Dear Jon‹While I think you overstate the situation with climate engineering in terms of both uncertainties and costs (i.e., keeping the climate roughly as it is likely has fewer uncertainties that heading to a 2 to 4 C climate with its uncertainties; and the costs of climate engineering may well be a good bit less than mitigation‹though mitigation costs do seem to be dropping), I would generally agree with your logic when one assumes rational leaders and policymakers thinking in terms of long-term interests and rights and idealized situations (e.g., no vested interests effectively pushing their views). Unfortunately, it is not at all clear to me that these (and some related) assumptions are valid, at least based on actions that seemingly rational leaders are taking, much less ones that are focused more on ideology than rational thinking. It seems to me this situation could perhaps be achieved with an approach that is relatively robust to the particular foibles of those making the decisions (e.g., a really aggressive energy technology development effort that makes the cost of transitioning energy systems less than the cost of staying as we are‹a situation that might well be achieved with a reasonable carbon tax with substantial resources devoted to the transition), but getting to this type of solution is also problematic. And so, given all that is at risk and the behavior of the leaders that we are seeing (so, for example in the US, leasing public lands for coal mining and the Arctic seabed for drilling), it becomes hard to see how at least some climate engineering is not inevitable as a means to reduce overall suffering and loss.
Mike MacCracken On 6/2/15, 7:46 PM, "Jon Lawhead" <lawh...@usc.edu> wrote: > As a philosopher working on this issue, it seems to me that this provides a > really strong argument in favor of focused attention on mitigation. There's > at least some degree of popular perception that geoengineering provides a > "fail safe" for fixing the climate if/when we fail to successfully implement > sufficient mitigation policies. In some cases, this leads to more lukewarm > (or downright cold) support for mitigation than it otherwise would have. > Philosophers and social scientists call this a "moral hazard." > > But it seems to me that this position isn't just wrong--it's exactly > backward. If a failure to adequately mitigate climate change means that our > only recourse will be geoengineering, that's a very strong reason to mitigate > early and mitigate often. The costs associated with geoengineering--both in > terms of financial commitments and in terms of potentially dangerous > side-effects--are just too numerous for it to be reasonable to think of a > large-scale geoengineering program as a "fail safe." I think we would do well > to work harder to promulgate that message more widely and more forcefully than > we do now. > > Naturally, > > Jon Lawhead, PhD > Postdoctoral Research Fellow > University of Southern California > Philosophy and Earth Sciences > > 3651 Trousdale Parkway > Zumberge Hall of Science, 223D > Los Angeles, CA 90089-0740 > > http://www.realityapologist.com <http://www.realityapologist.com/> > > On Sun, May 31, 2015 at 11:55 AM, Greg Rau <gh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> Amen, Mike. Given this dangerous trajectory, I'd say it's time for another >> reading from our experts on the ethics of alternative climate management >> methods. And I don't mean adaptation. >> Greg >> -------------------------------------------- >> On Sun, 5/31/15, Mike MacCracken <mmacc...@comcast.net> wrote: >> >> Subject: [geo] On why we'll very likely need climate engineering >> To: "Geoengineering" <Geoengineering@googlegroups.com> >> Date: Sunday, May 31, 2015, 10:28 AM >> >> For those who argue that it is best >> to keep relying on mitigation as the >> only acceptable approach, it is because of disgraceful >> decisions such as >> described in: >> >> http://motherboard.vice.com/read/the-10-billion-tons-of-coal-that-could-eras >> e-obamas-progress-on-climate-change >> >> that this will be the case. I've done declarations for a >> couple of lawsuits >> trying to fight the leasing of such coal lands. The >> Administration could >> have acceded to their calls for a high quality environmental >> review of the >> consequences of such leasing (so including GHG effect), but >> instead they >> have fought those lawsuits and rely on a really outdated EIS >> (their analysis >> starts on page 4-130--and is only a few pages long). Or they >> could have >> imposed the social cost of carbon as an additional fee if >> one wants to use >> the free market system to level the field across >> technologies--but no, >> leases would be at very low prices. >> >> So, first, the criticism that those of us favor >> geoengineering first are >> just wrong--we've been fighting hard for mitigation. But >> decisions like this >> keep coming, and I would suggest have nothing to do with >> whether >> geoengineering might or might not help. So, we keep having >> to go deeper and >> deeper in to the barrel to try to find some way to slow the >> devastating >> consequences of warming lying ahead. >> >> Second, given decisions like this by the US, no wonder the >> rest of the world >> is not yet really making commitments that are strong enough >> to make a >> difference for the future. Truly embarrassing decision--it >> makes all the >> clamor over stopping the Keystone pipeline to limit tar >> sands development >> ring very hollow. >> >> Mike MacCracken >> >> -- >> 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 >> <mailto:geoengineering%2bunsubscr...@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/d/optout. >> >> >> -- >> 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 >> <mailto:geoengineering%2bunsubscr...@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/d/optout. > > -- 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/d/optout.
