This very large jump, from doing no harm to actively controlling the
climate, is exactly where I think we're headed, whether we like it or not,
and it's why I've been trying for years to make the case that saying we're
in the Anthropocene understates the situation.
There's a world of
If I may... My own short take on the Good Anthropocene topic:
http://www.grinzo.com/energy/2014/06/19/self-delusion-and-the-absurdity-of-a-good-anthropocene/
On Monday, June 23, 2014 3:36:19 AM UTC-4, andrewjlockley wrote:
-- Forwarded message --
From: Clive Hamilton
On the oft-mentioned point about CDR (or any form of geoengineering,
really) resulting in less effort put into mitigation, I think it's quite
obvious that that's exactly what would happen. As soon as any form of
geoengineering was seen to be having a significant effect, that would
lessen the
I think oversimplifies things a bit.
There's a component of society, certain very large corporations, who would
be delighted to see major CC impacts that require massive geoengineering
efforts. They're the companies that will do the work. And, as I argued
recently on my blog
John,
Can you repost a link to that primer -- the one in your post 404s. Or if
you can post the doc, that would be greatly appreciated, as well.
I would also like to know how strong the evidence is that 3C is the
threshold for a runaway effect (assuming that's what is meant in your
fourth
IMO, we have left ourselves no choice but to take very serious action on
all three fronts: mitigation, adaptation, and geoengineering. The lock-in
effects of already-emitted CO2, current infrastructure, projected sea level
rise, etc. all mean that we can't escape some very painful and
Those are not the only reasons. Consider technological advancement. If
one assumes that hydrogen fuel cell vehicles will have the major cost
breakthroughs supporters have been predicting for some time, then the
future cost of decarbonizing our transportation fleet could be cheaper than
Klein never said that it was the researchers avoiding the hard work. And
in that, I agree with her completely. Politicians, heads of large
corporations and other concentrations of power are nearly all playing a
game of kick the can down the street. Eventually we'll reach a point
where
Just to be clear about where I stand on this, because there's been some
misinterpretation in private e-mail: In my prior comment I was predicting
what we will do, not what I would prefer to see happen. I think it would
be an immense and hideously costly mistake, in the long run, to avoid
With all due and considerable respect to the people in this discussion, I
think the motivating power of desperation is being grossly underestimated.
Assume that we follow (what I think is overwhelmingly the most likely path)
the business as usual, as long as possible scenario, essentially what
If you look at current emissions (too high and still rising slightly), plus
the lock-in effect of current and near-term planned infrastructure (e.g.
the WRI report on massive planned worldwide coal plant additions), I don't
think it even makes sense to discuss CDR as anything but an active form
Bill,
I think the CC/cancer analogy is particularly valuable (and it's one I've
used many times). I'm most struck by the timing of our changing
awareness. I'm just barely old enough to remember a time when a lot of
adults smoked, the statements from the US Surgeon General were a new thing,
I strongly agree.
If we fall into the trap of a viewing this situation as a false dichotomy,
then we're making it much worse and dramatically reducing our chances of
dealing with it as optimally as is still possible, given the current carbon
content of the atmosphere, our infrastructure, etc.
This is an excellent, concise summary of the lock-in effect I've been
droning on about for years, and I think it is still vastly
un(der)appreciated by people concerned/engaged with climate change. There
is some high-profile acknowledgement of this situation, e.g. IEA's top
economist, Fatih
Agreed. When I give presentations about CC I always stress the timing
aspects, and how they're not our friends. From the long atmospheric
lifetime of CO2 (love is fleeting, but CO2 is (virtually) forever) to the
lock-in effects of infrastructure to the multiple human delays, including
This is absolutely true -- right up to via chemtrails in the second
sentence, if one thinks of CO2 emissions, climate change, and knock-on
effects. Sadly, from chemtrails on, the crazy takes over...
I know several people who fervently believe in this stuff, mostly
chemtrails and HAARP, and
Wow, that's quite the steaming bucket of conspiracy theories. I'm almost
disappointed that Area 51 didn't make an appearance.
Does anyone here know how widespread are the world views expressed in
Warkentin's description? Is this a slightly disturbing nano-fringe, or is
it large enough to
The notion that geoengineering disempowers those in developing countries
is a very odd argument, IMO. How many times do we need to see analyses
that say developing countries will be very seriously impacted by climate
change before we're willing to say that they have such a huge incentive to
shouldn't be taken seriously;
just another frightmonger.
Gregory Benford
On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 8:23 AM, Lou Grinzo loug...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
When Hamilton says, One of the foremost is of course that it’s likely
to cause political leaders to weaken even further their commitment
When Hamilton says, One of the foremost is of course that it’s likely to
cause political leaders to weaken even further their commitment to Plan A,
I think he's pointing to a danger just as great as the risk that we'll
screw this up, e.g. by triggering nasty, unforeseen side effects.
The only
20 matches
Mail list logo
