Re: [geo] Re: Distinguishing morale hazard from moral hazard in geoengineering

[Ronal W. Larson]

Andrew,  cc Michael and List:  (adding Professor Coffman, as a courtesy)

1.  Two questions:

a.  Could you expand on your below phrase ”This has kicked mitigation 
into the long grass.”It is not clear to me whether this is a pro-CDR or 
con-CDR statement.  For me, biochar is a mitigation option as well as a CDR 
option.   I don’t know whether “long grass” is a good or bad place to be.   The 
word “This” would seem to be CDR-influence (a positive from your, Michael’s and 
my perspectives) - but ”kicked” seems negative.

b.   Could you expand in the second sentence on “pending”.   I take 
Michael’s interjection to be that there are several existing CDR approaches 
that are here today - not “pending”.   Michael uses the term “10 (+) years”,  
but the anthropogenic Terra Preta soils of the Amazon go back more than two 
orders of magnitude further (6000 years by some accounts).  Michael did not 
include the term “BECCS” - which presumably many of us agree is not ready 
(although widely assumed to be needed).

2.  Thank you for the new terms “carelessness” and “malfeasance”.  
These help me a lot in understanding the terms “morale” and “moral”.   I 
believe Michael is saying there are more than these two motivations at play 
here in the CDR world.  I agree.

3.  Re your last sentence on “significant” -  I think that can be true 
- especially because we can now seriously debate about CDR’s readiness.  
Michael is asserting CDR is ready.  I agree.

Thanks for your prompt response to Michael’s note of concern.

Ron


> On Sep 21, 2016, at 1:58 AM, Andrew Lockley  wrote:
> 
> Michael
> 
> The influence of CDR technology is plain. It underpins the Paris Agreement. 
> This has kicked mitigation into the long grass.  We will, pending CDR, be 
> allowed to eat too much meat, waste too much food, use inefficient cars, and 
> have poorly insulated buildings and homes. We will move goods too far in 
> vehicles that are themselves too energy inefficient. We will continue to chop 
> down forests and degrade soils.
> 
> Whether this is down to carelessness (Morale Hazard) or malfeasance (moral 
> hazard) depends largely on the motives of those lobbying for such policies.
> 
> I remain of the opinion that our contribution to the debate is significant.
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Andrew Lockley
> 
> 
> On 21 Sep 2016 08:51, "Michael Hayes"  > wrote:
> Critique: Distinguishing morale hazard from moral hazard in geoengineering 
> 
> Abstract: 
> 
> In the introduction to the paper ‘Distinguishing morale hazard from moral 
> hazard in geoengineering’ (Andrew Lockley Independent scholar, D’Maris 
> Coffman CPM, UCL Bartlett, London, UK-Environmental Law Review 2016, Vol. 
> 18(3) 194–204) the authors take the position that “It is therefore possible 
> that the (sic) even the theoretical existence of geoengineering technologies 
> results in a reduced urgency to cut emissions.”. This view is further 
> expanded upon in the Discussion section's opening sentence: One of the key 
> issues in geoengineering is the idea that the existence of techniques for 
> climate change engineering represent what we would classify as a morale 
> hazard, namely that they reduce the political will to cut carbon emissions, 
> or that they might make individuals or society less inclined to change 
> behaviours.
> 
> Such an opinion, although it is parroted by many, is simply a misleading red 
> herring as a number of Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) technologies, inter alia, 
> Advanced Weathering of Limestone, Biochar, Olivine, and Marine Biomass 
> Production etc. have been largely available for vast scale deployment, or 
> have been deployed, for around 10(+) years. Yet the theoretical, or even 
> actual, existence of such CDR methods have had no discernible effect on the 
> public's opinion of geoengineering or their behavior relative to it, one way 
> or another. As such, this critique will take a close look at:
> 
> a) the scope of currently deployed/deployable CDR methods,
> 
> b) the reasons why the morale/moral hazard argument(s) are simply not 
> applicable to a number of such CDR methods and or combinations of methods,
> 
> c) a few plausible reasons why so many authors, at both the peer reviewed 
> level and media level, often find themselves making the conceptual mistakes 
> reproduced within Mr. Lockley and Prof. Coffman’s work. 
> 
> Also, this critique will not involve itself with the discussion on the 
> difference and/or distinction between the morale and moral hazard concepts, 
> relative to geoengineering, as there are no obviously striking, or even 
> slightly meaningful, difference and/or distinction to be found between the 2 
> hazards...within a number of the currently actionable CDR 

[geo] Call for Proposals: Environmental Justice in the Anthropocene Symposium

[Andrew Lockley]

http://scorai.org/news/call-for-proposals-environmental-justice-in-the-anthropocene-symposium/

Call for Proposals: Environmental Justice in the Anthropocene Symposium

Posted on September 18, 2016

Dimitris Stevis shared the following call for proposals on ourmailing list.

Symposium, 24-25 April 2017, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, USA

Proposal deadline: November 1, 2016

Environmental justice is a central component of sustainability politics
during the Anthropocene – the current geological age when human activity is
the dominant influence on climate and environment. Every aspect of
sustainability politics requires a close analysis of its equity
implications, and environmental justice provides us with the tools to
explore the ways in which we define and investigate the Anthropocene and
its multifaceted impacts. From its origins as a US movement against
environmental racism and other inequities in the early 1980s the scope of
environmental justice, as a field of research and as a movement, has
broadened enormously as shown in the Environmental Justice Atlas and
evidenced by many other initiatives around the world. Global EJ activism
and research, in fact, is moving beyond demanding equity in the
distribution of environmental harms and benefits to a call for the
structural transformation of the economy and our relationship with nature
as a means to address social, political, economic and environmental crises.

Environmental Justice CSU, the organizer of this symposium, is a global
challenges research team sponsored by the School of Global Environmental
Sustainability. Like its sponsor, EJ CSU is multidisciplinary and
multiscalar and committed to rigorous research and public engagement.

