Dear Ken,
You really sadden me. One of the most positive things from the Royal
Society geoengineering study was the finding that, far from
geoengineering presenting a moral hazard (of diverting effort from
emissions reduction), it was likely to encourage emissions reduction.
Could not this be the same at the climate conference? Isn't a bold
stand necessary, when the future of humanity is at stake? What will we
tell our grandchildren - that we stood on one side?
Cheers,
John
Ken Caldeira wrote:
Folks,
I received a few comments to me personally about this post asking why I
responded as I did to the following question, and asking me to explain
my position on this group:
According
to you, what should thereof be the place of geoengineering at the
Copenhagen Climate Conference in December?
I
see no reason for the Solar Radiation Management options to be
considered in December.
I think Copenhagen will be a disaster. I do not see any advantage to
discussing climate intervention there.
First of all, in the recent G20 meeting in Pittsburgh, leaders of the
largest countries were not even able to agree to eliminate subsidies
for fossil fuels -- essentially, subsidies for carbon dioxide
emissions. In an attempt to paper over this failure, they announced
that they intend to phase out these subsidies at some unspecified time
in the future. If the leading nations of the world cannot even agree
in September to stop subsidizing fossil fuel emissions, how likely is
it that they will agree in December to greatly increase the cost of
fossil fuel emissions?
In this context, I think that if you push too hard too early for
acceptance of climate intervention, there will be a backlash and
climate intervention is likely to be proscribed. I think this is
something we should learn from Climos: Pushing too hard too early will
produce a backlash from the NGOs that governments will find all too
easy to assent to. It is easier and much less political risky to take
the high ground and say: Yes, we are for emissions reduction and
against climate intervention, and then do nothing, than to say: Yes,
we are for emissions reduction and considering climate intervention, and
then do something on both fronts. Given the choice, politicians will go
down the low road by adopting the rhetorical high road.
If you push for an international agreement on climate intervention
too quickly, the likely agreement will be to ban intentional climate
intervention. I think we need a lot of work before we will be ready for
formal international agreements on this issue.
Best,
Ken
PS. You know things are pathetic, when a failure to agree to cut out
fossil fuel subsidies gets reported as an environmental success story: http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-g20-climate26-2009sep26,0,5748722.story
Reporting from Pittsburgh - World
leaders at the Group of 20 summit pledged to phase out subsidies for
fossil fuels in the "medium term" Friday, a nebulous goal that the
leaders nevertheless said could make a noticeable dent in global
warming.
The pledge is purposely vague, ...
___________________________________________________
Ken Caldeira
Carnegie Institution Dept of Global Ecology
260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA
kcalde...@ciw.edu;
kcalde...@stanford.edu
http://dge.stanford.edu/DGE/CIWDGE/labs/caldeiralab
+1 650 704 7212; fax: +1 650 462 5968
On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 11:05 AM, Ken
Caldeira <kcalde...@dge.stanford.edu>
wrote:
I
was not expecting my email response to be published verbatim, but here
it is:
http://scitizen.com/stories/climate-change/2009/09/Geoengineering-the-climate--science-governance-and-uncertainty/
Geoengineering the climate : science, governance and
uncertainty
23 Sep, 2009 03:17 pm
|
|
|
|
Earlier this month, the Royal Society of the UK
issued a report entitled "Geoengineering the climate : science,
governance and uncertainty". Ken Caldeira, the director of the Caldeira
Lab at the Carnegie Institution in the U.S. and a member of the working
group involved in producing this report, answers Scitizen's questions.
The
report divides geoengineering methods into two basic classes. Can we
put Carbon Dioxide Removal methods (which remove CO2 from the
atmosphere) on the same level as Solar Radiation Management methods
(that reflect a small percentage of the sun's light and heat back into
space) yet?
No, Carbon Dioxide Removal methods and
Solar Radiation Management methods are two very different kinds of
interventions. I was originally arguing that the Carbon Dioxide Removal
methods should not even be in the report because I do not consider them
geoengineering.
Carbon Dioxide Removal methods add no new climate
risk (although they can add other types of new environmental risk).
Carbon Dioxide Removal is basically the reverse of carbon dioxide
emissions. In general, these methods work slowly but address the root
cause of the problem.
Solar Radiation Management methods add new
climate risk, but hold out the potential of reducing overall climate
risk. Some Solar Radiation Management methods can work rapidly and thus
may be of use in the event of a climate emergency or climate crisis. I
think this "climate emergency response" possibility is the most
important reason we need to pursue research into these options.
Taking into account the risk of significant side effects, would
you call geoengineering "a necessary evil"?
I
think that the assortment of options considered in the report are so
diverse that one cannot generalize across all of them. I hope we are
smart or lucky enough to avoid a climate catastrophe that would induce
us to want to put sulfates in the stratosphere or resort to other
similar desperate measures. I think of these as a toolbox full of
tools. A powersaw can be used for evil or for good.
The goal of
these proposals is to reduce overall risk and damage. If we have high
confidence that some option would reduce overall risk and damage then
it would probably make sense to deploy that option. Without this
confidence, deployment would likely be unwise.
Without large-scale field testing, what did you base your
evaluation on?
Our evaluation was based on paper studies, computer model simulations,
and order-of-magnitude basic calculations.
How
to elude the moral hazard argument, namely the fact that geoengineering
might be used as an excuse not to cut greenhouse gas emissions?
I
believe that recognition and admission that our greenhouse gas
emissions are increasing the likelihood of a climate crisis that would
push us to consider desperate measures would tend to encourage us to
work harder to diminish emissions. If you are not concerned about a
climate crisis, you neither reduce emissions nor develop plans for what
to do should a crisis occur. If you are concerned about a climate
crisis, you both reduce emissions and develop plans for what to do
should a crisis occur.
According to you, what should thereof be the place of
geoengineering at the Copenhagen Climate Conference in December?
I
see no reason for the Solar Radiation Management options to be
considered in December. Some Carbon Dioxide Removal methods (such as
planting trees) will be considered in Copenhagen. The "ultimate
objective" of the UNFCCC is "to achieve... stabilization of greenhouse
gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent
dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system." Carbon
Dioxide Removal methods are relevant to stabilizing greenhouse gas
concentrations, but Solar Radiation Management options are not
particularly relevant in this context.
Interview by Clementine Fullias
Download the report
Ken Caldeira is a scientist who works at the Carnegie
Institution for Science's Department
of Global Ecology.
The Caldeira Lab conducts research to try to improve the science base
needed to allow human civilization to develop while protecting our
environmental endowment. It includes ocean adification, climate and
emissions and climate intervention ('geoengineering').
___________________________________________________
Ken Caldeira
Carnegie Institution Dept of Global Ecology
260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA
kcalde...@ciw.edu; kcalde...@stanford.edu
http://dge.stanford.edu/DGE/CIWDGE/labs/caldeiralab
+1 650 704 7212; fax: +1 650 462 5968
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
|