We are not going to be able to predict with confidence how sociopolitical systems will develop in response to our actions, so these are things about which well informed people can differ.
I think it is important to express urgency about doing something. I think it is fine to use the opportunity represented by Copenhagen to say that we have dawdled too long and that if we want to save Arctic ecosystems it is too late not to consider direct intervention in the climate system. This is different than asking countries to bring up climate intervention options in formal negotiations in Copenhagen I think it is easier for a country to pretend it is taking the moral high ground by saying "No one should ever engage in such risky behavior. We need to work on emissions reductions, instead." Of course, this is a little like saying "We will never reduce emissions. We need to work on climate intervention systems instead." However, if governments are not educated and sophisticated on this issue, they will say what is easy to say and what will help them politically. The easy and expedient thing today is to say "Emissions reductions - yes; geoengineering - no". We need a process of education and discussion before countries will be ready to enter into formal negotiations on climate intervention with nuanced and carefully thought out positions. ___________________________________________________ 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 Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 4:04 PM, John Nissen <j...@cloudworld.co.uk> wrote: > > 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 >> <http://royalsociety.org/document.asp?tip=0&id=8770> >> *Ken Caldeira is a scientist who works at the Carnegie Institution for >> Science's *Department of Global Ecology <http://dge.stanford.edu/>*. 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
