Apologies... broken sentence finished... "I do think that the list is a great collection of many of the strawman arguments that are often thrown out-- namely that there is a moral hazard (stipulated, but i think far from proven), that research is the same as implementation, that there are no ways to address the governance issues (clearly the london convention draft risk management framework is a clear counterexample), etc."
I also disagree, Alan, with your follow-on statement to Stephen. The Asilomar conference highlighted many of these issues, but it was just as much a process in articulating them in order to begin making progress towards addressing them--at least that was the spirit in the breakout groups that I participated in. I was there and I listened quite closely I assure you. To say that the conference was simply somehow an exercise in highlighting the futility of the subject is a far cry from the case. I don't sense in any of Stephen's efforts over the last few years that there is a rush to implementation evident. He has been one of the more thoughtful members of this community as best I can tell. The reality is that we are rushing headlong into very troubling climate irregularities, and we still have 50 years of inertia built into the system--possibly much more if we don't get emissions under control anytime soon. Should we not move to understand if any potential mitigation exists at all-- and support those who are brave enough to suggest we do so? Dan On Sun, Sep 26, 2010 at 8:42 AM, Dan Whaley <dan.wha...@gmail.com> wrote: > Jim, > > You cite Alan Robock's piece as though it were a definitive list of 20 > excellent reasons that geoengineering is a bad idea, but perhaps you missed > that the Bulletin's coverage of it included a roundtable debate on this list > with Ken, Margaret, Myself and Tom Wigley. I do think that the list is a > great collection of many of the strawman arguments that are often thrown > out-- namely that > > I'll quote Margaret and my first response. I think it gets to the heart of > our point of view on this. > > D > > > http://www.thebulletin.org/web-edition/roundtables/has-the-time-come-geoengineering > > Although Alan Robock's "20 Reasons Why Geoengineering May Be a Bad Idea" > raises legitimate questions, it seems to argue against implementation rather > than against studying the underlying science. Few people are actively > advocating for immediate, full-scale implementation of geoengineering > techniques as a means of addressing climate change. But many people are > suggesting that we learn more about the efficacy of such > techniques--including Alan, who was recently awarded a National Science > Foundation grant to study the effectiveness and possible consequences of > injecting aerosol particles into the stratosphere to reduce incoming solar > radiation. > > In terms of geoengineering concerns, it's helpful to group them into three > categories: > > *Efficacy.* Clearly, any geoengineering technique first needs to achieve > the intended effect for a reasonable cost--whether the goal is buying time > for more sustainable solutions by reducing incoming solar radiation or > addressing the root cause of warming by removing carbon dioxide from the > atmosphere. It's critical that scientists be allowed to study efficacy > through experimentation and modeling without being stigmatized by the > assumption that their work will cause a rush to full implementation. > > *Impact.* The environmental impacts of the technique must either be > minimal or acceptable relative to the benefits of action *and the > consequences of inaction*. Martin Bunzl makes this point clearly in "An > Ethical Assessment of Geoengineering," an accompanying essay on p. 18 of > Alan's article. In the case of ocean iron fertilization, 12 small, > open-ocean experiments have already been conducted by oceanographers to > improve understanding of both efficacy and impacts. (See "Mesoscale Iron > Enrichment Experiments 1993-2005: Synthesis and Future > Directions"<http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/315/5812/612>.) > From the start, it was clear that these experiments weren't a danger to the > environment and that their effects wouldn't last long. Scientists should be > encouraged to study impacts through experimentation and modeling as long as > it can be reasonably presumed that their impacts are short-lived. > > *Implementation.* If a technique is both effective and sensitive to the > environment, the following implementation questions become important: Who > implements it? Who regulates it? And how do we incorporate these activities > into existing regulatory and legal frameworks and treaties? These questions > are difficult but not intractable, as many carefully negotiated > international agreements already demonstrate, including the International > Maritime Organization's London > Convention<http://www.imo.org/Conventions/contents.asp?topic_id=258&doc_id=681>on > ocean dumping (signed by 80 countries in 1972, including most of the > developed world) and the U.N. Law of the > Sea<http://www.un.org/Depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/closindx.htm>treaty > (signed and ratified by most countries except the United States). > > More broadly, the provocative title of Alan's article and the quick > treatment of individual concerns obscure the complexity behind these subject > areas--as Martin and Ken Caldeira have addressed. We expected a summary of > research results suggesting *a priori* that geoengineering is a bad idea, > but didn't find one. Also, we found it distracting that many of Alan's > concerns (i.e., ozone depletion, acid deposition, effects on cirrus clouds > and plants) are specific to one technique--aerosol seeding--but offered as > reasons why geoengineering in general is a bad idea. Another of Alan's > examples presumes that "humans [adopt] geoengineering as a solution to > global warming, with no restriction on continued carbon emissions." *No > one* is suggesting that geoengineering replace emissions reduction. > > Most surprising is Alan's conclusion that global warming is a not a > difficult technical--but rather purely a political--problem, and therefore, > geoengineering isn't required to solve it. We disagree. The road ahead is > paved with difficult technical challenges in addition to the considerable > political ones. Many new, clean technologies that promise incremental > improvements in efficiency also require substantial scientific > achievements--such as genetic modification of organisms to make novel > substances (i.e., enzymes that process various feedstocks for cellulosic > ethanol) or revolutionary advances in materials and process sciences (i.e., > new thin-film technologies for solar power). Emission reductions don't > simply follow from mandates; we must innovate alternatives to fossil fuels. > > That we need to contemplate geoengineering to buy us time for that > innovation is unfortunate. That we have the scientific, technical, and human > potential to do so responsibly is not. > > > On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 11:55 AM, James R. Fleming <jflem...