Re: [geo] resiliencer workshop

[Jonathan Marshall]

thank you

jon


From: Gideon Futerman 
Sent: Thursday, 1 September 2022 10:00 PM
To: Jonathan Marshall
Cc: geoengineering; andrew.lock...@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [geo] resiliencer workshop

Hi Jonathan
The workshop is discussion based, carried out under Chatham House rules and 
focused on production of knowledge by attendees, and thus unfortunatly there 
will not be a zoom. We may be running an online workshop at some point, as well 
as likely streaming some talks on SRM and GCRs at a later date, so I am happy 
to keep you updated about this
Kind Regards
Gideon
www.resiliencer.org<http://www.resiliencer.org>

On Thu, 1 Sept 2022 at 01:12, Jonathan Marshall 
mailto:jonathan.marsh...@uts.edu.au>> wrote:

i gather there is no zoom for anyone from a distance to watch?

jon


From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com<mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com> 
mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com>> on 
behalf of Andrew Lockley 
mailto:andrew.lock...@gmail.com>>
Sent: Thursday, 1 September 2022 9:04 AM
To: geoengineering
Subject: [geo] resiliencer workshop


https://www.resiliencer.org/workshop<https://www.resiliencer.org/workshop><https://www.resiliencer.org/workshop<https://www.resiliencer.org/workshop>>
Workshop
Utrecht 12/09/22
The RESILIENCER (Ramifications of Experimentation into SRM In Light of its 
Impacts on Existential, Negative-state and Civilisational Endangering Risks) 
workshop will provide a forum for a wide range of SRM scholars to explore the 
impacts of SRM research and deployment on global catastrophic risks.



The workshop will attempt to explore a whole host of questions about how SRM 
research and/or deployment could act to increase and decrease certain extreme 
risks, particularly focused on heavy tailed risks which are commonly neglected 
in the discussion. The aim will to be to provide an environment for scholars 
who are both in favour and sceptical of research and/or deployment to engage in 
knowledge generation, generating key questions for enquiry and and attempting 
to challenge points of preexisting wisdom. We hope to create an environment 
where researchers are encouraged to provide unique perspectives, including the 
strongest steelmanning of viewpoints opposed to theirs that they can. There 
will also be the generation and evaluation of scenarios.



The questions of the relation of SRM to GCRs has been heavily neglected in the 
literature thus far, and so this workshop hopes to engage researchers from 
across the field to get as wide a range of views as possible. Having such a 
wide range is particularly important, as it helps to buttress against the 
dangers of locking in or unfairly privileging certain assumptions, viewpoints 
and modes of enquiry. We really hope that as many people as possible can 
attend. The main focus will be on discussions rather than presentations, 
maximising input from each of the participants.



The workshop will be taking place all day on the 12th September 2022 at in the 
Minnaert Building at Utrecht University. More information about the location, 
agenda and other relevant detailswill be sent to you once your attendance is 
confirmed. Lunch will be provided.

--
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<mailto:geoengineering%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com><mailto:geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com<mailto:geoengineering%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com>>.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAJ3C-04%2B6wB-%2BuUgHUaoKYbHum%3DxE1cwxBJUPC8wDxmQHs%2BeJA%40mail.gmail.com<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAJ3C-04%2B6wB-%2BuUgHUaoKYbHum%3DxE1cwxBJUPC8wDxmQHs%2BeJA%40mail.gmail.com><https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAJ3C-04%2B6wB-%2BuUgHUaoKYbHum%3DxE1cwxBJUPC8wDxmQHs%2BeJA%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email_source=footer<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAJ3C-04%2B6wB-%2BuUgHUaoKYbHum%3DxE1cwxBJUPC8wDxmQHs%2BeJA%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email_source=footer>>>.



UTS CRICOS Provider Code: 00099F DISCLAIMER: This email message and any 
accompanying attachments may contain confidential information. If you are not 
the intended recipient, do not read, use, disseminate, distribute or copy this 
message or attachments. If you have received this message in error, please 
notify the sender immediately and delete this message. Any views expressed in 
this message are those of the individual sender, except where the sender 
expressly, and with authority, states them to be the views of the University of 
Technology Sydney. Before opening any attachments, please check them for 
viruses and defects

Re: [geo] resiliencer workshop

[Jonathan Marshall]

i gather there is no zoom for anyone from a distance to watch?

jon


From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com  on 
behalf of Andrew Lockley 
Sent: Thursday, 1 September 2022 9:04 AM
To: geoengineering
Subject: [geo] resiliencer workshop


https://www.resiliencer.org/workshop
Workshop
Utrecht 12/09/22
The RESILIENCER (Ramifications of Experimentation into SRM In Light of its 
Impacts on Existential, Negative-state and Civilisational Endangering Risks) 
workshop will provide a forum for a wide range of SRM scholars to explore the 
impacts of SRM research and deployment on global catastrophic risks.



The workshop will attempt to explore a whole host of questions about how SRM 
research and/or deployment could act to increase and decrease certain extreme 
risks, particularly focused on heavy tailed risks which are commonly neglected 
in the discussion. The aim will to be to provide an environment for scholars 
who are both in favour and sceptical of research and/or deployment to engage in 
knowledge generation, generating key questions for enquiry and and attempting 
to challenge points of preexisting wisdom. We hope to create an environment 
where researchers are encouraged to provide unique perspectives, including the 
strongest steelmanning of viewpoints opposed to theirs that they can. There 
will also be the generation and evaluation of scenarios.



The questions of the relation of SRM to GCRs has been heavily neglected in the 
literature thus far, and so this workshop hopes to engage researchers from 
across the field to get as wide a range of views as possible. Having such a 
wide range is particularly important, as it helps to buttress against the 
dangers of locking in or unfairly privileging certain assumptions, viewpoints 
and modes of enquiry. We really hope that as many people as possible can 
attend. The main focus will be on discussions rather than presentations, 
maximising input from each of the participants.



The workshop will be taking place all day on the 12th September 2022 at in the 
Minnaert Building at Utrecht University. More information about the location, 
agenda and other relevant detailswill be sent to you once your attendance is 
confirmed. Lunch will be provided.

--
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/CAJ3C-04%2B6wB-%2BuUgHUaoKYbHum%3DxE1cwxBJUPC8wDxmQHs%2BeJA%40mail.gmail.com.


UTS CRICOS Provider Code: 00099F DISCLAIMER: This email message and any 
accompanying attachments may contain confidential information. If you are not 
the intended recipient, do not read, use, disseminate, distribute or copy this 
message or attachments. If you have received this message in error, please 
notify the sender immediately and delete this message. Any views expressed in 
this message are those of the individual sender, except where the sender 
expressly, and with authority, states them to be the views of the University of 
Technology Sydney. Before opening any attachments, please check them for 
viruses and defects. Think. Green. Do. Please consider the environment before 
printing this email.

-- 
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/SYBPR01MB8043160EBAEC3A1039A923CDDB7B9%40SYBPR01MB8043.ausprd01.prod.outlook.com.

Re: [EXTERNAL] [geo] Re: Marine Cloud Brightening for the Southern Ocean

[Jonathan Marshall]

Australia is also well placed to build upon its existing. and long term. 
support for more fossil fuels, and a technology neutral position which always 
means encouraging more fossil fuels and the release of massive amounts of 
GHG

jon
___
From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com  on 
behalf of rob...@rtulip.net 
Sent: Friday, 4 March 2022 2:32 PM
To: 'Planetary Restoration'; 'geoengineering'; 
'healthy-planet-action-coalition'; hpac-steering-cir...@googlegroups.com; 
noac-meeti...@googlegroups.com; 'Ye Tao'; 'pfieko'; 'Ron Baiman'; 'Stephen 
Salter'
Subject: [EXTERNAL] [geo] Re: Marine Cloud Brightening for the Southern Ocean

As Daniel mentioned, Australia is well placed to build upon its existing 
support for marine cloud 
brightening for the Great Barrier Reef.

Australia could seek international agreement to test MCB in international 
waters, working with scientists and governments.  Deployment would aim to 
mitigate factors that have accentuated unstable weather in Australia.

Paul Beckwith provided this explanation of possible MCB technology - 
https://paulbeckwith.net/2021/06/20/autonomous-spray-ship-deployment-to-cool-planet-via-marine-cloud-brightening/

Robert Tulip


From: 
planetary-restorat...@googlegroups.com
 
mailto:planetary-restorat...@googlegroups.com>>
 On Behalf Of Daniel Kieve
Sent: Friday, 4 March 2022 11:55 AM
To: Robert Tulip mailto:rtulip2...@yahoo.com.au>>
Cc: Planetary Restoration 
mailto:planetary-restorat...@googlegroups.com>>;
 geoengineering 
mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com>>; 
healthy-planet-action-coalition 
mailto:healthy-planet-action-coalit...@googlegroups.com>>;
 
hpac-steering-cir...@googlegroups.com;
 noac-meeti...@googlegroups.com; Ye Tao 
mailto:t...@rowland.harvard.edu>>; pfieko 
mailto:pfi...@gmail.com>>; Ron Baiman 
mailto:rpbai...@gmail.com>>; Stephen Salter 
mailto:s.sal...@ed.ac.uk>>
Subject: Re: Marine Cloud Brightening for the Southern Ocean

Hi All,

As Robert says, given the geopolitical situation, a focus on direct cooling of 
the Antarctic ( via MCB in the Southern Oceans) makes perfect sense as opposed 
to the Arctic. With the Australian Government's existing support for Marine 
Cloud Brightening to help save the Great Barrier Reef, we'd be hitting the 
ground running ( relatively speaking).

Also, focus on MCB tech which only uses seawater / seasalt also maķes sense,  
given the evidence of its overwhelmingly benign likely effects ( if 
administered carefully) and the PR & political challenges associated with 
adding any substance to the atmosphere for geoengineering purposes.

Kind regards,

Daniel

On Thu, 3 Mar 2022, 22:24 'Robert Tulip' via Healthy Planet Action Coalition, 
mailto:healthy-planet-action-coalit...@googlegroups.com>>
 wrote:
Dear Ye, Peter, Ron, Stephen and all

I would like to ask the Australian Government to investigate methods to 
increase planetary albedo.  This is something the G20 should have on its agenda.

My view is that cooling the Southern Ocean using Marine Cloud Brightening 
should be a first topic to discuss for international agreement.  This would 
cool Antarctica, our planetary refrigerator, and appears likely to be able to 
mitigate sea ice melt, glacier collapse, the warming of ocean currents, extreme 
weather and biodiversity loss.  Antarctica might be an easier place to start 
than the Arctic in view of the geopolitics.

Ye, further to your comments below, it would be good for all methods to 
increase albedo to be studied.  I agree somewhat with your doubts regarding 
stratospheric aerosol injection (atmospheric chemistry uncertainties, acid rain 
risks, ocean ecosystem impacts, and inhibition of renewable transition) and 
could add ozone and hydroxyl effects as specific atmospheric chemistry 
concerns. For marine cloud brightening my assessment is that all of these 
effects are likely to be overwhelmingly benign, with significant positive 
benefits.  The atmospheric chemistry and rain distribution questions are likely 
to be primary.  MCB could be the simplest and safest and cheapest initial way 
to produce rapid cooling and mitigation of extreme weather.

I don’t accept that enabling a slower renewable transition is a big problem for 
the climate.  The effect on radiative forcing of cutting fossil fuel use can 
only be far smaller than the effects of direct albedo increase. It  is 
essential to use SRM to cut radiative forcing to buy time to mitigate extreme 
weather while CDR ramps up.   Emission reduction is likely to remain marginal 
to planetary cooling compared to SRM and CDR. This is an important moral 
question regarding the strategic justification for geoengineering.  

Re: [EXTERNAL] RE: [geo] An outside-the-box plan to fight climate change - Opinion - Chinadaily.com.cn

[Jonathan Marshall]

For what it is worth, I completely agree. Lomborg seems to be completely 
against mitigation. He does not think there is a pressing problem, and while 
some of his suggestions are definitely worthwhile, geoengineering without 
mitigation is likely to be disastrous... 

jon



I might agree with Lomborg that geoengineering research “might just prove to be 
Earth’s best backup plan” if he meant it as a backup to aggressive mitigation 
and adaptation. But Lomborg has long called out mitigation as costly and 
unnecessary as he does again in this piece (and also, e.g. 
here)

So I remain entirely comfortable continuing to disagree with him.

Peter Frumhoff

From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com  On 
Behalf Of Alan Robock ?
Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2022 2:32 PM
To: renaud.derich...@gmail.com; geoengineering 
Cc: Stephen Salter 
Subject: Re: [geo] An outside-the-box plan to fight climate change - Opinion - 
Chinadaily.com.cn

That's not exactly right.  What he wrote is:

"We should not commence geo-engineering now, since the technology is not ready 
and we don't yet know enough about it. But we simply cannot afford to not 
research it. It might just prove to be Earth's best backup plan."

I think we all agree with this.  I debated him once on CNN.  It feels 
uncomfortable to agree with him.

Alan

Alan Robock, Distinguished Professor
  Chair-Elect, AGU College of Fellows
  Associate Editor, Reviews of Geophysics
Department of Environmental Sciences Phone: +1-848-932-5751
Rutgers UniversityE-mail: 
rob...@envsci.rutgers.edu
14 College Farm Road
http://people.envsci.rutgers.edu/robock
New Brunswick, NJ 08901-8551 ☮ 
https://twitter.com/AlanRobock

[Signature]

On 2/24/2022 2:26 PM, Renaud de RICHTER wrote:
Both SAI and MCB got a strong supporter:  Bjorn Lomborg

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/a/202202/12/WS620712e7a310cdd39bc8634f.html?mc_cid=3dc934fe46_eid=2decfaafd5
--
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/CAHodn9_A6T_kjUzp42cpiX6ZDKcWmFtnR_LTztTA%2Bnopr-YkHQ%40mail.gmail.com.

--
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/2fefaab0-1d24-9b8c-8e61-9e9f533b6ae2%40envsci.rutgers.edu.

--
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/005b01d829b8%246faab790%244f0026b0%24%40gmail.com.


UTS CRICOS Provider Code: 00099F DISCLAIMER: This email message and any 
accompanying attachments may contain confidential information. If you are not 
the intended recipient, do not read, use, disseminate, distribute or copy this 
message or attachments. If you have received this message in error, please 
notify the sender immediately and delete this message. Any views expressed in 
this message are those of the individual sender, except where the sender 
expressly, and with authority, states them to be the views of the University of 
Technology Sydney. Before opening any attachments, please check them for 
viruses and defects. Think. Green. Do. Please consider the environment before 
printing this email.

-- 
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 

Re: [geo] RE: IPCC AR6 Summary for Policymakers

[Jonathan Marshall]

Yes it is true that there are levels of population which are unsustainable, but 
the problem with emissions is the distribution of emissions via population. 

It would seem obvious that if we were to focus on lowering populations we 
should lower those populations which have the greatest ecological and climate 
impact per head. That is we should lower the populations of the US and 
Australia etc, first.

We should probably volunteer for elimination.




From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com  on 
behalf of SALTER Stephen 
Sent: Thursday, 12 August 2021 7:09 AM
To: cushngo...@gmail.com; rtulip2...@yahoo.com.au
Cc: Carbon Dioxide Removal; geoengineering
Subject: RE: [geo] RE: IPCC AR6 Summary for Policymakers

Hi All

Behind every root cause is another root cause. The root cause of greenhouse 
gases is excessive human population.  An effective solution to that is 
uncomfortably topical but would not be well received.

Stephen

From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com  On 
Behalf Of Cush Ngonzo Luwesi
Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 2021 8:30 PM
To: rtulip2...@yahoo.com.au
Cc: Carbon Dioxide Removal ; 
geoengineering 
Subject: Re: [geo] RE: IPCC AR6 Summary for Policymakers

This email was sent to you by someone outside the University.
You should only click on links or attachments if you are certain that the email 
is genuine and the content is safe.
Dear Robert
I enjoyed pretty much reading your critique on the IPCC AR6 report and the AMOC 
report. I notices that thèse reports put an emphasis on mitigation and negative 
emissions as the way to slowing down ice melting and Climate variability. Yet, 
these arguments seem to be "unscientific" to you because of your take on Solar 
geoengineering. Yet, many observées think that brightening the marine clouds 
and spraying aérosols do not solve the very cause of Climate change, which is 
GHGe. Yet, to D.  Hume's point of view, a "scientific" control is the one that 
Solves causality, meaning a solution that controls or stabilises the causes. 
What is your take on this? To what science do you refer to in your commenté? 
Who is fooling who?
Thanks in advance for your feedback.
Regards
Cush

Le mer. 11 août 2021 à 12:16, 'Robert Tulip' via geoengineering 
mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com>> a 
écrit :
I thought it was pretty bad that the IPCC 
report
 states as its headline B.1 finding that "Global warming of 1.5°C and 2°C will 
be exceeded during the 21st century unless deep reductions in CO2 and other 
greenhouse gas emissions occur in the coming decades."

It should rather state "Global warming of 1.5°C and 2°C will be exceeded during 
the 21st century even if deep reductions in CO2 and other greenhouse gas 
emissions occur in the coming decades." (my bold)

As the NOAA AGGI report states, CO2 equivalents are 
now above 500 ppm. Emission reduction, technically defined, only reduces the 
future addition of GHGs to the system, and does nothing to remove the committed 
warming from past emissions. Leading scientists (eg Eelco Rohling) think past 
emissions already commit the planet to 2°C.

Even a major program of carbon conversion, transforming CO2 into useful 
commodities such as soil and fabric, would do nothing to stop the escalation of 
extreme weather this decade. Carbon removal is too small and slow, despite 
having orders of magnitude greater potential cooling impact than 
decarbonisation of the world economy.

My view is the only immediate solution is to brighten the planet. Albedo 
enhancement should start by pumping sea water onto the Arctic sea ice in winter 
to freeze and reduce the summer melt using wind energy (diagram attached). 
Marine cloud brightening is the next best option, followed by areas that need 
considerably more impact research such as stratospheric aerosol injection and 
iron salt aerosol.

It is a disgrace that the IPCC seems to have entirely written off this whole 
area of response, with no scientific reasoning as to why.

I understand that people find climate intervention for planetary restoration a 
rather mind-boggling idea and would prefer it were not needed. The problem is 
that extreme weather is steadily getting worse, and cutting emissions through 
the energy transition can do nothing to stop it. The overall issue is to define 
a scientific response to climate policy. That means relying on evidence to 
define the most safe and effective methods to support ongoing climate 
stability. Sadly AR6 squibbed that challenge.

Much of the public policy relies on other factors as well as science. Notably 
this is about public perceptions rather than empirical assessment. But that 
means the climate activist community will no longer be able to use the mantra 
"the science says" to oppose geoengineering, as Michael Mann and Bill McKibben 
and others now do.

