We're talking about coupling SRM deployment to an extreme level of emissions mitigation achieved very rapidly--like some others here I think that is laudable in principle but effectively impossible to accomplish in practice. But we're also overlooking the much discussed possibility of linking SRM deployment to robust CDR measures. This would certainly be challenging as well but likely less so than an abrupt restructuring of the world economy. Assuming CDR methods worked cost-effectively (a big assumption), this could produce the same net result as prohibiting all new CO2-emitting devices, while admittedly allowing relatively greater use of the atmosphere as a "waste dump."
I would be uncomfortable at this stage limiting SRM use only to catastrophic, emergency scenarios and disallowing use for peak shaving. For all that has been written about emergency use, it's far from clear that this would be workable in practice. Much more research needs to be done on this aspect of SRM. Josh Horton On Wednesday, September 11, 2013 12:36:02 PM UTC-4, Ken Caldeira 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 <javascript:> > 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 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.
