Re: [geo] Linking solar geoengineering and emissions reduction
List and Ken This is to generally support Ken's no new proposal below. I have received 17 others in this thread, but I don't believe any have the following three amendments that I suggest for further discussion. 1. That ceasing also apply to the opening of any new fossil fuel production facility (oil, gas, coal)/ Rationale 1: This is designed (as is Ken's) to foster renewables. Also good to refurbish and extend the life of older wells. But mainly to ensure that the annual input of fossil CO2 into the atmosphere does not stay constant, but moves downward - at a predictable pace. Plenty of new wells/mines would be rushed into place before the deadline, but the amount would be well known, and controlled somewhat by not being able to be exploited quickly (giving a further cost preference to renewables). 2. That the decision on when to OK large scale solar geoengineering be made by the IPCC, and be made within the next 10 years. Rationale 2: The IPCC overs all countries already. The needed expertise is mostly voluntary and already in place. Ten years is arbitrary, but shouldn't be perceived as too soon. 3. That the IPCC (or other, if a better choice exists) must first affirm that CDR (carbon dioxide removal - including reforestation and afforestation) would NOT be a safer and less costly approach than SRM. Rationale 3. There should always be an alternative approach - especially one that addresses a/the main reason (ocean pH) many folks are fearful of SRM. This will mandate much needed RD on CDR, as well as accelerate RD on renewables (especially by fossil fuel companies). (Other: This could be in lieu of a carbon tax. Companies that wished to could simply sell their assets and/or go out of business, if they didn't want to become a renewable energy supplier.) Ron On Sep 11, 2013, at 10:36 AM, Ken Caldeira kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu 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 kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu 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. -- 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] Linking solar geoengineering and emissions reduction
Belatedly, just to note I agree with Ken that what we need is action or real commitment to strong mitigation before consider global engineering, at least, or it will be excuse to delay or do less. This way climate engineering is used to shave the peak warming after mitigation (of both short and long-lived species) rather than a substitute. Mike On 9/11/13 12:36 PM, Ken Caldeira kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu 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 kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu 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.
Re: [geo] Linking solar geoengineering and emissions reduction
Gene‹The problem is that how much can be done by geoengineering is limited‹geoengineering is not an option in itself, it can only be effective over time if there is also mitigation and adaptation (and still some suffering). Mike On 9/13/13 4:45 PM, esubscript...@montgomerycountymd.gov euggor...@comcast.net wrote: Mike: As scientists you need to continue to develop technology for reducing global temperature. Let us hope you are extremely successful. Let others deal with emission reduction, which is not part of geoengineering although it is an important part of global warming mitigation. Emission reduction is partly technical, not part of geoengineering but political and what happens will be determined by politicians. Don't make geoengineering hostage to the politicians. As scientists you have a lot on your plate. It seems unwise to put yourselves in the position of fighting the politicians and energy companies. -gene From: Mike MacCracken mmacc...@comcast.net To: Ken Caldeira kcalde...@gmail.com, Geoengineering Geoengineering@googlegroups.com Sent: Friday, September 13, 2013 4:14:43 PM Subject: Re: [geo] Linking solar geoengineering and emissions reduction Re: [geo] Linking solar geoengineering and emissions reduction Belatedly, just to note I agree with Ken that what we need is action or real commitment to strong mitigation before consider global engineering, at least, or it will be excuse to delay or do less. This way climate engineering is used to shave the peak warming after mitigation (of both short and long-lived species) rather than a substitute. Mike On 9/11/13 12:36 PM, Ken Caldeira kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu about:blank 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 kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu about:blank 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.
RE: [geo] Linking solar geoengineering and emissions reduction
Dear Ken [and list], Although I generally support your position regarding testing, and although I consider a policy linkage between SRM and emissions abatement to be wise in the abstract, I find the linkage to be problematic in reality. First, the intent (in your words, to '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') is admirable. However, what if, at some later point, future emissions abatement seems imminent but in the meantime the temporary peak of GHG concentrations appears to be dangerous? Would it be ethical to withhold the use of a (hypothetical) existing technology in order to reduce damage to humans and the environment? Second, as Andrew pointed out, regulating a global, diffuse activity is extremely difficult. Third, the demand for future GHG emitting devices is not only new cars for the wealthy but also in order to pull the world's poor out of poverty. Until an alternative means to do so exists, it seems unreasonable for the world's rich to ask the poor to forego cleaner burner indoor stoves. Fourth, you often cite the difficulty in defining a climate engineering field experiment. How to define a CO2 emitting device? A person? A cow? An outdoor wood fire? An indoor wood stove? An indoor coal stove? An indoor gas stove? Finally, you write My proposal was not to establish political institutions and agreements, but to aim for establishment of norms. However, a norm which would be impossible to operationalize in institutions and agreements would be hollow and consequently counter-productive. Kind regards, Jesse - Jesse L. Reynolds, M.S. PhD Candidate European and International Public Law Tilburg Sustainability Center Tilburg University, The Netherlands Book review editor, Law, Innovation, and Technology email: j.l.reyno...@uvt.nlmailto:j.l.reyno...@uvt.nl http://www.tilburguniversity.edu/webwijs/show/?uid=j.l.reynolds From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Ken Caldeira Sent: donderdag 12 september 2013 2:15 To: Fred Zimmerman Cc: Philip M. Macnaghten; Andrew Lockley; geoengineering Subject: Re: [geo] Linking solar geoengineering and emissions reduction But do we really want to be geoengineering at the same time we are building more devices that use the atmosphere as a waste dump? Isn't that nearly assuring an outcome with ever increasing CO2 levels compensated for by ever increasing amounts of solar geoengineering? Isn't the end game of that scenario rather ugly? ___ Ken Caldeira Carnegie Institution for Science Dept of Global Ecology 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA +1 650 704 7212 kcalde...@carnegiescience.edumailto:kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab @kencaldeira On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 3:36 PM, Fred Zimmerman geoengineerin...@gmail.commailto:geoengineerin...@gmail.com wrote: It seems more likely that declarations of that nature would tie our hands at the moment of greatest need. It will be centuries before we stop building carbon-emitting devices. --- Fred Zimmerman Geoengineering IT! Bringing together the worlds of geoengineering and information technology GE NewsFilter: http://geoengineeringIT.net:8080 On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 2:18 PM, Ken Caldeira kcalde...@carnegiescience.edumailto:kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu wrote: My proposal was not to establish political institutions and agreements, but to aim for establishment of norms. For example, countries could be encouraged at this time to make public statements like: If things every got so bad that we felt compelled to deploy a solar geoengineering system, we will, before deployment, stop building devices that use the atmosphere as a waste dump. Even absent enforcement mechanisms, propagation of this norm could prove powerful. ___ Ken Caldeira Carnegie Institution for Science Dept of Global Ecology 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA +1 650 704 7212tel:%2B1%20650%20704%207212 kcalde...@carnegiescience.edumailto:kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab @kencaldeira On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 2:07 PM, Philip M. Macnaghten p.m.macnagh...@durham.ac.ukmailto:p.m.macnagh...@durham.ac.uk wrote: Ken You make a good point (on which I agree in principle). However, if you think this through, you need to imagine what kind of political institutions and agreements need to be in place to 'police' all nation-states to ensure that 'no-one builds new CO2-emitting devices' (cars, power stations, infrastructure etc.). And whether this is in any way plausible in current circumstances. The wider point is that in a number of respects (including for the reason you suggest below) it is implausible to imagine how SRM can be compatible with current
Re: [geo] Linking solar geoengineering and emissions reduction
Ken As always (I am a stuck record on this, for those old enough to remember stuck records) surely it depends on the weasel word we Imagine a world in which *Bad Stuff, maybe Very Bad Stuff, is happening *Research, including some field research, strongly suggests that sunshine geoengineering could greatly reduce the level of Bad Stuff, and there are parties capable of deploying it who are also capable of doing without any further emitting devices. *There are other parties/jurisdictions/countries, maybe just a few, which are adamant that they won't stop building emitting devices Should the parties capable of geoengineering forego the option because there will still be new emitting devices being built, permitting lots of Bad Stuff that they could have stopped? Should they force the other parties to stop building emitting devices by force of arms? Or should they deploy anyway? Perhaps it depends on the size of the recalcitrant fraction. If 10% of the world is still building emitters, is it ok to geoengineer? But if 10%, why not 20%... Alternatively, on teh basis that you can't make people be good and shouldn't willingly allow Bad Stuff to happen when it might be avoided, maybe it is *only* the parties that do the geoengineering who should feel obliged to give up building emitting devices. But the parties capable of geoengineering might themselves just be 10% of the world... ever o On Wednesday, 11 September 2013 18:51:53 UTC+1, Ken Caldeira wrote: Note that I did not require decarbonization of the economy as a pre-requisite for deployment as my proposal allows existing CO2-emitting devices to continue being used. I merely required that we stop building new CO2-emitting devices. My point is that if climate change is enough of an emergency to require rapid deployment of solar geoengineering then it is also enough of an emergency to stop building devices that will exacerbate that emergency. If we are doing solar geoengineering at the same time as we are building new fossil-fueled power plants that use the atmosphere as a waste dump, how do you assure that the solar geoengineering system does not facilitate continued production of those devices? ___ 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 Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 1:25 PM, Andrew Lockley andrew@gmail.comjavascript: wrote: Ken We need to control temperatures far more quickly than we can hope to decarbonise the economy. Are you seriously trying to argue that every car factory in the world needs to close before we can do any SRM at all? That seems entirely implausible. Perhaps more sensible to suggest that emissions growth be capped (possibly at zero) before geoengineering starts. As I see it the 'buy time' argument for SRM is a strong one. We need to stop temperatures increasing *whilst * we decarbonise. A On Sep 11, 2013 5:36 PM, Ken Caldeira kcal...@carnegiescience.edujavascript: 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 geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com javascript:. To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.comjavascript: .
Re: [geo] Linking solar geoengineering and emissions reduction
Coupling SRM policies with emissions abatement policies is probably the only way SRM would be politically feasible anyway. This came up a few times at the Harvard summer school as well. From a US standpoint, different hard-to-tackle issues are often linked in politics, as we get reminded every time the farm bill (or the national budget) comes up for renewal. It probably seems insane to Europeans that social welfare funding (food stamps) gets linked in a package with subsidies for corn growers, and obviously these examples aren't selling the idea of packages or coupled policies very well. But it could be a case of the idea being decent and the legislative branch just doing it wrong. There's clearly a difference between issues that are contingent by design and issues that are opportunistically contingent. My point is that the concept of linking difficult things shouldn't be unfamiliar. It would be great if a political scientist could write a paper on the history of coupled or contingent policies, perhaps a cross-country comparison, and then situate SRM in the context of that. Or, to write about the factors that inspired such norms and declarations of contingency by politicians in varying case studies, since Ken's point was about establishing norms rather than political institutions. Given the way academia works there is probably a whole sub-field of people writing about these topics broadly; if you know who they are please drop me a message. Some good research topics here. On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 6:57 AM, O Morton omeconom...@gmail.com wrote: Ken As always (I am a stuck record on this, for those old enough to remember stuck records) surely it depends on the weasel word we Imagine a world in which *Bad Stuff, maybe Very Bad Stuff, is happening *Research, including some field research, strongly suggests that sunshine geoengineering could greatly reduce the level of Bad Stuff, and there are parties capable of deploying it who are also capable of doing without any further emitting devices. *There are other parties/jurisdictions/countries, maybe just a few, which are adamant that they won't stop building emitting devices Should the parties capable of geoengineering forego the option because there will still be new emitting devices being built, permitting lots of Bad Stuff that they could have stopped? Should they force the other parties to stop building emitting devices by force of arms? Or should they deploy anyway? Perhaps it depends on the size of the recalcitrant fraction. If 10% of the world is still building emitters, is it ok to geoengineer? But if 10%, why not 20%... Alternatively, on teh basis that you can't make people be good and shouldn't willingly allow Bad Stuff to happen when it might be avoided, maybe it is *only* the parties that do the geoengineering who should feel obliged to give up building emitting devices. But the parties capable of geoengineering might themselves just be 10% of the world... ever o On Wednesday, 11 September 2013 18:51:53 UTC+1, Ken Caldeira wrote: Note that I did not require decarbonization of the economy as a pre-requisite for deployment as my proposal allows existing CO2-emitting devices to continue being used. I merely required that we stop building new CO2-emitting devices. My point is that if climate change is enough of an emergency to require rapid deployment of solar geoengineering then it is also enough of an emergency to stop building devices that will exacerbate that emergency. If we are doing solar geoengineering at the same time as we are building new fossil-fueled power plants that use the atmosphere as a waste dump, how do you assure that the solar geoengineering system does not facilitate continued production of those devices? ___ Ken Caldeira Carnegie Institution for Science Dept of Global Ecology 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA +1 650 704 7212 kcal...@**carnegiescience.edu http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/**caldeiralabhttp://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab @kencaldeira On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 1:25 PM, Andrew Lockley andrew@gmail.comwrote: Ken We need to control temperatures far more quickly than we can hope to decarbonise the economy. Are you seriously trying to argue that every car factory in the world needs to close before we can do any SRM at all? That seems entirely implausible. Perhaps more sensible to suggest that emissions growth be capped (possibly at zero) before geoengineering starts. As I see it the 'buy time' argument for SRM is a strong one. We need to stop temperatures increasing *whilst * we decarbonise. A On Sep 11, 2013 5:36 PM, Ken Caldeira kcal...@carnegiescience.edu** 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
Re: [geo] Linking solar geoengineering and emissions reduction
this is in any way plausible in current circumstances. The wider point is that in a number of respects (including for the reason you suggest below) it is implausible to imagine how SRM can be compatible with current, liberal, democratic institutions. I suggest that the 'political' challenges posed by SRM need further consideration in groups such as this one. We have developed a paper on this point which I will be happy to share with the group when an on-line version is available (hopefully in the next month or so). Phil Visiting Professor Department of Science and Technology Policy Institute of Geosciences P.O. Box 6152 State University of Campinas UNICAMP 13083-970, Campinas, SP, Brazil Professor of Geography Department of Geography Science Laboratories Durham University South Road Durham, DH1 3LE, UK From: Ken Caldeira kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu mailto:kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu Reply-To: kcalde...@gmail.com mailto:kcalde...@gmail.com kcalde...@gmail.com mailto:kcalde...@gmail.com Date: Wednesday, 11 September 2013 14:51 To: Andrew Lockley andrew.lock...