@colby.edu>wrote: > >> Ken, >> >> Thank your for expressing your views. >> >> You wrote about:* distinguishing between advocates of geoengineering and >> advocates of geoengineering research. >> * >> If I refer to you by name (which I didn’t in the Slate piece) I will be >> sure to mention that you are a strong advocate for geoengineering * >> research*. My sense is, however, that a big R&D push with field >> deployment by geoengineering research advocates might result in attempts to >> engineer the climate. Recall that some panelists were floating a “Plan B” >> for climate to Congress, which was no “plan” at all. >> >> You wrote: *I am an advocate of improving our information base, our state >> of knowledge. >> * >> Me too. >> >> But what counts as knowledge? In my written response to the Congress, I >> said: >> >> A comprehensive research program in geoengineering cannot be merely a >> scientific and technically-based effort. It must be led by >> historically-informed humanistic and social science efforts to understand >> the precedents and contextualize human desires (and hubris) involved in >> intervening in natural systems. Such discussions should seek to avoid being >> dominated by Western technocratic influences, and would need to be fully >> international, interdisciplinary, and intergenerational in nature so that a >> *global* conversation emerges. >> >> Also: >> >> Geoengineering research is currently not ready, and may never be ready for >> any field testing, large scale or otherwise. It is best done indoors using >> computer simulations and in other controlled conditions, such as >> laboratories and wind tunnels. For decades, verification of weather >> modification experiments has been stymied by natural variability in cloud >> and weather conditions. The same is true many times over for experiments on >> the global climate. >> >> What is most needed in atmospheric science today is more focused and basic >> research on atmospheric dynamics and chaotic forcings. If, as Edward Lorenz >> maintained, the climate system exhibits modes that are extremely sensitive >> to perturbations, what unknown effect might [attempted geoengineering] have >> on the global or regional climate? Also needed, especially now, is a >> concerted effort to restore scientific and public confidence in the >> atmospheric sciences, their peer review practices, Earth’s instrumental and >> proxy temperature records, and the authority and behavior of computer models >> and their results. >> >> >> I did not mention Mt. Pinatubo in my *Slate *piece, so I don’t know why >> you asked about it, but I do recall Mike MacCracken telling me about direct >> beam vs. diffuse sky radiation issues following volcanic eruptions. Also, >> in 2008 Alan Robock listed “Whitening of the sky, with no more blue skies, >> but nice sunsets,” “The end of terrestrial optical astronomy,” and “Greatly >> reduced direct beam solar power,” in his list of twenty reasons >> (subsequently pared down to seventeen) why geoengineering may be a bad idea. >> >> Robock, Alan. “20 Reasons Why Geoengineering May Be a Bad Idea.” *Bulletin >> of the Atomic Scientists* 64 (2008): 14–18, 59. >> >> Alan might have change his mind about optical astronomy since, but a >> recent article by astronomers Christian Luginbuhl, Constance Walker, and >> Richard Wainscoat [in *Physics Today* 62 (2009): 32–37] discusses the >> rapid growth of light pollution from ground-based sources, suggesting to me >> that any added aerosols in the atmosphere could also be an unwanted burden >> on seeing conditions, not from any past volcanic eruption, but from >> geoengineering and other sources. >> >> Remember that geoengineering has been attempted before (in operations >> Argus and Starfish Prime in near space) and that history matters when it >> comes to policy decisions, since everything seems to be unprecedented when >> you don’t read history. >> >> Jim >> >> >> >> On 9/24/10 12:10 PM, "Ken Caldeira" <kcalde...@carnegie.stanford.edu> >> wrote: >> >> James, >> >> I am afraid that you appear to have trouble distinguishing between >> advocates of geoengineering and advocates of geoengineering research. You >> write: >> >> *In November 2009 the U.S. House Committee on Science and Technology held >> hearings on the implications of large-scale climate intervention. I was the >> only historian on a panel of five, which included three strong advocates for >> geoengineering and a climate modeler who warned of unintended consequences. >> * >> I believe you are characterizing me as a "strong advocate for >> geoengineering." I do not consider myself an advocate of geoengineering. >> >> I have repeatedly stated that I am uncertain whether geoengineering >> (solar radiation management) techniques could in fact reduce overall risk, >> but that there is potential that it may do so and that therefore we should >> conduct relevant research. >> >> Please do not inappropriately represent my views in your published >> materials. >> >> Hyperbolic, sloppy, and misleading statements do not serve to advance a >> well-informed discussion. >> >> Best, >> >> Ken >> >> PS. Furthermore, you make a number of scientific statements that appear to >> be wrong. For example, perhaps as a historian you can tell me whether the >> sky was milky white after Mt. Pinatubo. While you are at it, perhaps you can >> tell me what happened to Earth-based astronomical observations after this >> eruption. >> >> >> >> >> ___________________________________________________ >> Ken Caldeira >> >> Carnegie Institution Dept of Global Ecology >> 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA >> +1 650 704 7212 kcalde...@carnegie.stanford.edu >> http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab @kencaldeira >> >> >> On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 8:18 AM, James R. Fleming <jflem...@colby.edu> >> wrote: >> >> James Rodger Fleming, “Weather as a Weapon: The troubling history of >> geoengineering so far,” *Slate Magazine*, >> >> *http://www.slate.com/id/2268232/* >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "geoengineering" group. >> To post to this group, send email to geoengineer...@googlegroups.com. >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com<geoengineering%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com> >> . >> For more options, visit this group at >> http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. >> > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineer...@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.
