Re: [geo] Re: Geoengineering and Capitalism

[Andrew Lockley]

"Peak shaving" has indeed been proposed by:

Long and Shepherd

Long, J. C. S. and Shepherd, J. G. (2014). "The Strategic Value of
Geoengineering Research"  in  "Global Environmental Change, Handbook of
Global Environmental Pollution". Freedman, B. (ed) Dordrecht, Springer
Netherlands. *1: *757-770.
Keith et al.,
https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t=web=j=https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/8d53/c7f4be0970c8101ffd6ed3bf699dd773d5b1.pdf=0ahUKEwju453O_JDZAhWkDMAKHfj7AFUQFgg7MAQ=AOvVaw1kBnv7d887JRhU36GBRCJj

On 6 Feb 2018 03:24, "Michael MacCracken" <mmacc...@comcast.net> wrote:

> In addition to Doug's comment, I'd add that different technologies can be
> applied to different degrees. During the early 2000s there were, at least
> some scientific studies indicate that some small volcanic eruptions likely
> contributed to a modest slowing of the GHG-induced warming--and except for
> some very detailed scientific analyses, virtually no one noticed the
> adverse effects of the eruptions. Would there be those who would prefer
> ongoing GHG warming with the acceleration that the recent UKMO analysis
> indicated to a situation where Nature happened to provide further a series
> of volcanic eruptions in remote areas injecting some small ongoing amounts
> of sulfur dioxide injection into the stratosphere, say just enough to
> counter-balance each year's GHG increment. Were Nature doing it, there
> might well be thanks for it occurring--but apparently if done by SRM, some
> seem to see it as something not to even be considered.
>
> Now, it is the case if this became seen as the only approach being
> pursued, that would be very unfortunate. Basically, neither mitigation, nor
> adaptation, nor CDR, nor SRM (and I subdivide this into regionally focused
> and global) would, if the only approach pursued, resolve the predicament
> that we are in. Nor is it clear any two of them could solve the overall
> problem. Nor, it seems to me, any three given the time constant for each
> given the generally slow response that nations have been making to address
> the issue. In my view, it will take all four, primarily because we are so
> far along in the situation and the first three are just not on a path to
> being phased up enough to avoid what I think many would find very seriously
> disruptive to unacceptable consequences. And yes, if SRM is stopped at the
> wrong time instead of phased out as CDR, etc. are phased out, there would
> be problems, but this too is also true of the other approaches, even if
> onset of the resulting problems would be different.
>
> Without some very persistent and intelligently applied and implemented
> policies over quite long periods, the environment we know on which society
> now depends will be very seriously damaged. Like Doug, it just seems very
> ill-advised to be ruling out potentially useful (or perhaps not) approaches
> without pursuing the research to find as viable approach (and hopefully
> approaches) as we can.
>
> Mike MacCracken
>
>
> On 2/5/18 8:01 PM, Douglas MacMartin wrote:
>
> Well, yes, no-one would deploy any form of SRM based on today’s knowledge,
> that’s why we need more research.
>
>
>
> But I don’t get why people have to make this all into some competition.
> CDR and SRM are different.  They don’t do the same thing to the climate.
> Words like “best” only make sense when comparing things that are at some
> level substitutable.  We may well need both, just like you don’t choose
> between ambulances and fire trucks and label one of them “by far the best
> approach”
>
>
>
> *From:* geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineering@
> googlegroups.com <geoengineering@googlegroups.com>] *On Behalf Of *Leon
> Di Marco
> *Sent:* Monday, February 05, 2018 5:48 PM
> *To:* geoengineering <geoengineering@googlegroups.com>
> <geoengineering@googlegroups.com>
> *Subject:* [geo] Re: Geoengineering and Capitalism
>
>
>
> Im afraid that both of these replies illustrate the problems associated
> with SRM in the form of MCB.We simply dont know what the effect of the
> large scale (ie sufficient to have noticeable effect) implementation of any
> SRM technique will be and the public will not be impressed by these
> arguments.  I agree with the thrust of Renaud's comment on the hierarchy of
> response with CDR being by far the best approach.  What constitutes an
> emergency sufficient to employ SRM remains to be seen.
>
> LDM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, January 31, 2018 at 6:10:52 PM UTC, dankd wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
>
>
> I reached out to the authors of that paper on geoengineering and
> capitalism.   With their permission, I'm forwarding the conversation.