@gmail.com mailto:andrew.lock...@gmail.com Cc: geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.com mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [geo] Linking solar geoengineering and emissions reduction Note that I did not require decarbonization of the economy as a pre-requisite for deployment as my proposal allows existing CO2-emitting devices to continue being used. I merely required that we stop building new CO2-emitting devices. My point is that if climate change is enough of an emergency to require rapid deployment of solar geoengineering then it is also enough of an emergency to stop building devices that will exacerbate that emergency. If we are doing solar geoengineering at the same time as we are building new fossil-fueled power plants that use the atmosphere as a waste dump, how do you assure that the solar geoengineering system does not facilitate continued production of those devices? ___ Ken Caldeira Carnegie Institution for Science Dept of Global Ecology 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA +1 650 704 7212 tel:%2B1%20650%20704%207212kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu mailto:kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab @kencaldeira On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 1:25 PM, Andrew Lockley andrew.lock...@gmail.com mailto:andrew.lock...@gmail.com wrote: Ken We need to control temperatures far more quickly than we can hope to decarbonise the economy. Are you seriously trying to argue that every car factory in the world needs to close before we can do any SRM at all? That seems entirely implausible. Perhaps more sensible to suggest that emissions growth be capped (possibly at zero) before geoengineering starts. As I see it the 'buy time' argument for SRM is a strong one. We need to stop temperatures increasing *whilst * we decarbonise. A On Sep 11, 2013 5:36 PM, Ken Caldeira kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu mailto:kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu 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
RE: [geo] Linking solar geoengineering and emissions reduction
And just to add some perspective, EIA now estimates that CO2 emission in 2040 will be 45 GT CO2/yr relative to 31 GT/yr in 2010*. So assumming a mean emissions rate during that period of 38 GT/yr and multiplying by 30 years yields a cummulative emissions of 1100 GT CO2. The Davis/Caldeira scheme (no new ff infrastucture) would yield only about 500 GT CO2 2010-2060. This amount (in only 50 years) would still be about 1/4 of total emissions 1750-present (2000 GT CO2)**, while the preceding EIA BAU estimate for total emissions over just the next 30 years will be more than 50% of total emissions that have occurred over the past 260 years. So barring draconian CO2 emissions reduction of the Davis/Caldeira type, the planet is screwed unless alternatives to CO2 emissions reduction are shown safe, cost-effective, and are deployed; SRM, CDR, and/or whatever. I'm just say'n... Greg * http://www.ciol.com/ciol/news/192448/world-energy-consumption-grow-56-percent-2010-2040?goback=%2Egde_2792503_member_261675789 ** http://www.stopgreensuicide.com/Ch6_Carbonbio_WG1AR5_SOD_Ch06_All_Final.pdf From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [geoengineering@googlegroups.com] on behalf of Ken Caldeira [kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu] Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2013 7:43 AM To: Bill Fulkerson Cc: Andrew Lockley; geoengineering Subject: Re: [geo] Linking solar geoengineering and emissions reduction That's right Most of the climate risk comes from devices yet to be built (see attached paper). http://www.sciencemag.org/content/329/5997/1330.full http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab/Caldeira_research/Davis_Caldeira2.html ___ Ken Caldeira Carnegie Institution for Science Dept of Global Ecology 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA +1 650 704 7212 kcalde...@carnegiescience.edumailto:kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab @kencaldeira On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 9:40 PM, Fulkerson, William wf...@utk.edumailto:wf...@utk.edu wrote: Dear Ken: I love your scheme. 1. Don't shut off current GHG emitters faster than they are being curtailed. 2. Don't allow more GHG emitting devices to be built. 3 Use Geo as a last resort, as a sort of hand on the brake In theory, very sensible. Do I have it right? I must think about it, and ask some questions. The best, Bill From: Ken Caldeira kcalde...@carnegiescience.edumailto:kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu Reply-To: kcalde...@gmail.commailto:kcalde...@gmail.com kcalde...@gmail.commailto:kcalde...@gmail.com Date: Wednesday, September 11, 2013 1:51 PM To: Andrew Lockley andrew.lock...@gmail.commailto:andrew.lock...@gmail.com Cc: Google Group geoengineering@googlegroups.commailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [geo] Linking solar geoengineering and emissions reduction Note that I did not require decarbonization of the economy as a pre-requisite for deployment as my proposal allows existing CO2-emitting devices to continue being used. I merely required that we stop building new CO2-emitting devices. My point is that if climate change is enough of an emergency to require rapid deployment of solar geoengineering then it is also enough of an emergency to stop building devices that will exacerbate that emergency. If we are doing solar geoengineering at the same time as we are building new fossil-fueled power plants that use the atmosphere as a waste dump, how do you assure that the solar geoengineering system does not facilitate continued production of those devices? ___ Ken Caldeira Carnegie Institution for Science Dept of Global Ecology 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA +1 650 704 7212tel:%2B1%20650%20704%207212 kcalde...@carnegiescience.edumailto:kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab @kencaldeira On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 1:25 PM, Andrew Lockley andrew.lock...@gmail.commailto:andrew.lock...@gmail.com wrote: Ken We need to control temperatures far more quickly than we can hope to decarbonise the economy. Are you seriously trying to argue that every car factory in the world needs to close before we can do any SRM at all? That seems entirely implausible. Perhaps more sensible to suggest that emissions growth be capped (possibly at zero) before geoengineering starts. As I see it the 'buy time' argument for SRM is a strong one. We need to stop temperatures increasing *whilst * we decarbonise. A On Sep 11, 2013 5:36 PM, Ken Caldeira kcalde...@carnegiescience.edumailto:kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu 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
