgence. Geo-engineering, which means either sucking carbon dioxide
out of the atmosphere or trying to shield the planet from the sun's
heat, is an admission of failure, a failure to get to grips with
climate change. Is it time to admit defeat and check ourselves into
the clinic?

The question has arisen again with the launch of a new experiment
funded by Britain's Engineering and Physical Sciences Research
Council, injecting particles (in this case water droplets) into the
atmosphere from a gigantic balloon attached to a hosepipe. The
eventual aim, if such experiments are deemed successful, is to squirt
large amounts of sulphate aerosols into the stratosphere, to reduce
global warming by scattering sunlight back into space.

There are five issues affecting all the proposed geo-engineering
technologies. Are they effective? Are they cheap? Are they safe? Do
they solve the other problem associated with rising greenhouse gas
emissions: ocean acidification? Do they introduce moral hazard? (This
means the risk that you'll behave more recklessly if you're insulated
from the effects of your actions.)

Broadly speaking, the cheap and effective options are dangerous; the
safe options are expensive or useless. This isn't always the case.
Seeding the oceans with iron filings, for example, is probably both
useless and dangerous. The intention is to stimulate a bloom of algae
which absorbs carbon dioxide then sinks to the ocean bed. Not only is
little of the gas removed from surface waters by this method; but,
because the iron mops up oxygen, it stimulates the production of
methane, a potent greenhouse gas. The technique is likely both to
damage life in the oceans and cause more global warming than it cures.

There are dozens of proposed techniques. Here's a small sample:
Sucking CO2 out of the air using artificial trees. Safe. Effective.
Fantastically expensive.

Growing biomass then burying it or dumping it in the sea. Ecologically
damaging. Likely to exacerbate famine. Ineffective (because it can't
be scaled up sufficiently). Fairly cheap.

Dumping lime or calcium or magnesium silicates into the sea, where
they react with carbon dioxide. Fairly safe. Effective. Expensive. Has
the advantage of potentially reversing ocean acidification, but the
amount of quarrying required to produce enough ground-up rock is
likely to be prohibitive.

Painting buildings white to ensure that the earth absorbs less of the
sun's heat. Safe. Useless. Expensive.

Whitening clouds to reflect more sunlight, most feasibly by spraying
salt water into the air. Middling dangerous. Middling useless.
Middling cheap.

Shooting mirrors into space. Not very dangerous. Effective.
Staggeringly expensive.

You can read more detailed summaries of these options in a report
published by the Royal Society.

But of all techniques, it's the notion of injecting reflective
particles into the atmosphere – the technique the balloon and hosepipe
experiment is designed to test – that has received most attention.
There's an obvious reason for this: it is both cheap and effective. It
is also extremely dangerous.

The reason seems almost as incredible as the proposed technologies,
but it's rooted in solid science. In fact we've already tested the
method at a very large scale, with catastrophic results. Unfortunately
no one realised we were running the experiment until three decades
after it began.

It wasn't until 2002 that a paper was published linking the great
famines of the 1970s and 1980s with atmospheric sulphate particles
produced in the northern hemisphere. But the link, which has now been
made in a number of papers, listed below, seems to be conclusive:

LD Rotstayn and U Lohmann, 1 August 2002. Tropical Rainfall Trends and
the Indirect Aerosol Effect. Journal of Climate, vol 15, pp2103-2116

IM Held, TL Delworth, J Lu, KL Findell, and TR Knutson, 13 December
2005. Simulation of Sahel drought in the 20th and 21st centuries.
PNAS, vol 102, no 50, pp17891-17896. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0509057102

M Biasutti and A Giannini, 8 June 2006. Robust Sahel drying in
response to late 20th century forcings. Geophysical Research Letters,
vol 33, no 11. DOI: 10.1029/2006GL026067

JE Kristjansson et al, 23 December 2005. Response of the climate
system to aerosol direct and indirect forcing: Role of cloud
feedbacks. Journal of Geophysical Research – 

[geo] Re: New Paper on Ethics and Geoengineering

[Josh Horton]

One more thing ... I question the use of the acronym
SAG (Stratospheric Aerosol Geoengineering), less because
geoengineering is a contested term than because the word sag has
obvious negative connotations.  Instead, I suggest using the more
neutral SAI (Stratospheric Aerosol Injections).

Josh


On Aug 24, 5:05 am, Michael Hayes voglerl...@gmail.com wrote:
 Toby et al.,

 D-5-W is a common intravenous (I.V.) fluid given to a trauma patient. It is
 a 5% Dextrose (sugar) solution in water. This solution helps prevent the
 body from converting stored body fat into needed energy (and thus preventing
 a strong acid influx-and thus preventing a cascade of physiological
 problems). Polar Stratospheric Aerosol Injection-Sulfide (PSAI-S) has
 somewhat of an analogy to the use of D-5-W. In that, the use of such a
 (simple) technique can prevent a cascade of global environmental problems.
 Keeping the polar regions cold can prevent the need for
 more...invasive...procedures.

 I point this out as a means to help clarify this debate. Geoengineering has
 so quickly evolved, in both scientific and engineering understanding, that
 the broad use of a term such as SAG is counterproductive for use in
 detailed discussions. I go to this length of explanation, not as a means of
 correction, but as a means to help sharpen the focus of this debate.

 Mike points out the reasonable logic of starting slow (and early) and
 building up climate intervention means as conditions warrant. Others have
 pointed out the potential use of different aerosols in relation to different
 atmospheric circulation patterns to produce even seasonal effects.

 Your paper does not take a close look at the physical reality of just how
 close we are to seeing a methane tipping point. You have, however recognized
 that such a situation would rearrange the debate...thank you. I feel that we
 must focus the debate on dealing with the worst case scenario before we have
 the freedom to set out long term and somewhat Idealized standards.
 Crawling into a wrecked and smoldering car to simply start an I.V. of D-5-W
 on the bleeding driver is not good quality basic health care. But, it can
 lead to just that.given time and lots of early, intelligent and
 cooperative work. The core concept of Geoengineering is not  good quality
 basic health care for the planet, but simply a means and way to better care
 for the planet until we can move beyond fossil fuels.

 Unfortunately, the concept of Geoengineering is so new that few people
 truly understand the means, motives and even objectives of the science and
 engineering. I personally see it as Geo Trauma Care (GTC). Yes, the fossil
 fuel economy has traumatized this planet and I see the potential of PSAI-S
 as potentially being the equivalent of an emergency I.V. procedure. However,
 the long-term prognosis of our existence on this planet is predicated upon
 the universal use of renewable energy, not on the use of climate
 engineering.

 Your work (as well as Wil Burns) on raising the different ethical aspects of
 the debate is helping us get there. Ideally, I would like to see the debate
 continued with focus upon *specific* emerging science and engineering
 developments. Polar aerosol injection is different than global SAG.

 We must build the practical knowledge and techniques of climate engineering
 as the effects of the fossil fuel economy will be with us for generations.
 Inventing an I.V., developing D-5-W and testing the two only when the car
 crashes is neither reasonable nor logical. Creating social fences against
 climate engineering can be a close analogy.

 Thanks,

 Michael

 On Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 12:38 AM, Toby Svoboda tobysvob...@gmail.comwrote:





  Thank you all for the interesting and helpful feedback.

  Michael mentions a case (a methane tipping point) in which deployment of
  SAG might satisfy requirements of justice. Perhaps in certain scenarios, SAG
  would be (or would be part of) a just climate policy, or at least a policy
  that is less unjust than other policies available in those scenarios. Our
  paper is rather preliminary in the sense that it raises some ethical worries
  about SAG but does not take a position on whether it ought to be deployed.
  Perhaps, even with certain ethical imperfections, in some likely scenarios
  SAG would be the best option from a justice perspective. I don't know
  whether this would be the case. It seems that further work would be needed
  to get clear on that.

  As for unilateralism, our paper does not argue that there is a high
  probability of unilateral deployment but rather that such deployment would
  be unjust. As you know, there are a number of papers in the literature that
  discuss unilateral deployment. Josh's paper (which appeared after ours was
  in press) and Dan's comments raise some interesting points. Perhaps worries
  over unilateralism are overblown. That would be a welcome result from a
  procedural justice perspective, 

[geo] Carbon Farming Passes in Australia

[Josh Horton]

Hi everyone,

Earlier today, Australia's Carbon Farming Initiative (CFI) passed its
last major hurdle in Parliament before becoming law.  The CFI will
create carbon credits for reforestation and (probably) biochar
projects, and offsets will be tradable within a proposed domestic
emissions trading system as well as internationally.  Here's a Reuters
article with more details:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/22/australia-carbon-idUSL3E7JI4ID20110822

Josh Horton
joshuahorton...@gmail.com
http://geoengineeringpolitics.blogspot.com/

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
geoengineering group.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.

[geo] Re: New Paper on Ethics and Geoengineering

[Josh Horton]

Toby,

I'd like to focus on your third case, in which you argue that
stratospheric aerosol injections would violate principles of
procedural justice if pursued unilaterally.  As you frame it, ANY
unilateral action at the international level would violate principles
of procedural justice, since non-citizens of the acting state either
(a) would not have taken part in the decision process (Rawls), or (b)
would not be able to appeal that action (Daniels and Sabin).  The US
could decide to drop manna from the sky over the entire world, and by
definition this would be unilateral and hence unjust.  The real
culprit, in this instance, is unilateralism rather than climate
engineering.

Earlier this year I had an article published titled Geoengineering
and the Myth of Unilateralism (available free at
http://www.stanford.edu/group/sjlsp/cgi-bin/users_images/pdfs/61_Horton%20Final.pdf).
As the title suggests, I am deeply skeptical of the threat of
unilateral stratospheric aerosol injections (SAI), as summarized in
the following extract from the article:

the incentive structure faced by a state interested in implementing
SAI would
strongly discourage unilateral postures that dismissed the need for
international agreement and
coordination. Any country considering unilateral deployment would find
itself tangled in a web
of technical and political constraints and steered toward reaching
some form of global consensus.
Individual incentives may be inadequate to deter unilateralism on
their own, but their collective
weight is likely to tilt the playing field decisively in favor of
multilateral cooperation. For
instance, Country B may be sufficiently motivated to accept the costs
associated with the
termination problem and dispense with efforts to synchronize emissions
mitigation policies. But
once deployed, a large number of international actors would
effectively exercise joint control
over any injection system, frustrating any attempt by Country B to
pursue a coherent SAI policy
managed solely by its national government. Furthermore, any actor
opposed to the project could
easily (and anonymously) counter its effects using relatively simple
means such as release of
black carbon, thereby neutralizing the entire scheme. For Country B,
the costs of unilateral SAI
would exceed the benefits, due to the technical limitations inherent
in unilateral deployment of
such technology, and as a consequence, interest in SAI would require a
multilateral approach.
The net result is that states are unlikely to view unilateral
deployment as a sound, effective
policy option.

