[geo] Reexamining the economics of aerosol geoengineering
Reexamining the economics of aerosol geoengineering CLIMATIC CHANGE 2012, DOI: 10.1007/s10584-012-0619-x J. Eric Bickel and Shubham Agrawal http://www.springerlink.com/content/01g462v6j310w461/ [online free access] Abstract In this paper, we extend the work of Goes, Tuana, and Keller (Climatic Change 2011; GTK) by reexamining the economic benefit, of aerosol geoengineering. GTK found that a complete substitution of geoengineering for CO2 abatement fails a cost-benefit test over a wide range of scenarios regarding (i) the probability that such a program would be aborted and (ii) the economic damages caused by geoengineering itself. In this paper, we reframe the conditions under which GTK assumed geoengineering would/could be used. In so doing, we demonstrate that geoengineering may pass a cost-benefit test over a wide range of scenarios originally considered by GTK. 4 Conclusion As stated at the outset, this paper has made no attempt to argue for the deployment of geoengineering. Instead, we have demonstrated that framing the use of geoengineering is critical to determining its cost-benefit. All of our changes to GTK's analysis have resulted in a much larger region in which GEO may pass a cost-benefit test, because of the way GEO was positioned: Society can either (i) implement an optimally designed abatement policy (beginning with 25 % reductions 4 years from now) that will proceed uninterrupted for the next several hundred years, or (ii) implement geoengineering that completely substitutes for emissions reductions and if things go badly (50 years from now), society must suffer the consequences and is not permitted to choose emissions reductions later. Given this choice, it is not surprising that the range in which GEO would be economic is quite small. Differing and we believe more reasonable framings of geoengineering use result in nearly the opposite conclusion: GEO may pass a cost-benefit test over a wide range of scenarios regarding (i) the probability it would be abandoned, and (ii) the economic damage caused by its use. This conclusion, however, is not invariant to changes in the underlying assumptions or model structure upon which it is based. For example, future research may determine that GEO damages increase non-linearly with usage intensity or are more damaging than GTK assumed. Jesse L. Reynolds, M.S. PhD Candidate European and International Public Law Tilburg Sustainability Center Tilburg University, The Netherlands email: j.l.reyno...@uvt.nl http://www.tilburguniversity.edu/webwijs/show/?uid=j.l.reynolds http://twitter.com/geoengpolicy -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
Re: [geo] Re: NYT: Geoengineering: Testing the Waters- Naomi Klein
Naomi has invented her own distorted version of an idea Bill McKibben first advanced in the late 1980s in his book The End of Nature. McKibben wrote at that time that he felt differently about being in what he formerly regarded as the pristine wilderness now that he realized that human activity had changed the composition of the atmosphere which had changed global climate which must have changed every ecosystem on the planet. Naomi's use of this McKibben idea requires her to define everything as fine until she heard all the fuss about a geoengineering experiment out in the Pacific. Now she can't look at an orca swimming in the Gulf of Georgia in front of her home without worrying that it wouldn't be swimming there unless that 120 tonnes of fertilizer had been dumped in the Pacific hundreds of miles away. She feels strange. She writes: once we start deliberately interfering with earth's climate systems - whether by dimming the sun or fertilizing the seas - all natural events can begin to take on a sinister tinge. as if all of nature were being manipulated behind the scenes. 1,000,000 tonnes per hour of the CO2 that is emitted into the atmosphere by civilization is absorbed by the ocean every hour, but a one time application of 120 tonnes of fertilizer, because it is deliberate in a way that the CO2 Naomi emits while flying around the world on her speaking tours isn't, bothers her. On Sunday, October 28, 2012 5:38:06 PM UTC-7, Ken Caldeira wrote: Of course, this statement of Naomi Klein's is false (unless you are willing to stretch the meaning of the word 'could' to encompass everything that is not a logical impossibility): *The scariest thing about this proposition is that models suggest that many of the people who could well be most harmed by these technologies are already disproportionately vulnerable to the impacts of climate change. * Surely, models suggest the contrary, that solar goengineering may allow those who are disproportionately vulnerable to the impacts of climate change to avoid some of the harm. A robust result of solar geoengineering simulations is that these methods, at least in the models, reduce the amount of climate change for most people in most places most of the time. Although there is always a chance that someplace might be negatively impacted, the robust results are that solar geoengineering tends to increase food production by diminishing heat stress (see attachment). By working to remove an option that vulnerable communities might use to reduce harm caused primarily by CO2 emissions from developed countries, Naomi Klein, ETC, etc are increasing the potential for damage to the disproportionately vulnerable. In their effort to be politically correct, they are exposing to increased risk the very communities they paternally (maternally?) claim to be protecting. On Sat, Oct 27, 2012 at 10:54 PM, Joshua Jacobs josh...