This symposium aims to bring together academics, independent researchers,
community and movement activists, and regulatory and policy practitioners
from across disciplines, research areas, perspectives, and different
countries. Our overarching goal is to build on several decades of EJ
research and practice to address the seemingly intractable environmental
and ecological problems of this unfolding era. How can we explore EJ
amongst humans and between nature and humans, within and across
generations, in an age when humans dominate the landscape? How can we
better understand collective human dominance without obscuring continuing
power differentials and inequities within and between human societies? What
institutional and governance innovations can we adopt to address existing
challenges and to promote just transitions and futures?

Themes include:MULTI-DISCIPLINARY FACETS OF ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE:

In recent years, EJ research has enriched the study of an array of
environmental issues.  Increasingly, scholars and practitioners of EJ are
at the forefront of recognizing that individual environmental issues are
inexorably linked. What do we know about EJ with respect to particular
environmental issues? In what ways can EJ help us understand dynamics and
relations across issue areas and disciplines? How can we infuse
transdisciplinary methods more fully into the EJ research agenda? As a
citizen science, how can EJ integrate collaborative methods that recognize
the role of social movements as creators of knowledge and engage in
methodologies that entail a more symmetrical approach to research?

JUST TRANSITIONS:

Environmental justice research has also found its way into the study of
green transitions and their impact on work and workplaces and across value
chains and production networks.  Do the challenges of the Anthropocene
justify any green initiative, at the expense of workers and communities, or
do the challenges of the era require more just and democratic governance?
How should unions, communities and those most vulnerable respond in the
absence of a policy of just transition? How can we ensure that the
workplaces and the communities engendered by green transitions are both
green and just?  How and at what scale should we confront this challenge?
In what ways can insights from related investigations, such as those of
rights, democracy and governance enrich our understanding of just
transitions?

JUST FUTURES:

Environmental justice can also inform how production and consumption can be
reorganized to address the challenges of the Anthropocene in a
socio-ecologically just manner. The transformative vision of EJ can be
productively informed by indigenous cosmovisions and decolonial
scholarship, as well as heterodox approaches such as ecological economics.
Is growth an inexorable necessity for achieving social and environmental
justice or should we engage more deeply alternative visions of political
economy, political ecology and governance? How can we better communicate
about just futures with students and practitioners with diverse backgrounds
and priorities? What are some of the visions, policy proposals and
transformative remedies emerging from those struggling for EJ that can help
reshape the 

Re: [geo] Re: Distinguishing morale hazard from moral hazard in geoengineering

[Andrew Lockley]

Ronal

What I'm saying is that CDR is being used to prevaricate on mitigation.
That's simply an observation. I'm not speculating as to the specific
motivations. Without the promise of CDR, we'd either have to accept our
fate (2+C), or actually DO something.

A

On 21 Sep 2016 09:47, "Ronal W. Larson"  wrote:

> Andrew,  cc Michael and List:  (adding Professor Coffman, as a courtesy)
>
> 1.  Two questions:
>
> a.  Could you expand on your below phrase ”*This has kicked mitigation
> into the long grass.”*It is not clear to me whether this is a pro-CDR
> or con-CDR statement.  For me, biochar is a mitigation option as well as a
> CDR option.   I don’t know whether “*long grass*” is a good or bad place
> to be.   The word “*This*” would seem to be CDR-influence (a positive
> from your, Michael’s and my perspectives) - but ”*kicked*” seems negative.
>
> b.   Could you expand in the second sentence on “*pending”.   *I take
> Michael’s interjection to be that there are several existing CDR approaches
> that are here today - not “pending”.   Michael uses the term “*10 (+)
> years”,  *but the anthropogenic Terra Preta soils of the Amazon go back
> more than two orders of magnitude further (6000 years by some accounts).
> Michael did not include the term “BECCS” - which presumably many of us
> agree is not ready (although widely assumed to be needed).
>
> 2.  Thank you for the new terms “*carelessness*” and *“malfeasance”.  *These
> help me a lot in understanding the terms “morale” and “moral”.   I
> believe Michael is saying there are more than these two motivations at play
> here in the CDR world.  I agree.
>
> 3.  Re your last sentence on “*significant” -  *I think that can be true
> - especially because we can now seriously debate about CDR’s readiness.
> Michael is asserting CDR is ready.  I agree.
>
> Thanks for your prompt response to Michael’s note of concern.
>
> Ron
>
>
> On Sep 21, 2016, at 1:58 AM, Andrew Lockley 
> wrote:
>
> Michael
>
> The influence of CDR technology is plain. It underpins the Paris
> Agreement. This has kicked mitigation into the long grass.  We will,
> pending CDR, be allowed to eat too much meat, waste too much food, use
> inefficient cars, and have poorly insulated buildings and homes. We will
> move goods too far in vehicles that are themselves too energy inefficient.
> We will continue to chop down forests and degrade soils.
>
> Whether this is down to carelessness (Morale Hazard) or malfeasance (moral
> hazard) depends largely on the motives of those lobbying for such policies.
>
> I remain of the opinion that our contribution to the debate is
> significant.
>
> Thanks
>
> Andrew Lockley
>
> On 21 Sep 2016 08:51, "Michael Hayes"  wrote:
>
>> Critique: Distinguishing morale hazard from moral hazard in
>> geoengineering
>> 
>>
>> *Abstract:*
>>
>> In the introduction to the paper ‘Distinguishing morale hazard from
>> moral hazard in geoengineering’ (Andrew Lockley Independent scholar,
>> D’Maris Coffman CPM, UCL Bartlett, London, UK-Environmental Law Review
>> 2016, Vol. 18(3) 194–204) the authors take the position that “It is
>> therefore possible that the (sic) even the theoretical existence of
>> geoengineering technologies results in a reduced urgency to cut emissions.”.
>> This view is further expanded upon in the Discussion section's opening
>> sentence:* One of the key issues in geoengineering is the idea that the
>> existence of techniques for climate change engineering represent what we
>> would classify as a morale hazard, namely that they reduce the political
>> will to cut carbon emissions, or that they might make individuals or
>> society less inclined to change behaviours.*
>>
>> Such an *opinion*, although it is parroted by many, is simply a
>> misleading *red herring* as a number of *Carbon Dioxide Removal* (CDR)
>> technologies, inter alia, Advanced Weathering of Limestone, Biochar,
>> Olivine, and Marine Biomass Production etc. have been largely available for
>> vast scale deployment,* or have been deployed*, for around 10(+) years.
>> Yet the theoretical*, or even actual,* existence of such *CDR* methods
>> have had no discernible effect on the public's opinion of geoengineering or
>> their behavior relative to it, one way or another. As such, this
>> critique will take a close look at:
>>
>> *a)* the scope of currently deployed/deployable CDR methods,
>>
>> *b)* the reasons why the morale/moral hazard argument(s) are simply not
>> applicable to a number of such CDR methods and or combinations of methods,
>>
>> *c)* a few plausible reasons why so many authors, at both the peer
>> reviewed level and media level, often find themselves making the conceptual
>> mistakes reproduced within Mr. Lockley and Prof. Coffman’s work.
>>
>> Also, this critique will not 