I think the factors that could change 

[geo] Re: My CNN geoengineering question to Sen. Cory Booker

[Jonathan Marshall]

For me the problem is that the debate is run by the Heartland Institute. I 
would not expect them to play fair, or to moderate in an unbiased manner. I'd 
want to know who the other 'experts' are going to be in advance as well.

jon


From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com  on 
behalf of Alan Robock 
Sent: Friday, 6 September 2019 10:03 AM
To: Geoengineering
Subject: [geo] My CNN geoengineering question to Sen. Cory Booker

Dear Colleagues,

Last night I attended CNN's Climate Town Hall, and asked my Senator Cory Booker 
a question about solar geoengineering research.  You can see it starting at 
27:44 on 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WHIMD2E6DgE=PL29Rq0wvBhgOcY9ew5490FwzT5U5N6CqT=11=0s
  He immediately called me "Sir," and said he did not know anything about it, 
but would find out.  Today Rutgers got an email from his office asking for more 
information and I will explain what it is and why we need more resources for 
research.

I did not intend to embarrass him.  I submitted the same question to CNN to be 
asked of all 10 candidates, and they decided to invite me and have me ask it of 
my own Senator.  I spent 4 hours in the audience listening to Biden, Sanders, 
Warren, Buttigieg, O'Rourke, and Booker, and was the last person to ask a 
question.  It was a long time, but very interesting.  Mine was the only 
geoengineering question.  Booker referenced one, and it must have been to one 
of the four other candidates who appeared before my 4 hours.

The other interesting email I got today was the one below.  How do you 
recommend I answer?   My plan is to say that appearing there would give 
legitimacy to a "debate" about settled science.  I have not debated global 
warming deniers for years now for this reason.

Alan

Alan Robock, Distinguished Professor
  Associate Editor, Reviews of Geophysics
Department of Environmental Sciences Phone: +1-848-932-5751
Rutgers UniversityE-mail: 
rob...@envsci.rutgers.edu
14 College Farm Road
http://people.envsci.rutgers.edu/robock
New Brunswick, NJ 08901-8551  USA  ☮ 
http://twitter.com/AlanRobock


 Forwarded Message 
Subject:INVITATION: Sept. 23 Debate on Global Climate Change and Need 
for Action
Date:   Thu, 5 Sep 2019 13:11:59 +
From:   Jim Lakely 
To: rob...@envsci.rutgers.edu 




Dr. Robock,



[NOTE: This letter is sent on behalf of Frank Lasée, president of The Heartland 
Institute.]



In the wake of your excellent public performance on CNN last night, The 
Heartland Institute would like to invite you to participate in an interactive 
discussion and debate on climate change in New York City on September 23 in 
conjunction with the United Nations Climate Action Summit. The goal of the 
Heartland Institute event is to broaden public knowledge about the most 
important and most discussed issues related to climate change.



The event will feature up to five climate experts and policymakers who warn of 
an imminent climate crisis, and up to five climate experts and policymakers who 
are skeptical of an asserted crisis. Each evenly matched side will be given 
equal time to make their case in a live event streamed globally on YouTube. 
Each participant will be given time to make an opening statement as well as 
answer questions posed by a moderator. One participant from each side will be 
allowed to present a final summary.



We welcome suggested questions from each side. The moderator’s questions may 
also include:



•  Does the world really have just 12 years left to radically transform our 
lifestyles and energy sources to prevent unstoppable and catastrophic climate 
change?

•  Will melting glaciers release cataclysmic ancient diseases?

•  How have United Nations climate models fared in their temperature 
predictions?

•  How much of the observed warming is caused by people and how much is caused 
by nature?

•  Is climate change making extreme weather events more frequent and severe?

•  Is climate change causing a refugee crisis?

•  Is observed climate change already harming food production?

•  What observational evidence would induce you to change your current position 
on the causes and consequences of climate change?

•  Would action by the United States or Western democracies have much impact 
without substantial reductions from China and other rapidly developing nations?

•  Is it possible for scientists with differing views to cooperate together 
rather than form isolated camps?



The Heartland Institute will cover all of your travel expenses and will 
contribute $1,000 to the charity of your choice in lieu of a personal 
honorarium. We hope 

Re: [geo] Worldward

[Jonathan Marshall]

Wonder who is sponsoring/funding them, if anyone?

jon

From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com  on 
behalf of Andrew Lockley 
Sent: Thursday, 28 February 2019 6:48 AM
To: geoengineering; carbondioxideremo...@googlegroups.com 

Subject: [geo] Worldward

Poster's note: Geoengineering for kids!

https://www.worldward.org/

FOR EVERYONE FOREVER
Click here for Worldward's Geoengineering Policy
Worldward is dedicated to achieve its sole aim- the betterment of humanity for 
all, in this generation and for all future generations to come. We strongly 
believe this can only be done by the fusion of economic, social and 
environmental progress, and neither can be taken in isolation if a truly 
sustainable future is to be created.

Climate Change
The biggest issue of today
Climate change is the biggest social, economic and political issue of this 
generation. It will work to exacerbate ever single major issue in the world 
today. We must combat it, and yet, the way we combat it today is failing.

Worldward believes in using geoengineering, the deliberate engineering of the 
earth's climate, to combat climate change. This, if researched thoroughly and 
managed equitably, be a part, alongside adaptation and emission reductions, of 
a solution to climate change.

Worldward are dedicated to claiming the geoengineering debate from the hands of 
fossil fuel companies and into the public, scientific and political arena. Our 
Worldward Speakers are engaging directly with young people about geoengineering 
and its risks and benefits. Through our Climate Change Conversations Project we 
are creating public debate, and are trying to synthesise this with scientific 
and political discussion. We are further campaigning for the creation of 
national research councils, and ultimately, an intergovernmental governance 
council on geoengineering.

LEARN MORE
Sustainability
Education
The next generation
Sustainability is all about enduring for generations, and therefore, we must 
encourage children to think in a sustainable way in what they do. For too long 
has long-term negatives been outweighed by short-term goods, and for too long 
have problems which are fundamental problems concerning people have been 
branded problems of the environment. No more.

Worldward wishes to encourage people to address problems, big or small, in a 
sustainable way and to see the bigger world we are part of. If on a ground 
level we can get people to understand the vastness and diversity of our world, 
and the need for sustainable solutions in it, our work can continue for 
generations to come.

flourishing of We are fundamentally an organisation concerned with people, and 
what better human spirit than learning?

We are visiting schools, youth clubs and communities to educate about 
sustainability, and particularly offer honest educational sessions on 
geoengineering, its positives and negatives. Worldward is one of the only 
organisations who offer free educational services on geoengineering to schools, 
youth clubs and communities

LEARN MORE
Who are we?
Worldward is a group of people who strongly believe we need a sustainable 
future. We are people like you. Our leadership is predominantly young, but as 
an organisation we are young people and old people and every age in between. We 
are not a political movement, but we campaign to politicians. But nor are we a 
community action scheme, or an aid scheme, but we want to work with communities 
to make the world, and their world, a better place. What we are is an 
organisation dedicated to a goal.



What unites us is hope and passion. Hope for a better future and passion to 
achieve it. These two ideas carry us forward, and we welcome all those who 
share these into Worldward. We are currently based in London, England, however, 
as the name suggests, we are looking for members of a much larger scale. Then, 
we can truly move Worldward, and achieve our potential.



We are an organisation open to all members, no matter who they are. We are also 
open to any suggestions of what could be improved and the direction the 
organisation should take. As a member, you would be entitled to shape the fate 
of the organisation, by suggesting agendas for meetings of the core committee, 
campaign directions and more- we truly are an organisation guided and built 
upon its members. We need as many members in as many places as possible, to 
really expand our reach to as far as possible.



We have a strong hope in the durable future of the organisation and therefore 
have started by investing in two separate campaigns, which we hope, will grow. 
We believe strongly in the creation of links- to those with power, expertise or 
those we are trying to help, and hopefully as well as linking these people to 
the organisation, we will link them to each other. These links are the core of 
everything we do, and therefore, we need to pursue as many as possible.

Re: [geo] Activism and Neoliberalism: Two Sides of Geoengineering Discourse: Capitalism Nature Socialism: Vol 0, No 0

[Jonathan Marshall]

I'm not saying GE research is propped up by "dark money from the wealthy and 
ill-intended" and the article doesn't seem to argue that either. The sentence 
in the abstract states "well-funded campaigns in support of its use," which is 
not the same as "well-funded research." The article just makes the case that 
neoliberals tends to support GE and greens don't.

I personally would expect neoliberal think tanks to spend on ideology and, as 
Robert P. Murphy is quoted in the article, for postponing any cutbacks in 
fossil fuel use, and that is what they seem to do from my reading of such 
sources. How much money is spent on this argument is hard to state, given so 
much of neoliberal think tank funding seems to be 'dark money' - again I don't 
think too much because they already have the ears of government in the US.

I don't think Branson or Gates are ill-intended, precisely the opposite - they 
have the best of intentions, but they do have money supposedly available for 
research.

jon



From: Andrew Lockley 
Sent: Tuesday, 18 December 2018 3:52 PM
To: Jonathan Marshall
Cc: geoengineering
Subject: Re: [geo] Activism and Neoliberalism: Two Sides of Geoengineering 
Discourse: Capitalism Nature Socialism: Vol 0, No 0

Only lobbying counts as a campaign for use, as distinct from research - and 
such spending is not evidenced. Branson's fund hasn't even paid out, as far as 
I know - and that's CDR-only. Gates has funded some research, conferences, etc. 
- but that's hardly propping up the field as a whole. Much of the research is 
done as side projects by academics, or by enthusiastic retirees and amateurs.

It's politically convenient to allege that the field is propped up by dark 
money from the wealthy and ill-intended, but it isn't actually true.

On Tue, 18 Dec 2018, 02:02 Jonathan Marshall 
mailto:jonathan.marsh...@uts.edu.au> wrote:

>Poster's note: "well-funded campaigns in support of [geoengineering] use" are 
>news to me. Anyone know where I can get
>my hands on some of this apparently abundant cash?

the article points out on page 8: richard Branson is offering
$25 million as a prize for designs able to remove “significant volumes of 
anthropogenic, atmospheric GHGs each year for at least 10 years” on a net 
basis, which “should be scalable to a significant size in order to meet the 
informal removal target of 1 billion tonnes of carbon-equivalent per year”

and page 9 Bill Gates has supposedly
"given several million dollars from his personal funds to David Keith and Frank 
Deutsch" for SCoPEx and
he has a "$20 billion venture fund aimed at nurturing environmental 
entrepreneurialism" which would presumably cover profit making GE.

There is also the implication that wealthy neoliberal think tanks can support 
people who write about geoengineering and argue that it is much better than 
doing something else, and celebrating entrepreneurial exploration.

So there you are. All you have to be is high profile, proposing a research 
project someone thinks they can make money out of, or of the right political 
persuasion, and you are in... Same as most things :)

the article itself pushes the oft repeated point that people promoting GE who 
are not scientists working in the field, tend to be neoliberals, and those 
opposing it tend to be green activists.

jon
UTS CRICOS Provider Code: 00099F DISCLAIMER: This email message and any 
accompanying attachments may contain confidential information. If you are not 
the intended recipient, do not read, use, disseminate, distribute or copy this 
message or attachments. If you have received this message in error, please 
notify the sender immediately and delete this message. Any views expressed in 
this message are those of the individual sender, except where the sender 
expressly, and with authority, states them to be the views of the University of 
Technology Sydney. Before opening any attachments, please check them for 
viruses and defects. Think. Green. Do. Please consider the environment before 
printing this email.

--
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<mailto:geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>.
To post to this group, send email to 
geoengineering@googlegroups.com<mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com>.
Visit this group at 
https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering<https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering>.
For more options, visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/optout<https://groups.google.com/d/optout>.
UTS CRICOS Provider Code: 00099F DISCLAIMER: This email message and any 
accompanying attachments may contain confidential information. If you are not 
the intended recipient, do not read, use, dissem

Re: [geo] Activism and Neoliberalism: Two Sides of Geoengineering Discourse: Capitalism Nature Socialism: Vol 0, No 0

[Jonathan Marshall]

>Poster's note: "well-funded campaigns in support of [geoengineering] use" are 
>news to me. Anyone know where I can get
>my hands on some of this apparently abundant cash?

the article points out on page 8: richard Branson is offering
$25 million as a prize for designs able to remove “significant volumes of 
anthropogenic, atmospheric GHGs each year for at least 10 years” on a net 
basis, which “should be scalable to a significant size in order to meet the 
informal removal target of 1 billion tonnes of carbon-equivalent per year”

and page 9 Bill Gates has supposedly
"given several million dollars from his personal funds to David Keith and Frank 
Deutsch" for SCoPEx and
he has a "$20 billion venture fund aimed at nurturing environmental 
entrepreneurialism" which would presumably cover profit making GE.

There is also the implication that wealthy neoliberal think tanks can support 
people who write about geoengineering and argue that it is much better than 
doing something else, and celebrating entrepreneurial exploration.

So there you are.  All you have to be is high profile, proposing a research 
project someone thinks they can make money out of, or of the right political 
persuasion, and you are in... Same as most things :)

the article itself pushes the oft repeated point that people promoting GE who 
are not scientists working in the field, tend to be neoliberals, and those 
opposing it tend to be green activists.

jon
UTS CRICOS Provider Code: 00099F DISCLAIMER: This email message and any 
accompanying attachments may contain confidential information. If you are not 
the intended recipient, do not read, use, disseminate, distribute or copy this 
message or attachments. If you have received this message in error, please 
notify the sender immediately and delete this message. Any views expressed in 
this message are those of the individual sender, except where the sender 
expressly, and with authority, states them to be the views of the University of 
Technology Sydney. Before opening any attachments, please check them for 
viruses and defects. Think. Green. Do. Please consider the environment before 
printing this email.

-- 
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] Geoengineering and Climate Change – Whitman Wire

[Jonathan Marshall]

Yes, it always comes back to the social system. The current social system seems 
likely destroy itself, no matter what technologies are available. Even if SRM 
was completely non-problematic, we probably could not do it without there being 
a profit in it which was greater than the profit of polluting.  The same is 
true of emissions reduction. We might even say that emissions reduction has so 
far been a total failure, despite the money that has been available for it.

It could be that whatever is inhibiting emissions reduction and large scale 
renewables, is working even more intently with GE options.

jon

From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com  on 
behalf of Greg Rau 
Sent: Monday, 5 November 2018 5:53 AM
To: dhawk...@nrdc.org; andrew.lock...@gmail.com
Cc: geoengineering@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [geo] Geoengineering and Climate Change – Whitman Wire

Thanks David. Article dated 2013, so latest thinking? Anyway,

"We find a paradox of climate engineering, which consists in the circumstance 
that exactly those technologies that are capable of acting fast and effectively 
against rising temperatures at comparatively low costs, are also the 
technologies that are likely to create the greatest amount of social and 
political conflict."

How about the paradox that exactly those technologies that are capable of 
acting fast and effectively against rising temperatures at comparatively low 
costs - EMISSIONS REDUCTION, are (apparently) also the technologies that are 
likely to create the LEAST amount of social and political conflict, but despite 
this acceptability are now incapable of single-handed solving the problem? 
While all other alternative technologies might create great social and 
political conflict, i) given that none have been tested at scale, are these 
conflicts real, imagined or manufactured? and ii)  are these conflicts of more 
or less magnitude than the conflicts that will arise if CDR and SRM are (made) 
unavailable?  How about first proving the capabilities, benefits, costs, and 
impacts of these approaches so that we can make better decisions as to their 
social and political acceptability? And, are we prepared now to make social and 
political valuations and decisions for future generations whose circumstances 
may be significantly more dire than at present?
Greg



From: "Hawkins, David" 
To: "andrew.lock...@gmail.com" 
Cc: "geoengineering@googlegroups.com" 
Sent: Sunday, November 4, 2018 1:46 AM
Subject: Re: [geo] Geoengineering and Climate Change – Whitman Wire

Here is the link to the abstract
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10./gpol.12004

Sent from my iPad

On Nov 4, 2018, at 12:48 AM, Andrew Lockley 
mailto:andrew.lock...@gmail.com>> wrote:

Poster's note: interesting discussion of the free driver problem. I can't find 
the original article, just the media op ed. Please reply with a link/extract if 
you have it.

https://whitmanwire.com/opinion/2018/11/02/geoengineering-and-climate-change/

Geoengineering and Climate Change
Gavin Victor, Opinion 
Columnist
November 2, 2018
Filed under Columnists, 
OPINION

Geoengineering is the concept that we can directly use our technology to alter 
the climate. Instead of our effects on the environment being collaterally 
harmful, they can be positive, intentionally. Geoengineering is a highly 
debated hypothetical solution to the anthropogenic climate change problem, 
involving mostly intensive technological intervention in climate systems to 
change them for the better. Like most global issues, the adoption of a 
geoengineering practice relies on many complex considerations.
When evaluating what societal body is responsible for climate change, the 
conclusion one draws is that developed countries are mostly responsible for the 
current level of climate change, and that currently developing countries will 
likely become larger and larger contributors to the problem. The burden of 
action lies in the hands of those who have already reaped the benefits of 
societal progression at the cost of the climate.
A central problem in geoengineering regarding climate justice is that those who 
initiate the actual action of geoengineering will likely not be the ones who 
suffer the possible cost. Geoengineering costs are more complicated than simply 
financial; for example, the proposed practice of spraying iron powder into the 
oceans to fertilize plankton that take in carbon 

Re: [geo] Re: The guardian: Geoengineering may be used to combat global warming, experts say

[Jonathan Marshall]

"What are these likely "foul consequences"? We're either at or close to a 
no-losers model for SRM implementation (by region/country), by my reading of 
the science"

Sorry Andrew this is not making sense to me. You are saying that the article is 
a beat up because it suggests that there is a possibility we might use SRM, and 
then you suggest we are close to using SRM?

Anyway the report says:

"Uncertainties surrounding Solar Radiation Modification (SRM) measures 
constrain their potential deployment. These uncertainties include: 
technological immaturity; limited physical understanding about their 
effectiveness to limit global warming; and a weak capacity to govern, 
legitimise, and scale such measures Even in the uncertain case that the 
most adverse side-effects of SRM can be avoided, public resistance, ethical 
concerns and potential impacts on sustainable development could render SRM 
economically, socially and institutionally undesirable"

page 4-52 it warns that SRM could change precipitation patterns and circulation 
regimes, effect NOx and methane life times, tropospheric drying; 
intensification of the hydrological cycle, stratospheric ozone loss etc

"potentially reductions in biodiversity"

"There is robust evidence but medium agreement for unilateral action 
potentially becoming a serious SRM governance issue"

"Modelling of game-theoretic, strategic interactions of states under 
heterogeneous climatic impacts shows low agreement on the outcome and viability 
of a cost-benefit analysis for SRM"

"Unequal representation and deliberate exclusion are plausible in 
decision-making on SRM, given diverging regional interests and the anticipated 
low resource requirements to deploy SRM (Ricke et al., 2013). Whyte (2012) 
argues that the concerns, sovereignties, and experiences of Indigenous peoples 
may particularly be at risk."

"Another concern with SRM is the risk of a ‘termination shock’ or ‘termination 
effect’ when suddenly stopping SRM, which might cause rapid temperature rise 
and associated impacts"

"there is uncertainty around quantitative determination of the effects that SRM 
or its cessation has on the carbon budget due to a lack of understanding of the 
radiative processes driving the global carbon cycle response to SRM 
(Ramachandran et al., 2000; Mercado et al., 2009; Eliseev, 2012; Xia et al., 
2016), uncertainties about how the carbon cycle will respond to termination 
effects of SRM, and uncertainties in climate-carbon cycle feedbacks 
(Friedlingstein et al., 2014)."