If unilateralism is the real problem, and unilateralism is unlikely in
the case of stratospheric aerosols, then this form of climate
engineering is much less problematic than you contend, at least from
the procedural justice point of view.

Josh Horton
joshuahorton...@gmail.com
http://geoengineeringpolitics.blogspot.com/



On Aug 16, 10:44 pm, Michael Hayes voglerl...@gmail.com wrote:
 Please allow me a few comments.

 However, SAG faces
 obstacles to meeting these requirements, so it is incumbent upon proponents
 of SAG
 either to present a version of SAG that is distributively just or to argue
 why SAG ought to
 be implemented despite its ethical shortcomings. Prevention of a methane
 tipping point would seem distributively just for life in general.
 More generally, it is arguably intergenerationally unjust for present
 generations to bring about states of affairs that are distributively unjust
 for future generations. In other words, one requirement of intergenerational
 justice is that present persons not compromise the distributive justice of
 future generations. Prevention of a methane tipping point does seem to
 comply with this concept regardless of the arguable validity of the concept.
 On the subject of procedural justice;

 Unilateral SAG violates Rawls’ theory of procedural justice, which holds
 that a policy is procedurally just only if all persons affected by that
 decision have the opportunity to contribute to that decision process.

 The current UN panel on Bio Diversity would seem to be in violation
 of Rawls' theory. In fact, no known treaty or policy has ever complied with
 this theory. The use of representatives to contribute to that decision
 process is simply the exercise of political policy.

 Thank you for your work and I hope to see this paper vigorously debated by
 the group.

 Michael





 On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 9:50 AM, Toby Svoboda tobysvob...@gmail.com wrote:
  Yes, the link provided by Masa is an up-to-date version (aside from some
  formatting changes, etc. in the published version).

  Toby Svoboda

  On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 10:18 PM, Masa Sugiyama 
  s-m...@criepi.denken.or.jp wrote:

  Here's the manuscript.  (I don't know if this is the most up-to-date.)
 http://www3.geosc.psu.edu/~kzk10/Svoboda_PAQ_11.pdf

  -Masa

  On 8月16日, 午前1:04, Dan Whaley dan.wha...@gmail.com wrote:
   Is it possible for someone to post the article here

[geo] Re: website for climate science and engineering

[Josh Horton]

Hi all,

Michael, sorry to hear about your computer and house problems,
hopefully they are on their way to a quick resolution.  And thanks
again for your leadership in getting the website effort up and
running.

I don't mean to be a buzzkill, but as discussions about the website
have proceeded, several issues have cropped up that I think should be
brought into sharper relief, to avoid difficulties down the road:

1. There are some obvious advantages to piggybacking on the Climate101
project, but there are also disadvantages, the most important of which
is loss of independence.  I appreciate what David says about complete
editorial freedom, but the fact is this can never exist so long as the
site is funded by NSF and NASA.  I have nothing against either
organization, but make no mistake that joining Climate101 will
inevitably result in losing some editorial control, and this will
ultimately affect site content.  However, these costs may be worth the
gains in efficiency.

2. In a similar vein, Ken raised the issue of whether we should
address geoengineering on its own or as one element of broader climate
risk reduction.  There seems to be some consensus on the latter, and
joining with Climate101 would make this effective, but there was never
much debate or explicit agreement on this point.  It's worth noting
that this list is oriented toward geoengineering, not climate risk
reduction including mitigation, adaptation, and geoengineering.  If
the proposed site were to adopt a broader climate risk management
perspective, this would necessarily entail a change in focus.

3. There seem to be multiple conceptions of what the website should
be, and there are important differences among them.  This project is
variously referred to as a website, a portal, an organization, a
voice, etc.  Some view it as purely informational, but others view it
as a sovereign actor taking part in policy debates.  One of the
critical questions here is how proactive (for lack of a better word)
this body should be--should it function as an educational resource, an
advocate, or something in between?  Obviously, the answer to this
question also affects the question of Climate101 membership.

These are some tricky issues, but I think it's better to raise them at
the outset and reach some form of consensus rather than gloss them
over and hope they never become real impediments.

Josh Horton
joshuahorton...@gmail.com

On Aug 10, 6:18 pm, David Mitchell david.mitch...@dri.edu wrote:
 Dear Mike,

 I think this type of presentation makes a lot of sense, and it would be
 nice to develop some graphical indicator to show the relative level of
 effort on each of these steps.  But it seems that some of the
 temperature estimates depend on climate sensitivity.  Are you assuming
 the Charney sensitivity adopted by IPCC of ~ 3 deg. C?  If so, some
 temperature predictions may look different if we used a climate
 sensitivity based on paleoclimate data, such as 7.8 deg. C as advocated
 by Jeff Kiehl and David Wasdell (see attached).  These authors argue
 that the uncertainty in climate sensitivity from paleoclimate
 measurements is much less relative to GCM predicted climate sensitivity
 since it is based on the Earth's climate system (i.e. whether we
 comprehend it or not).  Perhaps we could show an analysis similar to
 what you describe but done twice; one for each climate sensitivity
 assumption.

 Best,
 David Mitchell

 On 8/10/2011 9:31 AM, Mike MacCracken wrote:



  Dear David and Michael (and et al.)---I too think a formulation based
  on climate risk and the set of possible options make most sense, and
  David may recall that that was how I tried to frame the discussion in
  my introduction to the geoengineering symposium in Melbourne at the
  IUGG General Assembly. To sort of summarize the situation (and I use
  units of mass of C, not CO2), very roughly (others can do this all
  quantitatively with lost of scenarios, but this sort of sets the issue
  out a bit more simply, and I think is close):

  1. Situation faced if trends continue (so roughly a central fossil
  fuel estimate with few controls on emissions; including ongoing
  deforestation adds a bit more): Per capita global emissions of CO2
  rover the 21st century rise to the present European average and
  continue a bit after (more reliance on coal would mean less useful
  energy from emissions of given amount). So, say an average of 3 tons
  of C/capita for 9 billion people gives emissions over century of 2700
  GtC by 2100. Divide by 4 (roughly) to get ppm increase in CO2
  concentration (and uptake of CO2 could go down, so divisor would be
  less) and one ends up with atmospheric concentration at 1000 ppm and
  rising significantly after 2100. So, very significant temperature
  increase.

  2. Aggressive mitigation (so collectively: conservation, efficiency,
  alternative sources of energy, ending deforestation, etc.): Keeping
  the CO2 concentration to 550 ppm in 2100 requires C

[geo] Re: My AGU abstract: We Don¹t Need a ³Geoengineering² Research Program

[Josh Horton]

I understand the conceptual and tactical reasons Ken cites for
dropping talk of a geoengineering research program, but Eugene is on
to something with his stinkweed analogy.  Fairly or unfairly,
disaggregating geoengineering into more conventional research
categories will be viewed by many as an attempt at obfuscation, and
this is an important political consideration.  It also tends to
obscure the unique nature of the geoengineering enterprise as a
deliberate attempt to intervene in the climate system, something which
should not be overlooked.

Josh Horton
joshuahorton...@gmail.com


On Aug 5, 9:48 pm, Rau, Greg r...@llnl.gov wrote:
 Good luck  -G

 __
 Science And The Debt Deal
 Politics: Compromise includes cuts that will hit science agencies over the 
 next decade
 Susan R. Morrissey, Glenn Hess and Raj Mukhopadhyay
 Legislation signed by President Barack Obama this week to raise the debt 
 ceiling and avoid a default on government loans presents a mixed bag for 
 science. The deal includes more than $900 billion in cuts over the next 
 decade to federal discretionary funds—money that includes support for science 
 agencies.
 In terms of an immediate impact, the Budget Control Act of 2011 sets the 
 discretionary spending limit for fiscal 2012 at $1.04 trillion. This is the 
 amount of money Congress can dole out to agencies for the next fiscal year. 
 It is actually $24 million above the amount the House of Representatives set 
 for its 2012 spending limit.
 Having this essentially flat cap on spending in place provides agencies with 
 some certainty that there will not be huge across-the-board cuts in 2012, a 
 White House official says. As a result, agencies can begin making preliminary 
 spending decisions for 2012.
 Business leaders also appreciate the certainty the measure provides. Thomas 
 J. Donohue, president and chief executive of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, 
 the nation’s largest business lobby, says the agreement, “while far from 
 perfect, ... begins the process of getting America’s fiscal house in order 
 and was necessary to avoid a default that would have resulted in an economic 
 catastrophe.”
 But all federal agencies will face cuts over the long term. Congress will 
 need to make tough spending decisions to comply with the legislation. The 
 impact on science funding remains unclear.
 “Everything is subject to being cut,” noted Rep. Ed Whitfield (R-Ky.) at a 
 press briefing last week. A bipartisan, bicameral “supercommittee,” said 
 Whitfield, chairman of a House Energy  Commerce subcommittee, will closely 
 scrutinize all federal spending.
 As Congress irons out the details, the science community will be watching 
 closely. “Budgets for fiscal 2012 and future years will be impacted by 
 mandated reductions in the debt-ceiling deal,” notes Glenn S. Ruskin, 
 director of the Office of Public Affairs at the American Chemical Society. 
 “But how those reductions will be spread out over the agencies is not at all 
 clear right now. ACS will continue to advocate on behalf of predictable and 
 sustained funding for key RD agencies.”
 Chemical  Engineering News
 ISSN 0009-2347
 Copyright © 2011 American Chemical Society
 
 From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [geoengineering@googlegroups.com] On 
 Behalf Of Ken Caldeira [kcalde...@gmail.com]
 Sent: Friday, August 05, 2011 4:37 PM
 To: Stuart Strand
 Cc: xbenf...@gmail.com; mmacc...@comcast.net; Geoengineering@googlegroups.com
 Subject: Re: [geo] My AGU abstract: We Don¹t Need a ³Geoengineering² Research 
 Program

 If something is not now in the mission of an agency, Congress can cause it to 
 be in the mission.

 DOE managed to find the Human Genome Project within their domain even though 
 it didn't fit with their energy mission:  http://genomics.energy.gov/

 If Congress allocates money to an agency to do something, most agencies will 
 take the money and do it.

 Congress decides what agencies do, not the agencies themselves (although 
 agencies can influence congressional decisions).

