Hi Kevin, Your analysis is excellent. And we must try to smooth the way forward to climate restoration, which has to be the end goal. Can anyone now disagree with that goal?
But why has COP blundered with their absurdly optimistic projections, effectively lying to us? You suggest: "The COP agreements must preserve the notion that obtaining a global zero carbon economy is sufficient to stop climate change. If the negotiators believe that this is no longer possible the COP process breaks down and a free-for-all is the unavoidable result. To avoid this, then overly optimistic projections must be made." It occurs to me that IPCC may have been avoiding truthfulness because of a widespread *demonisation* of geoengineering. Geoengineering is against our gut instincts, which we are all liable to follow. Out of a hundred or more peer-reviewed papers on geoengineering which I have read, I cannot recall a single paper which treats geoengineering as possibly desirable or necessary. So naturally the consensus of IPCC scientists would only consider geoengineering as a last resort. I believe this could be why COP agreements always preserve the notion that obtaining a global zero carbon economy (i.e zero net emissions) is sufficient to cause the global temperature to start falling and stop climate change. To admit otherwise would necessarily mean support for immediate deployment of climate interventions aka geoengineering. Slay the demon and blow the planet. Following our gut instincts now will ensure future catastrophe. So let us be positive and work towards climate restoration, with CDR and SRM as necessary means to an end. Cheers, John On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 9:36 AM, <kevin.lis...@btopenworld.com> wrote: > Dear Kevin, > > > > Thank you for your email. > > > > In answer to your question, do I support massive cuts made by the richest > 50%?” Unequivocally, yes. > > > > In no way do I see the implementation of the CDR/NET/global cooling being > in any way counter to this. In fact quite the opposite, I believe that > without these it is impossible to achieve the cuts in emissions that we > need. > > > > It enables this by sending out the unequivocal message that the existing > strategy to tackle climate change, while having achieved a lot, has > achieved far too little and that drastic efforts are now needed to save > life on the planet. > > > > This goes to the heart of the paradoxes inherent within the COP > agreements. > > > > The COP agreements must preserve the notion that obtaining a global zero > carbon economy is sufficient to stop climate change. If the negotiators > believe that this is no longer possible the COP process breaks down and a > free-for-all is the unavoidable result. To avoid this, then overly > optimistic projections must be made. > > > > As a result, the dialogue that we have had on climate change for many > years has been like a production machine for producing the falsehoods > necessary to continue to the negotiations. Thus we have been told that we > can adapt to 2C warming, that the ice cap won’t melt until 2050, that > methane emissions are not so bad after all, that the economy can grow with > renewables, etc. > > > > The problem with the overly optimistic assessments of climate change is > that while they maintained the negotiations, the result was to achieve > nothing significant because there was no collective sense that all would be > killed in the near short term unless a collective solution could be found. > This is evident in the catastrophic 60% rise in CO2 emissions since their > inception in 1992; a step change in emissions that we are yet to feel the > full heating effect from. The result of this inaction has been to make the > free-for-all that it sought to avoid and which all we fear inevitable. > > > > The severity of the crisis that we now face is being increasingly > recognised in the wider discourse on climate change where there is finally > a growing acceptance that we have passed the tipping points and we face > extinction. As it becomes increasingly impossible to avoid the consequences > of this, we will stop talking about climate change because it will be more > important to preserve business as usual in the interests of short term > survival in the highly competitive world that results. > > > > To put this in perspective, I asked a high level class of mine last week > to discuss the moralities of opening a third runway at Heathrow. Not one > was prepared to argue that climate change made it immoral, this is the > complete opposite to the responses I had in similar discussions 10 years > ago. > > > > Likewise the wider dialogue on climate change is diminishing not > increasing. Barely anyone I know outside the climate change circles even > know that COP22 is being held this week, as opposed to thousands that once > marched in the streets. Even the Green Party in the last election could > hardly be bothered to mention climate