Re: [geo] Re: Enough of govern-nonsense
This very large jump, from doing no harm to actively controlling the climate, is exactly where I think we're headed, whether we like it or not, and it's why I've been trying for years to make the case that saying we're in the Anthropocene understates the situation. There's a world of difference between merely saying that humanity is having an effect on the global climate and recognizing that the cumulative effect has become so great and is such a threat that we have no choice but to try to actively control the climate to avoid some horrific outcomes. I've tried to push the meme that we need a new name for this state, which I've called the Metricene, a time of living measured lives on a managed planet. Like so much else regarding climate change, I think we will come around to this line of thinking in time, but it will happen late enough that it will be more difficult and expensive, and there will be more human suffering than there should be to prod us to take action. On Friday, August 8, 2014 1:53:04 PM UTC-4, Mike MacCracken wrote: I’d like to suggest that one reason that working through both the governance and the science of SRM will be so challenging is the very large jump being proposed, namely from doing no intentional climate engineering to taking control of the global climate. That is a huge leap, necessary as it may be to contemplate for some time in the decades ahead if negotiations prove as fruitless as they have so far. It seems to me that discussions might prove more practical and possible if the discussion was about some interim types of efforts that might be explored. For example, there have been suggestions about how to potentially moderate the increased intensification of hurricanes/tropical cyclones, which are suggested to be one of the adverse consequences of climate change. One approach suggested was to position barges in the track of storms and vertically mix ocean waters to cool the surface waters and reduce the ability of the storm to draw heat from the ocean; another approach proposed has been to use cloud brightening over an extended time to cool the waters that such storms typically pass over, so reducing the statistical likelihood of very severe storms rather than trying to limit the intensification of a particular storm. For those living, for example, in the southeastern US and Caribbean basin, or in the Philippines, Indonesia, Japan and East Asia, research to figure out if such a moderation could be be done (and there was once an indication that the Department of Homeland Security might be supporting such research) and to consider the many social science and governance issues might make for a much more focused and hopefully productive discussion. Similar discussions might focus on a number of additional specific interventions that might or might not be technically feasible and might or might not be conceivable in terms of governance and societal implications. Examples that might be considered might include seeking to cool the Arctic/slow permafrost thawing/slow loss of mass from ice sheets, seeking to modify storm tracks in order to moderate areas of intense drought, seeking to offset the loss of sulfate cooling that will come from closing down coal-fired power plants, and there are surely other ideas. Each of these proposals has a quite specific goal in mind as opposed to reversing the increase in global average temperature. Some would mainly affect (in terms of beneficial and/or harmful influences) far fewer numbers than the full global population. It just seems to me that exploring the potential issues (in terms of the physical and socio-political-ethical aspects) would make for a much more focused and manageable discussion that would help to provide insights for moving on to the possible need for a full global intervention (and it is for this reason my recent papers have focused on such possibilities). I don’t really know if any could actually be made to work in a scientific sense (yes, doing something in one spot affects everywhere, but is the effect noticeable everywhere and how would such an effect compare to the ongoing changes that are occurring—so there are issues of relative importance of an effect, etc.), and I don’t know if regional governance (e.g., as might be most relevant in the case of offsetting Arctic warming or moderating tropical cyclone intensification) would make the discussion of societal and ethical aspects any easier, but it does seem to me that there is the potential for more insightful, productive, and even relevant discussion if the jump from doing no climate engineering were to potential quite focused interventions than to taking full global control. Mike MacCracken On 8/8/14 12:33 PM, Cush Ngonzo Luwesi cushngo...@gmail.com wrote: Hello guys, cool down. Governance is for your own good. The latin people say Science
[geo] Re: The good Anthropocene
If I may... My own short take on the Good Anthropocene topic: http://www.grinzo.com/energy/2014/06/19/self-delusion-and-the-absurdity-of-a-good-anthropocene/ On Monday, June 23, 2014 3:36:19 AM UTC-4, andrewjlockley wrote: -- Forwarded message -- From: Clive Hamilton ma...@clivehamilton.com javascript: Date: 23 Jun 2014 05:08 Subject: The good Anthropocene To: Clive Hamilton ma...@clivehamilton.com javascript: Cc: Dear friends You might be interested in a piece by me critiquing the notion of a “good Anthropocene”, published a few days ago in Scientific American. See http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-new-environmentalism-will-lead-us-to-disaster/ All the best Clive -- 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] Many nations wary of extracting carbon from air to fix climate | Reuters
On the oft-mentioned point about CDR (or any form of geoengineering, really) resulting in less effort put into mitigation, I think it's quite obvious that that's exactly what would happen. As soon as any form of geoengineering was seen to be having a significant effect, that would lessen the incentive to reduce emissions. I can hear the deniers/delayers howling about why should we sacrifice any GDP whatsoever when geoengineering is already fixing the problem, etc. And I have zero doubt that politicians would leap at the chance to justify taking an easier (and more fossil fuel campaign fund friendly) path. Any geoengineering technology has to be tied to mitigation, or it will merely delay the inevitable, i.e. deep and permanent emissions cuts. On Wednesday, April 9, 2014 11:39:22 PM UTC-4, kcaldeira wrote: Folks, These broad categories CDR and SRM have become increasingly unuseful. Most rational people might support reforestation; most rational people might oppose large-scale ocean iron fertilization. We should be talking about which activities are good to do and which activities are likely bad to do. Broad categories like 'SRM' and 'CDR' are of little help here. The discussion should be around which activities are good to do under which circumstances (and which are bad to do under which circumstances) and how to get people to do the good and avoid the bad. I think the opposition to CDR comes from two principle sources: 1. Fears that people will see CDR as a substitute for emissions reductions. 2. Fears that CDR will produce larger environmental problems (cf. ocean iron fertilization). Both of these fears are well founded. We should not be talking about whether we support or oppose CDR. We should be talking about whether we support research into (and deployment of) specific CDR approaches in specific circumstances. Best, Ken ___ 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 https://twitter.com/KenCaldeira Assistant: Dawn Ross dr...@carnegiescience.edu javascript: On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 8:31 PM, Greg Rau gh...@sbcglobal.netjavascript: wrote: Thanks David. It would help if they would enunciated these anxieties in black and white so that their assumptions of CDR risks, negative environmental impacts, societal disruption, etc were transparently laid out for all to discuss and test. Esp do these real or imagined negatives apply to all CDR approaches and do these risks truly outweigh those we are committing ourselves by steadfastly assuming that emissions will be sufficiently and quickly reduced? At the end of the day and given our current dire situation it would seem that IPPC and others are not doing the world a favor by working to exclude whole classes of climate/CO2 management options until the comparative risk/benefits of those options are better understood and a consensus reached as to their potential value. What is to be gained by circumventing this reasoned approach that I thought IPCC advocated? Greg -- *From:* Hawkins, Dave dhaw...@nrdc.org javascript: *To:* gh...@sbcglobal.net javascript: gh...@sbcglobal.netjavascript: *Cc:* andrew@gmail.com javascript: andrew@gmail.comjavascript:; geoengineering geoengi...@googlegroups.com javascript:; ado...@reuters.com javascript: ado...@reuters.com javascript: *Sent:* Wednesday, April 9, 2014 3:41 PM *Subject:* Re: [geo] Many nations wary of extracting carbon from air to fix climate | Reuters Greg, I think these comments reflect a couple of anxieties: 1) that CDR will be pursued instead of reducing fossil fuel emissions; 2) that commercial agro-business projects will be allowed to pursue carbon retention objectives at the expense of habitat and biodiversity values. Perhaps some high-level statements from diverse players setting forth CDR code of conduct principles could help lower these anxieties. David Typed on tiny keyboard. Caveat lector. On Apr 9, 2014, at 6:18 PM, Greg Rau gh...@sbcglobal.net javascript: mailto:gh...@sbcglobal.net javascript: wrote: China, the European Union, Japan and Russia were among nations saying the draft, to be published on Sunday, should do more to stress uncertainties about technologies that the report says could be used to extract carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and bury it below ground to limit warming. GR - Natural CDR already consume 55% of our emissions from the atmosphere, and is (so far) the only thing staving off planetary climate disaster. Any uncertainty here? If CDR is so uncertain, shall we turn off natural CDR and see what happens? Carbon dioxide removal (CDR) technologies are currently not available and would be associated with high
Re: [geo] Re: Geoengineering and Climate Change Polarization: Testing a Two-channel Model of Science Communication, Ann. Am. Acad. Pol. Soc. Sci.