@gmail.comjavascript: wrote: Respect, Naomi Klein as I may, I am befuddled by the spin that seems to have been swallowed by her, multiple media outlets, and researchers alike. How do the HSRC activities to restore a marine ecosystem constitute an act of geoengineering (or eco-terrorism to some) any more or less than native ecosystem restoration or conservation projects around the world? Furthermore, why is geoengineering such a reviled word when used in reference to these projects while conservation and restoration are revered...even when they fundamentally apply to the same process? That is, imposing our imperfect idea of what Nature would do without us. In addition, to what prehistoric ideal state can we possibly restore a constantly evolving ecosystem to in lieu of a changing climate (now and millennia in the past)? Despite my bewilderment in the overuse of an Appeal to Nature Argument in Naomi's article, I see great value in supporting the rich biodiversity of both native and novel ecosystems (see Emma Marris' The Rambunctious Garden). With the enormous carbon exchange that goes on between global ecosystem and atmosphere each year(~210 Gt taken in by photosynthesis, ~210 respirated/decomposed back, plus ~9 Gt anthropogenic), it seems foolish not to utilize the capacity of ecosystems to store atmospheric carbon in organic, mineralized, or re-fossilized forms. Furthermore, it is necessary to have ecosystem management (of any scale) be financially and politically, as most certainly ecologically, viable. This is what I believe that Russ George has been, albeit clumsily, aiming for. We would do well to improve on his model. Thoughts on this? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/geoengineering/-/5izNoMepvS8J. To post to this group, send email to
[geo] Re: B.C. geoengineering experiment attracts worldwide attention at UN | CTV News
Andrew, The Scientific Community is represented by Prof Peter Burkill from Plymouth University representing the Scientific Committee on Oceanic Research ( http://www.scor-int.org/) - a part of ICSU the International Council for Science. I have been abroad recently so have not responded to other invitations to respond on the Canadian project. Chris On Sunday, 28 October 2012 16:13:01 UTC, andrewjlockley wrote: Note forthcoming London convention meeting. Is anyone on this list going to be representing the scientific community? http://www.ctvnews.ca/mobile/sci-tech/b-c-geoengineering-experiment-attracts-worldwide-attention-at-un-1.1013948 VANCOUVER -- Canada may be called onto the carpet this week as nations gather in the United Kingdom to negotiate the terms of an international treaty to regulate the controversial practice of geoengineering. A First Nations salmon restoration group in Haida Gwaii has attracted worldwide attention after dumping more than 100 metric tonnes of iron into the Pacific Ocean in a process known as ocean fertilization. Many scientists from around the world have condemned the unsanctioned experiment, and the federal government says it is investigating.But Canada is a hotbed of geoengineering, says a watchdog group, and has been involved in similar experiments in the past.Geoengineering is the deliberate modification of the environment as a means of combating climate change.Some countries would like to see geoengineering more acceptable than it has been, and Canada's in that bunch of countries, said Jim Thomas, spokesman for Montreal-based ETC Group, which opposes the practice.Canada has pulled out of the Kyoto Protocol, which committed the country to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and geoengineering is potentially very attractive, Thomas said.You do have governments, and some large industries and some of the think tanks they sponsor who would prefer to see us go down the route of geoengineering. That if geoengineering could be touted as a cheap and quick and easy fix, that means we don't have to do all the heavy lifting of reducing emissions and changing our economy, then they would prefer that.Canada funded and participated in two ocean fertilization experiments in 1999 and 2002 prior to signing onto a voluntary UN moratorium.In July 2002, Fisheries Department scientists participated in a small-scale ocean project 1,500 kilometres off the coast of British Columbia called Subarctic Ecosystem Response to Iron Enrichment Study.The iron causes a phytoplankton bloom, a natural sponge for carbon from the atmosphere. As organism feed off the plankton and die, sinking to the bottom of the ocean, the carbon is trapped down there. Previous, smaller-scale tests show the effect was short-term.Fisheries and Oceans Canada's current research, though, is limited to computer simulations, spokesman Frank Stanek said in an email response to questions.Since that time, the department has not been involved in the deployment of iron solution into the ocean, Stanek wrote.ETC Group, which works on issues of how new technologies can impact the world's poor and vulnerable, lists eleven projects that have taken place or are in the works, including a hail suppression project in Alberta that continues today.Funded by a consortium of insurance firms, the project seeds clouds over the Prairie province with silver iodide, to shrink ice stones. Such geoengineering projects are controversial, but on the rise in the face of climate change.In the incident off Haida Gwaii, the Haida Salmon Restoration Corp. of the village of Old Massett dumped iron into the ocean in late July. The effort was two-fold: to create a phytoplankton bloom that would one, spur salmon returns, and two, capture carbon for profit.The iron causes a phytoplankton bloom, a natural sponge for carbon from the atmosphere. As organism feed off the plankton and die, sinking to the bottom of the ocean, the carbon is trapped down there. Previous, smaller-scale tests show the effect was short-term.The negative reaction in the scientific world was swift.There are several voluntary and mandatory international moratoria on ocean dumping and specifically on iron fertilization, and Environment Canada is investigating the experiment.A regulatory regime to address exactly the kind of incident that took place off Haida Gwaii is up for negotiation at the meeting next week in London for the London Convention and Protocol, which bans dumping toxins at sea.Adam Sweet, a spokesman for the Environment Department, said Canadian officials will be in London for the meeting on the London Convention from Oct. 29 to Nov. 2, and in addition to the regular business at these meetings... parties will be discussing the issue of ocean fertilization.The delegates will stress that no permission was granted for the experiment, and ocean
