Coupling SRM policies with emissions abatement policies is probably the only way SRM would be politically feasible anyway. This came up a few times at the Harvard summer school as well.
>From a US standpoint, different hard-to-tackle issues are often linked in politics, as we get reminded every time the farm bill (or the national budget) comes up for renewal. It probably seems insane to Europeans that social welfare funding (food stamps) gets linked in a package with subsidies for corn growers, and obviously these examples aren't selling the idea of packages or coupled policies very well. But it could be a case of the idea being decent and the legislative branch just doing it wrong. There's clearly a difference between issues that are contingent by design and issues that are opportunistically contingent. My point is that the concept of linking difficult things shouldn't be unfamiliar. It would be great if a political scientist could write a paper on the history of coupled or contingent policies, perhaps a cross-country comparison, and then situate SRM in the context of that. Or, to write about the factors that inspired such norms and declarations of contingency by politicians in varying case studies, since Ken's point was about establishing norms rather than political institutions. Given the way academia works there is probably a whole sub-field of people writing about these topics broadly; if you know who they are please drop me a message. Some good research topics here. On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 6:57 AM, O Morton <omeconom...@gmail.com> wrote: > Ken > > As always (I am a stuck record on this, for those old enough to remember > stuck records) surely it depends on the weasel word "we" > > Imagine a world in which > *Bad Stuff, maybe Very Bad Stuff, is happening > *Research, including some field research, strongly suggests that sunshine > geoengineering could greatly reduce the level of Bad Stuff, and there are > parties capable of deploying it who are also capable of doing without any > further emitting devices. > *There are other parties/jurisdictions/countries, maybe just a few, which > are adamant that they won't stop building emitting devices > > Should the parties capable of geoengineering forego the option because > there will still be new emitting devices being built, permitting lots of > Bad Stuff that they could have stopped? Should they force the other parties > to stop building emitting devices by force of arms? Or should they deploy > anyway? > > Perhaps it depends on the size of the recalcitrant fraction. If 10% of the > world is still building emitters, is it ok to geoengineer? But if 10%, why > not 20%... > > Alternatively, on teh basis that you can't make people be good and > shouldn't willingly allow Bad Stuff to happen when it might be avoided, > maybe it is *only* the parties that do the geoengineering who should feel > obliged to give up building emitting devices. But the parties capable of > geoengineering might themselves just be 10% of the world... > > ever > > o > > On Wednesday, 11 September 2013 18:51:53 UTC+1, Ken Caldeira wrote: > >> Note that I did not require decarbonization of the economy as a >> pre-requisite for deployment as my proposal allows existing CO2-emitting >> devices to continue being used. I merely required that we stop building >> new CO2-emitting devices. >> >> My point is that if climate change is enough of an emergency to require >> rapid deployment of solar geoengineering then it is also enough of an >> emergency to stop building devices that will exacerbate that emergency. >> >> If we are doing solar geoengineering at the same time as we are building >> new fossil-fueled power plants that use the atmosphere as a waste dump, how >> do you assure that the solar geoengineering system does not facilitate >> continued production of those devices? >> >> >> _______________ >> Ken Caldeira >> >> Carnegie Institution for Science >> Dept of Global Ecology >> 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA >> +1 650 704 7212 kcal...@**carnegiescience.edu >> http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/**caldeiralab<http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab> >> @kencaldeira >> >> >> >> >> On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 1:25 PM, Andrew Lockley <andrew....@gmail.com>wrote: >> >>> Ken >>> >>> We need to control temperatures far more quickly than we can hope to >>> decarbonise the economy. >>> >>> Are you seriously trying to argue that every car factory in the world >>> needs to close before we can do any SRM at all? That seems entirely >>> implausible. >>> >>> Perhaps more sensible to suggest that emissions growth be capped >>> (possibly at zero) before geoengineering starts. >>> >>> As I see it the 'buy time' argument for SRM is a strong one. We need to >>> stop temperatures increasing *whilst * we decarbonise. >>> >>> A >>> On Sep 11, 2013 5:36 PM, "Ken Caldeira" <kcal...@carnegiescience.edu**> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> We do not want to be in a situation where a solar geoengineering system >>>> is used to enable continued increases in CO2 emissions. >>>> >>>> Therefore, a reasonable demand is that no new smokestacks or tailpipes >>>> be built after a solar geoengineering system is deployed. >>>> >>>> Another way of phrasing this is to demand that new construction of all >>>> new CO2-emitting devices cease prior to any solar geoengineering system >>>> deployment. >>>> >>>> This would help address the concern that solar geoengineering could >>>> provide cover for continued expansion of CO2-emitting industries. >>>> >>>> Norms that would prevent simultaneous solar geoengineering deployment >>>> and increasing CO2 emissions would help diminish the likelihood of bad >>>> outcomes and could help broaden political support for solar geoengineering >>>> research. >>>> >>>> -- >>>> >>>> This would limit deployment of solar geoengineering systems to the case >>>> of "catastrophic" outcomes and would not permit use of solar geoengineering >>>> for "peak shaving" amid promises of future reductions in CO2 emissions. >>>> Thus, this proposal does have a substantive implications for "peak >>>> shaving" strategies. >>>> >>>> -- >>>> >>>> *I am floating this idea without being certain that the formulation >>>> presented here is the best possible formulation.* >>>> >>>> _______________ >>>> Ken Caldeira >>>> >>>> Carnegie Institution for Science >>>> Dept of Global Ecology >>>> 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA >>>> +1 650 704 7212 kcal...@**carnegiescience.edu >>>> http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/**caldeiralab<http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab> >>>> @kencaldeira >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>> Groups "geoengineering" group. >>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>>> an email to geoengineerin...@**googlegroups.com. >>>> To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.**com. >>>> >>>> Visit this group at >>>> http://groups.google.com/**group/geoengineering<http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering> >>>> . >>>> For more options, visit >>>> https://groups.google.com/**groups/opt_out<https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out> >>>> . >>>> >>> >> -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "geoengineering" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