Re: [geo] Sequestering Carbon Using Mass Quantities Of Small Scale Supertorrefaction Systems

[Roger Arnold]

First, a nit about terminology: there seems to be an evolving tendency to
blur "torrefaction" and "pyrolysis". My original understanding of
"torrefaction" was as a very mild form of pyrolysis, specific to biomass,
which drove off all moisture but only just began thermal decomposition that
leads to evolution of H2, CH4, CH3OH, and traces of light aromatics. The
product was "darkened" but was not charcoal. (Think roasted coffee beans).
But i've seen the term applied to production of 'biochar" or, as in Rod's
article, "bio-coal". Both of those would be products of harsher forms of
pyrolysis. Couldn't we use the terms "low temperature pyrolysis" for
bio-char and "high temperature pyrolysis" for bio-coal, and reserve
"torrefaction" for the mild roasting process?

As I said, that's a nit. A more substantive issue is that the limitations
on bio-char as a vehicle for CDR lie with the availability of input biomass
and the cost of distribution and application; thermal energy for production
is not a significant issue, as the volatiles given off in production of
bio-char are more than enough to drive the process. Or at least it is if
one starts with bone-dry biomass. Admittedly, having thermal energy to
waste and the high heat transfer capacity of molten salts to drive the
process would avoid the need for an extended air-drying step. That would
help with the economics, but it wouldn't do anything to address the input
problem.

If small modular molten salt reactors were to become as common and as cheap
as Rod's article envisions, I would think that there are better ways to use
them. First priority would be replacement of all existing fossil-fueled
power generation. Second would be expansion of electricity supply to
support electrification of transportation as much as feasible. Third would
be production of synthetic fuels for transportation and heating
applications that can't readily be electrified. That would get us close to
zero fossil carbon emissions.

To go beyond that for CDR, use high temperature thermal energy from MSRs to
calcine limestone, capturing and sequestering the CO2 output stream. The
resulting CaO will support DAC of CO2 equal to what was given off in
calcining the limestone. That's the "brute force approach" to CDR that I
wrote about in part 2 of "The Carbonate Solution".

None of this means that production of bio-char and use of it to enhance
soil fertility isn't desirable. I think it is. I just don't see it as
having much to do with development of small modular MSRs.

*Addendum*: it's worth noting that neither calcining of limestone nor quick
pyrolysis of green biomass via molten salt need to wait for the advent of
small modular MSRs. Ordinary CSP is capable of producing molten salt of the
requisite temperature. But the land footprint for the solar mirrors would
be hundreds of times larger than that of a small MSR.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [geo] Re: Distinguishing morale hazard from moral hazard in geoengineering

[Ronal W. Larson]

Andrew, list and ccs

The word “prevaricate” is strong - and I have not observed any lie 
within the biochar or any other CDR community.  Biochar practitioners and 
entrepreneurs are focussed on fixing a huge soil problem - that just happens to 
work, without conflict, for excess atmospheric carbon.  I can’t speak for other 
forms of CDR.

I agree with your last sentence - but that seems at odds with your 
first.

It would help to have an example of a group (no need for individuals) 
who you feel are lying and what they gain from the lies.  Are you referring to 
fossil fuel advocates?  To climate deniers?  To CDR advocates?   Do you feel 
the lie is that CDR is ready?  Even if some CDR advocates are lying (or 
mistaken or over-exuberant), it is not clear to me why/how that hurts 
mitigation.  I can see your argument for SRM, but not CDR.

Since I haven’t seen any CDR advocacy used to argue against mitigation, 
perhaps you can point us to something in print.

Ron

 

