Re: [geo] Background-Greenland collapse

[Ronal Larson]

Geo and cc Jasmin

I have sent this message (and added a bit) over to the CDR list.

Ron



> On Aug 15, 2020, at 5:54 PM, Jasmin S. A. Link  
> wrote:
> 
> Dear Ron,
> 
> Thank you very much, for your interest an for emphasizing the relevance of my 
> thesis in the context of SRM and CDR.
> 
> Please, feel free to add me to the CDR list as well.
> 
> The detailed potential side effects networks I have published only for SAI 
> (Figure 3.1.) and BECCS (Figure 3.2. in the same EuTRACE final report) so 
> far. I have made one for afforestion, but that has not been as requested and 
> intriguing for discussion yet.
> 
> I think, some of the potential indirect side effects of SRM - such as a 
> potential reduction in individual mitigation efforts - might also apply to a 
> large-scale CDR. Depending on the method of CDR and its public presence (like 
> artificial trees), this might also be true for even relatively small 
> applications of CDR. Thus, it might be important to estimate in advance, if 
> the contruction of one artifical tree rather decreases carbon emissions, by 
> capturing them, or in total rather increases carbon emissions, by triggering 
> passengers to feel free to emit more carbon.
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Jasmin
> 
> 
> 
> Am 15.08.2020 um 19:47 schrieb Ronal Larson:
>> Dr.  Link and list:



-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/34C2E2CB-DAC8-4850-8ECA-4ABBEA62208E%40comcast.net.

RE: [geo] Background-Greenland collapse

[Douglas MacMartin]

Certainly the term moral hazard as used in other literature doesn’t imply any 
conscious thought process as a requirement.  (Examples might be better termed 
risk compensation; someone is more likely to drive close to a cyclist who is 
wearing a helmet, for example.)

Perhaps better to simply use the term mitigation deterrence and not make any 
implied judgment.

From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com  On 
Behalf Of Andrew Lockley
Sent: Sunday, August 16, 2020 11:24 AM
To: Jasmin S. A. Link 
Cc: geoengineering 
Subject: Re: [geo] Background-Greenland collapse

To clarify, morale hazard is lazy recklessness (I'll put off swapping my SUV 
for a tesla, because geoengineering may sort it out) moral hazard is 
manipulative (I'll dangle the carrot of geoengineering, to get approval for 
keystone). Personal profit is inherent in moral hazard, knowingly harming 
others.

Sorry if this is wandering off topic.

On Sun, 16 Aug 2020, 16:15 Jasmin S. A. Link, 
mailto:jasmin.l...@uni-hamburg.de>> wrote:

Yes. I am not sure, whether moral hazard or even morale hazard, as Andrew has 
pointed out, exactly name what I try to describe. Moral hazard or morale hazard 
seem to me both have at least a deliberate decision, at least concious, perhaps 
even rational or optimizing in some sense, of action making in common. 
Regarding emission behavior, people usually do not deliberately choose to emit 
CO2 directly or indirectly. Usally, the emissions are just a side-effect of 
their consumption, their way of living. Thus, a side-effect of their routines. 
For many people it is even difficult to reflect on how much carbon they emit 
via which choice of consumption. Consequently, an individual attempt to reduce 
carbon emissions is a great effort and usually a large step out of the comfort 
zone for a single person. Calling it moral hazard, if they "just relax" and 
fall back a bit in their routines, or enjoy intensifying them, sounds a bit 
hard. This kind of behavioral decision-making processes may be far from what 
you might expect as rational decision-making.

In my earlier referred thesis (Link 2018) I coin the term "path-dependent 
behavior", which is the result of the influence of existing path-dependent 
processes and is rather a following behavior, following 
routines/standards/institutions, the masses, neighbors etc. It is an efficient 
way of decision-making, resulting from a short-cut in the brain (applying the 
least-effort-principle from social psychology). But the resulting action may be 
a different one than the result of a utility function would be. Like following 
the advice of your computer expert (Herbert Simon has also described the 
phenomenon of personal experts) does not mean that you have optimized the 
variety of choices yourself. But if the choice you have made that way is 
producing more carbon emissions along the way than a different one would have, 
that you might have not even thought about when only relying on your personal 
expert: Can you be accused for moral(e) hazard?