"Other studies suggest negative impacts from SRM implementation concerning 
issues related to regional disparities (Heyen et al., 2015), equity (Buck, 
2012), fisheries, ecosystems, agriculture, and termination effects (Robock, 
2012; Morrow, 2014; Wong, 2014). If SRM is initiated by the richer nations, 
there might be issues with local agency, and possibly worsening conditions for 
those suffering most under climate change (Buck et al., 2014)."

"Overall, the combined uncertainties surrounding the various SRM approaches, 
including technological maturity, physical understanding, potential impacts, 
and challenges of governance, constrain the ability to implement SRM in the 
near future."

When you consider the high levels of uncertainty, some of which may well not be 
reducible, we do not know the ecological consequences of SRM with any 
confidence. It could well result in horrendous consequences. These might not be 
worse than runaway climate change, but we don't know and may not ever know.

Hence I would agree with the IPCC that it is better to try other methods 
properly.

jon

On Tue, 9 Oct 2018, 23:46 Jonathan Marshall, 
mailto:jonathan.marsh...@uts.edu.au>> wrote:

Having just read Chapter 4 I'd have to agree, that the IPCC considers 
Geoengineering likely to have foul consequences especially in its SRM form. 
However it does say that if conditions are bad enough we may have to use it and 
that there is high agreement that it could help lower temperature rises. This 
is what the article says, and this seems to be the standard response within the 
SRM 'community'.

SRM is included in the IPCC pathways, but "the world would be far better off if 
policymakers strengthened natural cooling systems such as forest cover and 
accelerated efforts to reduce carbon emissions." as the author states in the 
third sentence. This is not burying the fact halfway through the article.

I got there a few hours after the notification in this group and the nitrous 
oxide bit had been removed, so at least the over error was corrected quickly.

jon

From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com<mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com> 
mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com>> on 
behalf of Matthias Honegger 
mailto:honegger.matth...@gmail.com>>
Se

Re: [geo] Re: The guardian: Geoengineering may be used to combat global warming, experts say

[Jonathan Marshall]

Having just read Chapter 4 I'd have to agree, that the IPCC considers 
Geoengineering likely to have foul consequences especially in its SRM form. 
However it does say that if conditions are bad enough we may have to use it and 
that there is high agreement that it could help lower temperature rises. This 
is what the article says, and this seems to be the standard response within the 
SRM 'community'.

SRM is included in the IPCC  pathways, but "the world would be far better off 
if policymakers strengthened natural cooling systems such as forest cover and 
accelerated efforts to reduce carbon emissions." as the author states in the 
third sentence. This is not burying the fact halfway through the article.

I got there a few hours after the notification in this group and the nitrous 
oxide bit had been removed, so at least the over error was corrected quickly.

jon

From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com  on 
behalf of Matthias Honegger 
Sent: Tuesday, 9 October 2018 10:54 PM
To: lou.delbe...@gmail.com
Cc: Andrew Lockley; Zachary Perry; geoengineering
Subject: Re: [geo] Re: The guardian: Geoengineering may be used to combat 
global warming, experts say

Well the chapter 4 parts on SRM – although heavy on emphasising uncertainty – 
do clearly state that SRM would probably work to stem climate change. So I read 
this article to be fully consistent with that – although it could indeed have 
pointed out the difference in wording to the SPM and questioned why that did 
not reflect for the same clarity as the full report did.



On 9. Oct 2018, at 03:06, lou del bello 
mailto:lou.delbe...@gmail.com>> wrote:

The author is also the environment editor so he probably does.
But yeah calling them out doesn't make any difference...

On Tue, 9 Oct 2018 at 12:15, Andrew Lockley 
mailto:andrew.lock...@gmail.com>> wrote:
To be fair, journalists often don't write the headlines. But complaining to the 
journalist/paper can't hurt.

I personally don't bother, as it's rarely corrected in time to make any 
difference. If the article is deliberately misleading I sometimes complain to 
the regulator.

Andrew Lockley

On Tue, 9 Oct 2018, 04:47 lou del bello, 
mailto:lou.delbe...@gmail.com>> wrote:
I completely agree with Andrew,
Incredibly misleading piece - the IPCC authors say in the document AND repeated 
in the press conference that geoengineering is not included in the pathways 
because the uncertainty is too big and there aren't sufficient studies.
The journalist literally buries this fact halfway through the article, 
suggesting the opposite in the topline.

On Tue, 9 Oct 2018 at 04:11, Zachary Perry 
mailto:zmp8...@gmail.com>> wrote:
I am quite curious where they got nitrous oxide from in the first place. It's 
generally seen as a potential pitfall of OIF I thought, at least how it relates 
to potential geoengineering schemes.

On Monday, October 8, 2018 at 5:57:29 PM UTC-4, Matthias Honegger wrote:

Link to the article 
online

Geoengineering may be used to combat global warming, experts say

IPCC authors suggest there is high agreement that injection of chemicals into 
stratosphere could help limit rises


Jonathan Watts, the guardian, 8. Oct. 18

The world may increasingly look to geoengineering in the wake of the latest UN 
climate report, which says it could be adopted as a temporary “remedial 
measure” if the world heads towards dangerous levels of warming.
The authors of the new 1.5C study by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 
Change say there is high agreement that the injection of millions of tonnes of 
sulphur dioxide or nitrous oxide into the stratosphere could help limit 
temperature rises to the most ambitious target of the Paris accord.
But the authors warn there are major uncertainties about the social, 
environmental and ecological impacts, which mean the world would be far better 
off if policymakers strengthened natural cooling systems such as forest cover 
and accelerated efforts to reduce carbon emissions.
The lengthy document – which was approved at the weekend by all 195 nations in 
the UN – mentions several options for man-made interference in climate systems, 
including ocean fertilisation, carbon dioxide removal, marine cloud 
brightening, cirrus cloud thinning and ground-based albedo modification.
But it focused most on stratospheric aerosol injection, a technique that 
essentially mimics the effect of a volcano by pumping gas into the sky that 
turns into aerosols, which reflect part of the sun’s heat.
Although the authors do not include such strategies in their pathways to 1.5C 
above pre-industrial temperatures, they raise the possibility that it could be 
used as a supplementary measure if this target is missed.
“If mitigation efforts do not keep global mean temperature below 1.5C, solar 
radiation modification can potentially reduce the climate impacts of a 

Re: [geo] The Dangerous Belief That Extreme Technology Will Fix Climate Change

[Jonathan Marshall]

There is no necessarily mutually exclusive binary happening here. It could be 
dangerous to take either option, if those options are reduced to: "do nothing 
or do GE".

As I keep saying if we don't try and clear up the economic and political 
systems that are going on here, we almost certainly will keep making things 
worse.

The established powers that basically don't care to change because its too 
profitable for them to continue to destroy world ecologies, will not change 
because of patch up technology, no matter how radical.

jon

From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com  on 
behalf of Greg Rau 
Sent: Wednesday, 2 May 2018 4:37 PM
To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com
Subject: [geo] The Dangerous Belief That Extreme Technology Will Fix Climate 
Change

GR - Given our track record with emission reduction and given questionable 
adaptation strategies, how dangerous is it to believe that we won’t need 
“extreme technology” to help counter climate change?:

https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_5ae07919e4b061c0bfa3e794

UTS CRICOS Provider Code: 00099F DISCLAIMER: This email message and any 
accompanying attachments may contain confidential information. If you are not 
the intended recipient, do not read, use, disseminate, distribute or copy this 
message or attachments. If you have received this message in error, please 
notify the sender immediately and delete this message. Any views expressed in 
this message are those of the individual sender, except where the sender 
expressly, and with authority, states them to be the views of the University of 
Technology Sydney. Before opening any attachments, please check them for 
viruses and defects. Think. Green. Do. Please consider the environment before 
printing this email.

-- 
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] Great Barrier Reef Sun Shield Film Tested to Prevent Bleaching

[Jonathan Marshall]

1) There is as yet no evidence that using this technology is on anyone's 
political program, and most local coverage I've seen is in the Murdoch media.

2) The point that some forms of GE are simply ways of continuing pollution is 
demonstrated (should the project go ahead) by the current Australian Government 
being a massive supporter of coal mining and coal power and, some say, actively 
working against renewables (as are the Murdoch media).

3) The government has recently reduced protection for Marine Parks including 
the Reef, and the Adani mine port dredging for its inland coal mine is widely 
regarded as disastrous and poisonous for the Reef should it really get going, 
already having overflows into the Reef.

So yes, while this form of GE might be a great idea it seems to fit in with the 
usual pro-coal, pro-corporate economy, anti-environment people

jon


From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com  on 
behalf of Greg Rau 
Sent: Thursday, 29 March 2018 3:53 AM
To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com
Subject: [geo] Great Barrier Reef Sun Shield Film Tested to Prevent Bleaching

Aussies apparently undeterred by moral hazards and slippery slopes(?!)  .

https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2018/03/sun-shield-film-protection-great-barrier-reef-coral-bleaching-spd/

“A "sun shield" 50,000 times thinner than a human hair has been designed to sit 
at the surface of the water, directly above corals. The thin film is meant to 
be like an umbrella that partially blocks out the sun. The shield is 
biodegradable and is made of calcium carbonate, the same component that coral 
skeletons are made of.”



--
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.
UTS CRICOS Provider Code: 00099F DISCLAIMER: This email message and any 
accompanying attachments may contain confidential information. If you are not 
the intended recipient, do not read, use, disseminate, distribute or copy this 
message or attachments. If you have received this message in error, please 
notify the sender immediately and delete this message. Any views expressed in 
this message are those of the individual sender, except where the sender 
expressly, and with authority, states them to be the views of the University of 
Technology Sydney. Before opening any attachments, please check them for 
viruses and defects. Think. Green. Do. Please consider the environment before 
printing this email.

-- 
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.

[geo] Re: Wrapping glaciers and painting mountains - slippery slopes?

[Jonathan Marshall]

Must have been kept quiet so no one would know

jon

From: Greg Rau <gh...@sbcglobal.net>
Sent: Tuesday, 20 March 2018 8:19 AM
To: Geoengineering
Cc: Jonathan Marshall; Sean Hernandez
Subject: Wrapping glaciers and painting mountains - slippery slopes?

Some examples of geoengineering that apparently are not deterred by moral 
hazards are Swiss glacier wrapping: 
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/03/swiss-residents-are-wrapping-glaciers-in-blankets-to-keep-them-from-melting
   and Peruvian mountain whitewashing: 
http://foreignpolicy.com/2010/06/17/painting-the-andes-white/ Were is the 
moral outrage? Perhaps it has to do with scale; these are not (yet) going to 
alter global climate/effects at the scales currently practiced so the moral 
hazards police and magical thinking monitors can cut them some slack(?). But 
then there are those slippery slope arguments; This needs to be nipped in the 
bud because before you know it we'll be wrapping and painting the entire 
planet. Unclear what the CO2 footprint is of wrapping a glacier or painting a 
mountain; that plastic has to come from and go to somewhere, and the paint: 
lime, eggs and water isn't exactly CO2-emissions free, though the 
CO2-reabsorbing qualities of the lime is a nice touch, as is World Bank 
sponsorship. No one seems to be talking about the downstream impacts of plastic 
and paint leaching, not to mention the effects on ecosystems that inhabit 
glacier and rock surfaces - acceptable casualties?
Greg


UTS CRICOS Provider Code: 00099F DISCLAIMER: This email message and any 
accompanying attachments may contain confidential information. If you are not 
the intended recipient, do not read, use, disseminate, distribute or copy this 
message or attachments. If you have received this message in error, please 
notify the sender immediately and delete this message. Any views expressed in 
this message are those of the individual sender, except where the sender 
expressly, and with authority, states them to be the views of the University of 
Technology Sydney. Before opening any attachments, please check them for 
viruses and defects. Think. Green. Do. Please consider the environment before 
printing this email.

-- 
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: [CDR] Re: Medium Is Geoengineering an Immorality of Last Resort?

[Jonathan Marshall]

Or it is necessary to demonise people who think there might be problems with 
some forms of Geoengineering, otherwise we would have to admit that the form of 
social organisations we are dealing with are inherently destructive and we are 
stuffed anyway, and its called projection - it works many ways

jon

From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com  on 
behalf of Greg Rau 
Sent: Monday, 19 March 2018 7:24 AM
To: mmacc...@comcast.net
Cc: dhawk...@nrdc.org; Sean Hernandez; Leon Di Marco; Carbon Dioxide Removal; 
Geoengineering
Subject: Re: [geo] Re: [CDR] Re: Medium Is Geoengineering an Immorality of Last 
Resort?

How about this: It is necessary to demonize GE because to do otherwise is to 
admit that we have been immoral in failing to adequately stabilize climate/CO2 
by more obvious and conventional means(?) I believe the psychological term is 
“projection”; blame others for your own failure. Other diagnoses welcome.
Greg

Sent from my iPhone



On Mar 18, 2018, at 8:35 AM, Michael MacCracken 
> wrote:

Another way not to get into trap of NETs delaying mitigation is not agree that 
1.5-2 C will be an acceptable long-term situation, which seems to be the 
position that is conveyed in the IPCC SOD of its 1.5 special report. If instead 
it is made clear that it is vital (based on evident and prospective impacts--on 
economic,  public safety, risk and other grounds) to get back to below 0.5 C or 
so temperature increase over preindustrial, then we need all approaches--full 
mitigation plus NETs (and indeed SRM to shave off peak warming given that a 
number of important consequences will likely be determined primarily the peak 
temperature reached, and right now we are on track for an overshoot to above 3 
C warming).

If instead we have a temperature goal that is above where we are now, then one 
can see how NETs might be seen as a possible substitute for mitigation. So, it 
seems to me what the goal is really matters.

Mike

On 3/17/18 6:28 PM, Hawkins, David wrote:
Thanks Sean,
I do not believe that the prospect of NETs, etc have been a significant factor 
yet in our inadequate progress on mitigation. (Though people like Kevin 
Anderson and Glen Peters are correct to warn that it is easy to slide from the 
heavy reliance on NETs in IPCC modeling runs to a conclusion by policymakers 
that this amount of NETs is something we can bank on and tailor today's 
mitigation efforts accordingly.)
I agree with you that factors other than the prospect of NETs have been 
overwhelmingly responsible for mitigation delays to date. That said, it would 
be wrong to dismiss the concerns that NETs' prospects may become an effective 
new argument against rapid mitigation.  I agree that some voices in the 
"environmental community" have concluded the only way to deal with this threat 
is to discredit the very idea of researching these techniques and developing 
the ability to use them sensibly.  I think that is an error but changing those 
views is more likely to happen with conversations between people who trust each 
other than with public broadsides from strangers.
I think there is a coherent stance to take: most effort needs to continue to 
focus on the imperative of rapid mitigation now but at the same time we need 
added effort to design and carry out NETs research programs.
I do think it would be helpful for the community of scientists that support 
research in these areas to craft and socialize a statement of principles that 
emphasizes the imperative of emission mitigation now and that calls for 
critical governance safeguards.  I am aware of prior efforts to do something 
like this but it is worth another attempt.
David






From: Sean Hernandez 

Sent: Saturday, March 17, 2018 5:54 PM
To: Hawkins, David
Cc: Greg Rau; Leon Di Marco; Carbon Dioxide Removal; Geoengineering
Subject: Re: [geo] Re: [CDR] Re: Medium Is Geoengineering an Immorality of Last 
Resort?


Hi David. In your opinion have geoengineering and other potential substitutes 
already contributed to a significant delay in mitigation? My starting reaction 
would be that they have not because awareness is not very great and there are 
significantly greater political and economic obstacles to mitigation besides 
geoengineering awareness. For two, mitigation is very costly and it's highly 
disagreeable internationally. These political factors to me explain more of 
where we are then the status quo knowledge of geoengineering and substitutes.  
Of course the problem could always be exacerbated by greater knowledge of 
geoengineering. I sometimes think of it in terms of 'At what point is 
mitigation a complete strategic failure?'  I guess that could be called gas 
lighting. Is that quite different from directly advocating for a 

Re: [geo] Re: [CDR] Re: Medium Is Geoengineering an Immorality of Last Resort?

[Jonathan Marshall]

One probable reason why there is supposedly little outrage about the disease 
issues (and there is a lot of outrage) is that the 'horse has already bolted." 
Companies make money selling products that produce or encourage the diseases 
and companies make money selling the remedies, so its a win win situation for 
everyone other than those with the disease.  You can't criticise business 
practices unless they are overtly corrupt. Some people assume the same kind of 
thing will happen with some types of geoengineering - except taxpayers will end 
up funding it as well

If you can't change the social organisation, or lower the production of green 
house gases, then these kind of remedies will be used to make things worse, or 
be used as an opportunity not to make things better - even if they are 
necessary.

jon


From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com  on 
behalf of Greg Rau 
Sent: Sunday, 18 March 2018 10:41 AM
To: Hawkins, David; Sean Hernandez
Cc: Leon Di Marco; Carbon Dioxide Removal; Geoengineering
Subject: Re: [geo] Re: [CDR] Re: Medium Is Geoengineering an Immorality of Last 
Resort?

There are diseases that are largely if not entirely preventable via behavior 
modification, yet $100'sB are spent to develop treatments.  Where is the moral 
hazard outrage here that the latter may relax prevention efforts? At one point 
AGW (1.5-2 deg C warming) was 100% preventable via behavior modification 
(emissions reduction). Experts now tell us that this is now very unlikely and 
that additional measures are now needed. Why then are the latter still branded 
as threats and moral hazards if both methods are now ultimately needed and 
neither one alone will be sufficient, just as in the case with dealing with 
many diseases? If exploration of all medical prevention and treatment options 
for individuals is considered rational and essential, why isn't it also for 
dealing with the health of the planet, the only one we've got? Given a 
rationale, humans are able to walk and chew gum at the same time, and in the 
AGW prevention and treatment case it would seem morally imperative that they 
do. At the end of the day we may have no safe and effective treatment options, 
but that is guaranteed if we are prevented from searching.
Greg



From: "Hawkins, David" 
To: Sean Hernandez 
Cc: Greg Rau ; Leon Di Marco ; Carbon 
Dioxide Removal ; Geoengineering 

Sent: Saturday, March 17, 2018 3:28 PM
Subject: Re: [geo] Re: [CDR] Re: Medium Is Geoengineering an Immorality of Last 
Resort?