 ___
 Ken Caldeira

 Carnegie Institution Dept of Global Ecology
 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA
 +1 650 704 7212 
 kcalde...@carnegie.stanford.edumailto:kcalde...@carnegie.stanford.eduhttp://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab @kencaldeira

 On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 12:12 PM, Stuart Strand 
 sstr...@u.washington.edumailto:sstr...@u.washington.edu wrote:
 The problem is that geoengineering doesn't really fit with the missions of 
 any of the national scientific funding agencies as far as I can tell. As an 
 example, when I talked to the Department of Energy about ways to remove 
 methane and nitrous oxide from the atmosphere they said that it wasn't in 
 their mission because those gases did not relate to energy production. 
 Although this argument was flawed in addition to being somewhat boneheaded, 
 you hear this type

[geo] Bill Clinton Champions White Roofs

[Josh Horton]

From The Atlantic (http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/07/
paint-your-roofs-white/241784/):

Paint Your Roofs White
By Bill Clinton Jul 18 2011, 9:13 AM ET 122
What's the single best idea to jumpstart job creation?

Look at the tar roofs covering millions of American buildings. They
absorb huge amounts of heat when it's hot. And they require more air
conditioning to cool the rooms. Mayor Bloomberg started a program to
hire and train young people to paint New York's roofs white. A big
percentage of the kids have been able to parlay this simple work into
higher-skilled training programs or energy-related retrofit jobs.
(And, believe it or not, painting the roof white can lower the
electricity use by 20 percent on a hot day!)

Every black roof in New York should be white; every roof in Chicago
should be white; every roof in Little Rock should be white. Every flat
tar-surface roof anywhere! In most of these places you could recover
the cost of the paint and the labor in a week. It's the quickest,
cheapest thing you can do. In the current environment it's been
difficult for the mayors to get what is otherwise a piddling amount of
money to do it everywhere. Yet lowering the utility bill in every
apartment house 10 to 20 percent frees cash that can be spent to
increase economic growth.



Josh Horton

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
geoengineering group.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.

[geo] Climate Change, Security, and Small Island States

[Josh Horton]

On July 20, the UN Security Council held an open debate on the subject
of climate change and risks to international security. The topic was
introduced by Germany, which currently holds the rotating presidency
of the Security Council. Following on from earlier efforts to raise
the issue of climate security within the Council, Germany sought to
begin an ongoing dialogue on the security risks posed by climate
change, in particular the threat of sea-level rise and dangers to food
supplies. Discussion also focused on the possible future need for UN
green helmets for deployment to violent conflicts around the world
caused or exacerbated (threat-multiplied) by climate change.

Germany was strongly supported by the Pacific Small Island Developing
States grouping. The chairman of this organization, President Marcus
Stephen of Nauru, urged in a July 18 op-ed in the New York Times that
the Security Council should join the General Assembly in recognizing
climate change as a threat to international peace and security. It is
a threat as great as nuclear proliferation or global terrorism. Yet
he went on to write that Negotiations to reduce emissions should
remain the primary forum for reaching an international agreement.
Climate engineering was not mentioned as a potential strategy.

The existential threat faced by small island states as a result of
global warming and rising seas is more than sufficient reason to
explore geoengineering as an additional climate policy option.
Emissions mitigation, even if deep cuts were somehow achieved over the
next decades, will not be enough to prevent the demise of low-lying
island states such as Nauru, the Marshall Islands, and the Maldives.
In the absence of climate intervention, such countries will cease to
exist in any meaningful sense. When rising sea levels are treated as a
matter of war and peace before the UN Security Council, national
leaders compare their climate predicaments to nuclear proliferation
and terrorism, and the future existence of entire nation-states is in
doubt, surely it is appropriate to consider all possible solutions.
Small island developing states, and representative organizations such
as the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS), ought to be at the
forefront of diplomatic efforts to jump-start research into
geoengineering.

Josh Horton
joshuahorton...@gmail.com
http://geoengineeringpolitics.blogspot.com/

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
geoengineering group.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.

[geo] Re: HOME/ETC Group Targets IPCC: Data on public perception

[Josh Horton]

David,

Thanks for making this available.  Note some earlier public opinion
focus group work on geoengineering done by UK NERC -
http://www.nerc.ac.uk/about/consult/geoengineering-dialogue-final-report.pdf.

This contains some very interesting results, particularly on the moral
hazard issue.

Josh

On Jul 11, 9:35 pm, David Keith ke...@ucalgary.ca wrote:
 Folks

 Earlier comments on this thread contained lots of speculation about what 
 people think about SRM/geo.

 We recently submitted a paper that has some of the first results from a 
 high-quality surveys of public perception. (Where for a survey, 
 high-quality=that is big numbers, good demographic sampling, and well tested 
 questions.)

 The paper is athttp://people.ucalgary.ca/~keith/Preprints.html. You need a 
 username  password which you can get (quickly) from the Hollie Roberts see 
 email link on the page (and I don't change it).

 Yours,
 David

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
geoengineering group.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.

[geo] Re: NGO opposition to geo

[Josh Horton]

On IPSO, BBC suggests that the report supports certain types of
geoengineering, but the long version of the summary report, which is
all that has been released, talks only of significantly increased
measures for mitigation of atmospheric CO2 (p. 8) (http://
www.stateoftheocean.org/pdfs/1906_IPSO-LONG.pdf).  This is pretty
vague.  I guess we'll have to wait for the full report for more
details.

As an aside, see Annex 2 for the proposed Global Ocean Compliance
Commission--nice sentiment, but unlikely.

Josh


On Jun 21, 5:07 pm, Emily em...@lewis-brown.net wrote:
 Hi,

 It might be useful to engage with the NGO community and connect on some
 geo-eng issues as currently, the opposition to intervening with climate
 change actively is mounting.
 This is a risky strategy also. Either way - to intervene or not - has
 its risks and moral and ethical dilemmas.

 NGO letter to the IPCC geoengineering meeting
 (http://www.etcgroup.org/en/node/5267)
 http://www.etcgroup.org/en/node/5267

 Hands Off Mother Earth : HOME campaign
 (http://www.handsoffmotherearth.org) http://www.handsoffmotherearth.org/

 best wishes,

 Emily.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
geoengineering group.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.

[geo] Re: Cost of Air Capture and the APS report

[Josh Horton]

Robert,

Setting aside SRM for the moment, have you ever revisited the wedges
paper to incorporate the full suite of potential CDR strategies?  This
strikes me as an obvious way to broaden the wedge concept.  I imagine
this has already been done one way or another 

Josh Horton
joshuahorton...@gmail.com
http://geoengineeringpolitics.blogspot.com/



On Jun 21, 5:14 pm, David Keith ke...@ucalgary.ca wrote:
 Of course it's not only an emergency strategy.

 Each group that has begun to think about it seriously has realized that.

 I said just this to the group in Lima an hour ago.

 David

 From: Alvia Gaskill [mailto:agask...@nc.rr.com]
 Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2011 3:07 PM
 To: soco...@princeton.edu; rongretlar...@comcast.net
 Cc: geoengineering@googlegroups.com; David Keith
 Subject: Re: [geo] Cost of Air Capture and the APS report

 I leave the Lima group with a final thought. Is SRM only an emergency 
 strategy? What are the pros and cons of a continuous ground-bass deployment 
 of 1 W/m^2 of stratospheric aerosol negative forcing, as an overall helper on 
 the margin and as a way of learning about larger deployment?

 No, it shouldn't only be considered as an emergency option, a term which has 
 never been adequately defined anyway and tends to be used as a defense 
 against the media and the opponents of geoengineering by those working in the 
 field who can't or don't want to pardon the expression, take the heat.

  Paul Crutzen included use of stratospheric aerosols at about this level of 
 negative forcing to replace the loss of tropospheric sulfate from pollution 
 controls and others have made similar proposals (including me).  To get to 
 some kind of full-scale offset of AGW forcing (back to pre-industrial from 
 today or some future date) you have to pass through 1 W/m2 anyway.  Plus, a 
 slowdown of warming now means less ice melted that we can't replace in the 
 future (given what we know about how difficult that will be).   This applies 
 to cloud brightening as well or some other technology that could achieve the 
 same impact.  But i also note that to get to 1 W/m2 you have to get through 
 0.1 and 0.2 and 0.3, etc.  You have to start somewhere.



 - Original Message -
 From: Robert Socolowmailto:soco...@princeton.edu
 To: rongretlar...@comcast.netmailto:rongretlar...@comcast.net
 Cc: geoengineering@googlegroups.commailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com ; 
 ke...@ucalgary.camailto:ke...@ucalgary.ca
 Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2011 2:57
 Subject: RE: [geo] Cost of Air Capture and the APS report

 Ron, Ken, and others:

 Given that the Lima meeting is in its middle day today, let me push 
 everything aside to write answers to Ron's questions. I am speaking only for 
 myself.

 1.       Yes, there is only one change, aside from formatting, in the June 1 
 version of the APS report. We say so on the second page of the preface. As we 
 were issuing the unformatted version at the end of April, David Keith 
 identified a clear mistake in our report, involving the pressure drop per 
 meter for a specific packing material, which we had carried forward from a 
 2006 paper. Fortunately, one member of our committee, Marco Mazzotti, was an 
 author of that paper. With one of his co-authors, he updated his earlier work 
 with new information from the manufacturer of the packing, additionally found 
 an error in his earlier analysis, followed a hunch that there was an easy fix 
 for us by substituting one packing for another, and we buttoned this up. The 
 new packing is cheaper, but we verified that our initial cost estimate for 
 packing had been so conservative that the new packing actually fit the 
 assumed price better. I am aware at this time of no outright error in our 
 report. People may find some, and if they do I hope they will tell me about 
 them.

 2.       Item a. In my view, the experts (specifically Keith, Lackner, and 
 Eisenberger) were given adequate time to interact with us. Our project took 
 two years. We established groundrules at the front end that there would be an 
 arms-length relationship and (confirmed more than once) that as a matter of 
 policy we would not learn confidential information. All three presented to us 
 at our kick-off meeting in March 2009, reviewed a draft (along with almost 20 
 others) in April 2010, and communicated repeatedly with us. I had the 
 personal goal of being sure that the key ideas in their work were understood 
 by our committee and commented upon in our report. Nonetheless, none of the 
 three of them is happy with the result. One comment all three would make is 
 that they would have done the study differently. They would have asked what 
 air capture could cost if one were to assume success in the presence of risk; 
 our committee felt that in the absence of reviewable published data, this was 
 an illegitimate task. We decided to include one cost estimate based on a 
 benchmark design, resulting in a system whose cost

[geo] Re: HOME/ETC Group Targets IPCC

[Josh Horton]

Several interesting points have been raised:

1. Ken describes several basic ETC positions.  From what I can tell,
there is one additional underlying premise: modern capitalism, built
on science and technology, is responsible for the climate crisis,
therefore, the modern rationalist worldview is incapable of providing
a solution to climate change.  The first part of this premise may or
may not be correct, but the second part certainly does not follow, and
the argument itself is divorced from our present reality of economic
inertia, political impasse, and limited options.  I invite anyone from
the ETC Group to amend these characterizations.