RE: [geo] Re: Geoengineering and Capitalism

[Douglas MacMartin]

Well, yes, no-one would deploy any form of SRM based on today’s knowledge, 
that’s why we need more research.  

 

But I don’t get why people have to make this all into some competition.  CDR 
and SRM are different.  They don’t do the same thing to the climate.  Words 
like “best” only make sense when comparing things that are at some level 
substitutable.  We may well need both, just like you don’t choose between 
ambulances and fire trucks and label one of them “by far the best approach”

 

From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com] 
On Behalf Of Leon Di Marco
Sent: Monday, February 05, 2018 5:48 PM
To: geoengineering <geoengineering@googlegroups.com>
Subject: [geo] Re: Geoengineering and Capitalism

 

Im afraid that both of these replies illustrate the problems associated with 
SRM in the form of MCB.We simply dont know what the effect of the large 
scale (ie sufficient to have noticeable effect) implementation of any SRM 
technique will be and the public will not be impressed by these arguments.  I 
agree with the thrust of Renaud's comment on the hierarchy of response with CDR 
being by far the best approach.  What constitutes an emergency sufficient to 
employ SRM remains to be seen.

LDM 

 

 

 

On Wednesday, January 31, 2018 at 6:10:52 PM UTC, dankd wrote:

Hi all, 

 

I reached out to the authors of that paper on geoengineering and capitalism.   
With their permission, I'm forwarding the conversation.  

 

Best, 

Dan 




--
Daniel Kirk-Davidoff
35 Dove St. 
<https://maps.google.com/?q=35+Dove+St.+Albany,+NY+12210518=gmail=g>
 
Albany, NY 12210 
<https://maps.google.com/?q=35+Dove+St.+Albany,+NY+12210518=gmail=g>
 

518-434-0873

 

-- Forwarded message --
From: Gunderson, Ryan <gund...@miamioh.edu  >
Date: Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 12:37 PM
Subject: Re: Geoengineering and Capitalism
To: Daniel Kirk-Davidoff <dkirkd...@gmail.com  >
Cc: Diana Lynne Stuart <diana@nau.edu  >, Brian Craig Petersen 
<brian.p...@nau.edu  >



Hi Dan,

 

You’re not boring me and I appreciate your suggestions and comments. I think 
this will be become one of the most important discussions of the 21st century. 
Though this may have to be my last email so I don’t distract myself from 
research too much.

 

Regarding the intentions of GE advocates and GE as a fringe science: I’m 
surprised by your comment that most GE advocates identify as enemies of the 
fossil fuel industry. I’m surprised for two reasons. First, this is not a 
common theme in the case for GE. The research on framing is fairly consistent: 
economics and techno frames are core, though I understand that there are moral 
cases too. I wouldn’t be surprised if the frame you’re pushing catches on: 
GE-is-a 
tool-for-climate-justice-and-opposition-to-it-is-a-reflection-of-privilege. 
Biotech pushes the same narrative. The second reason I’m surprised is it seems 
that the fossil fuel industry is supportive of GE, given that they fund many GE 
supporters (Hamilton 2013).

 

One thing worth considering is that the concrete intentions of GE scientists 
are relatively unimportant. But this requires a distinction between subjective 
intentions and meaning-making, on the one hand, and unintended outcomes and 
social structure on the other. For example, in the unlikely case that every 
current GE scientist that reads our paper were convinced that GE is a tool for 
the reproduction of capitalism and detrimental to mitigation (though from your 
review of the listserv's reception, this seems very unlikely), I bet other 
bodies and minds will fill their roles for reasons argued in the paper. It may 
be a fringe science now but it will only grow along with GDP and the burning of 
fossil fuels. At the risk of sounding deterministic, I think SRM is almost 
fated if capitalism lumbers on, regardless of, or even in spite of, the 
intentions of GE scientists. To give a seemingly unrelated example. When I 
teach a class my intention is to foster critical thinking skills, to pass on 
facts about society and the environment, to get kids to look at the world in 
new ways, etc. But perhaps what I’m actually doing, despite these intentions, 
is creating the next generation of worker-consumers that are punished if they 
don’t show up on time and follow directions.