Re: [geo] Linking solar geoengineering and emissions reduction
Ken We need to control temperatures far more quickly than we can hope to decarbonise the economy. Are you seriously trying to argue that every car factory in the world needs to close before we can do any SRM at all? That seems entirely implausible. Perhaps more sensible to suggest that emissions growth be capped (possibly at zero) before geoengineering starts. As I see it the 'buy time' argument for SRM is a strong one. We need to stop temperatures increasing *whilst * we decarbonise. A On Sep 11, 2013 5:36 PM, Ken Caldeira kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu 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 kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu 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. -- 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] Linking solar geoengineering and emissions reduction
My proposal was not to establish political institutions and agreements, but to aim for establishment of norms. For example, countries could be encouraged at this time to make public statements like: *If things every got so bad that we felt compelled to deploy a solar geoengineering system, we will, before deployment, stop building devices that use the atmosphere as a waste dump.* * * Even absent enforcement mechanisms, propagation of this norm could prove powerful. ___ Ken Caldeira Carnegie Institution for Science Dept of Global Ecology 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA +1 650 704 7212 kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab @kencaldeira On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 2:07 PM, Philip M. Macnaghten p.m.macnagh...@durham.ac.uk wrote: Ken You make a good point (on which I agree in principle). However, if you think this through, you need to imagine what kind of political institutions and agreements need to be in place to 'police' all nation-states to ensure that 'no-one builds new CO2-emitting devices' (cars, power stations, infrastructure etc.). And whether this is in any way plausible in current circumstances. The wider point is that in a number of respects (including for the reason you suggest below) it is implausible to imagine how SRM can be compatible with current, liberal, democratic institutions. I suggest that the 'political' challenges posed by SRM need further consideration in groups such as this one. We have developed a paper on this point which I will be happy to share with the group when an on-line version is available (hopefully in the next month or so). Phil Visiting Professor Department of Science and Technology Policy Institute of Geosciences P.O. Box 6152 State University of Campinas – UNICAMP 13083-970, Campinas, SP, Brazil Professor of Geography Department of Geography Science Laboratories Durham University South Road Durham, DH1 3LE, UK From: Ken Caldeira kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu Reply-To: kcalde...@gmail.com kcalde...@gmail.com Date: Wednesday, 11 September 2013 14:51 To: Andrew Lockley andrew.lock...@gmail.com Cc: geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [geo] Linking solar geoengineering and emissions reduction Note that I did not require decarbonization of the economy as a pre-requisite for deployment as my proposal allows existing CO2-emitting devices to continue being used. I merely required that we stop building new CO2-emitting devices. My point is that if climate change is enough of an emergency to require rapid deployment of solar geoengineering then it is also enough of an emergency to stop building devices that will exacerbate that emergency. If we are doing solar geoengineering at the same time as we are building new fossil-fueled power plants that use the atmosphere as a waste dump, how do you assure that the solar geoengineering system does not facilitate continued production of those devices? ___ Ken Caldeira Carnegie Institution for Science Dept of Global Ecology 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA +1 650 704 7212 kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab @kencaldeira On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 1:25 PM, Andrew Lockley andrew.lock...@gmail.comwrote: Ken We need to control temperatures far more quickly than we can hope to decarbonise the economy. Are you seriously trying to argue that every car factory in the world needs to close before we can do any SRM at all? That seems entirely implausible. Perhaps more sensible to suggest that emissions growth be capped (possibly at zero) before geoengineering starts. As I see it the 'buy time' argument for SRM is a strong one. We need to stop temperatures increasing *whilst * we decarbonise. A On Sep 11, 2013 5:36 PM, Ken Caldeira kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu 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
Re: [geo] Linking solar geoengineering and emissions reduction