2. I am willing to accept the list of signatory organizations at face
value, although the extent to which they represent global civil
society is questionable (from my neck of the woods, the Enviro Show? -
http://envirosho.blogspot.com/).

3. Friends of the Earth is a credible group, but it seems to be
fracturing on the question of geoengineering.  FOE International and
its US chapter signed this letter, but John cites a 2009 FOE Briefing
Note expressing openness to geoengineering, and FOE (England, Wales 
Northern Ireland) expressed similar openness in a report last year
(http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Environment/documents/
2010/12/15/CarbonBudgetsReportdec14final.pdf).  Where exactly does FOE
stand as an organization?

4. It appears that the Guardian has come out in opposition to
geoengineering.  Its June 15 article (flagged by Wil Burns and others)
is clearly sympathetic to the HOME campaign, arguably mischaracterizes
the IPCC abstracts as leaks, and is now followed by a featured
opinion piece from the ETC Group (noted by Stephen earlier).  Getting
them to reprint Ken's points may be a challenge.

5. Andrew's draft is well written and timely - please add my name -
Joshua B. Horton, PhD.


Josh


On Jun 16, 7:18 am, John Gorman gorm...@waitrose.com wrote:
 happy to add my name to your draft

 John Gorman   M. A. (Cantab.) Chartered Engineer

 Member of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers

 Member of the Institution of Engineering and Technology



 - Original Message -
 From: Stephen Salter s.sal...@ed.ac.uk
 To: Andrew Lockley and...@andrewlockley.com

 Cc: geoengineering@googlegroups.com
 Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2011 11:09 AM
 Subject: Re: [geo] HOME/ETC Group Targets IPCC

   Andrew

 I cannot improve your draft.

 Stephen

 Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design
 Institute for Energy Systems
 School of Engineering
 Mayfield Road
 University of Edinburgh EH9  3JL
 Scotland
 Tel +44 131 650 5704
 Mobile 07795 203 195www.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs

 On 16/06/2011 10:25, Andrew Lockley wrote:
  Suggested wording, for amendment and endorsement.

  A

  We the undersigned represent a selection of the scientists, engineers
  and social  policy experts involved in the development of
  geoengineering and its governance.  We write with frustration at the
  sentiments expressed in the recent letter sent by ETC et al to the
  press and IPCC.  As a result, we would like to express the following
  views on the IPCC's process on geoengineering, and more generally:

  1) We do not propose geoengineering as a substitute for emissions
  cuts, and never have done.
  2) We believe that research demonstrates that emissions cuts are
  necessary, but may not be sufficient to control dangerous climate
  change.
  3) We note that several geoengineering schemes have been proposed
  which appear to be workable, but that we currently lack the research
  necessary to determine the full extent of any role they may play in
  the future control of global warming.
  4) We fear the deployment in emergency of poorly tested geoengineering
  techniques
  5) We argue for the proper funding and testing of possible
  geoengineering technologies, in order to better understand them
  6) We note that, despite the lack of clear geoengineering solutions
  available for deployment at present, efforts to curtail emissions have
  thus far achieved little or nothing.  As such, we believe that further
  research will not in itself raise climate risks due to any perceived
  panacea which the existence of the technology may wrongly appear to
  offer.

  Nevertheless, we note the the IPCCs consideration of this issue
  represents a departure from its traditional pure science remit.  We
  argue therefore for greater transparency of the process, the inclusion
  of experts from social policy fields in the process, and the opening
  up of sessions to external observers, notably civil society groups.

  Yours sincerely

  On 16 June 2011 09:39, Stephen Salters.sal...@ed.ac.uk  wrote:
  Hi All

  Pat Mooney of the ETC group repeats much of the IPCC letter in today's
  Guardian see

 http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jun/15/geo-engineering-cli...

  Can we get the Guardian to print Ken's list of points?

  Stephen

  Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design
  Institute for Energy Systems
  School of 

[geo] CDR Raised at Bonn Climate Talks

[Josh Horton]

The UNFCCC Executive Secretary has raised the possibility of negative
emissions ...



http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jun/05/global-warming-suck-greenhouse-gases?intcmp=122

Global warming crisis may mean world has to suck greenhouse gases from
air
As Bonn talks begin, UN climate chief warns of temperature goals set
too low and clock ticking on climate change action

Fiona Harvey, environment correspondent
guardian.co.uk,  Sunday 5 June 2011 18.10 BST
Article history

The world may have to resort to technology that sucks greenhouse gases
from the air to stave off the worst effects of global warming, the UN
climate change chief has said before talks on the issue beginning on
Monday.

We are putting ourselves in a scenario where we will have to develop
more powerful technologies to capture emissions out of the
atmosphere, said Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of the UN
Framework Convention on Climate Change. We are getting into very
risky territory, she added, stressing that time was running out.

The UN climate talks starting on Monday in Bonn, which run for the
next two weeks, will try to revive the negotiations before the next
climate conference, taking place in Durban, South Africa, in December.
But little progress is expected, as the negotiating time is likely to
be taken up with details such as rules on monitoring emissions.

Figueres tried to inject a greater sense of urgency into the
proceedings by pointing to research from the International Energy
Agency that found that emissions had soared last year by a record
amount. The strong rise means it will take more effort by governments
to curb emissions.

Figueres told the Guardian in an interview that governments should act
now to save money: We add $1 trillion to the cost [of tackling
climate change] with every year of delay.

However, as the latest talks begin, the world's leading climate change
official has upset governments by insisting that the aim of the
negotiations ought to be to hold warming to less than 1.5C. That would
be a much tougher goal than that set by governments last year, which
seeks to limit the temperature rise to no more than 2C – the safety
threshold, scientists say, beyond which warming becomes catastrophic
and irreversible.

In my book, there is no way we can stick to the goal that we know is
completely unacceptable to the most exposed [countries], Figueres
said.

The difference between the two goals may not seem great, but since it
has taken more than 20 years of talks for countries to agree on the 2C
limit, many are unwilling to reopen the debate. Delegates are
conscious that wrangling over whether to stick to 1.5C or 2C was one
of the main sources of conflict at the Copenhagen climate summit in
2009; the hope has been that talks can move on to other issues such as
how to pay for emissions curbs in poorer countries.

This is an extraordinary intervention, said one official involved in
the climate talks, who could not be named.

Figueres said that she had the support of the world's least developed
countries, most of Africa, and small island states.

Another factor casting a pall over this year's talks, which are
intended to forge a new global treaty on climate change, is criticism
of the South African government, which will host the Durban talks. No
interim meetings have yet been set up, and countries have complained
of disorganisation and a lack of enthusiasm. But Figueres said: South
Africa has been very carefully listening, trying to understand where
there are commonalities and where the weaknesses are.

She also predicted the US would play a strong role in the talks,
despite the Obama administration facing Republican opposition in
Congress to action on emissions. It's very evident that the
legislative body in the US has disengaged, but … the administration
continues to be engaged. she said.

But Todd Stern, chief negotiator for the US, called for participants
in the talks to roll up their sleeves and be constructive.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
geoengineering group.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.

[geo] Re: Deep ocean disposal

[Josh Horton]

Michael writes in an earlier email that These are the same oil fields
that are being proposed for massive CO2 geological storage. Fracking
is rapidly taking that option off the table.  I know a little about
CCS but not much about fracking - if this is a zero-sum game then
we've got a problem.  Oil/gas, coal, and power plants do not neatly
overlap, so if fracking comes at the expense of CCS, we could see
conflicting interests within the broader resource extraction industry.

Josh Horton
joshuahorton...@gmail.com


On Jun 2, 1:10 pm, Stephen Salter s.sal...@ed.ac.uk wrote:
   Mike

 We could be picky about our trenches.  We do not have to be all that
 deep, only  about 700 metres.

 Stephen

 Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design
 Institute for Energy Systems
 School of Engineering
 Mayfield Road
 University of Edinburgh EH9  3JL
 Scotland
 Tel +44 131 650 5704
 Mobile 07795 203 195www.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs

 On 02/06/2011 17:00, Mike MacCracken wrote:



  But aren't deep ocean trenches generally subduction zones, so subject
  to rather massive earthquakes, as recently occurred off Japan?

  Mike

  On 6/2/11 5:42 AM, Stephen Salter s.sal...@ed.ac.uk wrote:

        Hi All

       I used to think that if gas fields had not leaked their natural
      gas then they should not leak CO2 but I can now see that this
      argument would be changed by fracking.

       However if the pressure is high enough the density of CO2 is
      higher than that of sea water. If you fill a deep sea depression
      with it and then cover the CO2 puddle with a material which
      prevents or greatly slows diffusion of CO2 to the sea water then
      most of it should stay put.  The cover could be a layer of liquid
      with a density intermediate between the CO2 and sea water and very
      low miscibility with both.  This would allow it to self repair.
       We could also stab pipes through it to add more CO2 of to release
      some in order to offset Lowell Wood's overdue ice age.  We need to
      look for deep depressions close to where CO2 is being produce or
      could be concentrated.

       I did suggest this in a previous  contribution to the blog quite
      a while ago but I think that it sank without trace.  This is what
      we want for the CO2.

       Stephen

      Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design
      Institute for Energy Systems
      School of Engineering
      Mayfield Road
      University of Edinburgh EH9  3JL
      Scotland
      Tel +44 131 650 5704
      Mobile 07795 203 195
     www.see.ed.ac.uk/~shshttp://www.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs
      http://www.see.ed.ac.uk/%7Eshs

       On 01/06/2011 21:35, Gregory Benford wrote:

          Michael raises the crucial issue: */Should the oil and gas
          industry be relied upon at the geological time scale needed
          for massive CO2 sequestration?

          /*There are measurements Sherry Rowland told me about ~5 years
          ago, made by his group at UCI, of the methane content of air
          across Texas  Oklahoma. /He found no difference in methane
          levels in cities vs oil fields and farms.
          /
           He inferred that many oil wells, including spot drillings
          that yielded no oil, but penetrated fairly deeply, were
          leaking methane into the air. No one has contradicted this.

           That made me forget CCS in such domes. Thus I went back to
          working on CROPS, where we know it takes ~1000 years to return
          to the atmosphere.

