Alan, I would not want to be alligned with any gung-ho brigade, but I do think it is foolish to emphasize the risks of geoengineering to the neglect of the risks of relying solely on emissions reductions.
I think selected technologies that pass the test of scale, of reversibility, of timeliness and of cost should be implemented within a framework of ongoing risk assessment (if safe, or developed to be ready for quick implementation as needs be if they carry significant safety concerns) Key technologies seem to be: Carbon stock management [effectiveness cumulates with build up of stock shift from atmosphere to terrestrial storage] a.. Sustainable afforestation [low cost, scaleable up to the point of land availability, start tomorrow, burn it down again if not wanted] b.. CCS [moderate cost, scaleable up to availability of geological storages, start in a year or so, let it out again if not wanted] c.. Artificial trees [moderate cost, scaleable as needed, start in 2020 [?], as safe as CCS, let it out again if not wanted] d.. Biochar [low cost given side benefits, scaleable as needed but rate of take up limited by raw material supply, safe (despite Royal Society nonsense based apparently on a submission from a scientifically ill-qualified NGO - Ron may care to comment) but not reversible (can't take it out of the soil)] Solar radiation management [effectiveness immediate - likely only way if polar catastrophe tipping point imminent] a.. Stratospheric aerosols [very cheap, reversible in a few months (weeks?), scaleable as needed, start soon if needed, tele-climatic dangers (monsoons etc.)] b.. Ocean cloud albedo enhancement [fairly cheap, scaleable up to availability of suitably located ocean clouds, start in 2020 [?], likely safe (more Royal Society nonsense) and possibly locatable to counter teleclimatic effects of other technologies. c.. Artic ocean floating plastic islands (the ICE911 project - very little info available) Harvard economic guru Martin Weitzman has recently noted the complete failure of the economics profession and policy community to address the threat of climatic disaster or catastrophe, demonstrating that their likelihood is sufficiently great for them to be of similar concern to the likely impact of gradual climate change. He called for 'some semblance of a game plan to be ready for what may be coming down the road', in response to which I have written (not with any intent it should become a manifesto, but comments welcome on this material in draft) The semblance of a game plan which is proposed here is that: 1. it be recognized that threats of serious or irreversible damage are sufficiently evident for cost effective precautionary action to be taken under Article 3.3 of the Rio Treaty, without delay on account of any remaining scientific uncertainty. 2. such action must go beyond the tradition of commitments to emissions reductions established under Article 4.2 of the Treaty, and continued through the Berlin Mandate, the Kyoto Protocol, the Marrakesh Accords, the Bali Roadmap and to be the main focus of the Copenhagen COP15 negotiations, including that: a. rapid reductions in CO2 levels be initiated through biotic carbon stock management, inter alia linking land use improvement driven carbon removals from atmosphere with fossil fuel emissions reductions, through substituting biofuels for fossil fuels. b. the deployment of both CO2 capture and storage (CCS) and biochar technologies be accelerated, with ongoing monitoring and learning by doing to enhance effectiveness and safety c. carbon removal by 'artificial trees' be rapidly developed to be available by 2020 and, though more costly, to have a role if rapid land use improvement proves difficult to implement. d. preparations be made for the rapid deployment of stratospheric aerosol solar radiation management in the event that loss of Arctic summer sea-ice is imminent. e. ocean cloud albedo enhancement technology be developed urgently, and modeling work undertaken to determine its optimal regional deployment (and also the optimal regional deployment of afforestation activity) to prevent or at least ameliorate unintended side effects from cooling the earth through rapid reductions in greenhouse gas levels and/or from deployment of aerosol injections into the polar stratosphere. f. carbon stock management be structured so as to secure sustainable rural development in many land rich but otherwise impoverished regions of the world, along with numerous objectives of the multinational environmental agreements. g. funding for such carbon stock management be delivered through policy that secures energy sector investments, initially to secure carbon credits and later to facilitate commercial bioenergy transactions. h. other promising technologies for cooling the earth - e.g. black carbon reductions and Arctic ocean surface albedo enhancement - be kept under constant review and developed expeditiously on their merits. 3. this semblance of a game plan be kept under constant review and developed and refined into a fully fledged programme of action in response to threats of climatic disaster or catastrophe, in the light of new knowledge If there does come to be some sort of manifesto (and I'm not sure one is needed) it obviously goes without saying that it represents only the views of those that sign it Cheers Peter PS I would like to be cited if anyone wants to use any of these ideas ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Nissen" <j...@cloudworld.co.uk> To: "Alan Robock" <rob...@envsci.rutgers.edu> Cc: "Geoengineering" <geoengineering@googlegroups.com> Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2009 8:39 PM Subject: [geo] Re: Manifesto for Geoengineering > > > Dear Alan, > > I don't think it's so ridiculous. There is a lot of agreement about the > seriousness of the situation, and that just reducing emissions is not > the whole solution. > > Kind regards, > > John > > > Alan Robock wrote: >> Dear John, >> >> Don't be ridiculous. There is no consensus among readers of this >> group. A few of you are completely gung ho, with no interest in >> evaluating the risks as well as the benefits of any policy >> recommendation, but that does not represent the views of very many. >> >> Of course, you are free to write any sort of "manifesto" that you >> want, but don't claim that it represents a consensus of more than the >> individuals that end up signing it. >> >> Alan >> >> Alan Robock, Professor II >> Director, Meteorology Undergraduate Program >> Associate Director, Center for Environmental Prediction >> Department of Environmental Sciences Phone: +1-732-932-9800 x6222 >> 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 >> >> >> On Tue, 22 Sep 2009, John Nissen wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> Hi everybody, >>> >>> I have been subscribed to this group for well over a year, and have seen >>> a great deal of valuable information produced. I have seen discussions >>> and consensus reached. We have a great deal of expertise among us. But >>> I fear much of our understanding of how to tackle the global environment >>> crisis is being lost in the blogosphere. >>> >>> So I propose that we, as a geoengineering group, should work together to >>> produce a manifesto for geoengineering. This would: describe the state >>> of the Earth's climate system, identify critical risks, put the case for >>> geoengineering, consider how side-effects can be avoided or minimised, >>> and suggest when is the best time for geoengineering action. Otherwise >>> we will finding ourselves saying the same things again and again over >>> the coming months and years. And we need a reasonably solid position >>> statement on which to peg further developments of ideas, which may be >>> more speculative. >>> >>> A manifesto would allow particular members to contribute their >>> particular expertise, and have it scrutinised by others from different >>> viewpoints. >>> >>> I would be will to help in preparing such a manifesto, which would be an >>> open document, but subject to editing control, perhaps on the lines of >>> wikipedia. (Andrew might advise on this, with his wikipedia >>> experience.) However it should be open to the latest thinking (and it >>> would not be sensored in the way that sometimes happens on wikipedia re >>> geoengineering). >>> >>> Cheers, >>> >>> John >>> >>> >>> >>> >> > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.409 / Virus Database: 270.13.112/2389 - Release Date: 09/22/09 17:54:00 --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
