[geo] (mustread) A planet with brains, Grinspoon NPR

[Andrew Lockley]

Poster's note - this is, by far, the best article on the Anthropocene I've
ever read - and the only one that puts it into a proper context

http://www.npr.org/sections/13.7/2016/12/18/506036420/a-planet-with-brains-the-peril-and-potential-of-self-aware-geological-change?utm_campaign=storyshare_source=twitter.com_medium=social

A Planet With Brains? The Peril And Potential Of Self-Aware Geological
Change
December 18, 20165:35 AM ET
Commentary

DAVID GRINSPOON
[image: Colorful geological layers are seen in northern Arizona's Paria
Canyon.]
Eric Hanson/Getty Images

Recent years have seen a vigorous debate over whether or not we have
entered a new epoch of geologic time, the "Anthropocene," characterized by
humanity as a new geologic force.

Much of this has centered over when this age began. Three candidates for
this include: an "Early Anthropocene" many thousand years ago when humans
first started large-scale modification of land and climate; the beginning
of the industrial revolution with its CO2 emissions; and the nuclear test
horizon. Choosing a single moment of origin may be less important than the
realization that we are now in it. However, the debate has been fruitful,
as all these candidates mark interesting steps in our journey from being
just another primate to becoming a dominant geological force.

As a planetary astrobiologist, I am focused on the major transitions in
planetary evolution and the evolving relationship between planets and life.
I want to frame our current time as a stage in the cosmic life of our
planet. What I wonder most about the Anthropocene is not when did it start
— but when, and how, will it end? Will it end? Or is it possible that our
own growing awareness of our role on Earth can itself play a pivotal role
in shaping the outcome toward one that we would desire?
Article continues after sponsorship


Although it has been proposed as a new epoch, we may in fact be
experiencing something much more unusual. Picture the "geologic time scale"
you've seen where the various phases of Earth's history are represented by
a sequence of different layers corresponding to the rocks from different
geological ages, with the most recent periods drawn at the top. New epochs
are actually rather common in Earth's history. They typically last for
millions of years. They are marked by the relatively thin layers in
geological time. Their boundaries are often characterized by episodes of
global change and extinction events. Much more rare and consequential are
the boundaries, separating the longest phases, the billion-year-scale
chunks of time called eons.

Geologists separate our planet's long history into only four eons. These
represent fundamental branching points which each left the world
permanently changed. I suspect we may now be at another of these pivotal
moments, and our planet may be at the beginning of its fifth eon, which I
propose we call the "Sapiezoic" (a hopeful, aspirational term meaning "age
of wisdom"). Because what we are observing are the effects of not only a
new geologic force, but a radically new type of geologic change. Never
before has a geological force become aware of its own influence.

The first eon is named the Hadean because it was pure hell, with leftover
debris from planet formation crashing down from space, erratically
smashing, churning and heating Earth's surface, making red-hot atmospheres
first of vaporized rock and then of boiling steam. Eventually, the cosmic
pounding subsided and the steam turned to rain, which filled the first
oceans.

The transition to Earth's second Eon, the Archean, came around 4 billion
years ago and corresponds roughly to the coming of stable habitable
conditions and the origin of life. Since then, biology has been a major
agent of geologic change.

Earth's third eon, the Proterozoic, beginning 2.5 billion years ago,
corresponds roughly to the Great Oxygenation Event when, chemically, life
took over the planet. In discovering solar energy, photosynthetic bacteria
began to flood the atmosphere with oxygen, a poisonous gas that caused mass
extinction, but also created the chemical conditions for animal respiration
and the protective ozone layer that allowed life to leave the oceans and
colonize the land.

Then, 540 million years ago, came the Cambrian Explosion — the sudden
appearance of complex, multicellular animal and plant life forms. This
enabled, among many other things, the evolution of intricate nervous
systems, elaborate behavior and learning. This explosion of biological
innovation is recognized as the beginning of the fourth and final (so far)
eon of Earth's history — the Phanerozoic Eon, which continues to this day.

Now, humans have become a dominant force of planetary change and, thus, we
may have entered an eon of post-biological evolution in which cognitive
systems have gained a powerful influence on the planet. The beginning of a
time when self-aware 

[geo] Climate Engineering News Review for Week 52 of 2016

[CE News]

Climate Engineering News Review for Week 52 of 2016


Upcoming Events and Deadlines

.  
06.01.2017, Presentation: An Economic Anatomy of Climate Management
Technologies and Policies, Chicago / USA

. (new) 15.-16.06.2017
 , Workshop: The Politics
and Governance of Negative Emissions Technologies: Between the Paris
Agreement and the Anthropocene, Utrecht / The Netherlands

.   23.-28.07.2017,
Conference: Radiation Management Climate Engineering: Technology, Modeling,
Efficacy, and Risks (Gordon Research Conference), Sunday River Newry / USA

.   09.-12.10.2017, Conference:
Climate Engineering Conference 2017 (CEC17), Berlin / Germany

 

Calls and deadlines

.
 22.01.2017, Call for
Papers: The Politics and Governance of Negative Emissions Technologies:
Between the Paris Agreement and the Anthropocene (workshop in Utrecht)

.
 28.02.2017, Call for Papers: Organizing and the
Anthropocene, Special Issue of 'Organization'

.   28.02.2017,
Call for Session Proposals for the Climate Engineering Conference 2017:
Critical Global Discussions

 

Jobs

.

31.12.2016 (deadline), Job: PhD opportunity: Geoengineering the Southern
Ocean? A transdisciplinary assessment

.

18.01.2017 (deadline), Job/fellowship: Apply to be an Environmental Fellow
at Harvard

 

New Publications

. Corry, Olaf (2016)
 : Globalising
the Arctic Climate: Geoengineering and the Emerging Global Polity

. Isla, Ana; von Werlhof Claudia (2017)
 : Mother Earth Under Threat. Ecofeminism, the
Land Question, and Bioengineering

. Lo, Y. T. Eunice; et al. (2016)
 : Detecting sulphate aerosol
geoengineering with different methods

. MacCracken, Michael C. (2016)
 : The
Rationale for Accelerating Regionally Focused Climate Intervention Research

. Gasparini, Blaž; et al. (2016)
 : Is increasing ice
crystal sedimentation velocity in geoengineering simulations a good proxy
for cirrus cloud seeding?

. Köhler, Peter (2016)
 : Using
the Suess effect on the stable carbon isotope to distinguish the future from
the past in radiocarbon

 

Selected Media Responses

. Green European Journal
 : The Paris
Climate Plan Is on Life Support: Can Negative Emissions Deliver on Global
Climate Ambitions?

. Scientific American
 : What's Next for Climate Action?

. ETC Group
 : UN Convention still says "No" to manipulating the climate

. The Times
 : Trump, Tillerson and
the theory of engineering a fix for climate change

. NPR
 : A Planet With
Brains? The Peril And Potential Of Self-Aware Geological Change

. Chemistry World
 : Atmospheric limestone dust
injection could halt global warming

. New Atlas
 : Antacid for
the atmosphere could cool down planet Earth

. IPS Press Service
 : New Technologies in Debate in Biodiversity Conference

. Real News
 : Dependence on Negative 

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

[Andy Parker]

Hi all,
I’m late to the party on this interesting and informative thread. I agree 
that the recent CBD language on research is pretty vague regarding what is 
and isn’t covered. The ambiguity perhaps indicates that some parties 
support outdoors experiments, some do not – as one would expect.

Something I wanted to pick up is Jim’s assertion that the CBD agreed a 
moratorium on outdoors research at the 2010 COP, in the form of decision 
X/33. This is a common but persistent myth, and their own documents 
indicate that even ETC Group does not believe it.

Firstly, the language of decision X/33 only refers to cases where 
geoengineering research or implementation would be expected to result in 
significant and adverse effects on biodiversity (see a longer explanation 
in Reynolds et al 
). I was 
there at the negotiations for X/33 and the reference to Article 14 was used 
shorthand for ‘significant and adverse…’. Where activities would not 
significantly and adversely impact biodiversity, they are not covered by 
the CBD agreement. And seeing as the CBD’s job is to protect biodiversity, 
this makes sense.

Secondly, the CBD definition of ‘geoengineering’ is broad and somewhat 
ambiguous, covering all technologies that “increase carbon sequestration 
from the atmosphere on a large scale that may affect biodiversity”. That 
means that decision X/33 covers things like air capture, afforestation, and 
agroecology. Does anyone seriously think that the parties to the CBD oppose 
research or implementation of prudent agroecology and afforestation 
schemes? Or open-air research into air capture machines?  An active 
imagination is required to conclude that with X/33 193 governments agreed 
to a moratorium on air capture experiments or tree planting. Given the 
broad definition of geoengineering, it makes sense that the decision only 
covers activities that would be expected to have significant and adverse 
effects on biodiversity, and is not a blanket moratorium on outdoors 
research.

Thirdly, it seems that even ETC Group does not think that X/33 constitutes 
a moratorium on outdoors research. In its recent briefing 
for
 
delegates to the CBD COP 13, held last month in Cancun, ETC argued “It is 
essential to *strengthen *a precautionary approach: experiments in the real 
world (open air, ocean, land) should not be allowed” (emphasis mine).  ETC 
has taken this line at other CBD meetings since X/33 was agreed. If ETC 
believes that X/33 constitutes a moratorium, why does it repeatedly argue 
that X/33 would need to be strengthened to prevent experiments in the real 
world?

It seems clear, then: there is no CBD moratorium on outdoors research into 
SRM and CDR where experiments would not be expected have significant 
adverse effects on biodiversity. Where an experiment might be expected to 
have significant adverse impacts, the CBD has invited its parties to 
consider ensuring that activities not proceed without scientific 
justification and appropriate consideration of physical, social, economic 
and cultural impacts. If the parties had wanted a moratorium on outdoors 
‘geoengineering’ research they could have written that down and gavelled it 
through. But for all the claims around the CBD decisions on CDR and SRM, 
they are actually sensible and moderate.  No promotion of outdoors 
research, no moratorium either.

Andy


On Sunday, December 18, 2016 at 5:58:23 PM UTC, Stephen Salter wrote:
>
> Hi All
>
> . . . . but the ETC interpretation does give a useful indication of their 
> mindset.  Calibration is always useful.
>
> Stephen
> Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design. School of Engineering, 
> University of Edinburgh, Mayfield Road, Edinburgh EH9 3DW, Scotland 
> s.sa...@ed.ac.uk , Tel +44 (0)131 650 5704, Cell 07795 203 
> 195, WWW.homepages.ed.ac.uk/shs, YouTube Jamie Taylor Power for Change
>
> On 18/12/2016 15:51, Josh Horton wrote:
>
> Hi everyone, 
>
> For what it's worth, my quick two cents on all this:
>
>- I tend to agree with Anna-Maria and others that this decision is not 
>so much an endorsement of geoengineering research as it is a recognition 
> of 
>the need for more of it, in the context of a general reaffirmation of the 
>previous CBD position on geoengineering. 
>- I disagree with Jim's characterization of this position as a "de 
>facto moratorium" on research -- no serious legal reading of these texts 
>leads to that conclusion. 
>- In the scheme of things, I don't regard this latest decision as 
>terribly significant one way or the other.  It is a fairly routine 
>non-binding decision adopted by parties to a convention that, while 
>well-intentioned, exercises virtually no influence on international 
> climate 
>policy. 
>
> Josh
>
> Joshua Horton, Ph.D.  
>
> Research