           Gregory Benford

          On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 1:25 PM, Michael Hayes
          voglerl...@gmail.com wrote:

              Hi Folks,

              After reading Greg's post, I have spent some time looking
              into the methane release being caused by Fracking. Here
              is a link to a resent film on the subject.
             http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZe1AeH0Qz8If you are
              interested in the methane issue in general, I encourage
              you to take the time to view this film. I do realize that
              any media based documentary is subject to dispute and
              debate. However, I bring this to the group for 2 reasons.

              1) These are the same oil fields that are being proposed
              for massive CO2 geological storage. Fracking is rapidly
              taking that option off the table. I have never believed
              oil field CO2 sequestration was practical. However, this
              type of information should raise profound questions about
              the entire concept of geological CO2 sequestration.

              2) The methane release (GHG effect) from such wide spread
              use of this drilling method can equal all other
              anthropogenic GHG sources at the regional level.

              Fracking is a methane wild card which can not be ignored.
              And, oil field CO2 sequestration is in direct opposition

[geo] Re: BECCS -- How much research is going on into biomass energy with carbon capture and storage?

[Josh Horton]

In case anyone missed it, the Global CCS Institute recently put out a
global BECCS assessment report, which you can find here
http://www.globalccsinstitute.com/sites/default/files/GCCSI_Biorecro_Global_Status_of_BECCS_110302_report.pdf

Section 4 covers current BECCS projects.  I notice that Biorecro
authored the report, so I assume Henrik is intimately familiar with
it.

Josh Horton


On May 24, 1:24 pm, rongretlar...@comcast.net wrote:
 Ken, Henrik and list

 1. Ken specifically asked about the list's reaction to his final sentence 
 being questioned by Henrik, which read (adding the previous sentence also):
 If the plants are burned in power plants that capture CO2and store it 
 underground in geologic reservoirs, then the net effect is to move carbon 
 from the active biosphere to the deep geosphere, reversing the effect of 
 producing and burning fossil fuels. This approach is already being 
 investigated within DOE and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), and 
 the interagency cooperation seems to be working well. 

 Living in Golden (CO), where a lot of this type of biomass work is done or 
 managed I have been following this topic for some years. I think both Henrik 
 and Ken are correct. Their differing perceptions can be reconciled by noting 
 that DoE (specifically NREL/Golden) used to have fairly large research 
 programs in both biofuels and biopower. In one of our nation's many misguided 
 attempts to save money, the biopower program was cancelled some years ago 
 and all the US bioenergy effort since has been on biofuels. Ken is correct 
 that there has been considerable money expended on biofuels from both the DoE 
 and USDA appropriations. They alternate years on which department is in 
 charge. I don't have the statistics, but working well' is probably accurate, 
 given funding limits.

 Working well does not apply to carbon negativity - which is closely allied 
 with biopower. Henrik is correct that none of those dual-Agency funds (I 
 think) have been deemed appropriate (in the past) for BECCS (and Biochar 
 somewhat less). The dual-Agency funds are restricted to the biofuel program 
 and none for (the no-longer-researched) fixed biopower plants. The funding 
 restriction away from sequestration may have been slightly relaxed in the 
 last fiscal year procurement (I vaguely recall hearing).

 However, more than a year ago, in Denver, DoE ran a several-day policy study 
 to gain opinion on re-starting the now-defunct national biopower program. I 
 attended, as did maybe three-four others interested in Biochar (out of maybe 
 a hundred attendees). I do not recall BECCS being similarly represented or 
 pushed, but it could have been. The reaction of the (mostly biopower) 
 attendees (naturally) was positive to re-start a national biopower program. A 
 draft report was issued for comment. I thought and said their comments on 
 Biochar showed little understanding of the technology - but the word 
 Biochar was included. I do not recall if BECCS was included. My guess is 
 that someone within OMB may have killed the whole re-start concept - but the 
 biopower option may still be filtering through the Bioenergy bureaucracy. I 
 would not expect any new biopower funding to have much on carbon negativity, 
 in any case. CDR needs to gain more of a following than it has at present 
 (and which I expect to come more from rural/ag America - after it is 
 successful in China and Brazil).

 My naive perception on the need for specific BECCS (and to a lesser extent - 
 Biochar) research is that there would seem to be much more need for a carbon 
 tax than RD. On the resource side - biofuel-related research is already 
 happening (mostly through Oak Ridge National Laboratory), and is applicable 
 also to biopower. The many (and increasing number of) biopower plants seem to 
 have limited need for research on chipping, pelletizing, and combustion 
 (although gasification RD is probably needed). And NETL seems to have $ 
 billions for CCS - into which BECCS would seem to fit comfortably (and 
 Biochar has no place). I ask (certainly naively) Henriks where the need is 
 for specific BECCS RD (as opposed to CCS)..

 2. More also for Henriks - whose biorecro web site I have now looked over 
 quite a bit, as well as those of his several partners. I like everything I 
 see there - clearly Biorecro is a leader in the BECCS technology. However, it 
 is not clear what Biorecro's business is beyond general development. Also, at 
 none of the half-dozen recommended partner sites, did I find the much more 
 recent word Biochar, which it seems to me could/should also be part of the 
 Biorecro portfolio. I favor Biochar over BECCS for third reasons. First, it 
 seems to be applicable to virtually every farm or forest, whereas BECCS 
 requires a relatively short distance to a relatively large power plant (ie 
 not as applicable in the tropics where most biomass sequestration potential 
 exists). Second, I think

[geo] Re: Research Thesis on Geoengineering

[Josh Horton]

Hi Panagiota,

I would be happy to answer some of your questions, unfortunately I'll
be unavailable for the next couple of weeks - please let me know if I
can help out.

Josh Horton
joshuahorton...@gmail.com



On May 20, 2:18 pm, Panagiota Stathaki pswrite...@yahoo.com wrote:
 My name is Panagiota Stathaki and I am a Master’s student at the VU
 University Amsterdam, the Netherlands. I am sending this message
 because of your knowledge and interest in geoengineering. I would be
 interested in your opinion on this topic.

  My research thesis is on the social responsibility of geoengineering
 experimental research, focused on cloud albedo enhancement. I am
 investigating how experimental research on geoengineering can be
 organized in order to explore the opportunities of preventing climate
 change in a socially responsible manner. My supervisors are Prof. dr.
 Arthur Petersen and dr. Eleftheria Vasileiadou.

 I have already had a few interviews, but in order to have a complete
 picture of this topic I would appreciate your inputs.

 I am open to taking phone interviews or sending my questions via
 email. The duration of a phone interview is expected to be around 30
 minutes. It would be unobtrusive and would take place at the date and
 time of your convenience. The questions that I am seeking answers to
 are:

 The answers to the questions will be anonymised, to ensure no link
 between responses and specific individuals.

 Following are questions concerning the elements of organizing such
 experiments

 1.      Should developing countries be involved in such research? If yes,
 how? Through which funding mechanisms could they be involved?
 2.      Do you see a role for international coordination of research on
 cloud albedo enhancement? If yes, under which actor? For instance the
 UN, IPCC, other authority?
 3.      Which actors from the scientific community, do you think, need to
 be involved in geoengineering research? What should their discipline
 be?
 4.      What should be the role of the private sector (private companies)
 in deployment/experimentation of such schemes?
 5.      Should the governments be involved in mechanisms for managing
 geoengineering? Should they for example regulate the private sector's
 research?
 6.      During research funding decisions for geoengineering should
 stakeholder participation be taken into account?
 7.      Are the existing legal instruments enough to cover such
 experiments, or are new ones in need?
 8.      Do you think that existing agencies can/should be responsible for
 organizing such experiments or are new agencies in need?
 9.      What, do you think, is the level of responsibility of the
 institutes conducting these experiments? How do you think they can
 take responsibility? For instance with insurance or compensation
 schemes?
 10.     Many are discussing about the openness of results with respect to
 geoengineering research. This could create problems for establishing
 authorship claims. It could also be difficult when companies are
 involved in the experimentation and deployment. What are your thoughts
 on this?
 11.      Do you think that internet, for instance open access journals,
 can play a role in openness of results of geoengineering research?

 I would like to thank you very much for your time and interest.

 What is your specialization and location?
 Would you be interested in being notified about the outcomes from this
 project?  (If yes-email address?)
 Do you know anyone else who would be interesting to interview with
 respect to this topic.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
geoengineering group.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.

[geo] Re: Arctic Council meeting on Thursday - the truth is out

[Josh Horton]

Here's a related post from my blog that might be of interest ...

Despite the recent release of an Arctic Council report on climate
change and regional collapse (see Alarming New Study from the Arctic
Council, 5/5), the past week has witnessed discouraging developments
on the Arctic front. On Thursday, the Arctic Council held its seventh
Ministerial Meeting in Greenland, with attendees including US
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. The focus of the meeting was not
regional deterioration and possible mitigation, but rather the
accelerating scramble for Arctic resources made possible by global
warming. The main purpose of the gathering was to sign a new Search
and Rescue (SAR) Agreement, necessitated by increasing traffic
resulting from intensified oil and gas exploration and regional
shipping.

Prior to the conference, WikiLeaks released a series of US diplomatic
cables detailing the quickening rush to carve up newly accessible
Arctic mineral resources. In one cable, Danish Foreign Minister Per
Stig Moeller is quoted as saying (with reference to US failure to
ratify the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea and consequent
difficulty establishing claims in the Arctic), if you stay out, then
the rest of us will have more to carve up in the Arctic. Another
cable quotes the Russian Ambassador to NATO remarking that The twenty-
first century will see a fight for resources, and Russia should not be
defeated in this fight ... NATO has sensed where the wind comes from.
It comes from the North.

The Arctic is in a grave state, but the reality is that many national
and corporate interests stand to gain considerably from a thawing
Arctic. Mineral resources, fisheries, superior shipping lanes--climate
change is creating a resource bonanza for extractive and other
industries. The irony, of course, is that the region most sensitive to
global warming, and therefore most likely to benefit from expeditious
geoengineering, is the same region giving rise to some of the most
powerful incentives to acquiesce in, or even hasten, climate change.

Josh Horton

On May 14, 2:09 pm, voglerl...@gmail.com wrote:
 Hi Folks,

 John asked a few important questions and I also thank him for moving the  
 trawler problem forward.

 As to nutrient question. I have found a correlation between 2 studies and  
 explored an idea for nutrient enhancement. Here is a copy of the post under  
 the thread Lecture on Methane... May 12.

