I agree with Greg. This article's dismissal of negative emissions options as a moral hazard is very discouraging. Yes, "mitigation obstruction" is a possible consequence of serious engagement with negative emissions options. But it is certainly elitist, and possibly unethical, for environmental scientists to take it upon themselves to decide which information about climate change options should and shouldn't be withheld from policymakers and the public for their own good. If nothing else, that patronizing and elitist approach to climate change research confirms the narrative of hard-right conservative political groups that decry climate scientists for conspiring to deceive the public. After all, deciding to suppress negative emissions research and therefore withhold information about negative emissions options from the public for fear of how they will react IS EXACTLY conspiring to deceive them!
Moreover, this ignores the very pressing concern that it possible, if not quite likely, that emissions reduction alone is actually insufficient to achieve either the Paris objectives or even less ambitious targets to forestall substantial climate change impacts. It also ignores the even more salient fact that there is little or no evidence that most societies (or indeed any at all!) are up to the challenge of actually reducing their emissions to the extent that even the most optimistic projects would require. I see this as a pure case of technological denialism at work. See my recent essay here for details: http://www.adamdorr.com/essays/environmentalism-and-technological-denialism/ -- Adam Dorr University of California Los Angeles School of Public Affairs Urban Planning PhD Candidate adamd...@ucla.edu adamd...@gmail.com On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 12:45 PM, Greg Rau <gh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote: > To quote the article's conclusion: > "Negative-emission technologies are not an insurance policy, but rather > an unjust and high-stakes gamble. There is a real risk they will be unable > to deliver on the scale of their promise. If the emphasis on equity and > risk aversion embodied in the Paris Agreement are to have traction, > negative-emission technologies should not form the basis of the mitigation > agenda. This is not to say that they should be abandoned (*14* > <http://science.sciencemag.org/content/354/6309/182.full#ref-14>, *15* > <http://science.sciencemag.org/content/354/6309/182.full#ref-15>). They > could very reasonably be the subject of research, development, and > potentially deployment, but the mitigation agenda should proceed on the > premise that they will not work at scale. The implications of failing to do > otherwise are a moral hazard par excellence." > > GR - It's always great to wake up in the morning to read that my research > and that of my colleagues is an unjust, moral hazard and a threat to the > planet "par excellence". We are indeed in a very "high stakes gamble", > especially if we continue to rely exclusively on emissions reduction. This > is the clear conclusion of the IPCC, otherwise there would have been no > need for them to bet their reputations (and Earth) on unproven negative > emissions. That we do not yet know if or how we can do what the IPCC views > as essential negative emissions should be seen as clarion call for > supportive policies and R&D to find out what our options might be rather > than framing any such action as dangerous. > > Curiously, the authors do state that research on such alternatives should > not be abandoned (how generous!), but then (cynically?) suggest that > emissions reduction should proceed under the assumption that alternate > pathways "will not work at scale". To the contrary, more than half of our > emissions each year is already removed from the atmosphere by natural CDR > "at scale", while there is little evidence that an equivalent amount of > emissions mitigation/avoidance will ever be implemented, including the > "aspirations" of the Paris Accord. It would therefore seem more realistic > if not safer to assume that emissions reduction will continue to seriously > under-perfom and that now is the time for high profile policy and R&D to > foster and support the search for and evaluation of possible additional CDR > approaches or augmentations. > > So, are the science and policy communities really prepared to let the > perfect solution, emissions reduction, be the enemy of all other possible > solutions without first open-mindedly searching for alternatives and > carefully evaluating their merits? Shouldn't the common goal here be to > avert planetary meltdown by whatever means that prove to be timely, safe > and cost effective? Or is that really too threatening to current, > conventional (and limited) wisdom? > > > ------------------------------ > *From:* Andrew Lockley <andrew.lock...@gmail.com> > *To:* geoengineering <geoengineering@googlegroups.com> > *Sent:* Thursday, October 13, 2016 4:09 PM > *Subject:* [geo] The trouble with negative emissions > > > http://science.sciencemag.org/content/354/6309/182 > The trouble with negative emissions > kevin.ander...@manchester.ac.uk; glen.pet...@cicero.oslo.no > Science 14 Oct 2016: > Vol. 354, Issue 6309, pp. 182-183 > DOI: 10.1126/science.aah4567 > Article > In December 2015, member states of the United Nations Framework Convention > on Climate Change (UNFCCC) adopted the Paris Agreement, which aims to hold > the increase in the global average temperature to below 2°C and to pursue > efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C. The Paris Agreement > requires that anthropogenic greenhouse gas emission sources and sinks are > balanced by the second half of this century. Because some nonzero sources > are unavoidable, this leads to the abstract concept of “negative > emissions,” the removal of carbon dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere through > technical means. The Integrated Assessment Models (IAMs) informing > policy-makers assume the large-scale use of negative-emission technologies. > If we rely on these and they are not deployed or are unsuccessful at > removing CO2 from the atmosphere at the levels assumed, society will be > locked into a high-temperature pathway > -- > 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 https://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 https://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 https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