change and dropped their manifesto > pledge to introduce carbon rationing. This was the one manifesto pledge > anywhere that would have equitably delivered the outcome that you are > advocating, and something I went knocking on the doors to support two > general elections ago. > > > > Thus, the election of Trump was not an isolated incident, but a > predictable outcome from a fragile governance system that is already > breaking down at the foot hills of climate change and entering the first > phases of a free-for-all from which no recovery can be made unless we find > a way to stop it. Once the free-for-all starts, no one will make timorous > steps along the way, but will sprint, as Trump and the US are already > doing. The fact that this is happening in a country that once held such > high ideals of freedom and fairness shows how serious the crisis is. > > > > So coming full circle to your question – we absolutely need to the cut the > emissions of the top 50% and this is the fairest thing to do. But with the > hyper competitive environment that climate change causes, no one nation can > do this in isolation and all nations when they do co-operate together for > this must be prepared for the collective economic shock of mass bond > failures. At the moment, the global political picture is moving in the > opposite direction with nations vying with each other to be top dog and > pointing increasing numbers of nuclear weapons at each others temples. > > > > Also it won’t happen on the timescale that we need and even if it did it > would not solve the crisis that we have now created for ourselves by not > starting this dialogue 21 years ago at the very opening sessions of the > COP. > > > > Thus, the only way that the cuts to the high CO2 emitters can be > implemented is if the climate restoration strategy we advocate is > immediately started which will create the negotiation space needed and > offer an alternative to the free-for-all, while making clear to the world > that the existing strategy is inadequate. > > > > The final caveat to the above, is that if we leave climate intervention > till the Arctic Ice cap has gone in the summer months then our proposals, > and anyone else’s, will be ineffective. This is likely to happen within the > next 2 years, which is about the time necessary for development and > deployment. > > > > We are on the edge. > > > > With kindest regards, > > Kevin Lister > > > > Sent from Mail <https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for > Windows 10 > > > > *From: *Kevin Anderson <kevin.ander...@manchester.ac.uk> > *Sent: *14 November 2016 23:50 > *To: *John Nissen <johnnissen2...@gmail.com> > *Cc: *David Lewis <jrandomwin...@gmail.com>; geoengineering > <geoengineering@googlegroups.com>; Glen Peters > <glen.pet...@cicero.oslo.no>; Greg Rau <gh...@sbcglobal.net>; Peter > Wadhams <peter.wadh...@gmail.com>; Kevin Lister > <kevin.lis...@btopenworld.com>; Sev Clarke <sevcla...@me.com>; Alan Gadian > <a.m.gad...@leeds.ac.uk> > *Subject: *Re: [geo] Negative Emissions: Arrows in the Quiver, Life > Preserver,and/or Moral Hazard? > > > > Let’s imagine we all agree on the importance of urgently addressing > climate change - and in particular rapidly reducing emissions. > > > > Along with CDR, in theory would you support regulations that required the > 10% of global emitters responsible for approaching 50% of global emissions > to reduce their carbon footprint to that of the typical EU citizen? > Provided policies were in place to address various rebounds - this would > deliver a cut in global emissions of at least 30%. If we are serious about > climate change, presumably this could be delivered within a year. > > > > I think we all share a deep concern about the challenges we face and that > the tone (and often the content) of the dominant mitigation discourse is > too optimistic. Set against this upbeat rhetoric, developing policies that > drive rapid lifestyle change amongst us high emitters is seldom if ever > included in the portfolio of mitigation options. My concern now, is that > the prospect of various CDR/NETs is further undermining opportunities for > rapid social-engineering. In significant part, I think this arises from the > uncomfortable fact that most of us working on climate change are in that > 10%, if not the 1% - and ultimately any technical option to avoid > addressing the huge asymmetry in CO2 emissions is innately appealing. > > > > Given Glen and I have repeatedly noted how R.D&D of CDR/NETs is something > we support - I’m interested if the seriousness of climate change is > sufficient for advocates of CDR/NETS to also call for governments to > develop policies to drive deep, profound and immediate mitigation by us > high emitters? I do not mean this to be a flippant and rhetorical question > - I’m genuinely interested to know what level of effort and discomfort we > think is acceptable in trying to delver on even a conservative reading of > the Paris Agreement. > > > > Kind regards > > > > Kevin > > > > > > > > On 14 Nov 2016, at 23:05, John Nissen <johnnissen2...