Thanks Sean,
I do not believe that the prospect of NETs, etc have been a significant factor 
yet in our inadequate progress on mitigation. (Though people like Kevin 
Anderson and Glen Peters are correct to warn that it is easy to slide from the 
heavy reliance on NETs in IPCC modeling runs to a conclusion by policymakers 
that this amount of NETs is something we can bank on and tailor today's 
mitigation efforts accordingly.)
I agree with you that factors other than the prospect of NETs have been 
overwhelmingly responsible for mitigation delays to date. That said, it would 
be wrong to dismiss the concerns that NETs' prospects may become an effective 
new argument against rapid mitigation.  I agree that some voices in the 
"environmental community" have concluded the only way to deal with this threat 
is to discredit the very idea of researching these techniques and developing 
the ability to use them sensibly.  I think that is an error but changing those 
views is more likely to happen with conversations between people who trust each 
other than with public broadsides from strangers.
I think there is a coherent stance to take: most effort needs to continue to 
focus on the imperative of rapid mitigation now but at the same time we need 
added effort to design and carry out NETs research programs.
I do think it would be helpful for the community of scientists that support 
research in these areas to craft and socialize a statement of principles that 
emphasizes the imperative of emission mitigation now and that calls for 
critical governance safeguards.  I am aware of prior efforts to do something 
like this but it is worth another attempt.
David






From: Sean Hernandez 
Sent: Saturday, March 17, 2018 5:54 PM
To: Hawkins, David
Cc: Greg Rau; Leon Di Marco; Carbon Dioxide Removal; Geoengineering
Subject: Re: [geo] Re: [CDR] Re: Medium Is Geoengineering an Immorality of Last 
Resort?


Hi David. In your opinion have geoengineering and other potential substitutes 
already contributed to a significant delay in mitigation? My starting reaction 
would be that they have not because awareness is not very great 

Re: [geo] Intention matters in Climate Engineering

[Jonathan Marshall]

For what it is worth I just use the term 'climate technologies'  to cover all 
technologies that are likely to have some effect on climate.

That includes renewables, biofuels, carbon trading, carbon prices, 
geoengineering, CCS,  Carbon removal, Coal burning and so on.

Any such tech system is likely to be classifiable as "human activities that 
unintentionally, but substantively change Earth systems" or social systems - 
that's just the nature of complex earth and social systems.

This does not mean that everything is equally bad, but it is intended to remind 
people that any system, whether it is supposedly beneficial or not, can have 
unintended consequences. And this, somehow, should be factored into its 
analysis and hype.

jon



From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com  on 
behalf of Klaus Lackner 
Sent: Friday, 23 February 2018 6:57 AM
To: Alan Robock; dhawk...@nrdc.org; peter.eisenber...@gmail.com
Cc: christopherpreston1...@gmail.com; geoengineering
Subject: Re: [geo] Intention matters in Climate Engineering

This definition then raises the question why the removal of CO2 that has been 
put into the atmosphere as an unintended side effect of some other activity is 
the deliberate large-scale manipulation of the planetary environment.  Indeed, 
it could be seen as a deliberate effort to avoid the (albeit unintentional) 
large-scale manipulation of the environment.  The net result would be no change 
in the environment.

I think limiting geo-engineering to counteracting climate change is a bit too 
limiting, and I am sure if you were to ask John, you would find that this 
definition of the term geo-engineering was in the context of a particular study 
on fixing anthropogenic climate change.   Would it not be geo-engineering, if 
we foolishely decided to warm the planet?

By the way the definition of geo-engineering as deliberate activity goes back 
quite a bit further.  David Keith for example used in his Annual Review article 
many years earlier.

Since we now – for better or for worse –  have defined geo-engineering as a 
deliberate activity, we need to find a term for large scale human activities 
that unintentially, but substantively change Earth systems.  Geo-trashing?

Klaus

From: Alan Robock 
Date: Thursday, February 22, 2018 at 11:26 AM
To: "dhawk...@nrdc.org" , Klaus Lackner 
, Peter Eisenberger 
Cc: "christopherpreston1...@gmail.com" , 
geoengineering 
Subject: Re: [geo] Intention matters in Climate Engineering

I agree.  The definition of geoengineering is “deliberate large-scale 
manipulation of the planetary environment to counteract anthropogenic climate 
change.”  This comes from: Shepherd, J. G. S. et al., 2009: Geoengineering the 
climate: Science, governance and uncertainty, RS Policy Document 10/09, 
(London: The Royal Society).

I completely agree that global warming is the problem we have to deal with, but 
calling it "geoengineering" confuses issues.  Clearly humans are causing global 
warming.  The latest survey shows 70% of Americans now accept this.  The 
question we are researching is to determine the potential benefits and risks of 
proposed geoengineering schemes so that policymakers can make informed 
decisions in the future if we they are tempted to implement different schemes.  
If it soon seems to be more dangerous than not doing it, that will put more 
pressure on mitigation.


Alan



Alan Robock, Distinguished Professor

  Editor, Reviews of Geophysics

Department of Environmental Sciences Phone: +1-848-932-5751

Rutgers University Fax: +1-732-932-8644

14 College Farm Road  E-mail: 
rob...@envsci.rutgers.edu

New Brunswick, NJ 08901-8551  USA 
http://envsci.rutgers.edu/~robock

☮ 
http://twitter.com/AlanRobock
 2017 Nobel Peace Prize to ICAN!

Watch my 18 min TEDx talk at 

Re: [geo] Federal Budget Bill Includes Massive Tax Credits for Carbon Capture

[Jonathan Marshall]

So yes there is money for CC, and no money or help for decreasing emissions.

And not surprisingly "Enhanced oil recovery (EOR), an important pathway to 
geologic carbon dioxide sequestration" in other words using CO2 to increase oil 
production and produce more emissions, probably without bothering to see 
whether the CO2 being used stays down the wells or not?

This could be a political decision to keep pollution going, rather than to 
increase research.

jon

From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com  on 
behalf of Andrew Lockley 
Sent: Thursday, 15 February 2018 9:07 AM
To: geoengineering
Subject: [geo] Federal Budget Bill Includes Massive Tax Credits for Carbon 
Capture

https://www.triplepundit.com/2018/02/federal-budget-bill-includes-tax-credits-carbon-capture/

Federal Budget Bill Includes Massive Tax Credits for Carbon Capture


Friday’s short government shutdown culminated in a potentially huge win for the 
climate, business and investors. Among a slew of spending and tax credits 
tucked into the budget 
bill signed 
by U.S. President Trump, one of them, known as 
45Q,
 expands tax incentives for carbon capture, including from the air.  With 
advocates from both sides of the 
aisle,
 the act shows bipartisan support for carbon capture technology. The policy 
also signals a shift toward greater development and deployment for something 
known as carbon dioxide removal.

Broadly speaking, carbon dioxide removal involves two crucial steps: trapping 
carbon dioxide (the main greenhouse gas causing climate change) and reliably 
storing it. For every qualifying project, 45Q generates a tax credit: $50 per 
ton of carbon dioxide (CO2) buried in underground 
storage,
 $35 per ton for either utilization 

 or enhanced oil recovery.

With no cap on the available tax credits and 12 years to claim them, 45Q is 
poised to do for carbon capture what similar incentives did for wind and solar 
power: unleash private sector investments that catapult the technology into its 
maturity. Tax credits are the first step in that direction. The policy makes a 
stronger business case for development, which in turn will drive necessary 
innovations that make it easier and more attractive to take these technologies 
to scale.

This scaling is vital. Scientists 
agree
 that cleaning up past emissions of carbon dioxide is essential to meeting safe 
climate 
targets. And 
45Q is the first federal acknowledgement of the role that carbon utilization 
and air capture technologies will play in getting us there.

Money for mechanical trees
Direct air 
capture
 (DAC) is a method for literally removing carbon from the atmosphere. 
Mechanical trees suck in ambient air and chemically separate out the carbon 
dioxide. From there, the captured CO2 is pumped deep underground into sealed 
chambers. The end result of direct air capture, in other words, is permanently 
stored CO2.

The best part? This technology is far from theoretical. 
ClimeWorks is one of three startups–along with 
Global Thermostat and Carbon 
Engineering–to pull it off: Their negative 
emissions 
plant
 in Iceland “stores the air-captured CO2 safely and permanently in basalt, 
leading us closer to our efforts to achieve global warming targets.”

[https://www.triplepundit.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/climeworkds-direct-air-capture-plant-zurich-designboom-06-01-2017-818-016-818x460.jpg]ClimeWorks’
 direct air capture machine in Switzerland could allow companies to earn up to 
$50 per ton of CO2, depending on where it is stored after capture.



Thus far, however, all of ClimeWorks plants have been located outside the U.S 
and have been highly subsidized. Direct air capture has a near limitless 
potential for carbon removal, making it a critical tool for carbon dioxide 
removal. But the high cost of the technology in pilot projects has been a 
barrier to wide adoption. 45Q takes an important step toward lowering 

Re: [geo] A Critical Examination of Geoengineering. Economic and Technological Rationality in Social Context

[Jonathan Marshall]

Hi Ronald,

I must decline the 'Professor' title I'm afraid.

I generally try  not to comment on technical issues, because I assume that 
others are more versed in those  issues, I'm a social 'scientist', not an 
engineer or a techno-ecologist.

However, I understand (perhaps incorrectly) that the amount of biochar that 
needs to be generated to make a significant impact on CO2 levels is enormous. 
If so, I then wonder about the consequences of that amount of generation would 
be?  How would we get access to that amount of material for production? Would 
we be burning down forests to save them? would we be destroying commons etc.

If the Amazon forests are being destroyed as rapidly as I occasionally read, 
how will the black earth survive? How again do we inhibit or stop this ongoing 
destruction, without political action?

These are things I worry about

However, I should thank you for putting forward a solution and the same to 
Stephen if he happens to read this and excuses my forgetfulness

jon

***

This is to pick up on one of your sentences below on CO2 removal (CDR).  I 
understand that this thread and the Gunderson et al article have intentionally 
(up to now) only discussed the SRM half of Geo.  But perhaps getting your 
reaction to the biochar form of CDR will help clarify our recent extensive 
SRM-related discussions.

You asked (below):  “If we also need CO2 removal then will that suddenly be 
self-supporting too?”

I believe that the mere existence of Amazonian Dark Earth (ADE, mostly known as 
Terra Preta) easily answers your question.   This anthropogenic soil is 
certainly “self-supporting”.  Wiki does a good enough job on ADE/Terra Preta, 
but there are hundreds of cites.

Of course, your “suddenly” doesn’t qualify with ADE.  But can I ask for your 
thoughts on a recent similar “self-supporting” story.  I choose Australia for 
obvious reasons- perhaps near enough for you to visit,  The brief report is at:
http://www.biochar-international.org/profile_Potatoes_in_Australia.
(I place Australia as one the top three countries for understanding biochar,  
but perhaps losing out now to China)

To further justify this jaunt into “self-supporting”, I also recommend a 
(non-fee) 2018 paper with more of a science flavor, on biochar results in Nepal:
 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048969718300226 .
This has citations for even larger increases of NPP.  For instance a search for 
“pumpkins” in that list of references - will lead to 400% NPP in a 2015 paper.  
Clearly highly “self-supporting” - without even considering additional out-year 
economic benefits (we generally hear of 1000 year biochar lifetime).

I am NOT claiming anything like this for the average biochar program - but I 
hope this is intriguing enough to have a little attention on this list to this 
specific SRM “CDR-cousin”.

Ron


On Jan 22, 2018, at 4:55 PM, Jonathan Marshall 
<jonathan.marsh...@uts.edu.au<mailto:jonathan.marsh...@uts.edu.au>> wrote:


If these systems such as marine cloud brightening or increasing water droplets 
in the air (which was the example) work, and if there are no unintended 
effects, such as mass loss of surface plankton and so on, then I personally do 
not have a problem with them, and have not expressed a problem with them in 
principle.

But, I'm not sure that these proposals will meet with universal assent, so that 
all other agitations are closed, even on this list. It may be we need to remove 
CO2 as well as do marine cloud brightening,

I'm also not personally able to see how marine cloud whitening is 
self-sustaining in economic terms without any tax payer funding which was the 
secondary point about GE and 'small government', but if that is the case then I 
imagine that people will start taking it up. Are they? If we also need CO2 
removal then will that suddenly be self-supporting too?

Changing the discussion of self-supporting to "Cost-effective" is changing the 
goal posts considerably

The question of whether the process will allow the continuing or moderation of 
our socially destructive tendencies is another question, and does not (in my 
opinion) obviate the need for political action to ensure that we do moderate 
those tendencies, or the GE is largely pointless.

jon

From: Stephen Salter <s.sal...@ed.ac.uk<mailto:s.sal...@ed.ac.uk>>
Sent: Monday, 22 January 2018 10:36 PM
To: Reno; Jonathan Marshall
Subject: Re: [geo] A Critical Examination of Geoengineering. Economic and 
Technological Rationality in Social Context

Hi Renaud

Thank you for your interest.  You are the first to ask.  Some papers are 
attached. If you look at credible estimates for the cost of not doing 
geoengineering you could conclude that a safe estimate for the cost of doing it 
is zero.

I am puzzled why returning sea surface temperatures to previous values without 
the introduction of any new materials an

Re: [geo] A Critical Examination of Geoengineering. Economic and Technological Rationality in Social Context

[Jonathan Marshall]

Stephen

>Warm surface water reduces the movement of nutrients so marine cloud 
>brightening should
>give surface plankton a slight advantage.

I'm not a technical person, and don't pretend to be, so please excuse me. Does 
this process vacuum up water? because I'm not clear what would stop it sucking 
up small marine life such as plankton and shooting it into the atmosphere, and 
thus reducing plankton levels.

Is changing the reflective index of clouds continually, likely to have 
unintended weather effects, or do we simply not know?

I presume that other people are able to comment more usefully on technical 
issues, and whether they would support this form of GE, when compared to 
others. I gather it has its detractors.

>Is taxpayer funding used for international climate conferences?

What is the relevance of this? The question was about whether GE favoured small 
government and low taxation rates or not? I have no problem with taxpayer 
subsidies for useful projects.

Even if everyone agrees it will work and it works without too many unintended 
side-effects, it still does not remove the necessity to change our ways of 
living and producing in the long term. Which is the point of what I am talking 
about.

jon

UTS CRICOS Provider Code: 00099F DISCLAIMER: This email message and any 
accompanying attachments may contain confidential information. If you are not 
the intended recipient, do not read, use, disseminate, distribute or copy this 
message or attachments. If you have received this message in error, please 
notify the sender immediately and delete this message. Any views expressed in 
this message are those of the individual sender, except where the sender 
expressly, and with authority, states them to be the views of the University of 
Technology Sydney. Before opening any attachments, please check them for 
viruses and defects. Think. Green. Do. Please consider the environment before 
printing this email.

-- 
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] A Critical Examination of Geoengineering. Economic and Technological Rationality in Social Context

[Jonathan Marshall]

Indeed, that is why I 'blamed' developmentalism. But there are plenty of people 
who would argue that both the soviet union and contemporary China are State 
based capitalist societies. Ownership and control of the means of production 
certainly did not reside with the workers and China is pretty much run on 
profit seeking at the moment anyway.

But, its an almost irrelevant point because geoengineering in those countries 
would be embedded in their particular environmentally destructive tendencies, 
so the argument that GE can proceed without paying attention to those 
tendencies is still not supported. In the west we may face destructive 
corporate domination, there they may face something else.

jon

From: Andrew Lockley <andrew.lock...@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, 23 January 2018 9:25 AM
To: Jonathan Marshall
Subject: Re: [geo] A Critical Examination of Geoengineering. Economic and 
Technological Rationality in Social Context

Soviet Russia and modern China aren't noted for their green policies...

On 22 Jan 2018 22:22, "Jonathan Marshall" 
<jonathan.marsh...@uts.edu.au<mailto:jonathan.marsh...@uts.edu.au>> wrote:

Indeed, I asked a question, you gave an answer.

However, you still have the problem that pro-capitalist governments in the US 
and in Australia (where I live) are making it easier for corporations to poison 
and pollute without there being much recourse against this. They are also 
removing protections on national parks and areas of restricted access for 
economic purposes. And they are doing it in the name of economic prosperity 
(which in their eyes seems to mean corporate profits). They are also supporting 
coal burning and coal mining in the name of profits. They are doing it in the 
face of the evidence for massive ecological despoliation and climate change - 
so to that extent there appears to be a direct competition between profit and 
survival.

However, I'm sure that you are aware that primarily profit seeking and 
developmentalist behaviour is leading to massive deforestation (in the Amazon 
for example) and to massive pollution dumping, in many parts of the world. 
There is little sign of this behaviour stopping because of 'instrumental 
reason' (with the possible exception of a slow down in the rate of increase of 
despoliation in China)

The fact that we have once had an era of governmental interference to lessen 
some of the effects of capitalist developmentalism is not a reason to say that 
this destruction has stopped, or that our social dynamics are not destructive 
in the long run, or that we may not need more attempts at control.

You don't have to call this source of destruction capitalism if it makes you 
easier. I'm happy with other names..

And yes, as you say, we have to build a social consensus to regulate that 
destructive behaviour, and in the west that involves challenging corporate 
power and corporate control over governance. We might need to also use some 
geoengineering as well. However, you cannot pretend that GE is not tied in with 
social dynamics, and that if we ignore those dynamics we might make things 
worse.  That is what I said, and what the article being discussed said.

It is not unreasonable or stupid to discuss this.

jon

From: Peter Flynn <pcfl...@ualberta.ca<mailto:pcfl...@ualberta.ca>>
Sent: Tuesday, 23 January 2018 2:50 AM
To: Jonathan Marshall; andrew.lock...@gmail.com<mailto:andrew.lock...@gmail.com>
Cc: geoengineering
Subject: RE: [geo] A Critical Examination of Geoengineering. Economic and 
Technological Rationality in Social Context

If "the dynamics of capitalism are inherently destructive of ecologies",
how does one explain the following:

-the requirement that vehicles be equipped with catalytic converters, at
considerable expense to the buyer, in "capitalist" (in fact, market
regulated) economies.

- ditto re the clean up of rivers, in my lifetime. Staggering cleanup
compared to 60 years ago, when the Delaware river had no oxygen.

- ditto re the removal of sulfur from power plant stacks and vehicle
fuels.

And so oneven in less developed countries. India, as one step to deal
with horrible urban air, banned two cycle jitneys (that went over the
border to Bangladesh, where the debate on banning them was active when I
was there, many years ago).

All of the above are protective actions aimed at the ecology.

Start with the wrong statement and you can run anywhere with it.
Capitalism isn't an unchained monster: it is regulated, by society.
Sometimes more, sometimes less, but regulated. The issue isn't overturning
capitalism, or even attacking it; the issue is building a social consensus
to regulate.

I continue to believe that attacks on capitalism as a discussion of the
dangers of climate change is a dangerous distraction: dangerous in that it
diverts attention, needlessly, from a v

Re: [geo] A Critical Examination of Geoengineering. Economic and Technological Rationality in Social Context

[Jonathan Marshall]

If these systems such as marine cloud brightening or increasing water droplets 
in the air (which was the example) work, and if there are no unintended 
effects, such as mass loss of surface plankton and so on, then I personally do 
not have a problem with them, and have not expressed a problem with them in 
principle.

But, I'm not sure that these proposals will meet with universal assent, so that 
all other agitations are closed, even on this list. It may be we need to remove 
CO2 as well as do marine cloud brightening,

I'm also not personally able to see how marine cloud whitening is 
self-sustaining in economic terms without any tax payer funding which was the 
secondary point about GE and 'small government', but if that is the case then I 
imagine that people will start taking it up. Are they? If we also need CO2 
removal then will that suddenly be self-supporting too?