I think oversimplifies things a bit. There's a component of society, certain very large corporations, who would be delighted to see major CC impacts that require massive geoengineering efforts. They're the companies that will do the work. And, as I argued recently on my blog [http://www.grinzo.com/energy/2014/01/29/the-climate-impact-line/], we have a CC wedge: People above it will benefit in the short term from making CC worse by sticking to BAU, and they are wealthy enough that they perceive that they and their loved ones can buy their way out of danger. People below the wedge are going to suffer a great deal, and many will die. Those above the wedge consider those below an expendable resource. And there's a non-trivial portion of people who aren't thrilled with geoengineering not for the reasons you mention (although I know those people exist), but because they don't think we can do it without screwing it up and making a bad situation even worse. They look at political and corporate ineptitude and corruption, and remember all the high-profile screw ups that regularly appear in the news, and they wonder how anyone could think we'd intentionally influence the world's environment and get it right. While I don't agree with that position, it's a pragmatic view that I understand. On Tuesday, March 4, 2014 2:21:47 PM UTC-5, John Nissen wrote: Hi Greg, The theory is that people tend to be polarised into two camps. One camp is against the idea that climate change can have anything to do with our greenhouse gas emissions; and therefore (subconsciously) this camp is against geoengineering because it would admit of a massive problem to be solved. The other camp is against geoengineering (subconsciously) because of the moral hazard - the idea that it's a get out of jail free for the people responsible for causing climate change in the first place. They will talk of geoengineering as a climate fix, that it is playing with God, etc. Kahan refers repeatedly to a 2012 study where it was shown that the moral hazard argument against geoengineering was scientifically invalid. But subconsciously the second camp may still have this deep-seated fear of geoengineering. Therefore I deduce, using his argument, that neither camp will accept geoengineering, whatever evidence of the need for geoengineering is presented to them. I think this is the crux of the matter: nobody, identified with either of the common camps, will accept geoengineering. Only when this impasse is properly acknowledged, will it be possible for people to accept the scientific evidence that geoengineering is needed, not only to suck CO2 out of the atmosphere, but also to cool the Arctic. Cheers, John On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 4:22 AM, Rau, Greg ra...@llnl.gov javascript:wrote: This observation may bear repeating: To be effective, science communication must successfully negotiate both channels. That is, in addition to furnishing individuals with valid and pertinent information about how the world works, it must avail itself of the cues necessary to assure individuals that assenting to that information will not estrange them from their communities. Isn't this what good advertising does, and couldn't our community benefit from some cogent advice from Madison Ave, if we could afford it? Science and scientific reasoning alone apparently isn't enough, especially when there are (well funded) individuals who would cast such reasoning as a threat to their communities. Greg -- *From:* geoengi...@googlegroups.com javascript: [ geoengi...@googlegroups.com javascript:] on behalf of David Morrow [ dmor...@gmail.com javascript:] *Sent:* Monday, March 03, 2014 6:27 PM *To:* geoengi...@googlegroups.com javascript: *Subject:* [geo] Re: Geoengineering and Climate Change Polarization: Testing a Two-channel Model of Science Communication, Ann. Am. Acad. Pol. Soc. Sci. FYI, the lead author of that paper, Dan Kahan, posted two additional blog posts on culture, values, and geoengineering: http://www.culturalcognition.net/blog/2014/2/24/geoengineering-the-cultural-plasticity-of-climate-change-ris.html http://www.culturalcognition.net/blog/2014/2/26/geoengineering-the-science-communication-environment-the-cul.html On Thursday, February 27, 2014 2:04:00 AM UTC-6, andrewjlockley wrote: Poster's note : This is just brilliant. At last an explanation of why believing nonsense is rational. Useful to reflect on how this paper replies to the origin and persistence of other belief systems, as well as climate change. Leaves me wondering what nonsense I believe. http://www.culturalcognition.net/blog/2014/2/23/three- models-of-risk-perception-their-significance-for-self.html Three models of risk perception their significance for self-government Dan Kahan Posted on Sunday, February 23, 2014 at 7:52AM
Re: [geo] Climate science: can geoengineering save the world?