> On Sep 21, 2016, at 3:00 AM, Andrew Lockley  wrote:
> 
> Ronal
> 
> What I'm saying is that CDR is being used to prevaricate on mitigation. 
> That's simply an observation. I'm not speculating as to the specific 
> motivations. Without the promise of CDR, we'd either have to accept our fate 
> (2+C), or actually DO something.
> 
> A
> 
> 
> On 21 Sep 2016 09:47, "Ronal W. Larson"  > wrote:
> Andrew,  cc Michael and List:  (adding Professor Coffman, as a courtesy)
> 
>   1.  Two questions:
> 
>   a.  Could you expand on your below phrase ”This has kicked mitigation 
> into the long grass.”It is not clear to me whether this is a pro-CDR or 
> con-CDR statement.  For me, biochar is a mitigation option as well as a CDR 
> option.   I don’t know whether “long grass” is a good or bad place to be.   
> The word “This” would seem to be CDR-influence (a positive from your, 
> Michael’s and my perspectives) - but ”kicked” seems negative.
> 
>   b.   Could you expand in the second sentence on “pending”.   I take 
> Michael’s interjection to be that there are several existing CDR approaches 
> that are here today - not “pending”.   Michael uses the term “10 (+) years”,  
> but the anthropogenic Terra Preta soils of the Amazon go back more than two 
> orders of magnitude further (6000 years by some accounts).  Michael did not 
> include the term “BECCS” - which presumably many of us agree is not ready 
> (although widely assumed to be needed).
> 
>   2.  Thank you for the new terms “carelessness” and “malfeasance”.  
> These help me a lot in understanding the terms “morale” and “moral”.   I 
> believe Michael is saying there are more than these two motivations at play 
> here in the CDR world.  I agree.
> 
>   3.  Re your last sentence on “significant” -  I think that can be true 
> - especially because we can now seriously debate about CDR’s readiness.  
> Michael is asserting CDR is ready.  I agree.
> 
>   Thanks for your prompt response to Michael’s note of concern.
> 
> Ron
> 
> 
>> On Sep 21, 2016, at 1:58 AM, Andrew Lockley > > wrote:
>> 
>> Michael
>> 
>> The influence of CDR technology is plain. It underpins the Paris Agreement. 
>> This has kicked mitigation into the long grass.  We will, pending CDR, be 
>> allowed to eat too much meat, waste too much food, use inefficient cars, and 
>> have poorly insulated buildings and homes. We will move goods too far in 
>> vehicles that are themselves too energy inefficient. We will continue to 
>> chop down forests and degrade soils.
>> 
>> Whether this is down to carelessness (Morale Hazard) or malfeasance (moral 
>> hazard) depends largely on the motives of those lobbying for such policies.
>> 
>> I remain of the opinion that our contribution to the debate is significant.
>> 
>> Thanks
>> 
>> Andrew Lockley
>> 
>> 
>> On 21 Sep 2016 08:51, "Michael Hayes" > > wrote:
>> Critique: Distinguishing morale hazard from moral hazard in geoengineering 
>> 
>> Abstract: 
>> 
>> In the introduction to the paper ‘Distinguishing morale hazard from moral 
>> hazard in geoengineering’ (Andrew Lockley Independent scholar, D’Maris 
>> Coffman CPM, UCL Bartlett, London, UK-Environmental Law Review 2016, Vol. 
>> 18(3) 194–204) the authors take the position that “It is therefore possible 
>> that the (sic) even the theoretical existence of geoengineering technologies 
>> results in a reduced urgency to cut emissions.”. This view is further 
>> expanded upon in the Discussion section's opening sentence: One of the key 
>> issues in geoengineering is the idea that the existence of techniques for 
>> climate change engineering represent what 

Re: [geo] Re: Distinguishing morale hazard from moral hazard in geoengineering

[Andrew Lockley]

Ronal

You need only look at the Paris Agreement for the ultimate example of
prevarication. CDR is being used as "magical thinking" (not my words) to
avoid near term mitigation. I think we can both agree that mitigation is
limited, at best.

A

On 21 Sep 2016 17:17, "Ronal W. Larson"  wrote:

> Andrew, list and ccs
>
> The word “prevaricate” is strong - and I have not observed any lie within
> the biochar or any other CDR community.  Biochar practitioners and
> entrepreneurs are focussed on fixing a huge soil problem - that just
> happens to work, without conflict, for excess atmospheric carbon.  I can’t
> speak for other forms of CDR.
>
> I agree with your last sentence - but that seems at odds with your first.
>
> It would help to have an example of a group (no need for individuals) who
> you feel are lying and what they gain from the lies.  Are you referring to
> fossil fuel advocates?  To climate deniers?  To CDR advocates?   Do you
> feel the lie is that CDR is ready?  Even if some CDR advocates are lying
> (or mistaken or over-exuberant), it is not clear to me why/how that hurts
> mitigation.  I can see your argument for SRM, but not CDR.
>
> Since I haven’t seen any CDR advocacy used to argue against mitigation,
> perhaps you can point us to something in print.
>
> Ron
>
>
>
> On Sep 21, 2016, at 3:00 AM, Andrew Lockley 
> wrote:
>
> Ronal
>
> What I'm saying is that CDR is being used to prevaricate on mitigation.
> That's simply an observation. I'm not speculating as to the specific
> motivations. Without the promise of CDR, we'd either have to accept our
> fate (2+C), or actually DO something.
>
> A
>
> On 21 Sep 2016 09:47, "Ronal W. Larson"  wrote:
>
>> Andrew,  cc Michael and List:  (adding Professor Coffman, as a courtesy)
>>
>> 1.  Two questions:
>>
>> a.  Could you expand on your below phrase ”*This has kicked mitigation
>> into the long grass.”*It is not clear to me whether this is a
>> pro-CDR or con-CDR statement.  For me, biochar is a mitigation option as
>> well as a CDR option.   I don’t know whether “*long grass*” is a good or
>> bad place to be.   The word “*This*” would seem to be CDR-influence (a
>> positive from your, Michael’s and my perspectives) - but ”*kicked*”
>> seems negative.
>>
>> b.   Could you expand in the second sentence on “*pending”.   *I take
>> Michael’s interjection to be that there are several existing CDR approaches
>> that are here today - not “pending”.   Michael uses the term “*10 (+)
>> years”,  *but the anthropogenic Terra Preta soils of the Amazon go back
>> more than two orders of magnitude further (6000 years by some accounts).
>> Michael did not include the term “BECCS” - which presumably many of us
>> agree is not ready (although widely assumed to be needed).
>>
>> 2.  Thank you for the new terms “*carelessness*” and *“malfeasance”.  *These
>> help me a lot in understanding the terms “morale” and “moral”.   I
>> believe Michael is saying there are more than these two motivations at play
>> here in the CDR world.  I agree.
>>
>> 3.  Re your last sentence on “*significant” -  *I think that can be true
>> - especially because we can now seriously debate about CDR’s readiness.
>> Michael is asserting CDR is ready.  I agree.
>>
>> Thanks for your prompt response to Michael’s note of concern.
>>
>> Ron
>>
>>
>> On Sep 21, 2016, at 1:58 AM, Andrew Lockley 
>> wrote:
>>
>> Michael
>>
>> The influence of CDR technology is plain. It underpins the Paris
>> Agreement. This has kicked mitigation into the long grass.  We will,
>> pending CDR, be allowed to eat too much meat, waste too much food, use
>> inefficient cars, and have poorly insulated buildings and homes. We will
>> move goods too far in vehicles that are themselves too energy inefficient.
>> We will continue to chop down forests and degrade soils.
>>
>> Whether this is down to carelessness (Morale Hazard) or malfeasance
>> (moral hazard) depends largely on the motives of those lobbying for such
>> policies.
>>
>> I remain of the opinion that our contribution to the debate is
>> significant.
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Andrew Lockley
>>
>> On 21 Sep 2016 08:51, "Michael Hayes"  wrote:
>>
>>> Critique: Distinguishing morale hazard from moral hazard in
>>> geoengineering
>>> 
>>>
>>> *Abstract:*
>>>
>>> In the introduction to the paper ‘Distinguishing morale hazard from
>>> moral hazard in geoengineering’ (Andrew Lockley Independent scholar,
>>> D’Maris Coffman CPM, UCL Bartlett, London, UK-Environmental Law Review
>>> 2016, Vol. 18(3) 194–204) the authors take the position that “It is
>>> therefore possible that the (sic) even the theoretical existence of
>>> geoengineering technologies results in a reduced urgency to cut emissions.”.
>>> This view is further 