Changing the discussion of self-supporting to "Cost-effective" is changing the 
goal posts considerably

The question of whether the process will allow the continuing or moderation of 
our socially destructive tendencies is another question, and does not (in my 
opinion) obviate the need for political action to ensure that we do moderate 
those tendencies, or the GE is largely pointless.

jon

From: Stephen Salter <s.sal...@ed.ac.uk>
Sent: Monday, 22 January 2018 10:36 PM
To: Reno; Jonathan Marshall
Subject: Re: [geo] A Critical Examination of Geoengineering. Economic and 
Technological Rationality in Social Context

Hi Renaud

Thank you for your interest.  You are the first to ask.  Some papers are 
attached. If you look at credible estimates for the cost of not doing 
geoengineering you could conclude that a safe estimate for the cost of doing it 
is zero.

I am puzzled why returning sea surface temperatures to previous values without 
the introduction of any new materials and using energy from the local wind 
should cause so much concern. Perhaps Jonathan can explain.

Stephen

Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design. School of Engineering, University of 
Edinburgh, Mayfield Road, Edinburgh EH9 3DW, Scotland 
s.sal...@ed.ac.uk<mailto:s.sal...@ed.ac.uk>, Tel +44 (0)131 650 5704, Cell 
07795 203 195, WWW.homepages.ed.ac.uk/shs<http://WWW.homepages.ed.ac.uk/shs>, 
YouTube Jamie Taylor Power for Change

On 22/01/2018 10:59, Reno wrote:
Hi Stephen,
I am interested by the article you propose.
Thanks and best wishes,
Renaud de Richter, PhD

Le 22 janv. 2018 10:48 AM, "Stephen Salter" 
<s.sal...@ed.ac.uk<mailto:s.sal...@ed.ac.uk>> a écrit :

Hi All

Jonathan Marshall writes about the cost of geoengineering proposals that  
'Nearly all of them require massive tax-payer subsidies . . ',Other people 
have written that they are so cheap that some private individuals could afford 
them.

We only need one cost-effective technology to remove the objection.  I hope 
that it will be possible to have one with the annual costs of reversing warming 
to date below those of international climate conferences. If anyone wants a 
paper  giving the supporting arguments, please contact me.
Stephen
Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design. School of Engineering, University of 
Edinburgh, Mayfield Road, Edinburgh EH9 3DW, Scotland 
s.sal...@ed.ac.uk<mailto:s.sal...@ed.ac.uk>, Tel +44 (0)131 650 
5704<tel:+44%20131%20650%205704>, Cell 07795 203 195, 
WWW.homepages.ed.ac.uk/shs<http://WWW.homepages.ed.ac.uk/shs>, YouTube Jamie 
Taylor Power for Change
On 22/01/2018 00:42, Jonathan Marshall wrote:
--
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<mailto:geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>.
To post to this group, send email to 
geoengineering@googlegroups.com<mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com>.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.

--
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<mailto:geoengineering%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com>.
To post to this group, send email to 
geoengineering@googlegroups.com<mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com>.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


UTS CRICOS Provider Code: 00099F DISCLAIMER: This email message and any 
accompanying attachments may contain confidential information. If you are not 
the intended

Re: [geo] A Critical Examination of Geoengineering. Economic and Technological Rationality in Social Context

[Jonathan Marshall]

Indeed, I asked a question, you gave an answer.

However, you still have the problem that pro-capitalist governments in the US 
and in Australia (where I live) are making it easier for corporations to poison 
and pollute without there being much recourse against this. They are also 
removing protections on national parks and areas of restricted access for 
economic purposes. And they are doing it in the name of economic prosperity 
(which in their eyes seems to mean corporate profits). They are also supporting 
coal burning and coal mining in the name of profits. They are doing it in the 
face of the evidence for massive ecological despoliation and climate change - 
so to that extent there appears to be a direct competition between profit and 
survival.

However, I'm sure that you are aware that primarily profit seeking and 
developmentalist behaviour is leading to massive deforestation (in the Amazon 
for example) and to massive pollution dumping, in many parts of the world. 
There is little sign of this behaviour stopping because of 'instrumental 
reason' (with the possible exception of a slow down in the rate of increase of 
despoliation in China)

The fact that we have once had an era of governmental interference to lessen 
some of the effects of capitalist developmentalism is not a reason to say that 
this destruction has stopped, or that our social dynamics are not destructive 
in the long run, or that we may not need more attempts at control.

You don't have to call this source of destruction capitalism if it makes you 
easier. I'm happy with other names..

And yes, as you say, we have to build a social consensus to regulate that 
destructive behaviour, and in the west that involves challenging corporate 
power and corporate control over governance. We might need to also use some 
geoengineering as well. However, you cannot pretend that GE is not tied in with 
social dynamics, and that if we ignore those dynamics we might make things 
worse.  That is what I said, and what the article being discussed said.

It is not unreasonable or stupid to discuss this.

jon

From: Peter Flynn <pcfl...@ualberta.ca>
Sent: Tuesday, 23 January 2018 2:50 AM
To: Jonathan Marshall; andrew.lock...@gmail.com
Cc: geoengineering
Subject: RE: [geo] A Critical Examination of Geoengineering. Economic and 
Technological Rationality in Social Context

If "the dynamics of capitalism are inherently destructive of ecologies",
how does one explain the following:

-the requirement that vehicles be equipped with catalytic converters, at
considerable expense to the buyer, in "capitalist" (in fact, market
regulated) economies.

- ditto re the clean up of rivers, in my lifetime. Staggering cleanup
compared to 60 years ago, when the Delaware river had no oxygen.

- ditto re the removal of sulfur from power plant stacks and vehicle
fuels.

And so oneven in less developed countries. India, as one step to deal
with horrible urban air, banned two cycle jitneys (that went over the
border to Bangladesh, where the debate on banning them was active when I
was there, many years ago).

All of the above are protective actions aimed at the ecology.

Start with the wrong statement and you can run anywhere with it.
Capitalism isn't an unchained monster: it is regulated, by society.
Sometimes more, sometimes less, but regulated. The issue isn't overturning
capitalism, or even attacking it; the issue is building a social consensus
to regulate.

I continue to believe that attacks on capitalism as a discussion of the
dangers of climate change is a dangerous distraction: dangerous in that it
diverts attention, needlessly, from a very important issue.

Peter

Peter Flynn, P. Eng., Ph. D.
Emeritus Professor and Poole Chair in Management for Engineers
Department of Mechanical Engineering
University of Alberta
peter.fl...@ualberta.ca
cell: 928 451 4455



-Original Message-----
From: Jonathan Marshall [mailto:jonathan.marsh...@uts.edu.au]
Sent: Sunday, January 21, 2018 6:10 PM
To: Peter Flynn <pcfl...@ualberta.ca>; andrew.lock...@gmail.com
Cc: geoengineering <geoengineering@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [geo] A Critical Examination of Geoengineering. Economic and
Technological Rationality in Social Context


Ok, launched before ready but that's life... here's the second part.

The primary question of this article is a simple one. If the dynamics of
capitalism are inherently destructive of ecologies, then GE is unlikely to
prevent that destruction, nor give a breathing space for new developments.

GE, like everything else that depends on humans, is unlikely to be immune
to its social bases. If it is applied within the current capitalist
system, then we can suspect it will continue the destructive dynamics of
that system, unless another case is properly made. Demonstrating otherwise
may be possible, and it may need to be done, rather than just asserted. GE
could be

Re: [geo] A Critical Examination of Geoengineering. Economic and Technological Rationality in Social Context

[Jonathan Marshall]

Ok, launched before ready but that's life... here's the second part.

The primary question of this article is a simple one. If the dynamics of 
capitalism are inherently destructive of ecologies, then GE is unlikely to 
prevent that destruction, nor give a breathing space for new developments.

GE, like everything else that depends on humans, is unlikely to be immune to 
its social bases. If it is applied within the current capitalist system, then 
we can suspect it will continue the destructive dynamics of that system, unless 
another case is properly made. Demonstrating otherwise may be possible, and it 
may need to be done, rather than just asserted. GE could be the equivalent of 
encouraging smoking to preserve corporate profits, while trying to do research 
in the hope of  some day being able to postpone the increasing cancer toll.

The paper also suggests that if GE becomes the main way of dealing with 
problems of Climate change, then we live in a society in which 'instrumental 
reason' does not function very well as there are cheaper and possibly better 
options, but those options require us to challenge established corporate power, 
and we are unlikely to do that successfully. I think the last 20 to 30 years of 
politics in the English Speaking world demonstrates that is very likely to be 
the case.

There are plenty of people on this list who think that SRM is problematic, and 
that is what this paper is primarily about, so its position is hardly unusual, 
even among those who are interested in the field. The governing idea of SRM 
seems that it is easier to change the whole ecological system than to change a 
political arrangement of economic power and profit. I'm not sure it is, but it 
is comfortable to think it is not - if we are going to spread accusations that 
people think things because it is comfortable for them.

The author's referencing on risk, seems reasonably up to date to me. However, I 
would suggest that the author minimizes the risks, because, in their framework, 
they cannot deal with complex maladaptive systems which are likely to destroy 
themselves completely. That is probably the result of Marxist optimism, which I 
think is unjustified, and has been shown to be unjustified by history.

All of the points the author makes involve reasonable questions. The correct 
answers to them, may well involve disagreement, but not dismissal. Personally I 
think the problem is a version of developmentalist ideology, which could be 
magnified by capitalism, and that we both need to challenge corporate power and 
investigate GE, particularly CDR.

jon
UTS CRICOS Provider Code: 00099F DISCLAIMER: This email message and any 
accompanying attachments may contain confidential information. If you are not 
the intended recipient, do not read, use, disseminate, distribute or copy this 
message or attachments. If you have received this message in error, please 
notify the sender immediately and delete this message. Any views expressed in 
this message are those of the individual sender, except where the sender 
expressly, and with authority, states them to be the views of the University of 
Technology Sydney. Before opening any attachments, please check them for 
viruses and defects. Think. Green. Do. Please consider the environment before 
printing this email.

-- 
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] A Critical Examination of Geoengineering. Economic and Technological Rationality in Social Context

[Jonathan Marshall]

"There's a category of people, often found cosseted inside institutions of 
various kinds, for whom "more government" is the answer to absolutely 
everything. "

It strikes me that if you wanted less government, then you would not want 
geoengineering. I've not seen any viable self-supporting GE proposals. Nearly 
all of them require massive tax-payer subsidies, and some require appear to 
need massive cross-national governance and regulation. Of course we could give 
the massive subsidies to private enterprise and hope they do they job without 
any oversight, but I doubt that will happen even with the pro-corporate power 
lobby. With CCS we know that ultimate and infinite responsibility of checking 
for leaks and collapse will reside with governments/taxpayers. At the least, it 
seems probable that people will be concerned about other countries free loading 
on their efforts, and there will be massive governmental jaunts to try and sort 
this out. The likelihood of small government and GE seems miniscule.

Second, in my entire and pretty long life, I have never met anyone who thinks 
the answer to anything is "more government". There are a large number of people 
who object to giving all governmental power to the corporate sector (as is the 
usual action of those who supposedly support 'small government'), and there are 
those who think that 'the people' should be able to participate in their own 
government and challenge corporate power. As you might expect both positions 
are easily misrepresented by the dominant powers, who heavily fund think tanks 
and now permeate the university system. Capitalism appears to inherently 
intertwine itself into the State, resulting always in more oppressive 
government for everyone else, unless it is challenged. At least I do not know 
of a historical circumstance in which this is not true. The fact that other 
systems can be worse, does not disprove this.






From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com  on 
behalf of Andrew Lockley 
Sent: Sunday, 21 January 2018 8:27 PM
To: Peter Flynn
Cc: geoengineering
Subject: RE: [geo] A Critical Examination of Geoengineering. Economic and 
Technological Rationality in Social Context

Thanks for the support, but I don't fully agree with the reasoning. I've 
encountered this thinking a great deal in the environmental movement, and it's 
not motivated by publication incentives.

There's a category of people, often found cosseted inside institutions of 
various kinds, for whom "more government" is the answer to absolutely 
everything. This approach is often mocked as "watermelon politics" - red 
through and through, with a thin layer of green on the outside.

Unfortunately, such people find it disproportionately easy to progress in 
institutions of great intellectual influence: academia, state media, public 
services, and government. This is despite the fact that their life experiences 
and values run counter to the undeniable realities lived by the vast majority 
of the population, who typically view the state as inefficient, bordering on 
Kafkaesque (hence the author's popularity).

A

On 21 Jan 2018 01:13, "Peter Flynn" 
> wrote:
Andrew,

Thank you for saying this, and saying it very well. I think that the abstract 
is just nonsense: claptrap, as you say. I put this in the academic realm of “I 
need to publish”, and even better, “if I say stupid stuff I’ll get lots of 
citations from the refutation”.

I am reminded of the phrase that perfect is the enemy of the good. Linking 
dealing with the risk of climate change to reversing capitalism would doom any 
effective effort. Gunderson et al. can rest assured that any real action will 
take place within the various economies as they exist and evolve, slowly; 
thinking that climate change is the Trojan Horse that will overturn existing 
choices about economies is both tedious and damaging nonsense.

We have a serious problem to deal with, and distractions like this reduce 
rather than enhance the ability to deal with it. I think all will agree that 
perfection would be an instantaneous decarbonization that didn’t ruin 
economies. But perfect won’t happen; we search for the good, the practical. My 
personal guess is that a mix of decarbonization and geoengineering is the 
likely future scenario, given the difficulty of mounting the will to 
decarbonize quickly, in both capitalist and planned economies. I look at 
catalytic converters added to cars: society found the will to spend more for an 
existing technology to deal with an emission, but only in some regions of the 
world, and only when the problem was evident and severe.

There is a broad range of thinking on the challenge of climate change. Trying 
to end capitalism, or perhaps more accurately regulated market economies, is 
beyond the improbability of rapid decarbonization.

Thanks again 

Re: [geo] Trump on Geoengineering

[Jonathan Marshall]

This is a satirical fake news site - although the comments showed plenty of 
self-declared Trump supporters seem to think the item is real, showing how 
great Trump is.

in another article on the same site Hilary Clinton committed suicide 

so yes the political fantasy is interesting

Thanks

jon



From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com  on 
behalf of Michael Hayes 
Sent: Thursday, 8 June 2017 6:06 PM
To: geoengineering
Subject: [geo] Trump on Geoengineering

I just stumbled across this article about how Trump has saved us from Obama's 
chemtrail based Geoengineering.

At first I just laughed at it. I then realized the importance of the political 
dynamics. This list may be interested.
https://www.ncscooper.com/contact-us/

Michael

--
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.


UTS CRICOS Provider Code: 00099F
DISCLAIMER: This email message and any accompanying attachments may contain 
confidential information.
If you are not the intended recipient, do not read, use, disseminate, 
distribute or copy this message or
attachments. If you have received this message in error, please notify the 
sender immediately and delete
this message. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual 
sender, except where the
sender expressly, and with authority, states them to be the views of the 
University of Technology Sydney.
Before opening any attachments, please check them for viruses and defects.

Think. Green. Do.

Please consider the environment before printing this email.

-- 
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] Team launches initiative to develop viable market for waste carbon dioxide | ASU Now: Access, Excellence, Impact

[Jonathan Marshall]

There could be an argument that when your prime political and economic system 
is capitalist, then profit is your prime guideline for any action. If it makes 
profit to pollute then you pollute. If carbon is to be removed it has to be 
profitable.


If it makes profit to do both, then you do both.

jon



From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com  on 
behalf of Adam Dorr 
Sent: Thursday, 8 June 2017 2:10 AM
To: Andrew Lockley
Cc: geoengineering
Subject: Re: [geo] Team launches initiative to develop viable market for waste 
carbon dioxide | ASU Now: Access, Excellence, Impact

I think the notion that "We’ve got to get the tons out of the atmosphere, and 
we’ve got to make money doing it” may be fundamentally misguided. The total 
market potential for CO2 as an industrial input is, to a first approximation, 
at least 2 orders of magnitude lower than the quantity of CO2 that needs to be 
removed from the atmosphere annually in order to withdraw 1 trillion (with a T) 
tons by 2100 (a commonly-cited target, and likely too conservative).

Unless a massive new source of demand for CO2 emerges, then the only real way 
to "make money" from carbon withdrawal at the scale necessary to restore 
atmospheric carbon to pre-industrial levels is going to be with publicly-funded 
CDR megaprojects. But I agree that market demand can serve as a driver of 
technological innovation in the nearer term.

Adam

--
Adam Dorr
PhD Candidate
University of California Los Angeles School of Public Affairs
adamd...@ucla.edu
adamd...@gmail.com

On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 8:35 AM, Andrew Lockley 
> wrote:
https://asunow.asu.edu/20170606-solutions-asu-carbon-renewal-team-economic-opportunities

ASU Now: Access, Excellence, Impact

[image title]

 

  

  

  

Solutions
Team launches initiative to develop viable market for waste carbon dioxide
Tempe campus

Can we take CO2 out of the air & make money doing it? ASU up for the challenge.
June 6, 2017
ASU partnering with Center for Carbon Removal, other research institutions to 
find economic opportunities in climate challenge

How do you create a way to take carbon out of the air and make money doing it?

It’s a wicked problem that will take decades to solve. One member of a team 
tasked with tackling it compared it to creating agriculture.

The Center for Carbon Removal, in partnership with Arizona State University and 
several other research institutions, launched an audacious initiative this week 
with the goal of developing solutions that transform waste carbon dioxide in 
the air into valuable products and services.

“Solving a problem with a solution that doesn’t exist” is how Julio Friedmann 
described it.

“We have urgency around this task,” said Friedmann, a senior fellow at the 
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory who serves as the lab’s chief expert in 
energy technologies and systems. He recently served as principal deputy 
assistant secretary for the Office of Fossil Energy at the Department of 
Energy. “I’m seeing windows of opportunity start to close. … We’ve got to get 
the tons out of the atmosphere, and we’ve got to make money doing it.”

In addition to ASU, universities involved in the initiative include Iowa State 
and Purdue, both of which have strong agricultural, forestry and economics 
programs as well as leading engineering, materials science and environmental 
science programs. Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory also participated in 
the launch event for this initiative and has extensive expertise in alternative 
energy and new fuel sources.

“We are talking about nothing less than a paradigm shift,” said David Laird, 
professor of agronomy at Iowa State and an expert in the interactions between 
soil and biochar, charcoal used as a soil amendment.

Noah Deich, executive director of the Center 

Re: [geo] etc_hbf_geobriefing_may2017.pdf

[Jonathan Marshall]

​I like to hope that the fossil fuel era is ending. One question is whether it 
is ending soon enough.

There is also the question of whether political resistance will slow down the 
end, or attempt to continue the era.

There is also the question as to whether the social-political-economic system 
will continue to produce ecological devastation and planet alteration, 
irrespective of whether fossil fuel ends or not - if that system is not changed.

There is another question of whether without political and social change, 
geoengineering will simply prolong the problem and add complications to any 
solution

I still say if we really want to solve the problem we have to think of social 
change. We may need geoengineering,  recycling, and energy efficient light 
bulbs, but they are probably not enough by themselves
​

jon



From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com <geoengineering@googlegroups.com> on 
behalf of Andrew Lockley <andrew.lock...@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, 12 May 2017 9:56 AM
To: Jonathan Marshall
Cc: geoengineering
Subject: Re: [geo] etc_hbf_geobriefing_may2017.pdf

The fossil era is ending, regardless of what happens with geoengineering. The 
only question is whether we attempt to limit the damage and clean up the mess.