Note that I did not require decarbonization of the economy as a pre-requisite for deployment as my proposal allows existing CO2-emitting devices to continue being used. I merely required that we stop building new CO2-emitting devices. My point is that if climate change is enough of an emergency to require rapid deployment of solar geoengineering then it is also enough of an emergency to stop building devices that will exacerbate that emergency. If we are doing solar geoengineering at the same time as we are building new fossil-fueled power plants that use the atmosphere as a waste dump, how do you assure that the solar geoengineering system does not facilitate continued production of those devices? ___ Ken Caldeira Carnegie Institution for Science Dept of Global Ecology 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA +1 650 704 7212 kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab @kencaldeira On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 1:25 PM, Andrew Lockley andrew.lock...@gmail.comwrote: Ken We need to control temperatures far more quickly than we can hope to decarbonise the economy. Are you seriously trying to argue that every car factory in the world needs to close before we can do any SRM at all? That seems entirely implausible. Perhaps more sensible to suggest that emissions growth be capped (possibly at zero) before geoengineering starts. As I see it the 'buy time' argument for SRM is a strong one. We need to stop temperatures increasing *whilst * we decarbonise. A On Sep 11, 2013 5:36 PM, Ken Caldeira kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu 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 kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu 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. -- 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] Linking solar geoengineering and emissions reduction
Ken You make a good point (on which I agree in principle). However, if you think this through, you need to imagine what kind of political institutions and agreements need to be in place to 'police' all nation-states to ensure that 'no-one builds new CO2-emitting devices' (cars, power stations, infrastructure etc.). And whether this is in any way plausible in current circumstances. The wider point is that in a number of respects (including for the reason you suggest below) it is implausible to imagine how SRM can be compatible with current, liberal, democratic institutions. I suggest that the 'political' challenges posed by SRM need further consideration in groups such as this one. We have developed a paper on this point which I will be happy to share with the group when an on-line version is available (hopefully in the next month or so). Phil Visiting Professor Department of Science and Technology Policy Institute of Geosciences P.O. Box 6152 State University of Campinas – UNICAMP 13083-970, Campinas, SP, Brazil Professor of Geography Department of Geography Science Laboratories Durham University South Road Durham, DH1 3LE, UK From: Ken Caldeira kcalde...@carnegiescience.edumailto:kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu Reply-To: kcalde...@gmail.commailto:kcalde...@gmail.com kcalde...@gmail.commailto:kcalde...@gmail.com Date: Wednesday, 11 September 2013 14:51 To: Andrew Lockley andrew.lock...@gmail.commailto:andrew.lock...@gmail.com Cc: geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.commailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [geo] Linking solar geoengineering and emissions reduction Note that I did not require decarbonization of the economy as a pre-requisite for deployment as my proposal allows existing CO2-emitting devices to continue being used. I merely required that we stop building new CO2-emitting devices. My point is that if climate change is enough of an emergency to require rapid deployment of solar geoengineering then it is also enough of an emergency to stop building devices that will exacerbate that emergency. If we are doing solar geoengineering at the same time as we are building new fossil-fueled power plants that use the atmosphere as a waste dump, how do you assure that the solar geoengineering system does not facilitate continued production of those devices? ___ Ken Caldeira Carnegie Institution for Science Dept of Global Ecology 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA +1 650 704 7212 kcalde...@carnegiescience.edumailto:kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab @kencaldeira On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 1:25 PM, Andrew Lockley andrew.lock...@gmail.commailto:andrew.lock...@gmail.com wrote: Ken We need to control temperatures far more quickly than we can hope to decarbonise the economy. Are you seriously trying to argue that every car factory in the world needs to close before we can do any SRM at all? That seems entirely implausible. Perhaps more sensible to suggest that emissions growth be capped (possibly at zero) before geoengineering starts. As I see it the 'buy time' argument for SRM is a strong one. We need to stop temperatures increasing *whilst * we decarbonise. A On Sep 11, 2013 5:36 PM, Ken Caldeira kcalde...@carnegiescience.edumailto:kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu 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 7212tel:%2B1%20650%20704%207212 kcalde...@carnegiescience.edumailto:kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu 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
Re: [geo] Linking solar geoengineering and emissions reduction
But do we really want to be geoengineering at the same time we are building more devices that use the atmosphere as a waste dump? Isn't that nearly assuring an outcome with ever increasing CO2 levels compensated for by ever increasing amounts of solar geoengineering? Isn't the end game of that scenario rather ugly? ___ Ken Caldeira Carnegie Institution for Science Dept of Global Ecology 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA +1 650 704 7212 kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab @kencaldeira On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 3:36 PM, Fred Zimmerman geoengineerin...@gmail.comwrote: It seems more likely that declarations of that nature would tie our hands at the moment of greatest need. It will be centuries before we stop building carbon-emitting devices. --- Fred Zimmerman Geoengineering IT! Bringing together the worlds of geoengineering and information technology GE NewsFilter: http://geoengineeringIT.net:8080 On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 2:18 PM, Ken Caldeira kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu wrote: My proposal was not to establish political institutions and agreements, but to aim for establishment of norms. For example, countries could be encouraged at this time to make public statements like: *If things every got so bad that we felt compelled to deploy a solar geoengineering system, we will, before deployment, stop building devices that use the atmosphere as a waste dump.* * * Even absent enforcement mechanisms, propagation of this norm could prove powerful. ___ Ken Caldeira Carnegie Institution for Science Dept of Global Ecology 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA +1 650 704 7212 kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab @kencaldeira On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 2:07 PM, Philip M. Macnaghten p.m.macnagh...@durham.ac.uk wrote: Ken You make a good point (on which I agree in principle). However, if you think this through, you need to imagine what kind of political institutions and agreements need to be in place to 'police' all nation-states to ensure that 'no-one builds new CO2-emitting devices' (cars, power stations, infrastructure etc.). And whether this is in any way plausible in current circumstances. The wider point is that in a number of respects (including for the reason you suggest below) it is implausible to imagine how SRM can be compatible with current, liberal, democratic institutions. I suggest that the 'political' challenges posed by SRM need further consideration in groups such as this one. We have developed a paper on this point which I will be happy to share with the group when an on-line version is available (hopefully in the next month or so). Phil Visiting Professor Department of Science and Technology Policy Institute of Geosciences P.O. Box 6152 State University of Campinas – UNICAMP 13083-970, Campinas, SP, Brazil Professor of Geography Department of Geography Science Laboratories Durham University South Road Durham, DH1 3LE, UK From: Ken Caldeira kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu Reply-To: kcalde...@gmail.com kcalde...@gmail.com Date: Wednesday, 11 September 2013 14:51 To: Andrew Lockley andrew.lock...@gmail.com Cc: geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [geo] Linking solar geoengineering and emissions reduction Note that I did not require decarbonization of the economy as a pre-requisite for deployment as my proposal allows existing CO2-emitting devices to continue being used. I merely required that we stop building new CO2-emitting devices. My point is that if climate change is enough of an emergency to require rapid deployment of solar geoengineering then it is also enough of an emergency to stop building devices that will exacerbate that emergency. If we are doing solar geoengineering at the same time as we are building new fossil-fueled power plants that use the atmosphere as a waste dump, how do you assure that the solar geoengineering system does not facilitate continued production of those devices? ___ Ken Caldeira Carnegie Institution for Science Dept of Global Ecology 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA +1 650 704 7212 kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab @kencaldeira On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 1:25 PM, Andrew Lockley andrew.lock...@gmail.com wrote: Ken We need to control temperatures far more quickly than we can hope to decarbonise the economy. Are you seriously trying to argue that every car factory in the world needs to close before we can do any SRM at all? That seems entirely implausible. Perhaps more sensible to suggest that emissions growth be capped (possibly at zero) before geoengineering starts. As I see it the 'buy time' argument for SRM is a strong one. We need to stop temperatures increasing *whilst * we decarbonise
Re: [geo] Linking solar geoengineering and emissions reduction
There's no reason to assume that blocking geoengineering in such a scenario will do anything to affect carbon emissions. A more likely outcome is that it will affect only temperatures! Fossil fuel use is often small scale and widely distributed. It's virtually impossible to police. The same is true for manufacturing the tech which uses it. Every gas stove factory and lawnmower fabricator would have to be shut down. It's not really feasible, especially when the impacts are remote and untraceable, and the incentives for cheating enormous. If we can't stop dope being delivered faster than a pizza, we can't ban the fossil economy. The fossil age will end soon enough. Solar will get ridiculously cheap, and batteries will get far better. Both will happen before politicians manage to do anything about fossil . The oil age will end: not with a bang, but with a whimper. Geoengineering is there to ensure there's someone left to see in the post oil era. While the oil age is still here, we should learn to stop worrying and love SRM. ;-) A On Sep 12, 2013 1:16 AM, Ken Caldeira kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu wrote: But do we really want to be geoengineering at the same time we are building more devices that use the atmosphere as a waste dump? Isn't that nearly assuring an outcome with ever increasing CO2 levels compensated for by ever increasing amounts of solar geoengineering? Isn't the end game of that scenario rather ugly? ___ Ken Caldeira Carnegie Institution for Science Dept of Global Ecology 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA +1 650 704 7212 kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab @kencaldeira On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 3:36 PM, Fred Zimmerman geoengineerin...@gmail.com wrote: It seems more likely that declarations of that nature would tie our hands at the moment of greatest need. It will be centuries before we stop building carbon-emitting devices. --- Fred Zimmerman Geoengineering IT! Bringing together the worlds of geoengineering and information technology GE NewsFilter: http://geoengineeringIT.net:8080 On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 2:18 PM, Ken Caldeira kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu wrote: My proposal was not to establish political institutions and agreements, but to aim for establishment of norms. For example, countries could be encouraged at this time to make public statements like: *If things every got so bad that we felt compelled to deploy a solar geoengineering system, we will, before deployment, stop building devices that use the atmosphere as a waste dump.* * * Even absent enforcement mechanisms, propagation of this norm could prove powerful. ___ Ken Caldeira Carnegie Institution for Science Dept of Global Ecology 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA +1 650 704 7212 kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab @kencaldeira On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 2:07 PM, Philip M. Macnaghten p.m.macnagh...@durham.ac.uk wrote: Ken You make a good point (on which I agree in principle). However, if you think this through, you need to imagine what kind of political institutions and agreements need to be in place to 'police' all nation-states to ensure that 'no-one builds new CO2-emitting devices' (cars, power stations, infrastructure etc.). And whether this is in any way plausible in current circumstances. The wider point is that in a number of respects (including for the reason you suggest below) it is implausible to imagine how SRM can be compatible with current, liberal, democratic institutions. I suggest that the 'political' challenges posed by SRM need further consideration in groups such as this one. We have developed a paper on this point which I will be happy to share with the group when an on-line version is available (hopefully in the next month or so). Phil Visiting Professor Department of Science and Technology Policy Institute of Geosciences P.O. Box 6152 State University of Campinas – UNICAMP 13083-970, Campinas, SP, Brazil Professor of Geography Department of Geography Science Laboratories Durham University South Road Durham, DH1 3LE, UK From: Ken Caldeira kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu Reply-To: kcalde...@gmail.com kcalde...@gmail.com Date: Wednesday, 11 September 2013 14:51 To: Andrew Lockley andrew.lock...@gmail.com Cc: geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [geo] Linking solar geoengineering and emissions reduction Note that I did not require decarbonization of the economy as a pre-requisite for deployment as my proposal allows existing CO2-emitting devices to continue being used. I merely required that we stop building new CO2-emitting devices. My point is that if climate change is enough of an emergency to require rapid deployment of solar geoengineering then it is also enough of an emergency to stop building
Re: [geo] Linking solar geoengineering and emissions reduction
' challenges posed by SRM need further consideration in groups such as this one. We have developed a paper on this point which I will be happy to share with the group when an on-line version is available (hopefully in the next month or so). Phil Visiting Professor Department of Science and Technology Policy Institute of Geosciences P.O. Box 6152 State University of Campinas – UNICAMP 13083-970, Campinas, SP, Brazil Professor of Geography Department of Geography Science Laboratories Durham University South Road Durham, DH1 3LE, UK From: Ken Caldeira kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu mailto:kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu Reply-To: kcalde...@gmail.com mailto:kcalde...@gmail.com kcalde...@gmail.com mailto:kcalde...@gmail.com Date: Wednesday, 11 September 2013 14:51 To: Andrew Lockley andrew.lock...@gmail.com mailto:andrew.lock...@gmail.com Cc: geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.com mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [geo] Linking solar geoengineering and emissions reduction Note that I did not require decarbonization of the economy as a pre-requisite for deployment as my proposal allows existing CO2-emitting devices to continue being used. I merely required that we stop building new CO2-emitting devices. My point is that if climate change is enough of an emergency to require rapid deployment of solar geoengineering then it is also enough of an emergency to stop building devices that will exacerbate that emergency. If we are doing solar geoengineering at the same time as we are building new fossil-fueled power plants that use the atmosphere as a waste dump, how do you assure that the solar geoengineering system does not facilitate continued production of those devices? ___ Ken Caldeira Carnegie Institution for Science Dept of Global Ecology 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA +1 650 704 7212 tel:%2B1%20650%20704%207212kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu mailto:kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab @kencaldeira On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 1:25 PM, Andrew Lockley andrew.lock...@gmail.com mailto:andrew.lock...@gmail.com wrote: Ken We need to control temperatures far more quickly than we can hope to decarbonise the economy. Are you seriously trying to argue that every car factory in the world needs to close before we can do any SRM at all? That seems entirely implausible. Perhaps more sensible to suggest that emissions growth be capped (possibly at zero) before geoengineering starts. As I see it the 'buy time' argument for SRM is a strong one. We need to stop temperatures increasing *whilst * we decarbonise. A On Sep 11, 2013 5:36 PM, Ken Caldeira kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu mailto:kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu 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