Re: [geo] Re: Distinguishing morale hazard from moral hazard in geoengineering

[Ronal W. Larson]

Andrew, list and ccs

OK - I see where you are coming from.  I agree that the Paris Agreement 
did not go far enough. I agree with your final sentence - mitigation is nowhere 
as aggressive as is deserved.   But I can’t agree that too much reliance on 
CDR, and especially biochar, was the cause of the failure to set a goal of 1.5 
degrees vs 2 degrees. Rather, I feel the Paris Agreement paid too little 
attention, not too much, to CDR.  The French 4p1000 didn’t fail for lack of 
interest in mitigation by CDR enthusiasts.
It is still not clear to me who you think was prevaricating/lying.

Ron

> On Sep 21, 2016, at 10:34 AM, Andrew Lockley  wrote:
> 
> Ronal
> 
> You need only look at the Paris Agreement for the ultimate example of 
> prevarication. CDR is being used as "magical thinking" (not my words) to 
> avoid near term mitigation. I think we can both agree that mitigation is 
> limited, at best.
> 
> A
> 
> 
> On 21 Sep 2016 17:17, "Ronal W. Larson"  > wrote:
> Andrew, list and ccs
> 
>   The word “prevaricate” is strong - and I have not observed any lie 
> within the biochar or any other CDR community.  Biochar practitioners and 
> entrepreneurs are focussed on fixing a huge soil problem - that just happens 
> to work, without conflict, for excess atmospheric carbon.  I can’t speak for 
> other forms of CDR.
> 
>   I agree with your last sentence - but that seems at odds with your 
> first.
> 
>   It would help to have an example of a group (no need for individuals) 
> who you feel are lying and what they gain from the lies.  Are you referring 
> to fossil fuel advocates?  To climate deniers?  To CDR advocates?   Do you 
> feel the lie is that CDR is ready?  Even if some CDR advocates are lying (or 
> mistaken or over-exuberant), it is not clear to me why/how that hurts 
> mitigation.  I can see your argument for SRM, but not CDR.
> 
>   Since I haven’t seen any CDR advocacy used to argue against mitigation, 
> perhaps you can point us to something in print.
> 
> Ron
> 
>  
> 
>> On Sep 21, 2016, at 3:00 AM, Andrew Lockley > > wrote:
>> 
>> Ronal
>> 
>> What I'm saying is that CDR is being used to prevaricate on mitigation. 
>> That's simply an observation. I'm not speculating as to the specific 
>> motivations. Without the promise of CDR, we'd either have to accept our fate 
>> (2+C), or actually DO something.
>> 
>> A
>> 
>> 
>> On 21 Sep 2016 09:47, "Ronal W. Larson" > > wrote:
>> Andrew,  cc Michael and List:  (adding Professor Coffman, as a courtesy)
>> 
>>  1.  Two questions:
>> 
>>  a.  Could you expand on your below phrase ”This has kicked mitigation 
>> into the long grass.”It is not clear to me whether this is a pro-CDR or 
>> con-CDR statement.  For me, biochar is a mitigation option as well as a CDR 
>> option.   I don’t know whether “long grass” is a good or bad place to be.   
>> The word “This” would seem to be CDR-influence (a positive from your, 
>> Michael’s and my perspectives) - but ”kicked” seems negative.
>> 
>>  b.   Could you expand in the second sentence on “pending”.   I take 
>> Michael’s interjection to be that there are several existing CDR approaches 
>> that are here today - not “pending”.   Michael uses the term “10 (+) years”, 
>>  but the anthropogenic Terra Preta soils of the Amazon go back more than two 
>> orders of magnitude further (6000 years by some accounts).  Michael did not 
>> include the term “BECCS” - which presumably many of us agree is not ready 
>> (although widely assumed to be needed).
>> 
>>  2.  Thank you for the new terms “carelessness” and “malfeasance”.  
>> These help me a lot in understanding the terms “morale” and “moral”.   I 
>> believe Michael is saying there are more than these two motivations at play 
>> here in the CDR world.  I agree.
>> 
>>  3.  Re your last sentence on “significant” -  I think that can be true 
>> - especially because we can now seriously debate about CDR’s readiness.  
>> Michael is asserting CDR is ready.  I agree.
>> 
>>  Thanks for your prompt response to Michael’s note of concern.
>> 
>> Ron
>> 
>> 
>>> On Sep 21, 2016, at 1:58 AM, Andrew Lockley >> > wrote:
>>> 
>>> Michael
>>> 
>>> The influence of CDR technology is plain. It underpins the Paris Agreement. 
>>> This has kicked mitigation into the long grass.  We will, pending CDR, be 
>>> allowed to eat too much meat, waste too much food, use inefficient cars, 
>>> and have poorly insulated buildings and homes. We will move goods too far 
>>> in vehicles that are themselves too energy inefficient. We will continue to 
>>> chop down forests and degrade soils.
>>> 
>>> Whether this is down to carelessness (Morale Hazard) or 

Re: [geo] Re: Distinguishing morale hazard from moral hazard in geoengineering

[Jonathan Marshall]

For what it is worth I've just had a paper published on CCS in Australia which 
pretty much agrees with Andrew's argument.


http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421516302750​

It  basically seemed to allow various governments and the coal industry to 
defend the status quo.

This does not mean that it is its only function at all times, or that it is 
inherently impossible, but in Australia it has not been of any practical use in 
fighting greenhouse gas emissions.

jon





From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com  on 
behalf of Ronal W. Larson 
Sent: Thursday, 22 September 2016 8:45 AM
To: Andrew Lockley
Cc: Coffman, D'Maris; Geoengineering; Michael Hayes
Subject: Re: [geo] Re: Distinguishing morale hazard from moral hazard in 
geoengineering

Andrew, list and ccs

OK - I see where you are coming from.  I agree that the Paris Agreement did not 
go far enough. I agree with your final sentence - mitigation is nowhere as 
aggressive as is deserved.   But I can’t agree that too much reliance on CDR, 
and especially biochar, was the cause of the failure to set a goal of 1.5 
degrees vs 2 degrees. Rather, I feel the Paris Agreement paid too little 
attention, not too much, to CDR.  The French 4p1000 didn’t fail for lack of 
interest in mitigation by CDR enthusiasts.
It is still not clear to me who you think was prevaricating/lying.

Ron

On Sep 21, 2016, at 10:34 AM, Andrew Lockley 
> wrote:


Ronal

You need only look at the Paris Agreement for the ultimate example of 
prevarication. CDR is being used as "magical thinking" (not my words) to avoid 
near term mitigation. I think we can both agree that mitigation is limited, at 
best.

A

On 21 Sep 2016 17:17, "Ronal W. Larson" 
> wrote:
Andrew, list and ccs

The word “prevaricate” is strong - and I have not observed any lie within the 
biochar or any other CDR community.  Biochar practitioners and entrepreneurs 
are focussed on fixing a huge soil problem - that just happens to work, without 
conflict, for excess atmospheric carbon.  I can’t speak for other forms of CDR.

I agree with your last sentence - but that seems at odds with your first.

It would help to have an example of a group (no need for individuals) who you 
feel are lying and what they gain from the lies.  Are you referring to fossil 
fuel advocates?  To climate deniers?  To CDR advocates?   Do you feel the lie 
is that CDR is ready?  Even if some CDR advocates are lying (or mistaken or 
over-exuberant), it is not clear to me why/how that hurts mitigation.  I can 
see your argument for SRM, but not CDR.

Since I haven’t seen any CDR advocacy used to argue against mitigation, perhaps 
you can point us to something in print.

Ron



On Sep 21, 2016, at 3:00 AM, Andrew Lockley 
> wrote:


Ronal

What I'm saying is that CDR is being used to prevaricate on mitigation. That's 
simply an observation. I'm not speculating as to the specific motivations. 
Without the promise of CDR, we'd either have to accept our fate (2+C), or 
actually DO something.

A

On 21 Sep 2016 09:47, "Ronal W. Larson" 
> wrote:
Andrew,  cc Michael and List:  (adding Professor Coffman, as a courtesy)

1.  Two questions:

a.  Could you expand on your below phrase ”This has kicked mitigation into the 
long grass.”It is not clear to me whether this is a pro-CDR or con-CDR 
statement.  For me, biochar is a mitigation option as well as a CDR option.   I 
don’t know whether “long grass” is a good or bad place to be.   The word “This” 
would seem to be CDR-influence (a positive from your, Michael’s and my 
perspectives) - but ”kicked” seems negative.

b.   Could you expand in the second sentence on “pending”.   I take Michael’s 
interjection to be that there are several existing CDR approaches that are here 
today - not “pending”.   Michael uses the term “10 (+) years”,  but the 
anthropogenic Terra Preta soils of the Amazon go back more than two orders of 
magnitude further (6000 years by some accounts).  Michael did not include the 
term “BECCS” - which presumably many of us agree is not ready (although widely 
assumed to be needed).

2.  Thank you for the new terms “carelessness” and “malfeasance”.  These help 
me a lot in understanding the terms “morale” and “moral”.   I believe Michael 
is saying there are more than these two motivations at play here in the CDR 
world.  I agree.

3.  Re your last sentence on “significant” -  I think that can be true - 
especially because we can now seriously debate about CDR’s readiness.  Michael 
is asserting CDR is ready.  I agree.

Thanks for your prompt response to Michael’s note of concern.

Ron


On Sep 21, 2016, at 1:58 AM, Andrew Lockley 

Re: [geo] Re: Distinguishing morale hazard from moral hazard in geoengineering

[Ronal W. Larson]

Jonathan, cc List

On this list, we have pretty much stayed away from CCS - not considered 
to be part of geoengineering - or what Andrew wrote about.  Can you expand on 
your own research to the “Geo” area - perhaps specifically to BECCS?  I’m 
particularly interested in who is lying about CDR?

Ron



> On Sep 21, 2016, at 5:26 PM, Jonathan Marshall  
> wrote:
> 
> For what it is worth I've just had a paper published on CCS in Australia 
> which pretty much agrees with Andrew's argument.
> 
> http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421516302750 
> ​
> 
> It  basically seemed to allow various governments and the coal industry to 
> defend the status quo. 
> 
> This does not mean that it is its only function at all times, or that it is 
> inherently impossible, but in Australia it has not been of any practical use 
> in fighting greenhouse gas emissions.
> 
> jon
> 
> 
> 
> From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com 
>   > on behalf of Ronal W. Larson 
> >
> Sent: Thursday, 22 September 2016 8:45 AM
> To: Andrew Lockley
> Cc: Coffman, D'Maris; Geoengineering; Michael Hayes
> Subject: Re: [geo] Re: Distinguishing morale hazard from moral hazard in 
> geoengineering
>  
> Andrew, list and ccs
> 
> OK - I see where you are coming from.  I agree that the Paris Agreement did 
> not go far enough. I agree with your final sentence - mitigation is nowhere 
> as aggressive as is deserved.   But I can’t agree that too much reliance on 
> CDR, and especially biochar, was the cause of the failure to set a goal of 
> 1.5 degrees vs 2 degrees. Rather, I feel the Paris Agreement paid too little 
> attention, not too much, to CDR.  The French 4p1000 didn’t fail for lack of 
> interest in mitigation by CDR enthusiasts.
> It is still not clear to me who you think was prevaricating/lying.
> 
> Ron
> 
>> On Sep 21, 2016, at 10:34 AM, Andrew Lockley > > wrote:
>> 
>> Ronal 
>> You need only look at the Paris Agreement for the ultimate example of 
>> prevarication. CDR is being used as "magical thinking" (not my words) to 
>> avoid near term mitigation. I think we can both agree that mitigation is 
>> limited, at best.
>> A
>> 
>> On 21 Sep 2016 17:17, "Ronal W. Larson" > > wrote:
>> Andrew, list and ccs
>> 
>> The word “prevaricate” is strong - and I have not observed any lie within 
>> the biochar or any other CDR community.  Biochar practitioners and 
>> entrepreneurs are focussed on fixing a huge soil problem - that just happens 
>> to work, without conflict, for excess atmospheric carbon.  I can’t speak for 
>> other forms of CDR.
>> 
>> I agree with your last sentence - but that seems at odds with your first.
>> 
>> It would help to have an example of a group (no need for individuals) who 
>> you feel are lying and what they gain from the lies.  Are you referring to 
>> fossil fuel advocates?  To climate deniers?  To CDR advocates?   Do you feel 
>> the lie is that CDR is ready?  Even if some CDR advocates are lying (or 
>> mistaken or over-exuberant), it is not clear to me why/how that hurts 
>> mitigation.  I can see your argument for SRM, but not CDR.
>> 
>> Since I haven’t seen any CDR advocacy used to argue against mitigation, 
>> perhaps you can point us to something in print.
>> 
>> Ron
>> 
>>  
>> 
>>> On Sep 21, 2016, at 3:00 AM, Andrew Lockley >> > wrote:
>>> 
>>> Ronal 
>>> What I'm saying is that CDR is being used to prevaricate on mitigation. 
>>> That's simply an observation. I'm not speculating as to the specific 
>>> motivations. Without the promise of CDR, we'd either have to accept our 
>>> fate (2+C), or actually DO something.
>>> A
>>> 
>>> On 21 Sep 2016 09:47, "Ronal W. Larson" >> > wrote:
>>> Andrew,  cc Michael and List:  (adding Professor Coffman, as a courtesy)
>>> 
>>> 1.  Two questions:
>>> 
>>> a.  Could you expand on your below phrase ”This has kicked mitigation into 
>>> the long grass.”It is not clear to me whether this is a pro-CDR or 
>>> con-CDR statement.  For me, biochar is a mitigation option as well as a CDR 
>>> option.   I don’t know whether “long grass” is a good or bad place to be.   
>>> The word “This” would seem to be CDR-influence (a positive from your, 
>>> Michael’s and my perspectives) - but ”kicked” seems negative.
>>> 
>>> b.   Could you expand in the second sentence on “pending”.   I take 
>>> Michael’s interjection to be that there are several existing CDR approaches 
>>> that are here today - not “pending”.   Michael uses the term “10 

[geo] Re: Distinguishing morale hazard from moral hazard in geoengineering

[Michael Hayes]

Critique: Distinguishing morale hazard from moral hazard in geoengineering 


*Abstract:* 


In the introduction to the paper ‘Distinguishing morale hazard from moral 
hazard in geoengineering’ (Andrew Lockley Independent scholar, D’Maris 
Coffman CPM, UCL Bartlett, London, UK-Environmental Law Review 2016, Vol. 
18(3) 194–204) the authors take the position that “It is therefore possible 
that the (sic) even the theoretical existence of geoengineering 
technologies results in a reduced urgency to cut emissions.”. This view is 
further expanded upon in the Discussion section's opening sentence:* One of 
the key issues in geoengineering is the idea that the existence of 
techniques for climate change engineering represent what we would classify 
as a morale hazard, namely that they reduce the political will to cut 
carbon emissions, or that they might make individuals or society less 
inclined to change behaviours.*


Such an *opinion*, although it is parroted by many, is simply a misleading *red 
herring* as a number of *Carbon Dioxide Removal* (CDR) technologies, inter 
alia, Advanced Weathering of Limestone, Biochar, Olivine, and Marine 
Biomass Production etc. have been largely available for vast scale 
deployment,* or have been deployed*, for around 10(+) years. Yet the 
theoretical*, or even actual,* existence of such *CDR* methods have had no 
discernible effect on the public's opinion of geoengineering or their 
behavior relative to it, one way or another. As such, this critique will 
take a close look at:


*a)* the scope of currently deployed/deployable CDR methods,


*b)* the reasons why the morale/moral hazard argument(s) are simply not 
applicable to a number of such CDR methods and or combinations of methods,


*c)* a few plausible reasons why so many authors, at both the peer reviewed 
level and media level, often find themselves making the conceptual mistakes 
reproduced within Mr. Lockley and Prof. Coffman’s work. 

Also, this critique will not involve itself with the discussion on the 
difference and/or distinction between the morale and moral hazard concepts, 
relative to geoengineering, as there are no obviously striking, or even 
slightly meaningful, difference and/or distinction to be found between the 
2 hazards...*within a number of the currently actionable CDR methods*. 
Therefore, this critique is not primarily an effort at pointing out *what* 
is wrong with the paper as much as it is an effort to point out *why *Lockley 
and Coffman got it wrong.

Finally, this critique will be posted in a 3 part series as the subjects to 
be covered are extensive in both volume and complexity. 