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > Dear David, > > I think Klaus et al have the voice of realism. Global warming is far more > serious than we have been led to believe, and without several rapid > interventions, we are heading for many degrees of global warming this > century. > > IPCC are guilty of two colossal blunders in their projections of global > warming. The effect has been to lull the international community into a > false sense of security. Rapid interventions are now required to avoid a > lethal combination of climate change, ocean acidification and rising sea > levels. Here are the facts: > > *Blunder 1*. IPCC has ignored the increasing loss of Arctic albedo, > which is already contributing the equivalent of 30 ppm CO2 to the radiative > budget, i.e. a quarter of the forcing from CO2. > > *Blunder 2*. IPCC has ignored the warming effect of accumulated CO2. > They say that global temperature rise will be halted when net CO2 emissions > have fallen to zero, ignoring the effect of accumulated CO2 and other > forcing agents in the atmosphere. > > The first blunder is symptomatic of IPCC's treatment of the Arctic sea > ice, where they refuse to accept the observations that it is in a death > spiral, preferring to rely on models of proven inadequacy which predict > that the sea ice will last for decades. You can read all about it in Peter > Wadhams' new book "A Fairwell to Ice". > > > The second blunder can be illustrated by AR5 WG1 figure 6-40 attached and > available here [1]. The red curves are supposed to show the effect if net > emissions were to suddenly fall to zero at 2050, when CO2 has reached about > 500 ppm. The temperature (red curve in bottom diagram) should continue to > rise as a result of the forcing from 500 ppm CO2; but instead the > temperature flattens off as if the accumulated CO2 ceased to have a warming > effect! It is absolutely astonishing and frightening that such a > fundamental mistake can be made. > > > > If we want to halt global warming at any particular temperature, then we > need to bring net forcing down to zero by the time that temperature has > been reached. This involves bringing all GHGs down to their pre-industrial > level and restoring Arctic albedo, unless their residual heating (positive > forcing) is counteracted by an equal amount of cooling (negative forcing), > e.g. from aerosols. > > > > CDR has to suck CO2 out of the atmosphere faster than it is being emitted > into the atmosphere, in order to bring the level down from over 400 ppm to > pre-industrial 280 ppm. > > Methane emissions have to be suppressed (including fugitive emissions from > coal, oil and gas extraction) in order to bring the level down from 1850 > ppb to pre-industrial 750 ppb. > > > > The retreat of sea ice has to be halted and then Arctic albedo has to be > restored to its level of at least thirty years ago. > > > > Thus our best chance to halt global warming is through CO2 emissions > reduction (better than already committed) combined with several immediate > and aggressive interventions: CDR, methane emissions reduction, and rapid > cooling of the Arctic. > > > As Klaus Lackner et al say in their comment, CDR is indeed like throwing a > lifebelt to a drowning person. We need to start CDR as quickly as we can, > to be as certain as we can be to save the planet. > > In parallel we must suppress methane and cool the Arctic before we lose > any more albedo from snow and sea ice retreat. > > > > The ultimate objective must be to restore the Earth System to Holocene > conditions of climate stability, ocean alkalinity and sea level constancy. > > > > Cheers, John > > > [1] http://www.ipcc.ch/report/graphics/images/Assessment%20Repor > ts/AR5%20-%20WG1/Chapter%2006/thumbnail/Fig6-40.jpg > > > > On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 4:55 PM, David Lewis <jrandomwin...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > Anderson could maintain his stance as a voice for realism while adding his > voice to those calling for research into all forms of geoengineering. He > could compare the cost of reducing emissions to the current cost of > removing them from the atmosphere, call for a vigorous program of further > research, then state that it is still his opinion that civilization needs > to urgently and fundamentally transform its social, economic, and political > relations if it wants to continue to exist. > > > > 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 <geoengi...@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 geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com. > To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@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. > > > > <IPCC Effect of CDR WGI_AR5_Fig6-40.jpg> > > > > > -- 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.