 If you take a look at this paper  
 http://www.mumm-research.de/download_pdf/treude_et_al_aom_hr.pdfPg 2

 The AOM consortium predominant at HR consists
 of sulfate-reducing bacteria of the branch Desulfosarcina/Desulfococcus and  
 archaea of the ANME-2
 group (Boetius et al. 2000b). The archaea are surrounded by the  
 sulfate-reducing bacteria and both
 grow together in dense aggregates that comprise up
 to 90% of the microbial biomass in hydrate-bearing
 sediments. The current hypothesis on the functioning
 of AOM assumes that archaea oxidize methane in a
 process that is reverse to methanogenesis (Valentine
  Reeburgh 2000, and references therein). The role
 of the sulfate-reducing bacteria in AOM-consortia is
 the oxidation of a so far unknown intermediate by
 simultaneous reduction of sulfate, thus maintaining
 thermodynamic conditions allowing methane oxidation to proceed  
 exergonically.

 Now take a look at this:  
 http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-05-scientists-links-biology-cloud-fo...

 The so far unknown intermediate seems to have been found by the second  
 group. Thus, I believe sulfite enhancement might be used to both feed the  
 sulfate-reducing bacteria in the vent areas to enhance the biomass around  
 vents and thus methane oxidation. There may also be a synergistic link  
 between increasing this process and believe it on not.cloud  
 nucleation.

 This brings up the possibility of transplanting biotic colonies to less  
 well populated vents to kick start the natural process. Methane hydrates  
 are associated with local sulfate production in some vents. This may be a  
 clue as to how we might get new biotic masses growingfeed them sulfate  
 through dispersing blocks of compressed sulfate around vents.

 Just a thoughtAny comments, suggestions? This nutrient enhancement can  
 be done by aircraft. I will not take that much per sq km.

 Also, I believe the methane can be captured and used to cool the  
 surrounding water without extensive invasion of the area by industrial  
 processes. The broad sketch of the concept is the first post at Lecture on  
 Methane.

 One last thing. I think the ESAS has a mean depth of 150mstill not  
 much. I try to address enhanced oxidation through hydrosol assimilation in  
 todays post to Sam on the same thread.

 Thanks,
 Michael

 On May 14, 2011 2:24am, John Nissen j...@cloudworld.co.uk wrote:



  Hi all,
  Thanks Albert and thanks to Michael before you (about the trawling
  danger).
  Albert, the problem of the ESAS (East Siberian

[geo] Stanford Journal of Law, Science Policy Volume on Geoengineering

[Josh Horton]

Hi all,

The Stanford Journal of Law, Science  Policy has released its new
volume on geoengineering at the following link:

http://www.stanford.edu/group/sjlsp/cgi-bin/articles/index.php?CatID=1013

This issue follows on from the Asilomar conference, and is dedicated
to Stephen Schneider.  It includes several contributions from regular
group participants, including Wil Burns and myself.


Josh Horton
joshuahorton...@gmail.com
http://geoengineeringpolitics.blogspot.com/

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
geoengineering group.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.

[geo] Re: Vatican Report

[Josh Horton]

Ron,

Note the following on p. 4: Nations should also avoid removal of
carbon sinks by stopping deforestation, and should strengthen carbon
sinks by reforestation of degraded lands. They also need to develop
and deploy technologies that draw down excess carbon dioxide in the
atmosphere.

I would also be interested in learning more about the working group
dialog, especially the views of those non-scientists in attendance.

Josh Horton
joshuahorton...@gmail.com


On May 7, 7:03 pm, rongretlar...@comcast.net wrote:
 Prof. Robock (with ccs)

 1. There has been a good bit of web traffic in the last few days about a 
 report ( Fate of Mountain Glaciers in the Anthropocene), where you are 
 listed as a co-author. The full 17-pp report is down-loadable 
 athttp://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_academies/acdscien/2011/...

 2. In general, I think this is well done. I have hopes it will be 
 influential. My question is how the dialog went within your fellow co-authors 
 (any others knowledgeable on Geoengineering?) on Geoengineering. More 
 specifically can you say anything on the differences discussed between CDR 
 and SRM? The first Geoengineering sentence below would seem to suggest that 
 Biochar (clearly a CDR technique) should not be considered a Mitigation 
 measure (which I consider it to be)

 3. The description of Geoengineering for your C45 panel (re message sent just 
 before this one) clearly states that Geoengineering has two distinct parts 
 (CDR and SRM) - but this below seems to be directed only at SRM. Can you 
 explain why this discrepancy?

 4. A new paper was released yesterday by Jim Hansen of relevance. He has (for 
 the first time?) a goal for new additional standing biomass of 100 gigatons 
 carbon (about a 20% increase?). This proposed activity (which I believe 
 qualifies also as both CDR and mitigation) will be a great base for Biochar. 
 Biochar can even accelerate that new 100 GtC through utilizing this 
 substantial new addition to today's land-based NPP of about 60 GtC/yr.. 
 Seehttp://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2011/20110505_CaseForYoungPeop...

 Ron

 (The Vatican Geoengineering material on pp 14-15 is sufficiently short that I 
 include it all here)

 Geoengineering: Further Research and International Assessment Are Required

 Geoengineering is no substitute for climate change mitigation. There are many 
 questions that need to be answered about potential irreversibilities, and of 
 the disparities in regional impacts, for example, before geoengineering could 
 be responsibly considered. There has not been a dedicated international 
 assessment of geoengineering. Geoengineering needs a broadly representative, 
 multi-stakeholder assessment performed with the highest standards, based for 
 example on the IPCC model. The foundation for such an assessment has to be 
 much broader with deeper scientific study than there has been a chance to 
 carry out thus far.

 It may be prudent to consider geo-engineering if irreversible and 
 catastrophic climate impacts cannot be managed with mitigation and 
 adaptation. A governance system for balancing the risks and benefits of 
 geoengineering, and a transparent, broadly consultative consensus 
 decision-making process to determine what risks are acceptable must be 
 developed before any action can be taken.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
geoengineering group.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.

[geo] Biochar - Good, Bad, or Something in Between?

[Josh Horton]

Hi all,

Below is a link to an excellent survey of the politics of biochar,
titled Land Grabs for Biochar? Narratives and Counter Narratives in
Africa's Emerging Biogenic Carbon Sequestration Economy.  Hopefully
this type of assessment helps moderate extremes on both sides of the
biochar debate.

http://www.future-agricultures.org/index.php?option=com_docmantask=doc_downloadgid=1091Itemid=510

Josh Horton
joshuahorton...@gmail.com
http://geoengineeringpolitics.blogspot.com/

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
geoengineering group.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.

[geo] Re: Testing brightwater

[Josh Horton]

There is an additional, very significant difference between bright
water (as well as marine cloud brightening) on the one hand, and
sulfate aerosols on the other: microbubbles and seawater sprays would
be much more socially acceptable to most people than sulfate aerosol
injections.  I'm willing to bet that the average person in any part of
the world would find air bubbles and whiter clouds a lot more
benign than sulfur dioxide, regardless of the fact that any sulfur
injected would amount to a fraction of current emissions, would mimic
natural eruptions, etc.  We shouldn't underestimate these
sociocultural dimensions, which will influence decisions on testing
and deployment.

Josh Horton
joshuahorton...@gmail.com
http://geoengineeringpolitics.blogspot.com/

On Apr 25, 12:17 pm, Nathan Currier natcurr...@gmail.com wrote:
 The recent bright water discussions are interesting to me partly as a
 psychological phenomenon. Just as Seitz begins his paper noting the
 similarity between hydrosols in water and aerosols in air, with
 hydrosols having their attendant analogues to the “Twomey effect” –
 similarly complex issues of their size and their effects on light
 scattering, etc. – so the bright water story starts to seem like a
 kind of oceanic parallel of the whole stratospheric sulfur story.

 In their joint piece last year reviewing various geoengineering
 options (in Issues in Science and Technology, 2010), white surfacing
 was listed by Keith/Caldeira at the very bottom in order of
 “likelihood of feasibility at large scale” for all SRM approaches,
 even below satellites in space. Obviously, it was a minor error in
 their fine review and was partly just grammatical – spreading white
 paint is surely more ‘feasible’ than putting reflector shields into
 outer space – but I think it was also partly a reflection of a common
 reflex: there is a natural desire to find a geoengineering technique
 that can have the greatest maximum potential impact and gives the
 greatest bang for the buck, as quickly as possible. Just as aerosol
 SRM quickly became a cynosure, bright water now is starting to have a
 similar kind of fascination and buzz – it could have significant
 maximum potential, sounds initially like it might not be too costly,
 and it involves physical issues that are notoriously complex, meaning
 that one can easily keep one’s eye on the extremely simple and highly
 desired goal – its potential for lots of cheap, quick cooling – but be
 unable to draw any precise picture of its negatives and thus to
 compare it accurately to much more modest proposals.

 Keith/Caldeira surely meant to say that white surfacing is more
 limited in its maximum potential impacts than the other SRM techniques
 they discussed, which is true. But it is clearly much more ‘feasible,’
 really at the top of feasibility, of all SRM today, in the sense that
 there are few objections from anyone to doing it right now, it
 wouldn’t be very costly, could even save people money and give some
 modest help to the climate through its SRM and its co-benefit of
 reduced GHG emissions (biochar is in a somewhat analogous position,
 and wasn’t mentioned). With a Pacala/Socolow-type approach to
 stabilization of emissions applied to geoengineering techniques, white
 surfacing could become an important technique within the mix, one we
 can start with right away, unlike almost all others, and it might be
 that the impact it can offer safely might not be that small compared
 to that of aerosols in the end (and its comparative economics might
 look pretty good, too, if aerosol ‘collateral damage’ remains a
 problem).

 Now then, let’s jump into the ocean – there’s bright water in place of
 aerosols, and there could be floats just like white surfacing. Just as
 aerosol SRM seems more dicey the closer one looks at it, there might
 be all kinds of analogous issues involving the mixing of surface
 waters and their oxygenation, and surely problems involving biotic
 impacts are likely to be much more thorny with hydrosols than with
 aerosols. Meanwhile, simple floats are something like the oceanic
 equivalent of white roofing, and they seem among the least explored
 here in these discussions. They are low-tech and they aren’t very
 sexy, but perhaps floats could be designed to be strung together as
 ‘artifical ice floes’ to be used in previously iced-over areas or
 somewhat south of the Bering strait, perhaps taking advantage of
 differing currents to stay held in gyre-like motions,  their surfaces
 above the water except for their ‘legs,’ allowing heat release, and
 with hanging “side-teeth” to create windbreak, and the tops having a
 very high albedo, made from recycled plastics. Compared to white
 roofing, they would have the advantage that once developed they could
 be placed in areas of great immediate strategic value for the climate,
 like the ESAS, or south of it.

 I guess I’m a bit skeptical about the ‘1,000 windmills’ energy cost in
 the Seitz paper

[geo] Re: How would you allocate US$10 million per year to most reduce climate risk?