A

On 12 May 2017 00:52, "Jonathan Marshall" 
<jonathan.marsh...@uts.edu.au<mailto:jonathan.marsh...@uts.edu.au>> wrote:


Unfortunately the only real solution is probably social, political and 
psychological change.

If we keep the current social system then people will keep gaming any solutions 
put forward to keep that social system, and its power and wealth distribution, 
going - probably one reason why you can get support for Geoengineering from 
people who loudly declaim that climate change is not real.

Geoengineering will simply allow the powerful to continue to pollute, plus it 
will likely add dangers of uncontrollable ecological feedbacks, catastrophic 
collapse in financial crisis, and weather warfare - or blaming people for that 
warfare.

This is the case if we don't do geoengineering as well, although the 
catastrophe may come sooner and force some social change earlier

jon





From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com<mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com> 
<geoengineering@googlegroups.com<mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com>> on 
behalf of Adam Dorr <adamd...@gmail.com<mailto:adamd...@gmail.com>>
Sent: Friday, 12 May 2017 9:33 AM
To: Greg Rau
Cc: s.h.sal...@ed.ac.uk<mailto:s.h.sal...@ed.ac.uk>; 
geoengineering@googlegroups.com<mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com>; 
f...@boell.de<mailto:f...@boell.de>; 
schnei...@boell.de<mailto:schnei...@boell.de>; 
n...@etcgroup.org<mailto:n...@etcgroup.org>
Subject: Re: [geo] etc_hbf_geobriefing_may2017.pdf

I'm sympathetic to some of the criticisms of technofixes, but only when other 
plausible fixes are available.

In the case of climate change, it seems that the notion of solving the problem 
with interventions like recycling, energy-efficient lightbulbs, organic food 
and the rest of the "locally adapted ecologically and socially sound solutions" 
folks typically have in mind is every bit "speculative and distracting" (if not 
just plain delusional) as CDR climate engineering.


On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 3:57 PM, Greg Rau 
<gh...@sbcglobal.net<mailto:gh...@sbcglobal.net>> wrote:
Yes, this seems to stem from a fear of technology as summarized in their 
closing statement:

"Because of the geopolitical high-stakes, risk of weaponization,
and intergenerational implications of geoengineering, the
global community should first and foremost debate these
aspects, before allowing the development of tools that a
climate-denying government or “a coalition of the willing”
could use, even if all other governments would conclude it is
too risky and unfair to use. Geoengineering can never be
confined to a technical discussion, a matter of “developing
tools, just in case” or confined just to a climate perspective.
Geoengineering research should – in line with the CBD
decision – be focused on socio-political, ecological, ethical
questions and potential impacts and contribute to a debate
about whether democratic governance of geoengineering is
ever possible, and how. And even more important: funding
and research on climate change needs to urgently be scaled
up to support implementation of proven and locally
adapted ecologically and socially sound solutions to the
climate crisis – not speculative and distracting technofixes."

While I'm all for debating the various actions before deciding when/if to use 
them, it would seem important to fully understand the benefits as well as the 
risks and impacts of these, and that requires research and testing. Or shall we 
continue to base our decisions on speculation? Case in point, while BECCS,

Re: [geo] etc_hbf_geobriefing_may2017.pdf

[Jonathan Marshall]

Unfortunately the only real solution is probably social, political and 
psychological change.

If we keep the current social system then people will keep gaming any solutions 
put forward to keep that social system, and its power and wealth distribution, 
going - probably one reason why you can get support for Geoengineering from 
people who loudly declaim that climate change is not real.

Geoengineering will simply allow the powerful to continue to pollute, plus it 
will likely add dangers of uncontrollable ecological feedbacks, catastrophic 
collapse in financial crisis, and weather warfare - or blaming people for that 
warfare.

This is the case if we don't do geoengineering as well, although the 
catastrophe may come sooner and force some social change earlier

jon





From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com  on 
behalf of Adam Dorr 
Sent: Friday, 12 May 2017 9:33 AM
To: Greg Rau
Cc: s.h.sal...@ed.ac.uk; geoengineering@googlegroups.com; f...@boell.de; 
schnei...@boell.de; n...@etcgroup.org
Subject: Re: [geo] etc_hbf_geobriefing_may2017.pdf

I'm sympathetic to some of the criticisms of technofixes, but only when other 
plausible fixes are available.

In the case of climate change, it seems that the notion of solving the problem 
with interventions like recycling, energy-efficient lightbulbs, organic food 
and the rest of the "locally adapted ecologically and socially sound solutions" 
folks typically have in mind is every bit "speculative and distracting" (if not 
just plain delusional) as CDR climate engineering.


On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 3:57 PM, Greg Rau 
> wrote:
Yes, this seems to stem from a fear of technology as summarized in their 
closing statement:

"Because of the geopolitical high-stakes, risk of weaponization,
and intergenerational implications of geoengineering, the
global community should first and foremost debate these
aspects, before allowing the development of tools that a
climate-denying government or “a coalition of the willing”
could use, even if all other governments would conclude it is
too risky and unfair to use. Geoengineering can never be
confined to a technical discussion, a matter of “developing
tools, just in case” or confined just to a climate perspective.
Geoengineering research should – in line with the CBD
decision – be focused on socio-political, ecological, ethical
questions and potential impacts and contribute to a debate
about whether democratic governance of geoengineering is
ever possible, and how. And even more important: funding
and research on climate change needs to urgently be scaled
up to support implementation of proven and locally
adapted ecologically and socially sound solutions to the
climate crisis – not speculative and distracting technofixes."

While I'm all for debating the various actions before deciding when/if to use 
them, it would seem important to fully understand the benefits as well as the 
risks and impacts of these, and that requires research and testing. Or shall we 
continue to base our decisions on speculation? Case in point, while BECCS, DAC, 
enhanced weathering, biochar and the others on ETCs s&*t list might be risky 
(e.g., they don't work as advertised, too expensive, etc, -let's find out for 
sure), how could these be "weaponized"and "unfair"? Interestingly I see that 
a-/re- forestation is not on their s&*t list, despite serious concerns from 
ecologists (though weaponization is still not mentioned):
https://ecopreservationsociety.wordpress.com/2008/02/03/does-reforestation-contribute-to-global-warming-part-1/
https://news.mongabay.com/2016/02/in-the-rush-to-reforest-are-the-worlds-old-growth-grasslands-losing-out/
https://cereo.wsu.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/95/2016/03/Joppa_Science_IPBES_2016.pdf

Then there is this curious statement: "funding
and research on climate change needs to urgently be scaled
up to support implementation of proven and locally
adapted ecologically and socially sound solutions to the
climate crisis – not speculative and distracting technofixes."

Am all for more funding of climate change research, but there seems to be 
enough scary knowledge already to warrant greatly expanded R funding 
specifically on a broad and deep search for solutions. Locally adapted 
ecological ones certainly are preferred, but with 7+B of us now on the planet 
is it likely that these solutions alone will solve the problem in the time 
required,  while they also continue to (so how) feed, house and clothe us?? For 
the sake of ecology, might it be wise and less risky to also search for 
solutions that don't ask more from Earth's already overtaxed ecosystems?

Anyway, I'll cc the ETC authors to see if we can elicit a response as to why 
and how we have the luxury of ignoring/castigating technology/new ideas without 
having a better understanding of their actual risks and benefits.

Greg

Re: [geo] Plan C

[Jonathan Marshall]

I  don't really think he's talking 6-7 billion people either  - but I think it 
needs to be pointed out because people tend to think it would include them. 
 No it won't.

Even so, doing this for a couple of thousand people, "the select few", would 
take hellish amounts of effort and money - and if you are going to do all that, 
then its much better to work on ending the problem.

jon




From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com <geoengineering@googlegroups.com> on 
behalf of Greg Rau <gh...@sbcglobal.net>
Sent: Saturday, 6 May 2017 1:17 PM
To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [geo] Plan C

I don't think Hawkins is talking 6-7B people, but a select few who could keep 
the species going somewhere.  Who gets to stay and who gets to go and why ought 
to pose a moral dilemma that could keep our ethicist friends busy for years. 
I'm not religious, but wouldn't this be like the Rapture 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapture
Anyway, we've transcended geoengineering, but what the heck it's Friday.
Greg



____
From: Jonathan Marshall <jonathan.marsh...@uts.edu.au>
To: "geoengineering@googlegroups.com" <geoengineering@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Friday, May 5, 2017 7:46 PM
Subject: Re: [geo] Plan C


Yes, another problem is that Hawkins forgets how much energy and effort we 
would have to expend to get 6-7 billion people to another planet, and for them 
to be able to live afterwards

Even getting a couple of thousand people would be a truly enormous effort.

Much easier to stop using coal, build asteroid defense units etc

jon

From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com<mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com> 
<geoengineering@googlegroups.com<mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com>> on 
behalf of Greg Rau <gh...@sbcglobal.net<mailto:gh...@sbcglobal.net>>
Sent: Saturday, 6 May 2017 10:22 AM
To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com<mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com>
Subject: [geo] Plan C

http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/mediapacks/tomorrows-world/television

"Professor Stephen Hawking thinks the human species will have to populate a new 
planet within 100 years if it is to survive. With climate change, overdue 
asteroid strikes, epidemics and population growth, our own planet is 
increasingly precarious."

GR-  We refuse to live sustainably on Earth, so let's move? The ultimate moral 
hazard - why bother changing behavior if we can simply spread our unsustainable 
behavior to other planets?  Perhaps one of our ethicist friends would care to 
weigh in.

Sent from my iPhone

--
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.<mailto:unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.>
To post to this group, send email to 
geoengineering@googlegroups.com.<mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com.>
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


UTS CRICOS Provider Code: 00099F
DISCLAIMER: This email message and any accompanying attachments may contain 
confidential information.
If you are not the intended recipient, do not read, use, disseminate, 
distribute or copy this message or
attachments. If you have received this message in error, please notify the 
sender immediately and delete
this message. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual 
sender, except where the
sender expressly, and with authority, states them to be the views of the 
University of Technology Sydney.
Before opening any attachments, please check them for viruses and defects.

Think. Green. Do.

Please consider the environment before printing this email.


--
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.<mailto:unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.>
To post to this group, send email to 
geoengineering@googlegroups.com.<mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com.>
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.



--
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<mailto:geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>.
To post to this group, send email to 
geoengineering@googlegroups.com<mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com>.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more optio

Re: [geo] Plan C

[Jonathan Marshall]

Yes, another problem is that Hawkins forgets how much energy and effort we 
would have to expend to get 6-7 billion people to another planet, and for them 
to be able to live afterwards 

Even getting a couple of thousand people would be a truly enormous effort.

Much easier to stop using coal, build asteroid defense units etc

jon

From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com  on 
behalf of Greg Rau 
Sent: Saturday, 6 May 2017 10:22 AM
To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com
Subject: [geo] Plan C

http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/mediapacks/tomorrows-world/television

"Professor Stephen Hawking thinks the human species will have to populate a new 
planet within 100 years if it is to survive. With climate change, overdue 
asteroid strikes, epidemics and population growth, our own planet is 
increasingly precarious."

GR-  We refuse to live sustainably on Earth, so let's move? The ultimate moral 
hazard - why bother changing behavior if we can simply spread our unsustainable 
behavior to other planets?  Perhaps one of our ethicist friends would care to 
weigh in.

Sent from my iPhone

--
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.


UTS CRICOS Provider Code: 00099F
DISCLAIMER: This email message and any accompanying attachments may contain 
confidential information.
If you are not the intended recipient, do not read, use, disseminate, 
distribute or copy this message or
attachments. If you have received this message in error, please notify the 
sender immediately and delete
this message. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual 
sender, except where the
sender expressly, and with authority, states them to be the views of the 
University of Technology Sydney.
Before opening any attachments, please check them for viruses and defects.

Think. Green. Do.

Please consider the environment before printing this email.

-- 
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] Paul Hawken et al Weigh In

[Jonathan Marshall]

​I certainly agree that it sounds as if it is overly optimistic It will be 
interesting to see whether it suggests any socio-political remedies or whether 
it will be purely technological


jon



From: adamd...@gmail.com <adamd...@gmail.com> on behalf of Adam Dorr 
<adamd...@ucla.edu>
Sent: Sunday, 16 April 2017 1:53 PM
To: Jonathan Marshall
Cc: Geoengineering
Subject: Re: [geo] Paul Hawken et al Weigh In

Again, without salient details my fear is that this is the pop-science version 
of clickbait. I'm surely do hope I'm wrong, but unless these are fundamentally 
new CDR scenarios that have not yet been discussed anywhere in the 
geoengineering literature, my confidence in the claim that we can somehow 
"reverse the build-up of atmospheric carbon within thirty years" in the absence 
of radical technological change will have to remain discouragingly low.


On Sat, Apr 15, 2017 at 6:08 PM, Jonathan Marshall 
<jonathan.marsh...@uts.edu.au<mailto:jonathan.marsh...@uts.edu.au>> wrote:

I thought the website was reasonably clear as to what the book was about

"Drawdown maps, measures, models, and describes the 100 most substantive 
solutions to global warming. For each solution, we describe its history, the 
carbon impact it provides, the relative cost and savings, the path to adoption, 
and how it works. The goal of the research that informs Drawdown is to 
determine if we can reverse the buildup of atmospheric carbon within thirty 
years. All solutions modeled are already in place, well understood, analyzed 
based on peer-reviewed science, and are expanding around the world."
​
In other words they are asserting that viable solutions already exist - and 
perhaps that if you combine them you can get a successful programme

whether we do have viable solutions, or they can achieve a description in a 
useful way, is another matter.

jon




From: adamd...@gmail.com<mailto:adamd...@gmail.com> 
<adamd...@gmail.com<mailto:adamd...@gmail.com>> on behalf of Adam Dorr 
<adamd...@ucla.edu<mailto:adamd...@ucla.edu>>
Sent: Sunday, 16 April 2017 10:29 AM
To: Greg Rau
Cc: Geoengineering
Subject: Re: [geo] Paul Hawken et al Weigh In

After reading the blurb on the website, I'm still unclear what this book is 
about. It purports to be the "story" of how different stakeholders are ... 
responding to the threat of climate change. But what does that mean? There "is 
as yet no roadmap that goes beyond slowing or stopping emissions" ... OK, so is 
this the story of how these various stakeholders are capturing and sequestering 
carbon?

I need a little bit more detail in order to take this seriously, because I have 
so far been woefully underwhelmed by various plans and proposals to address 
climate change that do not adequately account for (or even consider) 
technological advances on the decadal timescales in question.



On Sat, Apr 15, 2017 at 5:10 PM, Greg Rau 
<gh...@sbcglobal.net<mailto:gh...@sbcglobal.net>> wrote:
http://www.drawdown.org/the-book

"The subtitle of Drawdown—The Most Comprehensive Plan Ever Proposed to Reverse 
Global Warming—may sound brash. We chose that description because no detailed 
plan to reverse warming has been proposed. There have been agreements and 
proposals on how to slow, cap, and arrest emissions, and there are 
international commitments to prevent global temperature increases from 
exceeding two degrees centigrade over pre-industrial levels. One hundred and 
ninety-five nations have made extraordinary progress in coming together to 
acknowledge that we have a momentous civilizational crisis on our earthly 
doorstep and have created national plans of action. The UN’s Intergovernmental 
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has accomplished the most significant scientific 
study in the history of humankind, and continues to refine the science, expand 
the research, and extend our grasp of one of the most complex systems 
imaginable—climate. However, there is as yet no roadmap that goes beyond 
slowing or stopping emissions."

“At a time when the Trump administration is working to dismantle much of the 
nation’s efforts to minimize climate change, Paul Hawken’s new book swoops onto 
the scene like a knight in shining armor…. The book’s release couldn’t possibly 
come at a better time. Refreshingly absent of political analysis, it’s grounded 
in scientific reality and will likely go a long way toward inciting people to 
action.”
— The Portland Tribune

--
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<mailto:geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>.
To post to this group, send email to 
geoengineering@googlegroups.com<mai

Re: [geo] Paul Hawken et al Weigh In

[Jonathan Marshall]

I thought the website was reasonably clear as to what the book was about

"Drawdown maps, measures, models, and describes the 100 most substantive 
solutions to global warming. For each solution, we describe its history, the 
carbon impact it provides, the relative cost and savings, the path to adoption, 
and how it works. The goal of the research that informs Drawdown is to 
determine if we can reverse the buildup of atmospheric carbon within thirty 
years. All solutions modeled are already in place, well understood, analyzed 
based on peer-reviewed science, and are expanding around the world."
​
In other words they are asserting that viable solutions already exist - and 
perhaps that if you combine them you can get a successful programme

whether we do have viable solutions, or they can achieve a description in a 
useful way, is another matter.

jon




From: adamd...@gmail.com  on behalf of Adam Dorr 

Sent: Sunday, 16 April 2017 10:29 AM
To: Greg Rau
Cc: Geoengineering
Subject: Re: [geo] Paul Hawken et al Weigh In

After reading the blurb on the website, I'm still unclear what this book is 
about. It purports to be the "story" of how different stakeholders are ... 
responding to the threat of climate change. But what does that mean? There "is 
as yet no roadmap that goes beyond slowing or stopping emissions" ... OK, so is 
this the story of how these various stakeholders are capturing and sequestering 
carbon?

I need a little bit more detail in order to take this seriously, because I have 
so far been woefully underwhelmed by various plans and proposals to address 
climate change that do not adequately account for (or even consider) 
technological advances on the decadal timescales in question.



On Sat, Apr 15, 2017 at 5:10 PM, Greg Rau 
> wrote:
http://www.drawdown.org/the-book

"The subtitle of Drawdown—The Most Comprehensive Plan Ever Proposed to Reverse 
Global Warming—may sound brash. We chose that description because no detailed 
plan to reverse warming has been proposed. There have been agreements and 
proposals on how to slow, cap, and arrest emissions, and there are 
international commitments to prevent global temperature increases from 
exceeding two degrees centigrade over pre-industrial levels. One hundred and 
ninety-five nations have made extraordinary progress in coming together to 
acknowledge that we have a momentous civilizational crisis on our earthly 
doorstep and have created national plans of action. The UN’s Intergovernmental 
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has accomplished the most significant scientific 
study in the history of humankind, and continues to refine the science, expand 
the research, and extend our grasp of one of the most complex systems 
imaginable—climate. However, there is as yet no roadmap that goes beyond 
slowing or stopping emissions."

“At a time when the Trump administration is working to dismantle much of the 
nation’s efforts to minimize climate change, Paul Hawken’s new book swoops onto 
the scene like a knight in shining armor…. The book’s release couldn’t possibly 
come at a better time. Refreshingly absent of political analysis, it’s grounded 
in scientific reality and will likely go a long way toward inciting people to 
action.”
— The Portland Tribune

--
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.


--
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.


UTS CRICOS Provider Code: 00099F
DISCLAIMER: This email message and any accompanying attachments may contain 
confidential information.
If you are not the intended recipient, do not read, use, disseminate, 
distribute or copy this message or
attachments. If you have received this message in error, please notify the 
sender immediately and delete
this message. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual 
sender, except where the
sender expressly, and with authority, states them to be the views of the 
University of Technology 

Re: [geo] What has social science research on the public perception of climate engineering done? And what can it do?

