At the same time, raising the profile of geoengineering on the international agenda would probably result in increased funding and additional resources. IPCC may not be the right vehicle. Maybe a UNFCCC subsidiary body? A focused, strategic effort could give research a shot in the arm.
Josh On Jan 2, 11:35 am, Ken Caldeira <kcalde...@carnegie.stanford.edu> wrote: > It is not clear to me that doing an IPCC report on geoengineering would be > an effective use of everybody's time. People are already starting to plan > the treatment of geoengineering in AR5 with a meeting coming up in Peru in > June. These IPCC processes are notoriously time consuming. > > There really is not that much research going on because funding in this area > is extremely limited. My own sense is that at this point most scientists > involved in this area could benefit by spending more time in their labs and > offices doing science and less time going to meetings talking about > non-science. > > Geoengineering is an area where the ratio of talk to actual new facts is > startlingly high. > > We recently had the Royal Society report. How much has changed since then? > > ___________________________________________________ > Ken Caldeira > > Carnegie Institution Dept of Global Ecology > 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA > +1 650 704 7212 > kcalde...@carnegie.stanford.eduhttp://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeirala...@kencaldeira > > > > On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 4:15 AM, Emily <em...@lewis-brown.net> wrote: > > Dear All, > > > I proposed to Yvo DeBoer in 1008 that he might like to request the IPCC to > > complete a rapid special report on Active mitigation options such as > > geo-engineering. This might follow the report series the IPCC have done on > > renewables etc. > > > At that point Yvo felt that the IPCC coverage of geo-eng in the AR4 would > > cover it. > > > Perhaps we could make a stronger case for IPCC to do something useful on > > geo-eng. The new UNFCCC leadership and also the post Copenhagen / Cancun > > context may help gain an IPCC review of options and secure greater dialogue > > and inclusion in the UNFCCC texts, such as in the KP, LCA, REDD or CDM text. > > > where would it best be in the UNFCCC text and what would it need to say. > > > The KP and LCA text already talks about 'reduction of emissions and > > removal by sinks' How can this be explored further? > > > best, > > > Emily. > > > On 30/12/2010 14:22, John Nissen wrote: > > >> Thanks, John for these reduction requirements. They are clearly > >> impossible to achieve, but even if they could be achieved would not > >> guarantee keeping within 2 degrees this century. And 2 degrees is far from > >> safe. We have no option but to remove CO2 from the atmosphere (CDR) at an > >> increasing rate until the removal is faster than the addition from > >> emissions. But what's the timescale? Is global warming the most immediate > >> threat? > > >> Ocean acidification is proceeding at an alarming rate. It will soon reach > >> a level in the Arctic where shells cannot form and the marine food chain is > >> affected [1] [2]. Thus we have only a decade or two to reduce CO2 levels > >> below 350 ppm. CO2 removal becomes imperative, and has to reach the rate > >> of > >> emissions within a decade so that the CO2 level starts falling. > > >> On top of these problems we have the Arctic sea ice retreat, which has to > >> be halted to avoid massive methane discharge from permafrost otherwise all > >> plans to halt global warming would be trashed. CO2 reduction will not have > >> any appreciable effect in the timescales - so we have to cool the Arctic > >> quickly [3]. We have no option but use solar radiation management (SRM), > >> possibly supplemented by other more specific measures to retain the sea > >> ice. > > >> My sincere hope for 2011 is that the necessity for these urgent actions - > >> both CDR and SRM types of geoengineering - will finally be recognised in > >> international negotiations, to put our global society on a new safe path > >> towards a successful future [4]. Please help in lobbying for this. > > >> Best wishes for the New Year, > > >> John > > >> [1]http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/06/100603092018.htm > > >> [2]http://www.bitsofscience.org/ocean-acidification-faster-438/ > > >> [3]http://www.catlin.com/cgl/media/press_releases/pr_2009/209-10-15/ > > >> [4] > >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse:_How_Societies_Choose_to_Fail_o... > >> See especially Chapter 14 "Why do some societies make disastrous > >> decisions?" > > >> --- > > >> On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 10:54 AM, John Gorman <gorm...@waitrose.com<mailto: > >> gorm...