Michael Hayes 


On Wednesday, September 14, 2016 at 8:54:03 AM UTC-7, Andrew Lockley wrote:
>
> Distinguishing morale hazard from moral hazard in geoengineering 
>
> Andrew Lockley 
> Independent scholar 
> D’Maris Coffman 
> CPM, UCL Bartlett, London, UK 
>
> Abstract 
> Geoengineering is the deliberate modification of the climate system. It 
> has been discussed as a technique to 
> counteract changes expected as a result of Anthropogenic Global Warming 
> (AGW). Speculation has occurred that the possibility of geoengineering will 
> reduce or delay efforts to mitigate AGW. This possible delay or reduction 
> in mitigation has been described as ‘moral hazard’ by various authors. We 
> investigate the definitions and use of the term ‘moral hazard’, and the 
> related (but significantly different) concept of ‘morale hazard’, in 
> relevant law, economic and insurance literatures. We find that ‘moral 
> hazard’ has been generally misapplied in discussions of geoengineering, 
> which perhaps explains unexpected difficulties in detecting expected 
> effects experimentally. We clarify relevant usage of the terms, identifying 
> scenarios that can properly be described as moral hazard (malfeasance), and 
> morale hazard (lack of caution or recklessness). We note generally the 
> importance of correctly applying this distinction 
> when discussing geoengineering. In conclusion, we note that a proper 
> consideration of the risks of both 
> moral and morale hazards allows us to easily segment framings for both 
> geoengineering advocacy and the 
> advocate groups who rely on these framings. We suggest mnemonics for 
> groups vulnerable to moral hazard 
> (Business as Usuals) and morale hazard (Chicken Littles) and suggest the 
> development of an experimental 
> methodology for validating the distinction thus drawn. 
>
> Keywords 
> Geoengineering, moral hazard, morale hazard, carbon dioxide removal, 
> greenhouse gas removal, negative 
> emissions technology, solar radiation management (SRM)
>

-- 
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 

Re: [geo] Re: Distinguishing morale hazard from moral hazard in geoengineering

[Andrew Lockley]

Michael

The influence of CDR technology is plain. It underpins the Paris Agreement.
This has kicked mitigation into the long grass.  We will, pending CDR, be
allowed to eat too much meat, waste too much food, use inefficient cars,
and have poorly insulated buildings and homes. We will move goods too far
in vehicles that are themselves too energy inefficient. We will continue to
chop down forests and degrade soils.

Whether this is down to carelessness (Morale Hazard) or malfeasance (moral
hazard) depends largely on the motives of those lobbying for such policies.

I remain of the opinion that our contribution to the debate is significant.

Thanks

Andrew Lockley

On 21 Sep 2016 08:51, "Michael Hayes"  wrote:

> Critique: Distinguishing morale hazard from moral hazard in geoengineering
> 
>
> *Abstract:*
>
>
> In the introduction to the paper ‘Distinguishing morale hazard from moral
> hazard in geoengineering’ (Andrew Lockley Independent scholar, D’Maris
> Coffman CPM, UCL Bartlett, London, UK-Environmental Law Review 2016, Vol.
> 18(3) 194–204) the authors take the position that “It is therefore
> possible that the (sic) even the theoretical existence of geoengineering
> technologies results in a reduced urgency to cut emissions.”. This view
> is further expanded upon in the Discussion section's opening sentence:*
> One of the key issues in geoengineering is the idea that the existence of
> techniques for climate change engineering represent what we would classify
> as a morale hazard, namely that they reduce the political will to cut
> carbon emissions, or that they might make individuals or society less
> inclined to change behaviours.*
>
>
> Such an *opinion*, although it is parroted by many, is simply a
> misleading *red herring* as a number of *Carbon Dioxide Removal* (CDR)
> technologies, inter alia, Advanced Weathering of Limestone, Biochar,
> Olivine, and Marine Biomass Production etc. have been largely available for
> vast scale deployment,* or have been deployed*, for around 10(+) years.
> Yet the theoretical*, or even actual,* existence of such *CDR* methods
> have had no discernible effect on the public's opinion of geoengineering or
> their behavior relative to it, one way or another. As such, this critique
> will take a close look at:
>
>
> *a)* the scope of currently deployed/deployable CDR methods,
>
>
> *b)* the reasons why the morale/moral hazard argument(s) are simply not
> applicable to a number of such CDR methods and or combinations of methods,
>
>
> *c)* a few plausible reasons why so many authors, at both the peer
> reviewed level and media level, often find themselves making the conceptual
> mistakes reproduced within Mr. Lockley and Prof. Coffman’s work.
>
> Also, this critique will not involve itself with the discussion on the
> difference and/or distinction between the morale and moral hazard concepts,
> relative to geoengineering, as there are no obviously striking, or even
> slightly meaningful, difference and/or distinction to be found between the
> 2 hazards...*within a number of the currently actionable CDR methods*.
> Therefore, this critique is not primarily an effort at pointing out *what*
> is wrong with the paper as much as it is an effort to point out *why *Lockley
> and Coffman got it wrong.
>
> Finally, this critique will be posted in a 3 part series as the subjects
> to be covered are extensive in both volume and complexity.
>
> Michael Hayes
>
>
> On Wednesday, September 14, 2016 at 8:54:03 AM UTC-7, Andrew Lockley wrote:
>>
>> Distinguishing morale hazard from moral hazard in geoengineering
>>
>> Andrew Lockley
>> Independent scholar
>> D’Maris Coffman
>> CPM, UCL Bartlett, London, UK
>>
>> Abstract
>> Geoengineering is the deliberate modification of the climate system. It
>> has been discussed as a technique to
>> counteract changes expected as a result of Anthropogenic Global Warming
>> (AGW). Speculation has occurred that the possibility of geoengineering will
>> reduce or delay efforts to mitigate AGW. This possible delay or reduction
>> in mitigation has been described as ‘moral hazard’ by various authors. We
>> investigate the definitions and use of the term ‘moral hazard’, and the
>> related (but significantly different) concept of ‘morale hazard’, in
>> relevant law, economic and insurance literatures. We find that ‘moral
>> hazard’ has been generally misapplied in discussions of geoengineering,
>> which perhaps explains unexpected difficulties in detecting expected
>> effects experimentally. We clarify relevant usage of the terms, identifying
>> scenarios that can properly be described as moral hazard (malfeasance), and
>> morale hazard (lack of caution or recklessness). We note generally the
>> importance of correctly applying this distinction
>> when discussing geoengineering. In conclusion, we note that