[Jonathan Marshall]

I'm not entirely sure that geoengineering physics etc attracts less money that 
geoengineering social science - However, it is an empirical proposition which 
probably needs evidence, not assertion.



If it is true, and I don't think there are all that many social scientists 
interested in GE (I have not met that many), maybe they need less money to 
carry out projects, maybe they are keener?



However, it gets back to the basic proposition. GE does not occur in a social 
vacuum. It has social consequences and will be affected by social dynamics and 
politics. We need to proceed towards understanding those, or we risk even more 
unintended effects than we do normally. This does not eliminate real physical 
GE research, it is a necessary complement to it.



Perhaps, within existing social dynamics, it is equally likely that it is 
relatively easy and acceptable for climate engineers to talk endlessly about 
the benefits of GE without developing solutions to many of the technical 
problems or practicalities.



Although this may also be too cynical.



jon






From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com  on 
behalf of Andrew Lockley 
Sent: Monday, 28 November 2016 8:07 AM
To: s.sal...@ed.ac.uk; geoengineering
Subject: Re: [geo] What has social science research on the public perception of 
climate engineering done? And what can it do?


A cynic might argue that geoengineering social science is easier to attract 
funds to, because it gives the impression of industrious activity whilst making 
no progress towards decisions or deployment.

Andrew Lockley, in a personal capacity

On 27 Nov 2016 17:32, "Stephen Salter" 
> wrote:

Hi All

Some of my best friends are social scientists and I happen to be married to 
one.  I fully appreciate the importance of their work.  When I started work on 
geoengineering back in 2003 I saved all the social science and political papers 
that I found.  The folder now contains 5184 files totalling over a GByte.

At the 2014 Berlin conference Hugh Hunt asked for a show of hands of people 
doing the engineering hardware bits for geoengineering and only five hands went 
up.

I know of only seven papers on the vulgar practicalities and I wrote two of 
them. While I do not want to attack the social bits I would like to see a 
comparable effort on the equipment we might have to make.

Stephen

Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design. School of Engineering, University of 
Edinburgh, Mayfield Road, Edinburgh EH9 3DW, Scotland 
s.sal...@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 27/11/2016 15:03, Andrew Lockley wrote:

What has social science research on the public perception of climate 
engineering done? And what can it do? – Holly Buck
by dcgeoconsortium

This piece is adapted from a response in a longer thread of conversation in 
email exchange with the subject "Interdisciplinary collaboration in 
geoengineering research," which took place on the very active Geoengineering 
Google Group, which is open to the public.

What’s been done: It’s been quite provisional so far, and indeed not 
particularly generalizable or policy-relevant (though I don’t think that was 
the aim of the 20-30 empirical studies published to date).  I do think it has 
taught us some things about (1) the ability lay publics of lay publics to grasp 
and debate this “scientific” topic; (2) how moral hazard works on the 
individual level; (3) the relevance of naturalness, etc. (see the recent piece 
by Burns et al in Earth’s Future for a review).  But it’s important to 
understand how early we are at researching this: it’s as rudimentary as some of 
the dial-down-the-sun modeling studies were, compared to the distance that one 
would have to travel in actually understanding geoengineering well enough to 
practice it.

What’s possible:  I don’t want readers of this blog to assume that it’s 
impossible to use social science to investigate a socio-technical imaginary, or 
things that may happen in the future.  (Market researchers look at future 
preferences and conditions all the time.)  It is certainly methodologically 
challenging, but it is worth creatively trying some things out, given the 
danger of dissipating one’s energies in "scientifically attractive but socially 
and politically unattractive options and in doing so delay the transition to 
policy formation.” I strongly agree with the calls for interdisciplinary 
collaboration.

Here are some ideas and questions about how to move forward:

1)  To understand public perceptions of climate engineering, we need more 
qualitative social science research.

It’s necessary to be out there engaging with people in their own contexts, in 
order to understand 

Re: [geo] CO2 capture may be our only option for stabilising temperatures - we need to find out the costs, fast | Oxford Martin School

[Jonathan Marshall]

Hi Mike,



I'm certainly not wanting to frame any kind of GE in terms of 1950s paradigms 
(although the history can sometimes be enlightening, and may not be quite as 
left behind as we might hope for - the military fantasies, for example, still 
seem to feature in talk about it)



I certainly see the current research (and proposals) primarily in the context 
of climate change and greenhouse gas emissions - which are extremely 
politicised. However, I think that context has consequences - one of which is 
that the conduct and especially the application of physical science is, 
unfortunately, not isolatable from the governance, politics, profit and power 
complexes that we live in and will not be isolated from conflicts.



And yes, this does make everything even more complex - however if we don't 
factor in the social issues and unintended consequences, as well as the 
ecological unintended effects, then I think we are probably stuffed.



For what it is worth, I think a similar argument applies to renewables, and I'm 
not quite as worried about the consequences of using them :)



jon


From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com <geoengineering@googlegroups.com> on 
behalf of Michael MacCracken <mmacc...@comcast.net>
Sent: Tuesday, 22 November 2016 12:42 PM
To: Jonathan Marshall; geoengineering@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [geo] CO2 capture may be our only option for stabilising 
temperatures - we need to find out the costs, fast | Oxford Martin School


Hi Jonathan--I can certainly agree that research is needed on the social 
sciences and governance--my main concern is about the framing for pursing this 
research, which too often, from my limited perspective, seems to be evaluating 
SRM or not (an evaluation appropriate to how geoengineering was being 
considered as a means to alter the world to a better state back in the 1950s 
and 1960s) rather than GHG warming with or without SRM (where now the idea is 
to use SRM to stay near to where we are and have been rather than create some 
new, supposedly better climate). On the former situation, the conclusion pretty 
quickly was that it would not be appropriate to, for example, melt the Arctic 
to more easily get at its resources). For the latter situation, I think the 
overall analysis is considerably more difficult and complex, especially in the 
social and governance sense as I think the physical science is likely more 
reliable when trying to keep conditions as they are and have been instead of 
going to climate situations that we have never experienced.


Mike

On 11/21/16 7:51 PM, Jonathan Marshall wrote:

 Hi Mike,



>Well, if you (on behalf of society) want to stay in the pot of water being 
>heated instead of take the risk of jumping out,

>then we'll all be quite well cooked.



This is probably a false dichotomy - as a frog I would rather take a look 
around, because if I jump into the fire or to the heating surface then I might 
not be better off. I might for example think that if someone is cooking me it 
might be better to get rid of them, or learn how to turn the heat source off 
(especially if I found I was heating myself), rather than getting someone else 
to spray the kitchen with a poisonous foam in the hope that it just might help, 
but might not, because it just could be flammable :)



>I agree there are challenges. I should suggest, however, that while one cannot 
>really check the system out beforehand, there

> are a number of natural events that can serve as quite analogous situations, 
> and that if models can be shown to be able to do

>well on simulating such events, it would not be unreasonable to think that the 
>models could do well on simulating what

>moving forward on SRM would lead to



As a person who works in the social sciences, I have found that everyone is 
incredibly good at explaining or simulating events which have happened, but 
incredibly bad at predicting events which have not yet happened. This is what 
you might expect with complex systems. 'Natural' events are not always the same 
as simulated events, and often people are not looking for unintended effects - 
because there aren't any, and while there are social consequences, there are 
rarely social causes and attempts to maintain say the volcanic explosions. So 
real GE is more complicated than natural events.



>--and note that this would very likely involve using the models in the range 
>of conditions that we have already experienced.

>In that society has become committed, I think totally justified, to totally 
>changing the global energy system based on model

>simulations that involve the models simulating conditions far different than 
>they have been demonstrated on, suggesting that

>the SRM results would be seemingly much less reliable seems inconsistent to me.


these models may be the best we can do - it does not mean that those social 
models ar

Re: [geo] CO2 capture may be our only option for stabilising temperatures - we need to find out the costs, fast | Oxford Martin School

[Jonathan Marshall]

 Hi Mike,



>Well, if you (on behalf of society) want to stay in the pot of water being 
>heated instead of take the risk of jumping out,

>then we'll all be quite well cooked.



This is probably a false dichotomy - as a frog I would rather take a look 
around, because if I jump into the fire or to the heating surface then I might 
not be better off. I might for example think that if someone is cooking me it 
might be better to get rid of them, or learn how to turn the heat source off 
(especially if I found I was heating myself), rather than getting someone else 
to spray the kitchen with a poisonous foam in the hope that it just might help, 
but might not, because it just could be flammable :)



>I agree there are challenges. I should suggest, however, that while one cannot 
>really check the system out beforehand, there

> are a number of natural events that can serve as quite analogous situations, 
> and that if models can be shown to be able to do

>well on simulating such events, it would not be unreasonable to think that the 
>models could do well on simulating what

>moving forward on SRM would lead to



As a person who works in the social sciences, I have found that everyone is 
incredibly good at explaining or simulating events which have happened, but 
incredibly bad at predicting events which have not yet happened. This is what 
you might expect with complex systems. 'Natural' events are not always the same 
as simulated events, and often people are not looking for unintended effects - 
because there aren't any, and while there are social consequences, there are 
rarely social causes and attempts to maintain say the volcanic explosions. So 
real GE is more complicated than natural events.



>--and note that this would very likely involve using the models in the range 
>of conditions that we have already experienced.

>In that society has become committed, I think totally justified, to totally 
>changing the global energy system based on model

>simulations that involve the models simulating conditions far different than 
>they have been demonstrated on, suggesting that

>the SRM results would be seemingly much less reliable seems inconsistent to me.


these models may be the best we can do - it does not mean that those social 
models are particularly accurate, especially economic ones :(

What I am trying to argue is that SRM and other forms of geoengineering, are 
tied in with both social and ecological interactions, which will actually 
complicate matters. They do not exist in a pure isolated form. The politics and 
other social influences can not simply be dismissed without research.

With the notions you express of liability and deliberate inertia - I have no 
problems. To me, this merely emphasises the importance of not ignoring social, 
political and governance factors in the implementation of GE.

>I would note that my hope would be the countries take aggressive action on 
>mitigation so that the warming tops out at some

>value and starts to decline and that SRM is then used to shave the peak, so 
>perhaps only trying to offset the effects of about a

>third of a CO2 doubling for a finite number of years rather than using SRM to 
>offset a 2 to 4 times CO2 increase as most

>model simulations have been considering.

As I said we may have to use SRM etc, but we do need to know something about 
the governance and social issues first.



So I'm still disagreeing with the initial proposition that I responded to, 
namely: "The rules will be changed in an instant when the results of climate 
change get bad enough.  But now the arguments about them are wasting time which 
we may not have." - which of course was not your comment :)



Best

Jon

On 11/21/16 6:12 PM, Jonathan Marshall wrote:

Hi Mike,



While I agree that SRM may be inevitable, because of social factors - it is 
extremely hard to challenge the established power of various parts of the 
corporate sector, State models of development, a high degree of technological 
lock-in into fossil fuels and we now have a president Trump etc... - there 
seem, to me, to be marked problems with SRM



Firstly it is an attempt to modify a massively complex weather and ecological 
system. The fact that it is intended to prevent further change, is no guarantee 
that it would not generate further change. AS far as I understand it is 
extremely likely to generate unexpected changes and local consequences. The 
prime property of complex systems is the lack of long term predictability.



Secondly, (sorry I forget who argued this) but my understanding is that 
essentially there is no way you can test an SRM system in the small scale. It 
is not an SRM system until it is large scale (micro climate engineering is a 
different matter and has been done for a long time). Because of these two 
factors, it is likely to be highly difficult to address problems

Re: [geo] CO2 capture may be our only option for stabilising temperatures - we need to find out the costs, fast | Oxford Martin School

[Jonathan Marshall]

The real thing to remember about governance is that it is often about politics 
and preserving the social status quo.

Just as current governance processes seem often to be about protecting the 
fossil fuel industries from any harm.

I would imagine the most likely result of changing the rules "in an instant" 
will be to have rules which protect the people who impose SRM (and impose is 
the right word, plenty of people will object to the potentially disastrous 
consequences) from any legal liability for damages. The argument will be that 
it is impossible to determine what damages will have happened anyway, and what 
damages came directly from the SRM. This will lessen any pressures to make sure 
the process works properly.

The other obvious problem is that if the bad effects were localized, then 
people could think it was an act of "Weather warfare" and decide to strike back 
with either more SRM, or terrorist attacks, or nukes This would render the 
systems (social, international, and ecological) even more unstable.

Basically if you don't think about the social consequences now while you have 
time, the chances are high that it will massively interfere with any success 
the project might have and amount to a massive waste of time

jon​



From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com  on 
behalf of Stephen Salter 
Sent: Monday, 21 November 2016 1:46 AM
To: Myles Allen; geoengineering@googlegroups.com; Oxford Martin Info
Subject: Re: [geo] CO2 capture may be our only option for stabilising 
temperatures - we need to find out the costs, fast | Oxford Martin School


Hi All

It is much easier to change legal rules about liability and governance than to 
alter the laws of physics and the boundaries of engineering. The rules will be 
changed in an instant when the results of climate change get bad enough.  But 
now the arguments about them are wasting time which we may not have.

Stephen


Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design. School of Engineering, University of 
Edinburgh, Mayfield Road, Edinburgh EH9 3DW, Scotland 
s.sal...@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 20/11/2016 14:13, Myles Allen wrote:
Others much more expert in these matters than I have concluded that liability 
and governance issues mean that SRM is probably out of the question unless we 
have a very different global governance regime than the one we have now (and 
not necessarily in a good way). Which leaves CO2 disposal (initially from 
stationary sources, ultimately from free air capture) as potentially the only 
option. Myles

Myles R Allen FInstP | Professor of Geosystem Science | Environmental Change 
Institute
School of Geography and the Environment and Department of Physics | University 
of Oxford
Oxford University Centre for the Environment, South Parks Road, Oxford, OX1 
3QY, UK
myles.al...@ouce.ox.ac.uk | +44 (0)1865 
275895 (Direct) | +44 (0)1865 275216 (Anne Ryan, PA, 
anne.r...@ouce.ox.ac.uk)

From: Stephen Salter >
Date: Sunday, 20 November 2016 12:30
To: "geoengineering@googlegroups.com" 
>, 
Oxford Martin Info 
>, Myles Allen 
>
Subject: Re: [geo] CO2 capture may be our only option for stabilising 
temperatures - we need to find out the costs, fast | Oxford Martin School


Hi All
In the headline of  http://www.oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk/opinion/view/346   Myles 
Allen writes that 'CO2 capture may be our only option for stabilising 
temperatures.'

I believe that at least three things will be desperately needed.  We have to 
reduce emissions by use of renewable sources, remove existing CO2 from the 
atmosphere and also directly reduce the levels of incoming solar energy 
especially in the Arctic.  I am sad that my ignorance of chemistry and biology 
prevents me from contributing to CO2 removal and I am careful not criticise 
people who know much more than I do.

I would be grateful to anyone who could stop me wasting time trying to solve 
insoluble problems and so I ask Myles Allen to explain why marine cloud 
brightening cannot contribute to stabilising temperatures.

Stephen Salter

Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design. School of Engineering, University of 
Edinburgh, Mayfield Road, Edinburgh EH9 3DW, Scotland 
s.sal...@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 19/11/2016 14:49, Andrew Lockley wrote:

Re: [geo] Book chapter: Geoengineering, or “What Could POSSIBLY Go Wrong?” Mann

[Jonathan Marshall]

 Greg:

>"What could possibly go wrong" is that by continuing to not take CDR and SRM 
>seriously (Mann and
>Toles), we will increasingly commit ourselves to drastic emissions reduction - 
>"the simplest safest
>solution...to address the problem at its root cause" - last line in the 
>chapter.

It seems more likely that by taking CDR and SRM seriously, that we will 
increasingly commit ourselves to increasing emissions, as at some unknown time 
in the future we might be able to remove those emissions or compensate for them.
Social dynamics, established power relations, and ideas about appropriate 
development, seem geared to increase emissions, and any excuse will do.

This is not to say CDR and SRM are not potentially useful technologies but it 
would seem that if we don't use them together with a serious emissions 
reduction project then they will prove 'simple and dangerous', especially if we 
use techniques that are likely to lead to carbon dioxide release over time.

jon



UTS CRICOS Provider Code: 00099F
DISCLAIMER: This email message and any accompanying attachments may contain 
confidential information.
If you are not the intended recipient, do not read, use, disseminate, 
distribute or copy this message or
attachments. If you have received this message in error, please notify the 
sender immediately and delete
this message. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual 
sender, except where the
sender expressly, and with authority, states them to be the views of the 
University of Technology Sydney.
Before opening any attachments, please check them for viruses and defects.

Think. Green. Do.

Please consider the environment before printing this email.

-- 
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

[Jonathan Marshall]

Sorry about the delay I'm away from a computer.

Ron writes:

>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?

My research, such that it is, into GE is primarily socio-political, as any 
strategy to employ GE will have social consequences, and will be implemented 
within some kind of political framework. GE is not purely a technical problem, 
but a social problem as well.?

CCS has for a long time, as far as I can tell, been considered a significant 
part of the CDR strategy. It nearly always comes up in political discussions 
about CDR or when the coal or power industry is talking about CDR. As it is so 
often part of the background of CDR, then it would seem useful to bear it in 
mind in discussions on this list.


I've not discussed BECCS, although I think it is likely the known technical 
problems with CCS are similar in both cases. It may also be the case that most 
BE companies are not particularly interested in the CCS part. I don't know. But 
if BECCS is geo-engineering then I suspect CCS should be as well.

There is no need for anyone to be 'lying' or engaged in deliberate deceit over 
CDR. Humans are very good at self-deceit and at being over-optimistic, 
especially when their income, status or power is involved in that optimism. CDR 
in theory saves the coal industry and the coal power industry, the question is 
really whether those who it saves are doing that much to further the research, 
or whether the mere idea of CDR is enough for them to claim everything is ok, 
and leave the research to others.

This does not mean that other forms of CDR would not be more useful.

jon




UTS CRICOS Provider Code: 00099F
DISCLAIMER: This email message and any accompanying attachments may contain 
confidential information.
If you are not the intended recipient, do not read, use, disseminate, 
distribute or copy this message or
attachments. If you have received this message in error, please notify the 
sender immediately and delete
this message. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual 
sender, except where the
sender expressly, and with authority, states them to be the views of the 
University of Technology Sydney.
Before opening any attachments, please check them for viruses and defects.

Think. Green. Do.

Please consider the environment before printing this email.

-- 
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

[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 

[geo] CFP for Sydney

[Jonathan Marshall]

?
People interested in the social side of GE and the Anthropocene may possibly be 
interested in this conference, especially if you live in Australia.

The Australian Anthropological Society invites authors to submit an abstract of 
original work for consideration for a presentation at the 2016 Conference 
Anthropocene Transitions 12-15 December 2016.