[Josh Horton]

I agree, this would be a grave mistake.  There would be no surer way
of firing up international political opposition to geoengineering,
mobilizing civil society, encouraging suspicion and hostility, even
dragging in ENMOD.  Imagine how China would react!  Whether or not the
military has the appropriate capacity, handing it to DARPA would be
hugely counterproductive.

Josh


On Apr 19, 3:39 am, Oliver Morton olivermor...@economist.com wrote:
 I think giving the whole thing to Darpa would be a great mistake. The
 symbolism of the D in Darpa would not be lost on international politicians
 and potential participants (to say nothing of Greenpeace). And I think
 designing policy specifically to be Anthony-Watts proof is a mug's game.
 Much better to innovate in another context than to take a Darpa program
 architecture, and the baggage of the pentgon connections, off the shelf.





 On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 5:06 AM, rongretlar...@comcast.net wrote:
  Ken with few ccs

     1.  Thanks for reporting this $10 M news (and probably for scouting it
  up)

      2.  Oliver's note (below) comes closest to my own of the ideas so far
  put forth.  It may be presumptive to assume multi year funding (and anything
  over $10 million in the first year), but why not assume a continuing
  effort?  I endorse the idea of three parallel SRM efforts.  I hope one would
  be Bright Water - as it has been more on this list recently ((and
  positively) than any other - and it seems to have special relevance to the
  Arctic.  Oliver's call for some independent efforts is also worthy.

      3.  Oliver didn't mention the Arctic.  I put in my vote for limiting
  activities to the Alaskan portion of the Arctic.  Rationale - Alaska is way
  ahead of the rest of the country in recognizing something is happening.  We
  can probably do almost nothing soon in Canada, Russia, Greenland, Iceland
  and Norway - but we should try immediately to get parallel efforts going in
  all.  Some funds should be reserved to encourage their attendance at events.

      4.  Oliver calls out CDR in the context of some possibilities that are
  neither CDR or SRM.  I would lump these possibilities with CDR and reserve
  perhaps 15-20% for those.   Rationale - need for low cost and speed, but
  also need buy-in from CDR-folk.  Any big activity will suffer politically
  .if CDR is not coupled with SRM, and if there is not a darn good reason for
  leaving something out. One option alone would be a disaster, especially if
  theri effects can be shown to be additive and not duplicative.

      5.  Oliver mentions DARPA.  I think it would (stronger than might) be
  wise to ask them to lead.  Rationale - politics.  Few AGW  critics (eg
  Watts) are going to say anything negative about DARPA.  In this regard, I
  see that DARPA met at Stanford in 2009 on this topic - so you should be in a
  position to know if they would be interested (as a favor to the actual
  agency with funds).
        [
 http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2009/03/exclusive-milit.html]

      6.  Carrying politics further,  I hope you or someone can soon alert
  Alaska's 2 R's and 1 D in the Congress.  This whole package should not be
  sold as having anything to do with AGW.  All three of the elected
  representatives seem to agree that temperaures are rising rapidly. in Alaska
  and they must have some appreciation of pending methane release.   None want
  to talk about causality - and we don't need to either. I believe they would
  not object strongly to money being spent primarily in Alaska.   Your project
  (everything discussed on this list) needs political cover.  If you can get
  the idea attributed to Rush or Glenn, all the better.  Mitt Romney, Tim
  Pawlenty and Newt Gingrich might even find it politically expedient to weigh
  in;  we are not talking taxes here.

      7.  Native Americans may/could/should have a role in this - especially
  as regards CDR use of dead/fallen trees and re-vegetation with high
  reflectivity biomass.  They make up the population most impacted.  More
  political cover.

     8.  Last is the issue of speed.  I hope you are talking about this
  fiscal year's funding - and it would be great if you/DARPA could have some
  experimental results by the end of FY11.  This will only be possible with
  something autocratic - and DARPA seems to know how to do that.  But they
  will certainly listen to informal proposals - presumably from teams.  One
  month to do that should be enough - being informal.

     9.  Re speed and expertise I urge giving the modeling task (mentioned by
  several) to Prof. Wieslaw Maslowski.  I think he is the only modeler (and he
  has a big team) who has been correctly predicting the timing of an ice-free
  Arctic  (now apparently at 2016 +/- 3 years).  See
       http://www.oc.nps.edu/NAME/Maslowski_CV.htm    and
 http://www.oc.nps.edu/NAME/name.html
    Having a connection with the US Navy has some other advantages - but
  those are 

[geo] Re: How would you allocate US$10 million per year to most reduce climate risk?

[Josh Horton]

Ken,

Here's one suggestion:

As a general rule, I would favor SRM over CDR for short-term funding,
for a couple of reasons.  First, the technical attributes of SRM mean
that it would be called upon if there was a need for immediate action
- I think CDR has to be viewed as a medium- to long-term strategy.
Second, and related, as currently conceived, the deployment of CDR
techniques will depend to a great extent on the policy context, in
particular the existence of mandatory and robust carbon markets - as
we are all aware, these are not likely to develop in the near future.

Given this, I would propose splitting funding three ways:

- $3.3m for general modeling efforts, tailored to meet needs specific
to geoengineering research - this support would benefit both SRM and
CDR
- $3.3m for stratospheric aerosols - perhaps targeting key issues like
variable aerosol effectiveness (nanoparticles?) - good preliminary
work exists on delivery systems
- $3.3m for marine cloud brightening, probably focused on spray
nozzles

This rough distribution would spread the wealth in a way that supports
basic research while honing in on key technical challenges that must
be addressed to mitigate the risk of a climate emergency.

Josh Horton


On Apr 18, 11:08 am, Ken Caldeira kcalde...@carnegie.stanford.edu
wrote:
 Folks,

 There is some discussion in DC about making some small amount of public
 funds available to support SRM and CDR research.

 In today's funding climate, it is much more likely that someone might be
 given authority to re-allocate existing budgets than that they would
 actually be given significantly more money for this effort. Thus, the modest
 scale.

 If you were doing strategic planning for a US federal agency, and you were
 told that you had a budget of $10 million per year and that you should
 maximize the amount of climate risk reduction obtainable with that $10
 million, what would you allocate it to and why?

 Best,

 Ken

 ___
 Ken Caldeira

 Carnegie Institution Dept of Global Ecology
 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA
 +1 650 704 7212 
 kcalde...@carnegie.stanford.eduhttp://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab @kencaldeira

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
geoengineering group.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.

[geo] Re: Global CCS Institute report on bio energy with CCS (BECCS)

[Josh Horton]

Very informative report.  I was unaware of the great potential of
coupling biofuel/ethanol production with CCS due to the pure CO2
streams resulting from fermentation.  With biofuels on the ropes
again, this may be a useful way to increase their attractiveness.

Josh


On Apr 14, 4:46 pm, Ron Larson rongretlar...@comcast.net wrote:
 Oliver

   Thanks for forwarding this.  I conclude BECCS is ahead of Biochar in a few 
 senses, but Biochar is moving a lot faster.  The difference has to be made up 
 in annual, continuing benefits from Biochar - whereas BECCS has mostly costs 
 ( except where EOR is possible).  EOR must negate the carbon negativity 
 potential of course.

 Ron

 Sent from my iPad

 On Apr 14, 2011, at 12:04 AM, Oliver Morton olivermor...@economist.com 
 wrote:



  overview page
 http://www.globalccsinstitute.com/resources/publications/global-statu...

  full report
 http://www.globalccsinstitute.com/sites/default/files/GCCSI_Biorecro_...

  --
  You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
  geoengineering group.
  To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
  To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
  geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
  For more options, visit this group 
  athttp://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
geoengineering group.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.

[geo] Re: calling all CDRers

[Josh Horton]

This report gives the impression that the bill is narrowly focused on
conventional point-source post-combustion CCS, but note its title: A
bill to provide incentives to encourage the development and
implementation of technology to capture carbon dioxide from dilute
sources on a significant scale using direct air capture
technologies.  The bill appears to be directed at ambient-air CDR
combined with CCS, which is more encouraging from the standpoint of
climate engineering.  Of course, there is tremendous distance from a
bill to a law to implementation to success, so more than a fair amount
of skepticism is in order.

Josh Horton
joshuahorton...@gmail.com
http://geoengineeringpolitics.blogspot.com/



On Apr 8, 3:16 pm, Rau, Greg r...@llnl.gov wrote:
 CLIMATE: Barrasso, Bingaman reintroduce CCS prize bill (04/08/2011)
 Katie Howell, EE reporter
 Sens. John Barrasso and Jeff Bingaman yesterday reintroduced their bipartisan 
 measure that would award monetary prizes to researchers who figure out a way 
 to suck carbon dioxide directly from the air.

 Barrasso, a Republican from Wyoming, and Bingaman, the New Mexico Democrat 
 who chairs the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, first 
 introduced the carbon capture and storage (CCS) legislation last Congress, 
 where it stalled in committee.

 But Bingaman in recent weeks has targeted CCS as an area with potential for 
 bipartisan cooperation on the committee. Several Republicans, including 
 Barrasso, are co-sponsors of CCS legislation he floated last week (EENews 
 PM, April 1).

 And yesterday, Bob Simon, the committee's Democratic chief of staff, said, 
 the whole area of carbon capture and storage is one that is ripe for 
 bipartisan cooperation in the Senate.

 Frankly, if we can make sure, if we can demonstrate that you can 
 economically capture and store carbon dioxide, you dramatically increase the 
 range of technologies you can call clean energy technologies, Simon said 
 yesterday at an event in Washington, D.C.

 Barrasso and Bingaman's latest bill (S. 757), which is also co-sponsored by 
 Wyoming Republican Sen. Mike Enzi, would encourage development of technology 
 to capture CO2 from the atmosphere and permanently sequester it by 
 establishing a federal commission within the Energy Department to award 
 prizes to scientists and researchers making headway in the field. The 
 commission members, who would be appointed by the president, would be climate 
 scientists, physicists, chemists, engineers, business managers and economists.

 Prizes would be awarded to innovators who design technology to mop up CO2 and 
 permanently store it.

 This bill taps into American ingenuity and innovation, Barrasso said in a 
 statement. This will increase America's energy security by ensuring the 
 long-term viability of coal and other sources of traditional energy. Our bill 
 provides the technology to eliminate excess carbon in the atmosphere without 
 eliminating jobs in our communities.

 But despite Bingaman's optimism about moving CCS legislation this Congress, 
 he said earlier this week that no decisions had been made about when the 
 committee would take up the CCS measures.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
geoengineering group.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.

[geo] AP Story on SRMGI Meeting

[Josh Horton]

AP reports on the recent SRMGI conference here:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110403/ap_on_hi_te/eu_the_sunshade_option

Any thoughts or impressions from those of you who might have attended?