 

Regarding jargon and style/polemics: I’m genuinely sorry to hear that the paper 
was cast off as jargony. We strive to make critical theory as clear as 
possible. It’s a difficult tradition to digest, but that's the nature of nearly 
all German philosophy and sociology. The distinction between essence and 
appearance is older than Plato, it just takes a slightly different form since 
Hegel.  Marcuse is firmly rooted in the Western tradition and committed to the 
goals of the Enlightenment. The “this is silly pomo crap so I’m going to read 
further” 

Re: [geo] Re: Geoengineering and Capitalism

[Renaud de RICHTER]

Dear Leon,


"*That does not mean that the technique is necessarily benign*."

In the NAS report they have listed the possible consequences of MCB (*see
at the end below*).


*Do MCB "non- benign effects" over-pass its benefits in a warming world?*

We should all keep in mind that among possible advantages, MCB might be
able to reduce hurricanes intensities or ENZO effects.

If I remember well, the amount of sea salt aerosol needed, as calculated by
the proponents (Professors Latham and Salter) is less than 1% of the
natural sea salt aerosol.

Since the oceans exist, every day, in many many locations all over the
world oceans and coastal areas sea salt aerosols are *naturally *generated.

Of course, volcanic eruptions are also *natural*, but fortunately occur
less often because they have many destructive or dangerous effects. Apart
corrosion of metals and degradation of seashore buildings, what the
published studies on sea salt aerosols do find as environmental detrimental
effects?


Interestingly, every day new knowledge appears on the effects of NaCl.

   - Bondy, A. L., et al., (2017). Inland Sea Spray Aerosol Transport and
   Incomplete Chloride Depletion: Varying Degrees of Reactive Processing
   Observed during SOAS.
    *Environmental
   Science & Technology*, *51*(17), 9533-9542.
   - Morenz, K. J., Shi, Q., Murphy, J. G., & Donaldson, D. J. (2016).
   Nitrate Photolysis in Salty Snow. *The Journal of Physical Chemistry A*,
   *120*(40), 7902-7908.



*There are many advantages to MCB, and among them, one is that "very fine
tuning" is possible!*

The generation of MCB can be adjusted by season, by hemisphere, by
region...

If effects on phytoplankton photosynthesis are among the fears, MCB can be
performed over oceanic dead zones.

If sea salt deposition over land is feared (is this dangerous or
detrimental?) MCB can be performed far from coasts… How much salt does that
represent compared to the quantities of salt used world wide on the roads
during the winter season? Road salt has many effects and at my knowledge
relatively few people protest to its use.

I'm in favor of GHG removal
, NETs
and CDR
technologies
which treat the causes of global warming rather than the symptoms , but if
I have to chose in the future in emergency among SRM proposals, I do prefer
MCB than on SA (stratospheric aerosols)!


Best,

Renaud



*NAS : Environmental Consequences of Marine Cloud Brightening
*

As described in the previous sections “Observations of Marine Cloud
Brightening” and “Modeled Climate System Responses to Marine Cloud
Brightening,” there is some potential for undesirable side effects from MCB
activities, repeated here for the reader’s convenience. In particular,
there is some potential for changes to precipitation patterns and amplitude
(Bala et al., 2011; Jones et al., 2011; Rasch et al., 2009) and possibly
for interannual variability (Russell et al., 2012), although modeling
studies suggest the residual changes are likely less than those for
stratospheric aerosol albedo modification and much smaller than for
unabated greenhouse gas warming. As in the SAAM and idealized albedo
modification strategies, MCB cannot return both temperature and
precipitation patterns to preindustrial conditions, and residual
temperature changes will also remain; for example, the tropics may cool
more than the polar regions (see studies cited above, and Ricke et al.,
2010; Tilmes et al., 2013).

MCB activities might introduce changes to the marine and terrestrial
ecosystems through changes to clouds and cloud area that reduce the surface
flux of sunlight. Changes to the albedo of stratocumulus clouds are likely
to substantially alter the surface flux of sunlight; Latham et al. (2008)
and Jones et al. (2011) estimated that using MCB at amplitudes sufficient
to alter climate would decrease annual mean sunlight reaching the surface
by 30 to 50 W/m2 (~20 percent, approximately doubling cloud radiative
forcing) locally in seeded regions. These changes in surface energy fluxes
are likely to reduce local sea surface temperatures (e.g., Rasch et al.,
2009) and their gradients, perhaps influencing important climate modes such
as El Niño, and might also change deep ocean upwelling and mixing in the
ocean surface layer that delivers nutrients to marine ecosystems, with
possible effects on ecosystem services such as fish availability. These
marine ecosystems also contribute to the natural aerosol concentrations in
near-marine regions that are important in cloud formation (Quinn et al.,
2014), so there may be feedback effects as well. Last, the change in
sunlight reaching the surface may influence photosynthesis, and the