Best regards,

Jasmin








Am 16.08.2020 um 12:59 schrieb Douglas MacMartin:
Thanks – I agree completely that moral hazard is a serious risk, perhaps the 
biggest risk.  (But I also think it is important to be more explicit about 
one’s assumptions.)

There’ve been a few studies trying to look at moral hazard, with inconclusive 
results even on the sign of the effect – very hard to make predictions about, 
but, of course, very clear that it is a serious possibility.

(And re acid rain, that’s not significant in terms of ocean acidification.)

doug

From: Jasmin S. A. Link 

Sent: Saturday, August 15, 2020 7:32 PM
To: Douglas MacMartin ; 
geoengineering@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [geo] Background-Greenland collapse


Thank you Doug,

> If you would plan the potential deployment of SRM (especially on a 
> large-scale) you would in the same way have to consider the potential side 
> effects beforehand to assure to decouple a deployment of SRM from these 
> potential side effects. Otherwise you would risk the accumulation in 
> acidification of the oceans, self-reinforcing the reduction in biodiversity, 
> loss in coral reefs, accumulating in social tensions (just to name a few of 
> the interconnected potential side effects, cp. Figure 3.1.,p.71 in the 
> transdisciplinary network of potential side effects in: 
> https://www.iass-potsdam.de/sites/default/files/2018-06/EuTRACE_report_digital_second_edition.pdf
>  ). <

Regarding ocean acidification and acid rain: Yes, putting up mirrors would not 
directly cause ocean acidification but SAI might cause acid rain (depending on 
the aerosol used). And no, it still is related via an indirect effect in terms 
of social behavior: If people comprehend SRM in a way as that there is some 
sort of technical compensation happening for their carbon emissions, they are 
likely to rather not 

Re: [geo] Background-Greenland collapse

[Michael MacCracken]

Hi Doug--While the thread has headed off onto issues of moral hazard, 
etc., getting back to the situation with Greenland, here is the latest 
paper on this: 
https://scitechdaily.com/climate-scientists-sound-the-alarm-warming-greenland-ice-sheet-passes-point-of-no-return/ 
And I think Eric Rignot would suggest some of the ice streams for 
Antarctic ice sheet are looking less than stable.


I would also note that the last deglaciation melted back about 
two-thirds of the maximum ice--we have one-third left and it is now 
starting to go. So, saying the past amplified rate was due to having 
lots more ice around needs to be more carefully stated--there was more 
at mid-latitudes, but now mi-latitude weather is being pushed to higher 
latitudes (consider Siberia this summer), so I see no reason for 
reassurance about the stability of the ice.


There really is no time to wait to at least getting started in dealing 
with the issue. It is true that the situation may already be too far 
along to stop significant loss, but I don't know of any real benefits 
from sea level rise for any nation. And, as I've argued for some time, I 
think one might start with some modest actions focused on high latitudes 
(yes, heat does continue to come in from lower latitudes and that has to 
be accounted for, but I'd suggest there are things that could be quite 
possibly be done--see doi:10.1002/2016EF000450


I'm all for research, and actually getting started on moderating the 
Arctic amplification, etc. that is threatening the ice sheets (and note 
my suggestions on initial efforts focus on tropospheric approaches, 
mainly during the peak solar radiation period and not an all-year 
approach, so not initially a long-lasting influence and less likely to 
have significant impacts on hemispheric and global atmospheric 
circulations). I also think that it would best be viewed as part of an 
iterative learning activity (scientifically, technologically, and with 
regard to governance, etc.) that would help build insight into the 
potential for global scale intervention (computer studies are very 
useful, but I think it time, or very nearly, time to be out there trying 
to alleviate a very serious and growing risk). And in that such regional 
efforts are not really dealing with the full issue, I think the moral 
hazard argument is not quite as significant a concern--indeed, getting a 
better sense of what intervention would need to look like might well 
lead to recognition of the need for more intense action.


Right now, the situation is reminding more and more of the frogs in the 
pot being heated just hesitating and hesitating thinking that the 
information about jumping out is just not yet adequate.


Mike




On 8/15/20 7:13 PM, Kevin Lister wrote:

Doug,

If it where only the Greenland ice sheet that was suffering 
catastrophic and irreversible change,  we might be able to relax and 
wait 10 to 15 years,  but every part of the world and all it's 
ecosystems are facing similar destructive change,  from the coral  
reefs  to the subsea permafrost.  This is happening as the global 
population is heading towards 10 billion with almost everyone already 
at each throats.


If we delay SRM then the scale of the necessary intervention will grow 
with the delay,  most likely exponentially,  and the risks of 
unintended consequences or out right failure will grow accordingly. At 
the same time, society could be at a point of break down making any 
coordinated plan  virtually impossible  and debates about agreeing on 
global governance irrelevant.


Maybe some elements of the paper that was posted can be quibbled 
over,  but the need to make an urgent start on SRM can't be.


Kevin

On Sat, 15 Aug 2020, 22:35 Douglas MacMartin, > wrote:


Hi Mike,

-I don’t know (and I’m not sure anyone really does) how much
Greenland ice sheet mass loss can accelerate, but agree that it
won’t stay at the current rate.

-Mainly my point was that the media link Andrew sent was silly by
implying that the 6m could happen in decades (even if it didn’t
technically say that), and the paper doesn’t make any claims about
how much the loss rate will accelerate… and to support the claim
that geoengineering is the **ONLY** way to avoid catastrophic sea
level rise requires evidence that we need to intervene now rather
than over the rest of the century.  I do agree that there’s good
reason to suspect that Andrew’s claim may be true, but it is
certainly not supported by the paper he was referring to, and I
don’t think we can prove that the claim is true.

-Paleo evidence makes it clear that staying at even the current
CO2 levels for millennia would be catastrophic.  It doesn’t do a
great job of constraining how rapidly we need to change, e.g. if
CDR over the rest of the century would also be an adequate
alternative to SRM.  (And paleo evidence also shows that it is

Re: [geo] Background-Greenland collapse

[Andrew Lockley]

To clarify, morale hazard is lazy recklessness (I'll put off swapping my
SUV for a tesla, because geoengineering may sort it out) moral hazard is
manipulative (I'll dangle the carrot of geoengineering, to get approval for
keystone). Personal profit is inherent in moral hazard, knowingly harming
others.

Sorry if this is wandering off topic.

On Sun, 16 Aug 2020, 16:15 Jasmin S. A. Link, 
wrote:

> Yes. I am not sure, whether moral hazard or even morale hazard, as Andrew
> has pointed out, exactly name what I try to describe. Moral hazard or
> morale hazard seem to me both have at least a deliberate decision, at least
> concious, perhaps even rational or optimizing in some sense, of action
> making in common. Regarding emission behavior, people usually do not
> deliberately choose to emit CO2 directly or indirectly. Usally, the
> emissions are just a side-effect of their consumption, their way of living.
> Thus, a side-effect of their routines. For many people it is even difficult
> to reflect on how much carbon they emit via which choice of consumption.
> Consequently, an individual attempt to reduce carbon emissions is a great
> effort and usually a large step out of the comfort zone for a single
> person. Calling it moral hazard, if they "just relax" and fall back a bit
> in their routines, or enjoy intensifying them, sounds a bit hard. This kind
> of behavioral decision-making processes may be far from what you might
> expect as rational decision-making.
>
> In my earlier referred thesis (Link 2018) I coin the term "path-dependent
> behavior", which is the result of the influence of existing path-dependent
> processes and is rather a following behavior, following
> routines/standards/institutions, the masses, neighbors etc. It is an
> efficient way of decision-making, resulting from a short-cut in the brain
> (applying the least-effort-principle from social psychology). But the
> resulting action may be a different one than the result of a utility
> function would be. Like following the advice of your computer expert
> (Herbert Simon has also described the phenomenon of personal experts) does
> not mean that you have optimized the variety of choices yourself. But if
> the choice you have made that way is producing more carbon emissions along
> the way than a different one would have, that you might have not even
> thought about when only relying on your personal expert: Can you be accused
> for moral(e) hazard?
>
> Best regards,
>
> Jasmin
>
>
>
>
>
> Am 16.08.2020 um 12:59 schrieb Douglas MacMartin:
>
> Thanks – I agree completely that moral hazard is a serious risk, perhaps
> the biggest risk.  (But I also think it is important to be more explicit
> about one’s assumptions.)
>
>
>
> There’ve been a few studies trying to look at moral hazard, with
> inconclusive results even on the sign of the effect – very hard to make
> predictions about, but, of course, very clear that it is a serious
> possibility.
>
>
>
> (And re acid rain, that’s not significant in terms of ocean acidification.)
>
>
>
> doug
>
>
>
> *From:* Jasmin S. A. Link 
> 
> *Sent:* Saturday, August 15, 2020 7:32 PM
> *To:* Douglas MacMartin  ;
> geoengineering@googlegroups.com
> *Subject:* Re: [geo] Background-Greenland collapse
>
>
>
> Thank you Doug,
>
> > If you would plan the potential deployment of SRM (especially on a
> large-scale) you would in the same way have to consider the potential side
> effects beforehand to assure to decouple a deployment of SRM from these
> potential side effects. Otherwise you would risk the accumulation in
> acidification of the oceans, self-reinforcing the reduction in
> biodiversity, loss in coral reefs, accumulating in social tensions (just to
> name a few of the interconnected potential side effects, cp. Figure
> 3.1.,p.71 in the transdisciplinary network of potential side effects in:
> https://www.iass-potsdam.de/sites/default/files/2018-06/EuTRACE_report_digital_second_edition.pdf
> ). <
>
> Regarding ocean acidification and acid rain: Yes, putting up mirrors would
> not directly cause ocean acidification but SAI might cause acid rain
> (depending on the aerosol used). And no, it still is related via an
> indirect effect in terms of social behavior: If people comprehend SRM in a
> way as that there is some sort of technical compensation happening for
> their carbon emissions, they are likely to rather not reduce their own
> carbon emissions, but instead increase their own carbon emissions. This is
> marked in Figure 3.1. as "less necessity for direct emission reduction?"
> connected to a "rise of CO2 emissions", which causes multiple feedbacks
> such as the necessity to further increase the SAI deployment. I think,
> there have been more recent simulation studies at MIT on this kind of
> behavior that support the relevance of this potential indirect effect.
>
> In my argument on the potential accumulation in acidification of the
> oceans, I had this indirect effect of the SRM deployment on the 

Re: [geo] Background-Greenland collapse

[Andrew Lockley]

Whenever this issue comes up, I feel obliged to draw attention to the fact
that moral(e) hazard is actually two separate things: recklessness (morale)
and malfeasance (moral).

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1461452916659830

On Sun, 16 Aug 2020, 11:59 Douglas MacMartin,  wrote:

> Thanks – I agree completely that moral hazard is a serious risk, perhaps
> the biggest risk.  (But I also think it is important to be more explicit
> about one’s assumptions.)
>
>
>
> There’ve been a few studies trying to look at moral hazard, with
> inconclusive results even on the sign of the effect – very hard to make
> predictions about, but, of course, very clear that it is a serious
> possibility.
>
>
>
> (And re acid rain, that’s not significant in terms of ocean acidification.)
>
>
>
> doug
>
>
>
> *From:* Jasmin S. A. Link 
> *Sent:* Saturday, August 15, 2020 7:32 PM
> *To:* Douglas MacMartin ;
> geoengineering@googlegroups.com
> *Subject:* Re: [geo] Background-Greenland collapse
>
>
>
> Thank you Doug,
>
> > If you would plan the potential deployment of SRM (especially on a
> large-scale) you would in the same way have to consider the potential side
> effects beforehand to assure to decouple a deployment of SRM from these
> potential side effects. Otherwise you would risk the accumulation in
> acidification of the oceans, self-reinforcing the reduction in
> biodiversity, loss in coral reefs, accumulating in social tensions (just to
> name a few of the interconnected potential side effects, cp. Figure
> 3.1.,p.71 in the transdisciplinary network of potential side effects in:
> https://www.iass-potsdam.de/sites/default/files/2018-06/EuTRACE_report_digital_second_edition.pdf
> ). <
>
> Regarding ocean acidification and acid rain: Yes, putting up mirrors would
> not directly cause ocean acidification but SAI might cause acid rain
> (depending on the aerosol used). And no, it still is related via an
> indirect effect in terms of social behavior: If people comprehend SRM in a
> way as that there is some sort of technical compensation happening for
> their carbon emissions, they are likely to rather not reduce their own
> carbon emissions, but instead increase their own carbon emissions. This is
> marked in Figure 3.1. as "less necessity for direct emission reduction?"
> connected to a "rise of CO2 emissions", which causes multiple feedbacks
> such as the necessity to further increase the SAI deployment. I think,
> there have been more recent simulation studies at MIT on this kind of
> behavior that support the relevance of this potential indirect effect.
>
> In my argument on the potential accumulation in acidification of the
> oceans, I had this indirect effect of the SRM deployment on the rather
> increased carbon emission behavior in mind: Officially applying a method to
> reduce global warming which might be understood as "fixing the problem with
> engineering" might rather reduce than increase individual mitigation
> efforts. (Of course, we know that the problem is not really fixed, but try
> to explain that to usual consumers who would know at some point that their
> government would regularly spend large sums of money on SRM and who might
> feel more comfortable to stick and increase their former behavior than to
> really change it, due to path dependence).
>
> Best,
>
> Jasmin
>
>
>
> Am 15.08.2020 um 23:40 schrieb Douglas MacMartin:
>
> Thanks Jasmin,
>
>
>
> Agree that all the side effects of SRM need to be considered, and need to
> evaluate options holistically.
>
>
>
> That said, SRM does not cause ocean acidification; CO2 causes ocean
> acidification.  So one should never list ocean acidification as a side
> effect.  (It is true that SRM doesn’t solve ocean acidification, but it
> also doesn’t solve car accidents… and no-one lists that as a reason not to
> consider SRM.)  Implicit in listing acidification in any discussion of SRM
> is an assumption that somehow we’re required to choose between reducing CO2
> or using SRM, in much the same way that we have to choose whether to drive
> safely or wear a seat belt, but we’re not allowed to do both.
>
>
>
> doug
>
>
>
> *From:* geoengineering@googlegroups.com 
>  *On Behalf Of *Jasmin S. A. Link
> *Sent:* Saturday, August 15, 2020 8:32 AM
> *To:* geoengineering@googlegroups.com
> *Subject:* Re: [geo] Background-Greenland collapse
>
>
>
> "The more advanced the process, the more momentum it has, and the harder
> it is to stop or reverse." The same can count for social dynamics.
> Self-reinforcing processes with the tendency towards a lock-in are
> path-dependent processes. That is, why it is not easy to just change carbon
> intensive behavior towards low carbon emission behavior. Many social,
> economical, and technical processes have the production of carbon emissions
> as side effects which accumulate during the intensifying self-reinforcing
> processes (cp. Figure 4 p. 63 in
> https://ediss.sub.uni-hamburg.de/volltexte/2020/10431/pdf/Dissertation.pdf

RE: [geo] Background-Greenland collapse

[Douglas MacMartin]

Thanks – I agree completely that moral hazard is a serious risk, perhaps the 
biggest risk.  (But I also think it is important to be more explicit about 
one’s assumptions.)

There’ve been a few studies trying to look at moral hazard, with inconclusive 
results even on the sign of the effect – very hard to make predictions about, 
but, of course, very clear that it is a serious possibility.

(And re acid rain, that’s not significant in terms of ocean acidification.)

doug

From: Jasmin S. A. Link 
Sent: Saturday, August 15, 2020 7:32 PM
To: Douglas MacMartin ; geoengineering@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [geo] Background-Greenland collapse


Thank you Doug,

> If you would plan the potential deployment of SRM (especially on a 
> large-scale) you would in the same way have to consider the potential side 
> effects beforehand to assure to decouple a deployment of SRM from these 
> potential side effects. Otherwise you would risk the accumulation in 
> acidification of the oceans, self-reinforcing the reduction in biodiversity, 
> loss in coral reefs, accumulating in social tensions (just to name a few of 
> the interconnected potential side effects, cp. Figure 3.1.,p.71 in the 
> transdisciplinary network of potential side effects in: 
> https://www.iass-potsdam.de/sites/default/files/2018-06/EuTRACE_report_digital_second_edition.pdf
>  ). <

Regarding ocean acidification and acid rain: Yes, putting up mirrors would not 
directly cause ocean acidification but SAI might cause acid rain (depending on 
the aerosol used). And no, it still is related via an indirect effect in terms 
of social behavior: If people comprehend SRM in a way as that there is some 
sort of technical compensation happening for their carbon emissions, they are 
likely to rather not reduce their own carbon emissions, but instead increase 
their own carbon emissions. This is marked in Figure 3.1. as "less necessity 
for direct emission reduction?" connected to a "rise of CO2 emissions", which 
causes multiple feedbacks such as the necessity to further increase the SAI 
deployment. I think, there have been more recent simulation studies at MIT on 
this kind of behavior that support the relevance of this potential indirect 
effect.

In my argument on the potential accumulation in acidification of the oceans, I 
had this indirect effect of the SRM deployment on the rather increased carbon 
emission behavior in mind: Officially applying a method to reduce global 
warming which might be understood as "fixing the problem with engineering" 
might rather reduce than increase individual mitigation efforts. (Of course, we 
know that the problem is not really fixed, but try to explain that to usual 
consumers who would know at some point that their government would regularly 
spend large sums of money on SRM and who might feel more comfortable to stick 
and increase their former behavior than to really change it, due to path 
dependence).

Best,

Jasmin


Am 15.08.2020 um 23:40 schrieb Douglas MacMartin:
Thanks Jasmin,

Agree that all the side effects of SRM need to be considered, and need to 
evaluate options holistically.

That said, SRM does not cause ocean acidification; CO2 causes ocean 
acidification.  So one should never list ocean acidification as a side effect.  
(It is true that SRM doesn’t solve ocean acidification, but it also doesn’t 
solve car accidents… and no-one lists that as a reason not to consider SRM.)  
Implicit in listing acidification in any discussion of SRM is an assumption 
that somehow we’re required to choose between reducing CO2 or using SRM, in 
much the same way that we have to choose whether to drive safely or wear a seat 
belt, but we’re not allowed to do both.

doug

From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com 
 On 
Behalf Of Jasmin S. A. Link
Sent: Saturday, August 15, 2020 8:32 AM
To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [geo] Background-Greenland collapse


"The more advanced the process, the more momentum it has, and the harder it is 
to stop or reverse." The same can count for social dynamics. Self-reinforcing 
processes with the tendency towards a lock-in are path-dependent processes. 
That is, why it is not easy to just change carbon intensive behavior towards 
low carbon emission behavior. Many social, economical, and technical processes 
have the production of carbon emissions as side effects which accumulate during 
the intensifying self-reinforcing processes (cp. Figure 4 p. 63 in 
https://ediss.sub.uni-hamburg.de/volltexte/2020/10431/pdf/Dissertation.pdf ).

But what about the side effects of SRM that would accumulate over time while 
deployment in an intensity of "driving the earth into a glacial period"?

It is necessary to decouple self-reinforcing processes from producing carbon 
emissions as a side effect. And try to potentially include the reduction of 
carbon emissions as side