John, Can you repost a link to that primer -- the one in your post 404s. Or if you can post the doc, that would be greatly appreciated, as well. I would also like to know how strong the evidence is that 3C is the threshold for a runaway effect (assuming that's what is meant in your fourth summary bullet). Given how much greater impacts have been relative to the amount of warming so far, including at least hints of methane being awakened, trying to pinpoint where things go off the rails seems to be exceedingly difficult. Again, I refer to the early 1970s UN effort, the one I call the proto-IPCC, that said +/- 2C was the difference between a new ice age or a catastrophic ice-free age. (See the book Only One Earth, p. 192.) Given that the amount of warming we've locked in already (realized warming, current thermal disequilibrium, warming from continued wind down of emissions, additional warming from the loss of cooling aerosols) is perilously close to 2C, it's hard to see how the answer to can the world be saved without geoengineering could possibly be yes. On Monday, December 2, 2013 11:58:57 PM UTC-5, John Nissen wrote: Hi all, Did anybody go to this debate on the question: “Can geoengineering save the world?” I would put the question the other way round: “Can the world be saved without geoengineering?” I suspect there is an enormous gap between the commonly held view of a slowly changing world, where we can take time over taking measures, and the reality of a rapidly changing world, where we have to act quickly to head off catastrophe. Hulme comes out with this: *“I am mystified by your faith that solar climate engineering is an effective way of achieving this. More direct and assured methods would be to invest in climate adaptation measures—a short-term gain—and to invest in new clean energy technologies—a long-term gain.”* Let us unpick this position statement, the elements of which are held by many scientists as well as non-scientists. First of all he pours doubt on the *effectiveness of climate engineering*, implying that “geoengineers live in a fantasy world”. Yet geoengineers have produced papers showing techniques which are sufficient to counter a doubling of CO2 – a concentration of 560 ppm with a climate forcing of around 4 W/m2 or 2 petawatts total. Geoengineering could work in the real world. And, with good modelling, we can check out techniques both before and after initial deployment for any major unwanted side-effects, predicted or observed respectively. Secondly, Hulme assumes that *adaptation *is a sensible option for the short-term as if it won’t be required in the long term. Does he have any concept of how bad it could get if no action is taken to prevent climate change? I am reminded of Rex Tillerson, the CEO of Exxon, who has admitted that we are heading for 4°C global warming by the end of the century as if we can adapt to it. Read what was said by Climate Code Red in 2011 about adapting to four degrees! It hasn't got any easier since then! http://www.climatecodered.org/2011/02/4-degrees-hotter-adaptation-trap.html [Quote] So what does 4 degrees feel and look like? In a new primerhttp://www.climateactioncentre.org/sites/default/files/4-degrees-hotter.pdf, the Climate Action Centre has surveyed some of the literature. In a nutshell, it is one in which: - The world would be warmer than during any part of the period in which modern humans evolved, and the rate of climate changehttp://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126971.700-how-to-survive-the-coming-century.htmlwould be faster than any previously experienced by humans. The world's sixth mass extinction would be in full swing. In the oceans, acidification would have rendered many calcium-shelled organisms such as coral and many at the base of the ocean food chain artefacts of history. Ocean ecosystems and food chains would collapse. - Half of the world would be uninhabitable. Likely population capacity: under one billion peoplehttp://news.scotsman.com/latestnews/Warming-will-39wipe-out-billions39.5867379.jp. Whilst the loss will be exponential and bunch towards the end of the century, on average that is a million human global warming deaths every week, every year for the next 90 years. The security implications need no discussion - Paleoclimatology tells us that the last time temperatures were 4C above pre-industrial (during the Oligocene 30 million years ago), there were no large ice-sheets on the planethttp://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2007/2007_Hansen.pdfand sea levels were 65–70 metres higher than today. Whilst ice sheets take time to lose mass, and the rise to 2100 may be only 1–2 metres (or possibly a couple more according to James Hansen), the world would be on the way to 65–70 metres. - 3C may
[geo] Re: Retooling the Planet: The False Promise of Geoengineering, by ETC Group
IMO, we have left ourselves no choice but to take very serious action on all three fronts: mitigation, adaptation, and geoengineering. The lock-in effects of already-emitted CO2, current infrastructure, projected sea level rise, etc. all mean that we can't escape some very painful and expensive impacts. Minimizing these effects means drawing a line in the atmosphere, so to speak, and not making things worse, changing/protecting our population centers and infrastructure where we can, and employing as much SRM and CDR as we can manage (politically and economically) to hasten the return to normalcy. In general, I find it incredibly frustrating how often I see online discussions (not in this group, obviously) that assume we can focus on just one of these three areas and save ourselves from the impacts of CC. That's horribly naive, IMO, and more than a little dangerous, considering what's at stake. On Monday, November 11, 2013 10:17:21 AM UTC-5, andrewjlockley wrote: Retooling the Planet: The False Promise of Geoengineering by ETC Group, originally published by Post Carbon Institute/Foundation for Deep Ecology This essay comes from the book ENERGY: Overdevelopment and the Delusion of Endless Growth Published by the Foundation for Deep Ecology in collaboration with Watershed Media and Post Carbon Institute. http://www.scribd.com/doc/174906270/Retooling-the-Planet -- 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: DICOUNTING AND THE OPTIMIST PARADOX
Those are not the only reasons. Consider technological advancement. If one assumes that hydrogen fuel cell vehicles will have the major cost breakthroughs supporters have been predicting for some time, then the future cost of decarbonizing our transportation fleet could be cheaper than expected. Ditto for significantly cheaper batteries, whether used in passenger cars or buses, or solar and wind installations to create dispatchable renewable power. Another example: The high compound growth rate of solar PV, made possible by much cheaper panel prices. (And yes, I know all about the absurdity of HFCVs. I think they're a pipe dream and an expensive distraction, at best, and the major transportation revolution will come from cheaper batteries for EVs.) On Thursday, September 19, 2013 5:19:08 AM UTC-4, Joan Martínez Alier wrote: DISCOUNTING AND THE OPTIMIST PARADOX In Cost-Benefit analysis,e.g. when discussing costs and benefits of climate change policies, or evaluating a public investment, mainstream economists discount the future. Why? Two reasons. First, they explain discounting by subjective time-preference. Second, they add another factor. They assume that economic growth per capita will make the marginal utility (satisfaction) of consumption lower for our descendants than it is for us today. That is, they discount the future because they assume that the future will be more prosperous, and therefore they recommend destroying more exhaustible resources today and polluting more than otherwise would be the case, thereby undermining future prosperity. This has been called the �optimist paradox�. Both Stern and Nordhaus discount the future, Stern at a lower rate because he assumes lower economic growth for the future than Nordhaus. Of course such economic growth is not well measured because we should subtract damage from climate change, loss of biodiversity... Now, to give a present value to such future losses, we need a discount rate (could be zero). So, the whole building of CBA crumbles, as ecological economists (Norgaard and Howarth etc) have pointed out for 20 or 30 years now. J. Martinez-Alier -- 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.
Re: [geo] Naomi Klein: Green groups may be more damaging than climate change deniers - Salon.com
Klein never said that it was the researchers avoiding the hard work. And in that, I agree with her completely. Politicians, heads of large corporations and other concentrations of power are nearly all playing a game of kick the can down the street. Eventually we'll reach a point where whoever is in power when things hit the fan will have to reach for whatever solution is available, and geoengineering will be at the top of the list. This is why I think it's absolutely critical that we do as much research into geo. technologies as possible before there's a political incentive for people in government to do something about it. I want those decisions to be as well informed as possible. I also see a problem at the retail activist level, with all the members of one green group or another who are adamant that we simply can't tell newcomers how serious climate change is out of fear we'll scare them away from activism. I've heard this dozens of times both locally as well as around the US from people who should be doing vigorous outreach to mainstream consumers and voters. The truly frightening part is that the people saying this almost never understand how urgent the situation is; many of them still cling to the notion that we can fix CC in just a few years by recycling, changing our light bulbs, and driving a hybrid. I honestly don't know how much blame the green groups should get for that, i.e. for not educating their own members, and how much is simply human psychology at work. On Tuesday, September 10, 2013 7:56:33 AM UTC-4, Ken Caldeira wrote: Naomi Klein is wrong. I do not see any substantial subset of people researching geoengineering who see it as a way to avoid doing the hard work of reducing emissions. For most, researching 'geoengineering' is an expression of despair at the fact that others are unwilling to do the hard work of reducing emissions. ___ 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 On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 4:28 AM, Andrew Lockley andrew@gmail.comjavascript: wrote: Poster's note : short extract below discussing geoengineering. Full interview is very good. It basically describes why I left the green movement - they're all out of ideas and they have no solutions left. I don't agree with her conclusions, however - especially on geoengineering. http://www.salon.com/2013/09/05/naomi_klein_big_green_groups_are_crippling_the_environmental_movement_partner/ You were talking about the Clean Development Mechanism as a sort of disaster capitalism. Isn’t geoengineering the ultimate disaster capitalism? I certainly think it’s the ultimate expression of a desire to avoid doing the hard work of reducing emissions, and I think that’s the appeal of it. I think we will see this trajectory the more and more climate change becomes impossible to deny. A lot of people will skip right to geoengineering. The appeal of geoengineering is that it doesn’t threaten our worldview. It leaves us in a dominant position. It says that there is an escape hatch. So all the stories that got us to this point, that flatter ourselves for our power, will just be scaled up. -- 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.comjavascript: . Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- 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.