I'm organizing the panel. Abstracts are due Monday 15 August 2016?.
The complex social and ecological dynamics of climate technologies and 
transitions

Convenors:
Jonathan Paul Marshall, UTS

Contact Details:
jonathan.marsh...@uts.edu.auJonathan.Marshall[at]uts.edu.au

Short Abstract

Technology is central to the way many societies propose to deal with climate 
change. These imagined and existing technologies should be studied to 
understand the complex and uncertain relations between societies and ecologies, 
and help the necessary transition from coal.

Long Abstract

Technology and imagined technology is a prime approach many societies have 
proposed to deal with climate change. As a method of producing and magnifying 
human impact on the world, technology is central to human ecological 
interaction and being. Technology both grows out of social and political 
dynamics, and changes those dynamics by providing new platforms of action and 
effect, with uncertain (and often multiplying) social and ecological 
consequences. Technology is inherently political. While societies need to make 
a transition out of fossil fuel energy, this is a contested and disruptive 
path. This panel asks participants to investigate the socioecological dynamics 
of climate technology, including renewables (biofuels, solar, windfarms, 
geothermal etc.), nuclear energy, geoengineering (solar radiation management, 
CO2 removal), social technologies (carbon trading, behavioural change), 
defensive technologies (sea walls, dams, desalination plants) and others. 
Studying these imagined and existing technologies, helps us understand the 
complex and uncertain relations between societies and ecologies, and the 
necessary transition from coal.?


UTS CRICOS Provider Code: 00099F
DISCLAIMER: This email message and any accompanying attachments may contain 
confidential information.
If you are not the intended recipient, do not read, use, disseminate, 
distribute or copy this message or
attachments. If you have received this message in error, please notify the 
sender immediately and delete
this message. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual 
sender, except where the
sender expressly, and with authority, states them to be the views of the 
University of Technology Sydney.
Before opening any attachments, please check them for viruses and defects.

Think. Green. Do.

Please consider the environment before printing this email.

-- 
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] Geoengineering and Non-Ideal Theory

[Jonathan Marshall]

This seems pretty clear to me.



Why should dangerous geoengineering projects with almost certain large scale 
unintended consequences be researched simply because they are possible in 
fantasy?

In many cases, the logistics seem close to absurd, and simply deflect money 
from more useful and plausible research, or from implementation of renewable 
energy at a greater rate.



It seems relatively straightforward to assert that there are solutions we 
hopefully will not consider, and should be recognized as part of any action 
plan. Unless perhaps they are provocations which lead somewhere new in 
which case they need to be demonstrated.



jon






From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com  on 
behalf of David Morrow 
Sent: Thursday, 3 March 2016 6:46 AM
To: geoengineering
Cc: dmorr...@gmail.com; gh...@sbcglobal.net
Subject: Re: [geo] Geoengineering and Non-Ideal Theory

The point, obviously, was not to "equate" SRM or CDR with any of those things, 
but to show by uncontroversial examples that your claim (i.e., that we "must 
carefully evaluate all alternative options") couldn't be taken literally. And 
if it can't be taken literally, then stipulating that any particular plan for 
SRM or CDR is among the options that must be carefully evaluated is simply to 
beg the question. That was the point.

David

On Wednesday, March 2, 2016 at 12:53:36 PM UTC-5, Greg Rau wrote:
Very sorry.  I had no idea that geoengineering is now equated with "large-scale 
nuclear war; turning off all fossil-fueled power plants, vehicles, factories, 
etc., draining all the rice paddies, slaughtering all the cattle, etc. 
tomorrow—literally tomorrow, with all the attendant catastrophic effects on 
people's lives and on the world economy; a militarily enforced embargo on 
international trade in fossil fuels; and so on."  All the more reason to drop 
the GE term say specifically what you are talking about.
Greg



From: David Morrow 
To: geoengineering 
Cc: gh...@sbcglobal.net
Sent: Tuesday, March 1, 2016 5:48 PM
Subject: Re: [geo] Geoengineering and Non-Ideal Theory



On Tuesday, March 1, 2016 at 5:29:34 PM UTC-5, Greg Rau wrote:
"Some acts are beyond the pale: they ought never to be done, except perhaps in 
the most dire emergencies. Other acts are wrong in a less stringent sense: they 
would never be done in an ideal world, but might be permissible in nonideal 
circumstances. Deliberate, large-scale modifications of earth systems to 
counteract or reduce the effects of climate change, known as geoengineering or 
climate engineering, arguably belong to one of these two types—but which one?"

GR - Is this a serious question?

Yes, this is a serious question—and one that a great many people would not 
answer in the way that you do.


Due to anthro GHG emissions, the mean global temperature has risen 1 deg C, ice 
caps are melting, sea level is rising, 2015 was the warmest on record, the 
acidity of the entire surface ocean has risen 30%, the welfare of billions of 
people and hundreds of $T of infrastructure, goods and services are at stake, 
and massive GHG emissions today impact the preceding for thousands of years.


Neither we nor anyone else here is disputing that.

Furthermore, the "ideal" solution to this problem, immediate reduction of GHG 
emissions to zero, is nowhere on the horizon.


We agree that the "ideal" solution is nowhere on the horizon. In fact, that's 
the motivation for and the basic starting point of the paper. (Though when you 
say the ideal solution involves immediate reduction to zero, you presumably 
don't mean that literally. If you do, you shouldn't. See below.)

This would seem the perfect definition of a dire and non-ideal circumstance of 
global proportions,  and one that is now very unlikely to be solved by 
emissions reduction alone. Is there therefore any question that we must 
carefully evaluate all alternative options in the event that there is one or 
more that might help provide an acceptable solution, under these clearly dire, 
non-ideal circumstances?


Not only is there a question about whether we "must carefully evaluate all 
alternative options," but it's obvious that we shouldn't. There are plenty of 
ways of reducing or eliminating GHG emissions that are completely beyond the 
pale: large-scale nuclear war; turning off all fossil-fueled power plants, 
vehicles, factories, etc., draining all the rice paddies, slaughtering all the 
cattle, etc. tomorrow—literally tomorrow, with all the attendant catastrophic 
effects on people's lives and on the world economy; a militarily enforced 
embargo on international trade in fossil fuels; and so on. These are such 
terrible options that they're not worth evaluating.

I'm sure you didn't mean that we should be researching those options, but 
that's precisely the point of the paper—to 

Re: [geo] Off-topic : scientists attack their muzzling by government

[Jonathan Marshall]

The right wing government in Australia, has been attacking our major scientific 
organisation the CSIRO ever since it came into power, cutting money for 
research.



It appears to now have destroyed the climate change research part of the 
organisation, on the intersting grounds that climate change is now established 
and we don't need to do any more research on the topic...



There are a lot of articles about this online, if anyone is interested.



jon


From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com  on 
behalf of Andrew Lockley 
Sent: Monday, 22 February 2016 8:11 AM
To: geoengineering
Subject: [geo] Off-topic : scientists attack their muzzling by government


Poster's note : echoing the Canadian moves to gag scientists under the previous 
right-wing government, there's now a similar move in the UK. This is likely to 
worry a range of list members, particularly those actively working on climate / 
environmental issues. This comes on a background of an ongoing, concerted 
attempts from the top of the UK government to undermine the UK's recent 
progress on renewable energy.

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/feb/20/scientists-attack-muzzling-government-state-funded-cabinet-office?CMP=share_btn_tw

Scientists attack their 'muzzling' by government

State-funded scientists could be prevented from lobbying for change in their 
field under Cabinet Office proposals

Robin McKie Observer science editor
Saturday 20 February

Senior scientists have denounced a potential move to “muzzle” colleagues whose 
findings are disliked by the government.

The proposal – announced by the Cabinet Office earlier this month – would block 
researchers who receive government grants from using their results to lobby for 
changes to laws or regulations.

For example, an academic whose government-funded research showed that new 
regulations were proving particularly harmful to the homeless would not be able 
to call for policy change.

Similarly, ecologists who found out that new planning laws were harming 
wildlife would not be able to raise the issue in public, while climate 
scientists whose findings undermined government energy policy could have work 
suppressed.

“I am very worried about this and so are many of my colleagues,” said Professor 
James Wilsdon, chair of the Campaign for Social Science. “This has sweeping 
implications for the way we do research in this country and the way we try to 
make it relevant to the nation. This is an attempt to muzzle scientists and 
social scientists.”

The row focuses on a new clause that the Cabinet Office wants inserted into all 
new and renewed grant agreements involving government money that would block 
recipients from using any of those funds for lobbying. It is the sweeping 
nature of this regulation that has alarmed academics.

Wilsdon has written a letter – with his counterpart, Dr Sarah Main, director of 
the Campaign for Science and Engineering – to Matthew Hancock, minister for the 
Cabinet Office. They are demanding an urgent meeting with him to discuss the 
removal of the clause because they “fear it may have unintended consequences”.

The clause is expected to come into force in May. According to the Cabinet 
Office, it is intended to broaden government action aimed at stopping NGOs from 
lobbying politicians and Whitehall departments using the government’s own funds.

The Cabinet Office has passed this instruction on to other departments, 
including the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS), which has 
responsibility for providing funds for researchers in the UK, including those 
based at universities. The BIS said last week it was in discussions with 
stakeholders on how best to interpret the new rule.

Many scientists fear that unless a complete exemption is made for scientists 
and social scientists, their work would be muzzled. “Alternatively, exemptions 
could be made on an individual basis but that would drown the whole grant 
system in bureaucracy,” added Wilsdon.

The Cabinet Office move has also irritated scientists because, over the past 
few years, the government has insisted that UK research must have impact and 
relevance.

“Under this new regulation, if it is found their work has impact or relevance, 
they will now want us to keep quiet about it, it appears,” said Wilsdon.

This point was backed by Bob Ward, policy and communications director at the 
Centre for Climate Change Economics and Policy. “These sudden and drastic 
restrictions on research grants will have an immensely damaging impact on key 
areas of public policy, such as fighting climate change.

“They will make it much more difficult for independent university experts to 
advise ministers and civil servants, and hence make it easier for lobbyists, 
companies and campaign groups to divert policies towards their vested interests 
instead. This will be bad for policymaking, bad for democracy 

Re: [geo] Centre for Carbon Removal: Philanthropy Report

[Jonathan Marshall]

>In the past, high costs & tech uncertainties have driven funders away from 
>carbon removal projects



In Australia that would not appear to be correct. The government had 100s 
millions available for CCS, but on the whole the coal industry appears not to 
have been interested.



Despite this supporters of the coal industry were vocal in their opposition to 
any money that was available for renewables that did not include money for 
CCS



jon






UTS CRICOS Provider Code: 00099F
DISCLAIMER: This email message and any accompanying attachments may contain 
confidential information.
If you are not the intended recipient, do not read, use, disseminate, 
distribute or copy this message or
attachments. If you have received this message in error, please notify the 
sender immediately and delete
this message. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual 
sender, except where the
sender expressly, and with authority, states them to be the views of the 
University of Technology Sydney.
Before opening any attachments, please check them for viruses and defects.

Think. Green. Do.

Please consider the environment before printing this email.

-- 
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] List of current Geoengineering?

[Jonathan Marshall]

For what it is worth, I find it deeply frustrating when people use the common 
argument that because we have accidently broken 'earth systems' and can call 
this 'geoengineering', we should *therefore* use intentional geoengineering to 
fix things. (Just to be clear, i'm not saying anyone is doing that here, but it 
is common)



Because i can smash a car, does not mean i know how to fix it, especially by 
driving it into a different wall.



However, it may be possible to learn something from what we have been doing to 
bring us into the current situations - for example these deeds (and others) 
listed by Emily may give us most of the data we currently have about modifying 
the planetary systems and the side effects of such action...



Furthermore, it is probably necessary to include the social politics of why 
things have gone wrong and produced these deeds, in order to have some idea of 
how the politics of our attempts to fix it, will likely play out.



In other words geoengineering is a social and political 'science' as much as a 
geophysical one.



jon






From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com  on 
behalf of Alan Robock 

None of those are geoengineering. Geoengineering is deliberate. That is its 
definition.

There is no such thing as accidental geoengineering. Certainly we do those 
things, but please discuss them elsewhere.

Alan Robock

Alan Robock, Distinguished Professor
Department of Environmental Sciences
Rutgers University
14 College Farm Road
New Brunswick, NJ  08901

rob...@envsci.rutgers.edu
http://envsci.rutgers.edu/~robock
http://twitter.com/AlanRobock
☮☮
Watch my 18 min TEDx talk at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qsrEk1oZ-54
Sent from my iPhone. +1-732-881-1610

On Dec 20, 2015, at 3:44 AM, 
em...@lewis-brown.net wrote:

Hi

This made me wonder, do we have a list of current geo-engineering of the 
climate? It might include for eg:1) a wide range of ways we release of ghg to 
air (including water, all the ones under unfccc and those not)
2) Release of black carbon, eg from LUC,
3) Inputs of soil and sewage carbon to sea,
4) Inputs of CO2 to ocean by air,
5) Changes o albedo through ice, snow and forect cover change,
6) Contrails and other particulates that cause global dimming
7) Changes to the capacity of carbon sinks (via warming) eg menthane and ocean,
8) Changes in clouds through chnagin temperature affecting how much moisture 
the air can hold?
Others?

Happy for people to correct and contribute others,
I think it might make an interesting (mag or news, rather than science 
publication?) article if anyone is interested in working with me on it.

Thanks, Emily.
Sent from my BlackBerry® smartphone on O2

From: Brian Cady >
Sender: geoengineering@googlegroups.com
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2015 09:36:46 -0800 (PST)
To: 
geoengineering>
ReplyTo: briancady...@gmail.com
Subject: [geo] Re: "Accidental" Geoengineering?

1) Wouldn't our fossil carbon release into air classify as 'accidental' 
geoengineering? Couldn't one then argue that, since we're already doing 
geoengineering 'accidentally' or unintentionally, cleaning up that mess with 
intentional geoengineering is not committing an act that is of a different 
moral type, since we now know our culpability? Isn't it no longer truly an 
'accident' when we know beforehand that changing the climate is an inevitable 
consequence of our fossil fuel use, industrial agriculture,and  etc.?

2) I think it would be easy to be mislead by the quote from the  the linked 
article:
"...Prof Martin Wild, from of the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in 
Zurich, ... commented on the work.

Plants preferred diffuse light, he explained: "If you have a canopy structure, 
the direct light is absorbed by the uppermost leaves. Everything below is 
shaded and so misses out on that energy. But diffuse light can travel deeper 
into the canopy and can be absorbed by the plants lower down. So in that sense, 
if you have more diffuse light those lower plants will profit"

a) I agree plants 'prefer' (grow faster under) diffuse light. I think this is 
due to direct light exposing some leaf parts to 'too much' sunlight, leading to 
photorespiration, while leaving other leaf parts in shadow, in sub-optimal 
levels of light.
b) I concede that direct light is absorbed by uppermost leaves but so is 
diffuse light coming from the sky.
c) I expect Prof. Wild speaks of diffuse light that is diffusing from the upper 
leaves, not from the sky.
d) This upper-canopy-source is the reason that the diffuse light Prof. Wild 
speaks of "can travel deeper into the canopy..."
e) The light 

Re: [geo] The ‘Lomborg gambit’ and why the allure of solar geoengineering must be resisted by the Paris negotiators

[Jonathan Marshall]

I would tend to argue that given that establishment powers (political, 
corporate, military and propaganda) have, in general, failed to promote the 
relatively easy routes to combat global warming (such as no new coal mines, 
refurbishing old coal power stations, slowly increasing carbon taxes, repealing 
subsidies for fossil fuels, risking changes in the balance of power etc.) and 
given what appears to be relatively sloppy and unenthusiastic research in CCS 
(especially from coal companies and coal powered electricity generators), it 
would appear strange to assume that the same people will suddenly allow SRM 
research to be done properly or implemented carefully, even if they panic.



This is particularly a problem when it is highly likely that even careful and 
small scale SRM will have complicated systemic effects, and unintended 
consequences.



Research into SRM has quite possibly been delayed for the same reasons that 
simpler effective changes have been delayed: the real issue may be to do with 
social power and vested interests, not technological competence. It may still 
be better to go for simpler solutions first, even if just as a matter of 
demonstrating good faith.



jon


From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com  on 
behalf of Andy Parker 
Sent: Tuesday, 8 December 2015 4:24 AM
To: geoengineering
Subject: Re: [geo] The ‘Lomborg gambit’ and why the allure of solar 
geoengineering must be resisted by the Paris negotiators

Hi Stephen, the blog post sought to challenge anyone trying to dangle SRM as an 
alternative to emissions cuts, like Lomborg did in 2009. This doesn't apply to 
anyone I know in the expert research community, where people tend to see SRM as 
potential complement to mitigation and adaptation and CDR, not as a 
replacement. So I don’t think there’s anything for us to fall out over here. 
The post takes no issue with researchers trying to understand SRM as a possible 
way to reduce climate risk from the greenhouse gases that are emitted before 
humanity fully decarbonises.

We hoped that the piece would be of interest to this expert community because 
the stunt that Lomborg pulled in 2009 has been all but forgotten in the last 
six years. The fact that he ran a campaign in Copenhagen to tell delegates that 
cutting emissions wouldn't work, directing them to his cost benefit analysis 
that listed SRM as the top alternative, is something that should be remembered. 
We therefore introduced the term ‘Lomborg Gambit’ to describe a deliberate 
attempt to offer solar geoengineering as an alternative to emissions cuts, and 
we wrote the post in case similar attempts are made in Paris.
Andy


On Sunday, December 6, 2015 at 7:12:09 PM UTC+1, Stephen Salter wrote:
Hi All

I began work on renewable energy in 1973 and added geoengineering to my 
workload mainly because it was becoming clear, to me at least, that we would be 
too late.  That is why the use of the words 'siren calls' and 'alternative' 
really hurts.  None of the engineers working on hardware wants it to be used 
but they fear that it will have to be.

Shepherd and Parker must tell us their figure for the probability that emission 
cuts can be achieved in time and how they did the calculation.  If 
geoengineering equipment is ready too late they must ask themselves if they 
carry some blame for the delay.

Stephen

Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design. School of Engineering, University of 
Edinburgh, Mayfield Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JL, 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 06/12/2015 12:46, Andrew Lockley wrote:

http://dcgeoconsortium.org/2015/12/03/the-lomborg-gambit-and-why-the-allure-of-solar-geoengineering-must-be-resisted-by-the-paris-negotiators-prof-john-shepherd-cbe-frs-and-andy-parker/

The ‘Lomborg gambit’ and why the allure of solar geoengineering must be 
resisted by the Paris negotiators – Prof John Shepherd CBE FRS and Andy Parker

First time here?  Read our "what is climate engineering" page.

Bjørn Lomborg claimed in 2009 that cutting greenhouse gas emissions would not 
succeed in halting climate change – and put up posters and a building-sized 
billboard to promote this message during the UN climate talks in Copenhagen. 
This defeatist attitude, driven by pessimistic assumptions about political 
possibilities and simplistic cost/benefit calculations, is hardly unique. But 
the self-styled “Skeptical Environmentalist” went well beyond mere pessimism, 
claiming that “there are better ways to fix the climate”. So what was Mr 
Lomborg’s preferred alternative to the UN talks? It was solar geoengineering, a 
controversial—and speculative—set of proposals for lowering global temperature 
by blocking incoming sunlight on a planetary scale.

Lomborg’s adverts around Copenhagen were all but