@waitrose.com>> wrote: > > >> Thanks, Emily, for finding this FoE report > >> The report (1) looks at the emissions from each country now, and > >> projections for 2020 and 2050. I did the same,from a different > >> perspective, for my document "Why Copenhagen Failed" (2) so I have > >> checked their calculations and they are correct. > >> These are the reductions that would be required from the largest > >> eight emitters by 2020 in order to keep within the 2 degree C > >> rise;(in alphabetical order) > >> Canada 80% reduction by 2020 > >> China 20% reduction by 2020 > >> Germany 63% reduction by 2020 > >> India 63% /increase/ by 2020 > >> Japan 65% reduction by 2020 > >> Russia 80% reduction by 2020 > >> UK 57%reduction by 2020 > >> USA 80% reduction by 2020 > >> Notes > >> -These figures contain no fudges like "emissions intensity" or > >> basing reductions on 1990. Reductions are from now -and real. > >> -The 20% reduction for China is just as impossible as the 80% for > >> the USA. China expects 300 million people to move from subsistence > >> agriculture to the towns by 2030 and predicted 100% increase. > >> -The increase allowed to India is due to the very low per capita > >> emission now but is still far less than their post Copenhagen > >> prediction of 100% increase.(3) > >> The obvious impossibility of achieving these reductions is the > >> central argument for geoengineering research -now. > >> John Gorman > >> (1) > > >>http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Environment/documents/2010/12/1... > >> < > >>http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Environment/documents/2010/12/1... > > >> (2)http://www.naturaljointmobility.info/WhyCopenhagenFailed.htm > >> <http://www.naturaljointmobility.info/WhyCopenhagenFailed.htm> > >> (3)Last page of letter to Chris Huhne UK Minister for Energy at > >> http://www.naturaljointmobility.info/letters.htm > >> <http://www.naturaljointmobility.info/letters.htm> > > >> ----- Original Message ----- > >> From: "Emily" < em...@lewis-brown.net <mailto:em...@lewis-brown.net> > > >> To: "geo-engineering grp" < geoengineering@googlegroups.com > >> <mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com> > > >> Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2010 4:37 PM > >> Subject: [geo] geo eng and new Friends of the Earth EWNI report > >> urges very > >> deep and rapid emission cuts > > >> Hi, > > >> please read the last sentence in particular: FoE now join WWF in > >> accepting the possible need for geo-engineering. I agree with this > >> analysis. > > >> I am trying to track down a link tot he report - if you have one, > >> please > >> circulate. > >> manyt hanks and Best wishes, > >> Emily. > > >> RECKLESS GAMBLERS > >> key conclusions.. > > >> • Recent climate science and risk analysis > > >> show that there is now a > > >> very small remaining safe level of > > >> greenhouse gas emissions compatible > > >> with preventing dangerous climate > > >> change. > > >> • A 2 degrees temperature rise can > > >> no longer be considered “safe”; even > > >> 1.5 degrees carries with it major risks. > > >> • Even a Global Carbon Budget of > > >> 1100 Gigatonnes of CO 2 equivalent > > >> from now to 2050, which would > > >> give a 75% chance of exceeding > > >> 1.5 degrees, and a 30% chance of > > >> exceeding 2 degrees, would require > > >> unprecedented emissions reductions > > >> which go far beyond those currently > > >> contemplated by politicians. Reducing > > >> risks further would require even > > >> tougher action. > > >> • If dangerous climate change is to > > >> be averted it will require immediate > > >> and significant changes to how we > > >> fuel our economies in virtually all > > >> countries, it will require systemic > > >> action across all sectors of the > > >> economies of all countries. > > >> • As leaders of countries with large > > >> historical and current emissions, > > >> politicians in developed countries must > > >> shoulder the blame for increasing > > >> the risk of dangerous climate > > >> change. They will need to make deep > > >> emissions reductions and provide > > >> hundreds of billions of dollars for > > >> developing countries to grow without > > >> carbon-intensive energy. > > >> • Living within the small remaining > > >> global carbon budget, if shared out > > >> on an equal per capita basis between > > >> 2010 and 2050, would require > > >> reductions in emissions in developed > > >> countries of around 8-15 per cent > > >> per annum, immediate emissions > > >> reductions in some developing > > >> countries, an early peak and decline > > >> in emissions in others, and some > > >> countries would be able to continue > > >> to increase emissions from their very > > >> low baseline. These are just illustrative > > >> figures, not prescriptions but if one > > >> group of countries emits more than > > >> these amounts, it would require > > >> corresponding reductions in what > > >> other countries emit and the scope for > > >> this is now very limited. Achieving cuts > > >> in developing countries will require > > >> substantial financial and technology > > >> transfers from developed countries. > > >> • Urgent research and debate needs > > >> to be carried out - alongside urgent > > >> action to reduce emissions - to identify > > >> exactly how to share out the remaining > > >> global carbon budget and whether > > >> these reductions are technically > > >> possible and, if not, whether > > >> approaches using negative emissions > > >> or even geo-engineering > > ... > > read more » -- 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.