Re: [geo] Re: The governonsense of climate engineering
Just to be clear about where I stand on this, because there's been some misinterpretation in private e-mail: In my prior comment I was predicting what we will do, not what I would prefer to see happen. I think it would be an immense and hideously costly mistake, in the long run, to avoid developing and testing GE technologies now. But the economic and political hurdles are considerable, providing yet more evidence, as if any were needed, that CC is indeed the ultimate example of a super wicked problem. We have to get a lot more political support behind the idea of GE than exists now. The average voter in the US has surely never heard of it or any of the technologies we routinely discuss. Given the utter lack of leadership in the US above the level of your local small town mayor, that ignorance is one heck of a road block. On Friday, July 12, 2013 1:28:39 PM UTC-4, Gregory Benford wrote: On Clive Hamilton's concern about a slippery slope: He seems fearful of so much, especially regional tests of GE methods. Indeed as Bill says, the Arctic is the prime place to try it, nearly ideal: few people, short 4 month trial in summer of SRM, low cost (~$200 million or less), easily measurable effect on sea ice, etc. Should be done first. Gregory Benford On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 10:07 AM, Bill Stahl bsta...@gmail.comjavascript: wrote: * Re: Fred's point: 1 $M is a lot when the debate is confined to a relatively small world of researchers and advocates, but tiny once the idea goes 'viral' in society at large. Think what a single insurance conglomerate might spend to head off claims from sea-level rise! Environmental advocates will soon have to adjust to losing 'ownership' of the debate- as will researchers (and yes, there is plenty of overlap). NGO advocacy contra ETC will be handled by existing environmental groups, along the same lines as existing differences between, say, The Nature Conservancy vs. Sea Shepherd Society. That seems hard to credit at the moment. But many greens have noticed that our existing 'Plan A' of emission-reductions now requires the environmentalist's equivalent of the protestant evangelical Rapture: a sound of trumpets, a flash of (green) light in the sky, and lo! It's not a sustainable position, and alternatives will be sought. (Which highlights the importance of Ken's appearance on KPFA, speaking to an audience that both cares about the issue and is extremely resistant to the news he carries). * Re: Lou's scenario: grimly plausible. What would be the role an intermediate step such as high-latitude SRM in the Arctic? I'm not in a position to evaluate its plausibility (perhaps someone could privately point me to useful reading?) but if plausible enough to attempt it would meet a lower threshold of resistance than a global project. If approximately successful it would be a model, and a temptation, for a broader effort. Which speaks to Clive Hamilton's concern about a slippery slope, obviously. -- 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.comjavascript: . Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- 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.
Re: [geo] Re: The governonsense of climate engineering
With all due and considerable respect to the people in this discussion, I think the motivating power of desperation is being grossly underestimated. Assume that we follow (what I think is overwhelmingly the most likely path) the business as usual, as long as possible scenario, essentially what Paul Gilding talks about in The Great Disruption, where we nibble around the edges of mitigation and adaptation, but essentially keep pumping massive amounts of GHG into the atmosphere with little action to head off extremely painful and expensive impacts. And we do this right up to the moment when we hit the most important tipping point of all, the one where enough people make the connections between our consumption and emissions patterns and the pain we feel from sea level rise, droughts, etc., to spur us into taking significant action. By the time we have our mass epiphany, we will have locked in some hideous consequences for the next few decades. (Yes, I know many people are claiming we've already crossed that threshold thanks to thermal disequilibrium, the long atmospheric lifetime of CO2, etc., and haven't seen the impacts yet. For the moment I'll ignore that awful possibility.) In that case, we will reach a point where we're so desperate for an escape from the mess we've created that we will try not just one but likely several GE technologies, regardless of whether we've done the appropriate preliminary research groundwork and limited field trials. And I don't think we'll need a unanimous or near-unanimous agreement among the world's countries, merely the cooperation of a few of them to either jointly fund and run the operation or simply not to interfere. I expect there will be massive posturing, e.g. country A objects at the UN (to appease domestic interests) over the plan of countries B, C, and D to deploy SRM, but behind the scenes they're supportive. Because I have no faith in our ability to mitigate and adapt our way out of this mess, I think it's critical that we do the research now so that we're as well prepared as possible when (not if) enough of us suddenly and finally feel the appropriate level of urgency and start demanding that Something Be Done Right Now. On Thursday, July 11, 2013 9:23:28 AM UTC-4, Fred Zimmerman wrote: If a single advocacy group with $1M can derail an idea, it's probably not worth doing. If large-scale GE occurs, it will be because of a consensus backed by multiple governments, international organizations, and, yes, environmental advocacy groups. At this point it's better to just do the research and lay the groundwork for the major dispositive studies that will be undertaken at some point in the future when the frog feels the heat of the water a bit more acutely. --- Fred Zimmerman Geoengineering IT! Bringing together the worlds of geoengineering and information technology GE NewsFilter: http://geoengineeringIT.net:8080 On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 4:46 PM, Michael Hayes vogle...@gmail.comjavascript: wrote: Hi Folks, If the need for a formalized and science backed GE advocacy is left un-answered much longer, it may simply take GE off the table completely. ETC pulls in over $1M of donations per year on this one issue and its staff of journalist are well aware of the value in selling hype to those they solicit money from. And, *money does buy legitimacy*, is there any surprise here? Going up against such a group as ETC will be like nailing Jello to the wall (messy, not pretty and endlessly repetitive) and no academic institution will want to waddle into that feted mud pit. I recommend that a non-profit group be formed for proper GE advocacy as soon as possible. I believe this was proposed in this forum over 2 years ago. The upcoming changes to the London Protocol will be an important test for the future of GE as a field of study. A de facto control over the future of this issue is being erected and it is not based upon science. It is based upon yellow journalism and the fear that sells such garbage. It takes 4 people to form a 501 (c)(3) and around $3K. The organization could be in place and operational well before the LP is changed. With 501 (c)(3) standing, those that are concerned about catastrophic climate change can have their voices heard with equal authority as those that support ETC. We have to face the fact that an idea can not compete with a well funded grouphttp://www.etcgroup.org/sites/www.etcgroup.org/files/report/ETC01%2020120831%20Financial%20Statements%20-%20ML%20electronic.pdfwho has no true obligation to the truth or the future of our planet. Their only verifiable obligation is to paying the bills needed to stay in business!! The idea needs its own well funded support group or it will be ether defeated, severly minimized or simply used as a money press for those like ETC. Best, Michael On Friday, July 5, 2013 3:31:38 AM UTC-7,
Re: [geo] CRD: not very relevant and a distraction
If you look at current emissions (too high and still rising slightly), plus the lock-in effect of current and near-term planned infrastructure (e.g. the WRI report on massive planned worldwide coal plant additions), I don't think it even makes sense to discuss CDR as anything but an active form of mitigation of net emissions. The notion that we'll significantly reduce atmospheric CO2 below the current level during the lifetime of anyone reading this is unwarrantedly optimistic. Similarly, I don't think there's any point in worrying about returning to 280ppm too quickly, if ever (in any time frame meaningful to current civilization), simply because of the scale of the problem. The effort needed to suck over 100ppm of CO2 from the atmosphere more than we emit over a couple of centuries and permanently sequester it would be beyond anything humanity has accomplished to date. I do think we will have to and will employ CDR, possibly in several forms. But we will also have to guard against it being seen as a reason for reduced urgency about reducing emissions. I'm very concerned that any non-trivial CDR effort will lead to the perception among the usual suspects (add your own list) that the situation isn't as bad as it was in the recent, non-CDR-ing past, and therefore they have a more time to bring down emissions. The goal can't merely be to stop increasing atmospheric CO2 levels, but to reduce them as quickly as we can, which will still be very slowly. On Tuesday, July 2, 2013 4:18:39 PM UTC-4, andrewjlockley wrote: I think a better argument against CDR is that it's so slow to act that you probably wouldn't want to pull down the temperature once it's been high for so long. Would we really want to go right back to pre industrial temperatures today? If not, why should we assume that future generations will want to go back to today's climate? Why will they want to go back at all? Prevention of rises is preferable to facilitating falls. CDR can't do that, in practice. A On Jul 2, 2013 8:43 PM, Rau, Greg ra...@llnl.gov javascript: wrote: Klaus Lackner and I tried to inject some hope and optimism into the earlier climate change mitigation discussion by Matthews and Solomon: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/340/6140/1522.2.full MS reply: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/340/6140/1523.1.full They summarize: In a discussion of the potential for immediate or near-future action to slow the growth of atmospheric CO2, we suggest that consideration of carbon dioxide removal (or other geoengineering) technologies would at best be not very relevant, and at worst could distract from the imperative of decreasing investment in energy technologies that lead to large CO2 emissions. Message to CRDer's: Put down those pencils and back away from the black board - you are distracting the geniuses who are going to reduce CO2 emissions and you are a potential menace to the planet. That goes double for SRMer's. Greg -- 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.comjavascript: . Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- 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: Climate talk shifts from curbing CO2 to adapting
Bill, I think the CC/cancer analogy is particularly valuable (and it's one I've used many times). I'm most struck by the timing of our changing awareness. I'm just barely old enough to remember a time when a lot of adults smoked, the statements from the US Surgeon General were a new thing, and many people were just coming to grips with the reality that smoking wasn't just not good for you but had major impacts on one's health. We're going through a similar process with CC, but we have far less time to climb that learning curve. I also agree that the first actors to publicly talk about geoengineering as an explicit public policy will pay a huge price. E.g. I can only imagine what the political firestorm would be like if President Obama mentioned geoengineering in a positive light in his Tuesday speech about CC and emissions reductions. It would virtually hand the next election to his opponents, no matter what the Democratic nominee said on the subject. I suspect that our squeamishness about geoengineering will be the last conceptual barrier to fall, and it could trail taking large-scale action on climate by a decade or more. We won't embrace geoengineering until we've made (perceived) painful emissions cuts and circumstances still leave us no other choice. As I say in presentations about the long atmospheric lifetime of co2, love is fleeting, but co2 is (virtually) forever. On Thursday, June 20, 2013 4:24:37 PM UTC-4, Bill Stahl wrote: For both governments and NGOs there is still a taboo on official discussion of post-GHG emissions climate intervention. There are many reasons for this- and not silly ones either!- but the net effect is unfortunate. It's as if the American Cancer Society dared not mentioned curing or treating cancer for fear of backhandedly encouraging kids to start smoking - and being accused of being in Big Tobacco's pocket to boot. But the public understands the connection between tobacco and cancer so well that they see the importance of doing both. A bigger and bigger chunk of the world now understands the connection between CO2 and climate trouble well enough to start hearing a more complicated message. Of course another chunk doesn't yet, which is another problem. I suspect that many of the people proposing adaptation measures while studiously avoiding mention of even geoengineering research are aware of it nonetheless. But there will be a huge penalty for being the first mover. In the meantime, some may say one thing from the conference podium and another thing entirely after a couple of bourbons in an airport bar on the way home. Just how the narrative changes, I've no idea -- 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.
Re: [geo] Climate talk shifts from curbing CO2 to adapting
I strongly agree. If we fall into the trap of a viewing this situation as a false dichotomy, then we're making it much worse and dramatically reducing our chances of dealing with it as optimally as is still possible, given the current carbon content of the atmosphere, our infrastructure, etc. I can't estimate how many times I've heard the message that we will have no choice but to mitigate and adapt and (very likely; a full-on certainty, IMO) geoengineer. The only questions are how soon we get serious about it, which mixtures of those three elements will still be viable, and how we'll implement it all. Once our climate change challenge is seen as having immense economic, political, and psychological components and not merely the scientific one, it becomes quite clear what a broad range of outcomes is still possible. You can argue, as I have repeatedly for years, that almost none of those paths forward is good, but some are vastly preferable than others. On Sunday, June 16, 2013 11:54:29 AM UTC-4, Mike MacCracken wrote: Hi Greg—Back some years ago, F Scott Fitzgerald wrote in The Crack-Up ( 1936), The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function. One might think that we could be considering both mitigation and adaptation (preparedness) together instead of in an opposed manner. Mike On 6/15/13 11:49 PM, Ken Caldeira kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu wrote: Note that the President's science advisers have chosen to use the word preparedness rather than adaptation. http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/PCAST/pcast_energy_and_climate_3-22-13_final.pdf You have no choice but to adapt, but you can choose to prepare. While you're adapting to what's happening to you, you can try to prepare for what's going to happen to you. On Sat, Jun 15, 2013 at 8:42 PM, Greg Rau gh...@sbcglobal.net wrote: Guess it's official: Plan A (= emissions reductions) has failed. So we're jumping directly to Plan C ( = survival mode). Apparently the messaging about Plan B (= SRM and CDR) never got through, or someone's decided we're not going there(?) Best of luck to future generations. Some of us tried to change the outcome. So crank on that XL pipeline. Frack the heck out of those Bakken, Barnett, Montney, Haynesville, Marcellus, Eagle Ford, Niobrara and Utica shales. And if gas supplants king coal in the US, then let's just ship the excess to China. Let's hear it for Plan C, and let's party while we still can(?) Greg http://news.yahoo.com/climate-talk-shifts-curbing-co2-adapting-130423769.html Now officials are merging efforts by emergency managers to prepare for natural disasters with those of officials focused on climate change. That greatly lessens the political debate about human-caused global warming, said University of Colorado science and disaster policy professor Roger Pielke Jr. It also makes the issue more local than national or international. If you keep the discussion focused on impacts ... I think it's pretty easy to get people from all political persuasions, said Pielke, who often has clashed with environmentalists over global warming. It's insurance. The good news is that we know insurance is going to pay off again. Describing these measures as resiliency and changing the way people talk about it make it more palatable than calling it climate change, said Hadi Dowlatabadi, a University of British Columbia climate scientist. It's called a no-regrets strategy, Dowlatabadi said. It's all branding. All that, experts say, is essentially taking some of the heat out of the global warming debate. * Climate talk shifts from curbing CO2 to adapting *By SETH BORENSTEIN | Associated Press – 8 hrs ago WASHINGTON (AP) — Efforts to curb global warming have quietly shifted as greenhouse gases inexorably rise. The conversation is no longer solely about how to save the planet by cutting carbon emissions. It's becoming more about how to save ourselves from the warming planet's wild weather. It was Mayor Michael Bloomberg's announcement last week of an ambitious plan to stave off New York City's rising seas with flood gates, levees and more that brought this transition into full focus. After years of losing the fight against rising global emissions of heat-trapping gases, governments around the world are emphasizing what a U.N. Foundation scientific report calls managing the unavoidable. It's called adaptation and it's about as sexy but as necessary as insurance, experts say. It's also a message that once was taboo among climate activists such as former Vice President Al Gore. In his 1992 book Earth in the Balance, Gore compared talk of adapting to climate change to laziness that would distract from necessary efforts. But in his 2013 book The Future, Gore writes bluntly: I was wrong. He
Re: [geo] NASA Ames meeting
This is an excellent, concise summary of the lock-in effect I've been droning on about for years, and I think it is still vastly un(der)appreciated by people concerned/engaged with climate change. There is some high-profile acknowledgement of this situation, e.g. IEA's top economist, Fatih Birol, has talked about it repeatedly, but the message doesn't seem to be reaching many of the right people, including many green activists I speak with. There was a fairly recent report from WRI talking about the plans worldwide to build about 1,200 new coal plants. If one does a back-of-the-envelope calculation, assuming an average size, coal and water consumption, and CO2 emissions, it results in some quite dim numbers and conclusions. I'm quite aware that many people question whether we'll ever build anywhere near that many new plants worldwide, due to cooling water restrictions and, in some cases, regional coal availability. But cut the projected number of new plants significantly, and the cumulative emissions over the normal lifespan of a coal plant (40 to 60 years) are still very bad news. Getting us out of existing infrastructure and technology, with its associated emissions commitment, in anything approaching a good time frame is a gigantic political and economic challenge. On Saturday, June 1, 2013 1:05:00 PM UTC-4, Fred Zimmerman wrote: I think it's important to distinguish between the effects of advocacy and the inertia of the energy system. I believe the inertia is huge relative to the effects of advocacy because of the tremendous switching costt of infrastructure, distribution, power systems. Advocacy affects choices at the margins but consumers and businesses start to balk as soon as the cost effect becomes significant. Even if ExxonMobil had never paid a climate skeptic a dime, we would still have an energy system in which fossil fuel emissions are dominant. --- Fred Zimmerman Geoengineering IT! Bringing together the worlds of geoengineering and information technology GE NewsFilter: http://geoengineeringIT.net:8080 On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 12:33 PM, Alan Robock rob...@envsci.rutgers.edujavascript: wrote: Dear All, I also was at the NASA Ames meeting. It was my first geoengineering meeting, and it was there that I was struck with the very enthusiastic endorsement of geoengineering as a solution to global warming by people who did not seem to be aware of the potential negative impacts. But Lane and Kheshgi were not among those who were blindly advocating geoengineering, as I remember it. I agree with Clive that the reason we are even considering this Plan B is that Exxon and other fossil fuel companies have had a dedicated campaign to deny anthropogenic global warming, and that AEI has been part of this campaign, and that if they were to now advocate mitigation we would not be nearly as interested in geoengineering. But it was not such a black and white discussion at the Ames meeting – it was more of a general discussion of geoengineering and a learning opportunity for many. It was at the Ames meeting that I wrote down my 20 reasons why geoengineering may be a bad idea, as I listened to two days of presentations. (My research program since then has been to investigate those reasons. I have now crossed out three of them, but added nine new ones, so the total is now 26.) Alan -- Alan Robock, Distinguished Professor Editor, Reviews of Geophysics Director, Meteorology Undergraduate Program Associate Director, Center for Environmental Prediction 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.edujavascript: New Brunswick, NJ 08901-8551 USA http://envsci.rutgers.edu/~** robock http://envsci.rutgers.edu/~robock http://twitter.com/AlanRobock -- 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.**comjavascript: . Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/**group/geoengineering?hl=enhttp://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en . For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/**groups/opt_outhttps://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out . -- 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,
Re: [geo] The importance of response times for various climate strategies - Springer
Agreed. When I give presentations about CC I always stress the timing aspects, and how they're not our friends. From the long atmospheric lifetime of CO2 (love is fleeting, but CO2 is (virtually) forever) to the lock-in effects of infrastructure to the multiple human delays, including psychological, political, and economic, we seem to be behind more than one eight ball. This is why I tell people that I think there should be zero debate about is geoengineering a good idea (even if one accepts that as broad an umbrella term as geoengineering can be used in such a way) and we should be focused on doing the work needed to figure out the costs and benefits (both in terms of monetary and non-monetary measures) of various implementation plans for each form of geoengineering. I think it's abundantly clear that our mass epiphany about CC won't come until after we've locked in and begun to see hideous consequences, and we suddenly demand a near-magical fix. Probability that we'll deploy at least one large scale geoengineering technology in the next few decades 99%. On Wednesday, May 22, 2013 10:48:37 AM UTC-4, Fred Zimmerman wrote: It's somewhat academic since in all likelihood the most time-consuming element in the process will be the political deliberations necessary to reach agreement on action. We're at 20 years and counting from Rio and we are still increasing emissions every year. --- Fred Zimmerman Geoengineering IT! Bringing together the worlds of geoengineering and information technology GE NewsFilter: http://geoengineeringIT.net:8080 On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 10:40 AM, Mike MacCracken mmac...@comcast.netjavascript: wrote: Hi John--I wholeheartedly agree that a gradual implementation could be done. It seems to me, however, in many of the discussions, the application is being talked about as an emergency application that could be done much more rapidly than CO2 mitigation rather than as a gradual application. It is those proposed cases that prompted my comment. Best, Mike On 5/22/13 1:44 AM, John Latham john.l...@manchester.ac.ukjavascript: wrote: Sorry if I'm missing a point, Mike, but - in principle - the transition to full SRM deployment in the case of Marine Cloud Brightening could be made at a selected rate and modified in a controllable manner by adjusting the sea-water spray rate. Additional flexibility is provided by varying the choices of the locations at which sprayiing occurs. The same principles could be applied to sub-global MCB geo-engineering, in the cases of coral reef protection and weakening of hurricanes, via propitiously chosen surface water cooling. All Best, John. John Latham Address: P.O. Box 3000,MMM,NCAR,Boulder,CO 80307-3000 Email: lat...@ucar.edu javascript: or john.l...@manchester.ac.ukjavascript: Tel: (US-Work) 303-497-8182 or (US-Home) 303-444-2429 or (US-Cell) 303-882-0724 or (UK) 01928-730-002 http://www.mmm.ucar.edu/people/latham From: geoengi...@googlegroups.com javascript: [ geoengi...@googlegroups.com javascript:] on behalf of Mike MacCracken [mmac...@comcast.net javascript:] Sent: 22 May 2013 03:17 To: Andrew Lockley; Geoengineering Subject: Re: [geo] The importance of response times for various climate strategies - Springer I continue to wonder how one can be so concerned about the warming that would occur at a supposed end of SRM and not be worried about the rapid onset of SRM if used in an emergency manner (not to mention that by the time of the emergency it may be too late to reverse (e.g., think about Greenland melting rate, could it be reversed?). As climate warms/changes, there is always some adaptation going on, so the thought of suddenly taking the global average temp down a degree C would likely lead to quite large disruptions and dislocations, just as would coming out of such a cooling. The disruption of going into SRM can be smoothed, and so could an exit (if we assume we have as much sense as needed to get agreement to start SRM), just as going in one could have a sudden change likely as disruptive as coming out if not managed well. So, why all the focus on the back end problem, without a similar concern at start-up? Mike MacCracken On 5/21/13 8:37 PM, Andrew Lockley andrew@gmail.comjavascript: wrote: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-013-0769-5 If climate action becomes urgent: the importance of response times for various climate strategies Detlef P. van Vuuren, Elke Stehfest Abstract Most deliberations on climate policy are based on a mitigation response that assumes a gradually increasing reduction over time. However, situations may occur where a more urgent response is needed. A key question for climate policy in general, but even more in the case a rapid response is needed,
[geo] Re: WARNING - CONTAINS NONSENSE Changing weather patterns | Sustainable Industries
This is absolutely true -- right up to via chemtrails in the second sentence, if one thinks of CO2 emissions, climate change, and knock-on effects. Sadly, from chemtrails on, the crazy takes over... I know several people who fervently believe in this stuff, mostly chemtrails and HAARP, and trying to talk to them about it rationally is an exercise in futility. I always try to approach these topics the same way I approach anything science related: I will believe anything that has solid factual and logical backing. When the chemtrails and HAARP people can meet that standard, I'm with them. Until then, they're in the Elvis invented HIV in a 7-11 store in Memphis while working the third shift with aliens category. On Wednesday, May 15, 2013 5:40:23 PM UTC-4, andrewjlockley wrote: Poster's note: This is mostly poppycock. I'm sharing it to show an example of the complete tripe found on reputable looking environmental websites. (And to demonstrate the drivel I have to wade through to bring you these posts ! ) http://www.sustainableindustries.com/articles/2013/05/geoengineering-ongoing-methodical-destruction-biosphere Weather modification has been going on for decades, without the knowledge, not to mention consent of the global population. In this info-intense exchange, Dane Wigington of GeoEngineeringWatch.org conveys the shocking reality of constant worldwide toxification of the biosphere and manipulation of weather patterns via chemtrails (1000 planes flying daily) and ionospheric heaters (the HAARP facility in Alaska is only one of many). Whereas Eco-Evolution is mostly focused on the brave and pioneering work people and organizations are doing to facilitate our shift to sustainability, this program addresses an unrecognized major factor in global warming, and an astounding violation of human rights, ecological ethics and international laws. A growing body of data suggests that partnerships between national governments, military forces, military contractors such as Raytheon, major universities and corporate profiteers are carrying out an ongoing, devastating assault on humanity and our planet. Our environmental groups, health organizations, academics, churches and human rights groups have so far been largely unaware of this tragedy, by design. The mass media and weather reporting systems have been influenced by the forces behind this practice, to hide it from the pubic. The work of researchers such as Dane and films such as Why In the World are They Spraying is bringing this most disturbing story of the modern era to light. It is a story that must be changed, and soon. Listen to the interview with Dane Wigington here.Eco Evolution with host Michael Gosney is a weekly talk radio show tracking the global shift to sustainability in conversation with leading thinkers and doers on the front lines of change. Current and past shows available on I-Tunes and WebTalkRadio.net. For complete information visit eco-evolution.com.This podcast originally appeared on Eco Evolution with Michael Gosney. -- 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: SECURITY UPDATE : Chemtrails/conspiracy rally planned for 'Hack the Sky' Caldeira talk.
Wow, that's quite the steaming bucket of conspiracy theories. I'm almost disappointed that Area 51 didn't make an appearance. Does anyone here know how widespread are the world views expressed in Warkentin's description? Is this a slightly disturbing nano-fringe, or is it large enough to have a non-trivial probability of influencing public policy? On Monday, May 6, 2013 3:47:43 AM UTC-4, andrewjlockley wrote: Poster's note : see bottom of below piece for info on rally. Suggest that any well known researchers avoid the area. May be worth asking police to attend. I would advise searching audience for concealed arms before allowing entry. http://www.berkeleydailyplanet.com/issue/2013-05-03/article/41048?headline=Hack-the-Sky---Vivian-Warkentin Public Comment New: Hack the Sky? Vivian Warkentin Sunday May 05, 2013 - 05:54:00 PM On May 9th, 7:00PM at the Brower Center, 2150 Allston way in Berkeley, corporate, billionaire- backed geoengineer, Ken Caldiera will be laying out the scientists' plans to mitigate global warming by blocking sunlight from the earth with chemical jet aerosols, such as sulphur dioxide and aluminum oxide dust. Earth Island Institute, the sponsor of this debate, is calling the event, Hack the Sky? An ethicist, not a scientist, has been chosen to debate Caldiera. Is the Earth Island Institute telling us there are no scientific arguments against this scheme? Arguments like: These chemical dusts will fall to earth to be absorbed and breathed by humans and all living things. The sun gives the earth life. Sunlight is necessary for plants to perform photosynthesis which takes carbon out of the atmosphere. The sun is the source of vitamin D required for human health. I for one, would like to hear from some forestry scientists, soil scientists, ocean scientists, biologists, botanists, entomologists, and non corporate atmospheric scientists. It is time for those who truly care about the environment to question blind trust in scientists and for that matter established environmental organizations. Science at our Universities is sponsored and directed by corporations now. Corporations have discovered that the best way to control environmentalists is to fund them. It seems that the neo environmentalists are running the environmental wing of the global war on terror, scaring us into all sorts of banker, developer, corporation, scientist enriching schemes ala disaster capitalism. I know there are plenty of well meaning caring people working with these groups, but has fear numbed their critical thinking? Geoengineering is massive pollution of the earth and it's inhabitants, and nothing less than the corporate scientific takeover of our greatest commons, our sky and atmosphere, natural weather and climate. It needs to be noted that the description of geoengineering matches what many already regularly observe in our skies. Please show up for this discussion on a subject that has been mostly hidden from the public. There will be an educational rally and march opposing geoengineering beginning at 6:00pm corner of Oxford and University. -- 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] Opinion Article on HOME campaign by ETC Group
The notion that geoengineering disempowers those in developing countries is a very odd argument, IMO. How many times do we need to see analyses that say developing countries will be very seriously impacted by climate change before we're willing to say that they have such a huge incentive to see something done about this mess that it's insignificant who is paying for and doing the geoengineering? As I've said in presentations and on my blog, the symbol for climate change should not be a polar bear, but a map of Bangladesh (possibly with the to-be-lost coastal land highlighted in red?). Of course there will be winner and losers. Corporations that build wind turbines, solar panels, batteries for EVs, etc. will have a dramatically brighter future than those that continue to operate with their heads in the sand. (Note the relative ranking; this is not an absolute assessment.) Sadly, corporations involved in disaster cleanup/rebuild will also see increased business... -- 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] Re: China could move first to geoengineer the climate
I think that this situation comes down to timing and who's suffering. If we're talking about a scenario in which we start to take action fairly soon, i.e. before the truly horrific impacts begin, then I would contend that there's still a very high probability of moral hazard; some countries won't be sufficiently frightened enough to put action ahead of their own perceived pain and expense, but some clearly will. Consider the urgency felt by the Maldives vs. the US today, for example. I strongly agree with the point about microeconomics being largely based on assumptions that are less than universal. This was a discussion I had with many economics professors over the years. But it's always worth asking: Are we seeing a limitation of the basic approach of microeconomics and utility maximization, or are we applying a too coarse utility function? The latter can lead to bad results that can be misinterpreted as the former. I wish we weren't so far out in the edges of the map -- the Here Be Dragons part -- in so many fields of study, all at once. But circumstances dictate we are out there, which is why I try very hard not to jump to conclusions about the views of any serious participant in this grand discussion (something I like doing as much as anyone, frankly), including Hamilton, Benford, Mann, Anderson, Romm, Hansen, McKibben, et al. As I've said countless times on my blog, the future will be a hell of a lot of things, but dull ain't on the list. On Saturday, May 4, 2013 4:40:16 AM UTC-4, andrewjlockley wrote: See below a response to the Benford ad hominem from a member. I think Benford could have chosen his wording better. Lou's original point about moral hazard doesn't seem to be supported by empirical studies. At least two published studies, 1 done by NERC, plus my own research (in revision), have demonstrated an effect which may be termed 'negative moral hazard'. This can be perhaps be explained in shorthand as 'the need for geoengineering scares the crap out of people' - making them more, not less, likely to support aggressive mitigation. Micro economic theory is based on assumptions about human behaviour which don't always hold. As Feynman famously said (paraphrased), if a theory doesn't agree with the evidence, it's wrong. It seems that the theory of moral hazard may simply not fit the data here. Let's imagine a comparable scenario, in which a dangerous child murderer is arrested. Although the risk to children is reduced, parents still become fearful and keep their children indoors. Mindfulness of risk matters more than change in risk, when it comes to behaviour change. A On May 4, 2013 7:09 AM, Clive Hamilton ma...@clivehamilton.comjavascript: wrote: Dear Mr Benford For some reason I have not been able to post responses on this Google group. If I were able to I would post this message in response to yours ... It is my impression that groups like this should not descend into personal abuse. I receive plenty of abuse and threats from fanatical climate deniers and it is disappointing to see the angry side of the internet emerging here. The kind of dismissive comment you have made goes a long way towards explaining why there is a gathering tide of suspicion about those engaged in geoengineering research. Sincerely Clive Hamilton On 4 May 2013 15:32, Gregory Benford xben...@gmail.com javascript:wrote: ...to cause political leaders to weaken even further their commitment to Plan A... There is little or no commitment. Hamilton shouldn't be taken seriously; just another frightmonger. Gregory Benford On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 8:23 AM, Lou Grinzo loug...@gmail.comjavascript: wrote: When Hamilton says, One of the foremost is of course that it’s likely to cause political leaders to weaken even further their commitment to Plan A, I think he's pointing to a danger just as great as the risk that we'll screw this up, e.g. by triggering nasty, unforeseen side effects. The only thing that will push us to taking major action on climate change, whether that action is reducing emissions, adaptation, or geoengineering, is the pain, both human and financial, of impacts. Anything we do to lessen those impacts will therefore reduce our collective urgency to ramp up our response to CC. It's basic microeconomics (think utility functions) and psychology (perceptions vs. reality). I'm not sure what to think of much of what Hamilton says, frankly. I read his prior book and shorter pieces, and while I do feel he overestimates the difficulties and dangers, I also know that we're way out of our comfort/expertise zone and time is most definitely not on our side. This is not simply an example of classic multivariate optimization, but one involving uncomfortably large error bars on the individual variables and how they interact with each other. Over the next few decades, CC
[geo] Re: China could move first to geoengineer the climate
When Hamilton says, One of the foremost is of course that it’s likely to cause political leaders to weaken even further their commitment to Plan A, I think he's pointing to a danger just as great as the risk that we'll screw this up, e.g. by triggering nasty, unforeseen side effects. The only thing that will push us to taking major action on climate change, whether that action is reducing emissions, adaptation, or geoengineering, is the pain, both human and financial, of impacts. Anything we do to lessen those impacts will therefore reduce our collective urgency to ramp up our response to CC. It's basic microeconomics (think utility functions) and psychology (perceptions vs. reality). I'm not sure what to think of much of what Hamilton says, frankly. I read his prior book and shorter pieces, and while I do feel he overestimates the difficulties and dangers, I also know that we're way out of our comfort/expertise zone and time is most definitely not on our side. This is not simply an example of classic multivariate optimization, but one involving uncomfortably large error bars on the individual variables and how they interact with each other. Over the next few decades, CC will reveal a lot about humanity, perhaps most notably our compassion for fellow human beings. Whether it's helping millions (tens of millions? hundreds?) of climate refugees and those suffering food and water stress, dealing with the challenges of geoengineering (who pays if something does go horribly wrong?), or simply paying for the staggering cost of SLR. I remain cautiously optimistic that we'll find a way to rise to these challenges, but I'm guessing it won't always be a pretty sight. On Tuesday, April 30, 2013 8:54:24 AM UTC-4, andrewjlockley wrote: http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/show/single/en/5952 Clive Hamilton is professor of public ethics at Australia’s Charles Sturt University and a prominent critic of geoengineering. Here he discusses his latest book Earthmasters: The Dawn of the Age of Climate Engineering. Olivia Boyd: You describe geoengineering as a “profound dilemma” in your book. Why? Clive Hamilton: The dilemma is that as long as the world responds in a feeble way to the warnings of the scientists, we’re likely to end up in a situation where we will be casting around for desperate solutions and I think that’s when the world will turn seriously to geoengineering interventions to get us out of the impossible fix.People who are deeply concerned about the climate crisis, and naturally sceptical about major technological interventions, are nonetheless saying this is something we’re going to have to pursue. I’m thinking in particular of [atmospheric chemist] Paul Crutzen who has been vital in this whole debate – someone who with a very heavy heart has concluded that the world has been so derelict in responding to the scientific warnings that we’re going to have to pursue this deeply unpalatable alternative, this Plan B. OB: What’s the problem with Plan B? CH: There’s a whole string of problems with Plan B. One of the foremost is of course that it’s likely to cause political leaders to weaken even further their commitment to Plan A. And it was for that reason that pretty much all climate scientists would not talk publicly about geoengineering until Paul Crutzen broke the taboo in 2006. It was felt to be dangerous to talk about geoengineering because of the disincentive it might have on global negotiations to cut greenhouse-gas emissions.In a way, the problem that makes me most anxious is the tendency among some of the more influential geoengineering scientists to have an unwarranted faith in technological interventions in the biggest ecosystem of them all, and the extremely high likelihood of serious miscalculation, of something going very badly wrong.I think in a way the greatest risk is human hubris, our penchant for persuading ourselves that we know the answers and we have all the necessary information, we can intervene and take control of the earth. OB: What sort of miscalculations are you talking about? CH: One nightmare scenario could be where the world or a major power decides to engage in sulphate aerosol spraying – in other words to install a solar shield between the earth and the sun to turn down the sunlight reaching the earth – and to discover that it causes a massive hole in the ozone layer which has all sorts of catastrophic effects on human and other forms of life.Another nightmare scenario might be one where an attempt by one major power to engineer the globe’s climate system attracts a hostile response from another major power, who doesn’t take kindly to competing for control over their weather and it escalates into a military confrontation. OB: You’ve suggested China might be one of the most likely candidates to go it alone with something like aerosol spraying. Why China? CH: We
