I think this statement by Anderson and Peters in response to our comment deserves unpacking: "We stand by our claim that postulatinglarge-scale negative emissions in thefuture leads to much less mitigation today.Negative emissions facilitate the appealingoption (10) of exceeding tight carbonbudgets and assuming that the debt willbe paid back later. I f we cannot pay backour carbon debt because the negativeemissionstechnologies do not deliver asplanned, then we have saddled the vulnerableand future generations with the temperatures we seek to avoid in the ParisAgreement. To use the analogy of Lackneret al., we knowingly let someone jumpinto a raging torrent, telling them we maybe able to save them with a technology wehave yet to develop." GR By the same token, by marginalizing if not demonizing CDR today, we are making an increasingly risky gamble that emissions reduction will singlehandedly solve the problem tomorrow. Most models/experts agree that sufficient emissions reduction alone is now very unlikely to occur in time if our target is <=2degC warming. Doesn't the single minded focus on emissions reduction then present a moral hazard to attempts to develop now-necessary CDR? And isn't it best to find out sooner rather than later whether or not we have any adequate CDR options? I don't think the life preserve analogy is quite correctly used in either camp. We are not letting anyone jump into a raging torrent, but agree with A&P that we also don't know if the life preserver actually works. Ditto for "arrows in the quiver". How about this "moral hazard" play?: A group of people are stranded on an island with the water rapidly rising (due an unforeseen glitch in the GW sea level rise model), but within swimming distance of the mainland. No one knows how to swim except a few have some idea how to do it. The majority agrees that in the time remaining (weeks) they should try to learn to swim. But a few in the group point out that the island is forested and some have heard about rafts. They propose trying to build one. "That would be very risky," said the leader: "1) How are you going to cut down the trees?, 2) some wood species don't float, 3) if we tie the logs together with those vines, they might break, and 4) by fooling around with unproven raft technology you risk not learning how to swim." "But we will not be learning to swim 24/7, and could do the raft R&D during the periods when we are not in the water," retorted the tiny minority. "We're not going to think about rafts for the reasons previously stated, plus it will be way more manly to swim," was the (sexist) reply. So they commenced swimming lessons, but many were soon distracted. It was way more fun to just wade around in the warm water. Additionally, some very influential individuals (who had a lucrative side business selling beach mats to the group) pointed out, "Out bodies are composed of 98% water. We drink water. Water is vital to life and a good thing. Besides, God will take care of us. We therefore don't need to learn to swim, and we should be doing more lounging on the beach enjoying the (increasingly) warm weather that God has provided." Long story short - few learned to swim and even fewer made it to the mainland. Logs from the now sunken island forest eventually began floating onto the mainland beach where the survivors were now encamped. Moral: Do not ignore or downplay potentially useful actions, especially if you have the time and resources to carefully evaluate them.
From: Greg Rau <gh...@sbcglobal.net> To: Geoengineering <geoengineering@googlegroups.com> Sent: Friday, November 11, 2016 4:50 PM Subject: [geo] Negative Emissions: Arrows in the Quiver, Life Preserver, and/or Moral Hazard? -- 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. http://science.sciencemag.org/content/354/6313/714.1 GR: Disclaimer - I was a co-signer. -- 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.