Josh Horton
joshuahorton...@gmail.com
http://geoengineeringpolitics.blogspot.com/

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
geoengineering group.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.

Re: Fwd: [geo] AP Story on SRMGI Meeting

[Josh Horton]

Yes, but it's hard to see how many of the technologies we talk about
can be developed, and their consequences understood, in the absence of
a regulatory framework.  I don't see how a system such as
stratospheric aerosols could be developed, tested, and refined without
a facilitative policy context.  In practice, experimentation will
cross national boundaries, so it's impossible to remove policy and
governance aspects from the equation.  I'm saying what's been said a
million times before, but I think it's important to stress that
technology on the scale of geoengineering is inseparable from
governance, and they have to be developed together.

Josh

On Apr 4, 10:12 am, Gregory Benford xbenf...@gmail.com wrote:
 This seems to have been the usual sort of governance wonks, who don't
 realize that to make concrete governance decisions you need to know a lot
 about the technology and how it plays out. Until we do, there's little point
 to such pontificating. Much like Asilomar.

 Gregory Benford

 On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 6:20 AM, Josh Horton joshuahorton...@gmail.comwrote:



  AP reports on the recent SRMGI conference here:

 http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110403/ap_on_hi_te/eu_the_sunshade_option

  Any thoughts or impressions from those of you who might have attended?

  Josh Horton
  joshuahorton...@gmail.com
 http://geoengineeringpolitics.blogspot.com/

  --
  You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
  geoengineering group.
  To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
  To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
  geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
  For more options, visit this group at
 http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.- Hide quoted text -

 - Show quoted text -

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
geoengineering group.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.

Re: Cloud Brightening:[geo] Geoengineering at EGU 2011, April 3-8

[Josh Horton]

John,

Do you know if these posters will be made available to the public?  I
am particularly interested in the second one you mention.

Josh


On Mar 10, 11:38 am, John Latham john.latha...@manchester.ac.uk
wrote:
 Hello All,

 To answer question posed by John, there are two poster
  papers on cloud brightening scheduled for EGU. One
 is concerned with the spray technology work conducted
 by Armand Neukermans and team. The other is a general
 review of our work, a la Royal Society oral presentation in
 November 2010. Alan Gadian will be representing us in
 Vienna, re both posters.

 Cheers,  John            lat...@ucar.edu

 Quoting John Gorman gorm...@waitrose.com:





  well done for getting this into the meeting presentations. (Actually
  You rare in CL1.16 not CL1.6)  
 http://meetingorganizer.copernicus.org/EGU2011/oral_programme/6416

  john gorman
    - Original Message -
    From: John Nissen
    To: Geoengineering ; bioc...@yahoogroups.com
    Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2011 5:56 PM
    Subject: [geo] Geoengineering at EGU 2011, April 3-8

    SRM Geoengineering

    Monday 04 April, 13:30 to 15:00

   http://meetingorganizer.copernicus.org/EGU2011/session/6429/geoengine...

    Geoengineering schemes have been proposed to temporarily counteract
  global warming, as nations work to implement mitigation strategies
  based on reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. Examples include the
  injection of reflective aerosols into the lower stratosphere, seeding
  of marine clouds to modify their albedo, and placement of mirrors
  beyond the atmosphere to deflect incoming sunlight. While this
  session covers all so-called management techniques of the Earth's
  radiative budget via processes internal or external to the
  atmosphere, special emphasis is placed on stratospheric aerosols and
  the climate impact of volcanic eruptions. Large volcanic eruptions
  are indeed considered as a natural albeit imperfect anolog for
  stratospheric aerosol injection. The impact of volcanic eruptions,
  their influence on atmospheric and ocean chemistry and dynamics as
  well as on the hydrological and carbon cycle and on vegetation are of
  high relevance to the session. This session also invites papers
  describing the most recent scientific and engineering results on
  global radiation control strategies. Particularly sought are
  objective and scientifically sound papers describing the feasibility,
  effectiveness, unintended consequences, risks, costs, and the ethical
  and political dimensions of global radiation intervention. Authors
  are encouraged to consider all of the local, regional and global
  impacts, including predictions of changes in climatological,
  biological, and socio-economical parameters. Presentations of
  well-developed designs for laboratory or field experiments relevant
  as well as data analysis and in-situ and remotes sensing techniques
  to the topics outlined above are also welcome.

    CDR Geoengineering

    Monday 04 April, 13:30 to 17:00

   http://meetingorganizer.copernicus.org/EGU2011/session/7037/geoengine...

    The stabilization of organic matter in terrestrial and marine
  environments is one of the most ill-defined factors in global element
  cycles. The total stock of organic carbon in sediments, soils and
  marine dissolved organic matter (DOM) exceeds the amount of carbon in
  the atmosphere by orders of magnitude. Yet large uncertainties exist
  on the rates of and mechanisms behind the turnover of organic carbon
  on earth. The sequestration of organic carbon is a major research
  topic for a variety of scientific disciplines. Major technological
  advances in analytical chemistry, remote sensing or process-based
  modelling have led to significant advances over the past years. For
  this session we invite contributions from marine and terrestrial
  sciences, working with chemical and microbial tools on the
  stabilization of organic matter in the different environments.
  Observational and experimental studies are welcome. Scales can range
  from molecular to global levels and from minutes to hundreds of
  millions of years. We also invite contributions involving
  experimental studies on geoengineering in terrestrial and marine
  environments (for example biochar, microbial carbon pump,...).

    The main objective of this session is to advance the dialog among
  the different disciplines and to integrate knowledge of disciplines
  that traditionally have a low level of information exchange.

    These are of rather paltry length, as Andrew was fearing they would be 
  [1].

    Is anybody in the geoengineering or biochar lists
  contributing/presenting at EGU?  I'm presenting a short paper in
  CL1.6.

    Cheers,

    John

    [1]
 http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering/browse_thread/thread/f6...

    --
    You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
  Groups geoengineering group.
    To post to this group, send email to 

[geo] Re: Geoengineering and U.S. Environmental Laws

[Josh Horton]

Tracy,

I found your paper comprehensive and informative, and I think it will
serve as a valuable resource going forward.  I also think it serves as
an important reality check for the geoengineering community.  There is
much discussion about research guidelines, experimental protocols, and
even governance arrangements, but to move from modeling to possible
deployment requires overcoming many other obstacles--social, cultural,
economic, business, ethical.  You do a great job of sketching out the
legal landscape that any climate engineering project would encounter
in the US.  Perhaps this will encourage aspiring geoengineers to set
up offshore in less restrictive jurisdictions, as with manufacturing,
finance, etc.

By the way, you've probably already seen it, but there is a similar
though much less thorough discussion of some of these legal issues in
the recent CRS report Geoengineering: Governance and Technology
Policy (pp. 23-28) - http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R41371.pdf

Josh Horton
joshuahorton...@gmail.com


On Feb 7, 5:20 pm, Mike MacCracken mmacc...@comcast.net wrote:
 Dear Tracy--

 I look forward to reading the article. My first thought is that it would
 certainly be nice if all US environmental laws also applied to the decision
 not to take dramatic action to limit greenhouse-induced climate change
 through mitigation. Massachusetts vs. EPA is a start (as are a couple of
 other lawsuit victories) as it has prompted the EPA Endangerment Finding
 (seehttp://www.epa.gov/climatechange/endangerment.html), and the lawsuit
 against the Am-Ex Bank and the Overseas Private Investment Corporation did
 lead to a requirement for NEPA, but it is interesting that it might require
 much more legal consideration for taking action to keep the climate near to
 what it is than to decide not to take and let the climate keep changing
 without control. Indeed, starting to try to make sense of all this sounds
 appropriate.

 Mike MacCracken

 On 2/7/11 4:48 PM, Tracy thester0...@gmail.com wrote:



  I've lurked in this group for quite a while, but I'm now stepping into
  the light to provide a working paper for your consideration.

  While this group has usually focused on technical and policy issues,
  you might have an interest in some of the potential legal battles that
  could affect climate engineering projects.  This working paper
  discusses how existing U.S. environmental laws can be used to
  challenge geoengineering research or field tests.  U.S. environmental
  laws have often served as the first line of legal resistance to new
  technologies (GMOs, nanomaterials), so it struck me as a likely
  scenario for geoengineering as well.

  You can access the working paper at tinyurl.com/6e7ejtf .  I'd welcome
  any comments or suggestions.  Thanks!

  **
  Tracy Hester
  Director, Environment, Energy  Natural Resource Center
  Assistant Professor
  University of Houston Law Center
  100 Law Center
  Houston, Texas   77204
  713-743-1152 (office)
  tdhes...@central.uh.edu
  web bio:  www.law.uh.edu/faculty/thester

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
geoengineering group.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.

[geo] Re: FW: A Scientific Summary for Policymakers on Ocean Fertilization

[Josh Horton]

Thanks for passing along Mike.  The guide is fairly neutral, but some
of its conclusions don't bode well for ocean fertilization -
Estimates of the overall efficiency of atmospheric CO2 uptake in
response to iron-based ocean fertilization have decreased greatly (by
5 – 20 times) over the past 20 years. Although uncertainties still
remain, the amount of carbon that might be taken out of circulation
through this technique on a long-term basis (decades to centuries)
would seem small in comparison to fossil-fuel emissions (p. 1-2).
Doesn't mean OIF can't play a role, but would need to figure as part
of a portfolio.

Josh Horton
joshuahorton...@gmail.com
http://geoengineeringpolitics.blogspot.com/

On Jan 25, 10:31 am, Mike MacCracken mmacc...@comcast.net wrote:
 From: Henrik Enevoldsen [mailto:h.enevold...@bio.ku.dk]
 Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2011 9:00 AM
 Subject: RE: A Scientific Summary for Policymakers on Ocean Fertilization
 ANNOUNCEMENT (for wider distribution as appropriate):
 Dear friends,
 A Scientific Summary for Policymakers on Ocean Fertilization, commissioned
 by the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission of UNESCO and prepared
 with the assistance of the Surface Ocean Lower Atmosphere Study (SOLAS), is
 now available through online and in print. The Summary considers the
 practicalities, opportunities and threats associated with large-scale ocean
 fertilization.
 The Summary for Policymakers is available for download 
 athttp://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0019/001906/190674e.pdf
 To request a print copy please contact Kathy Tedesco at IOC-UNESCO
 (k.tede...@unesco.org) or Emily Breviere at SOLAS (ebrevi...@ifm-geomar.de).

 Best regards,   Henrik EnevoldsenIntergovernmental Oceanographic Commission
 of UNESCO

  image.gif
 1KViewDownload

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
geoengineering group.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.