Re: [geo] Re: Geoengineering and Capitalism

[Hawkins, David]

David Keith does not need me to defend his bona fides but let me make a few 
comments.  I have known David for more than 15 years; long before he began his 
direct air capture work.
While I don’t always agree with David’s contentions, I can say with no 
hesitation that he is a scrupulously honest person who applies his considerable 
intelligence to examine all sides of complex issues.
As an environmental advocate who hopes we never are desperate enough to deploy 
SRM, I will say that David is a person of genuine integrity.
We have enough substantive issues to address with various forms of 
geo-engineering to spend time casting aspersions on good people who are willing 
to speak out on controversial topics.
David Hawkins

Sent from my iPad

On Feb 1, 2018, at 8:30 PM, Leon Di Marco 
> wrote:

I realise that this is a rather controversial topic and have posted about this 
paper before
FYI -  both Shell and Exxon gave talks at the new NAS committee on CDR workshop 
held last October in Irvine CA.   While CDR cannot strictly be defined as 
geoengineering it does show that they (as oil majors) have caught up with the 
necessity to control the emissions coming from their products using technical 
means and this will have political consequences.

As for David Keith, he is currently described on the Carbon Engineering site as 
-
http://carbonengineering.com/company-profile/
David Keith  Board Member, Acting Chief Scientist

The CE  home page says-
Air To Fuels  is our technology that uses atmospheric CO₂, captured using our 
DAC process, and combines it with renewably produced hydrogen, to directly 
synthesize clean liquid transportation fuels.
Air to fuels uses renewable electricity to produce hydrogen from water, and 
then combines the hydrogen with captured atmospheric CO₂ to produce hydrocarbon 
fuels such as diesel, gasoline, and Jet-A. Air to fuels gives us a way to 
produce global scale quantities of fuels that are compatible with today’s 
transportation infrastructure and engines, but add little or no fossil carbon 
emissions to the atmosphere.

This description fails to disclose that their DAC process involves using large 
amounts of fossil fuel energy (as high temperature heat from burning natural 
gas) -  it might reasonably be surmised from the above that the process is 
fully "renewable".   Further, CE has been promoting the use of their air 
captured CO2 for enhanced oil recovery, on the rather dubious basis that it 
will lower  the carbon footprint of that oil.

David Keith holds professorships in engineering and in public 
policy at Harvard University-
David Keith, Gordon McKay Professor of Applied Physics at Harvard’s John A. 
Paulson School of Engineering and Applied Sciences and Professor of Public 
Policy at the Harvard Kennedy School, the Keith Group is a fast-growing team of 
researchers working at the intersection of climate science and technology with 
a focus on the science and public policy of solar geoengineering

Thus he is in a rather special position with regard to the purposes to which 
his scientific endeavour is devoted and  as such has to be seen not to be 
crossing a line where his financial interest influences his judgement. The 
further he gets with the potential application of  SRM and its consequences the 
more closely his connections will be examined.

Leon Di Marco
FSK Technology Research
LONDON   UK


On Wednesday, January 31, 2018 at 6:10:52 PM UTC, dankd wrote:
Hi all,

I reached out to the authors of that paper on geoengineering and capitalism.   
With their permission, I'm forwarding the conversation.

Best,
Dan

--
Daniel Kirk-Davidoff
35 Dove 
St.
Albany, NY 
12210
518-434-0873

-- Forwarded message --
From: Gunderson, Ryan 
Date: Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 12:37 PM
Subject: Re: Geoengineering and Capitalism
To: Daniel Kirk-Davidoff 
Cc: Diana Lynne Stuart , Brian Craig Petersen 



Hi Dan,

You’re not boring me and I appreciate your suggestions and comments. I think 
this will be become one of the most important discussions of the 21st century. 
Though this may have to be my last email so I don’t distract myself from 
research too much.

Regarding the intentions of GE advocates and GE as a fringe science: I’m 
surprised by your comment that most GE advocates identify as enemies of the 
fossil fuel industry. I’m surprised for two reasons. First, this is not a 
common theme in the case for GE. The research on framing is fairly consistent: 
economics and techno frames are core, though I understand that there are moral 
cases too. I wouldn’t be surprised if the frame you’re pushing catches on: