[geo] The Emergence of the Geoengineering Debate Within The IPCC (Case Study) | Geoengineering Our Climate?
http://geoengineeringourclimate.com/2014/09/09/the-emergence-of-the-geoengineering-debate-within-the-ipcc-case-study/ The Emergence of the Geoengineering Debate Within The IPCC (Case Study) Petersen (2014) The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has some agenda-setting power for global climate policy. This explains recent worries about the fact that the governments had decided in 2009 that the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) was to explicitly address geoengineering options, which could then possibly legitimate the serious consideration of such options in global climate policy negotiations. Such worries, however, neglect two factors. Firstly, the IPCC has a long history of dealing with geoengineering and, secondly, the IPCC performs its assessments without endorsing any options and being based on what is available in the primary literature. Still, there is no way to deny that the way the IPCC summarises the science does have an influence on how a particular subject is subsequently discussed in policy-making. For that reason, it is already interesting to look back at the emergence of the geoengineering debate within the IPCC. From my analysis of IPCC reports, a few trends become clear. Geoengineering – in all of its forms and using the term ‘geoengineering’ – has been part of all last four rounds of IPCC reports since 1996, at the level of both individual chapters and Summaries for Policymakers (SPMs). Geoengineering has also never been endorsed by the IPCC. However, in some of the IPCC reports further study of geoengineering options has been promoted, and the latest IPCC report (AR5 WGIII, 2014) made it clear that reaching a two-degree target would in many scenarios entail large-scale afforestation and/or production of bioenergy with carbon dioxide capture and storage (BECCS). From the First Assessment Report (1990) to the Fourth Assessment Report (2007) In the First Assessment Report (FAR) of 1990 the reference made to geoengineering was limited to the discussion of large-scale reforestation and afforestation, with the Summary for Policymakers (SPM) of the FAR WGIII report explicitly mentioning these as being part of scenarios that would keep CO2concentrations within certain bounds. No other options for either Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) or Solar Radiation Management (SRM) were mentioned anywhere in the FAR, and the term ‘geoengineering’ was not yet used by the IPCC. The Second Assessment Report (SAR) of 1996 was the first IPCC report that assessed ‘geoengineering’ options, which in the SAR WGII Summary for Policymakers (SPM) were considered ‘likely to be ineffective, expensive to sustain, and/or to have serious environmental and other effects that are in many cases poorly understood’. In chapter 25 on mitigation (still part of WGII at that time), geoengineering (both CDR and SRM) was discussed in a section on ‘concepts for counterbalancing climate change’. Still, only SRM examples were given in the SPM. Five years later, the Third Assessment Report (TAR) of 2001 mentioned geoengineering in its WGIII (mitigation) SPM under ‘gaps in knowledge’: it argued that ‘some basic inquiry in the area of geo-engineering’ was warranted. Interestingly, in contrast with the SAR, only CDR examples were given in the SPM this time. In the Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) of 2007, the two examples mentioned in the SPM (of WGIII) were ocean fertilisation (CDR) and stratospheric aerosols (SRM), and geoengineering options were assessed to ‘remain largely speculative and unproven, and with the risk of unknown side-effects’. It was also noted that ‘[r]eliable cost estimates for these options have not been published’. The Fifth Assessment Report (2014): Working Group I It must be admitted that the assessment of geoengineering options in the Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) of 2014 has been the most extensive of all IPCC reports, mainly because much literature has appeared in the eight years before AR5. Still, even though an IPCC expert meeting on geoengineering held in 2011[1] had received some attention, it came as a surprise to some that the WGI SPM (which was approved by governments on 27 September 2013) contained a final paragraph, which read as follows: Methods that aim to deliberately alter the climate system to counter climate change, termed geoengineering, have been proposed. Limited evidence precludes a comprehensive quantitative assessment of both Solar Radiation Management (SRM) and Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) and their impact on the climate system. CDR methods have biogeochemical and technological limitations to their potential on a global scale. There is insufficient knowledge to quantify how much CO2emissions could be partially offset by CDR on a century timescale. Modeling indicates that SRM methods, if realizable, have the potential to substantially offset a global temperature rise, but they would also modify the global water cycle, and would not reduce ocean acidification. If SRM were
[geo] CEC14 Conference Videos
Dear Colleagues, On behalf of the organizers of the Climate Engineering Conference 2014 I am pleased to announce that all of our conference videos are now available online for public consumption. They can be found on youtube, as well as on the following page of the CEC14 website: http://www.ce-conference.org/conference-videos The videos include a short film, a welcome speech by State Secretary Georg Schutte of the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research and a number of planel discussions on topics ranging from the meaning of nature in the anthropocene to the role of writers in communicating about climate engineering to the general public. There are also a number of videos covering sessions such as lunchtime discussions on moral hazard and climate engineering politics, a presentation by an artist on his 'cloud city' design, and an ad-hoc town hall meeting which was called by the organizers to serve as a platform for discussion of a pair of the statements which were distributed at the event. We hope that these 14 videos, on top of the 24 existing video interviews also found on the CEC14 website provide a useful resource and an important placekeeper for the community moving forward. Thanks to all of you who were able to attend CEC14 - to anyone who was not able but has any questions please feel free to get in touch. Nigel Moore Fellow Institute for Advanced Sustainability Studies Mail nigel.moore [at] iass-potsdam.de Web www.iass-potsdam.de -- 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.
[geo] Cities prepare for warm climate without saying so - Fire Engineering
Poster's note : slightly off topic, but likely of great interest to those interested in social science aspects of CE http://www.fireengineering.com/ap-news/2014/09/08/cities-prepare-for-warm-climate-without-saying-so.html With climate change still a political minefield across the nation despite the strong scientific consensus that it's happening, some community leaders have hit upon a way of preparing for the potentially severe local consequences without triggering explosions of partisan warfare: Just change the subject. Big cities and small towns are shoring up dams and dikes, using roof gardens to absorb rainwater or upgrading sewage treatment plans to prevent overflows. Others are planting urban forests, providing more shady relief from extreme heat. Extension agents are helping farmers deal with an onslaught of newly arrived crop pests. But in many places, especially strongholds of conservative politics, they're planning for the volatile weather linked to rising temperatures by speaking of sustainability or resilience, while avoiding no-win arguments with skeptics over whether the planet is warming or that human activity is responsible. The pattern illustrates a growing disconnect between the debate still raging in politics and the reality on the ground. In many city planning departments, it has become like Voldemort, the arch-villain of the Harry Potter stories: It's the issue that cannot be named. The messaging needs to be more on being prepared and knowing we're tending to have more extreme events, said Graham Brannin, planning director in Tulsa, Oklahoma, where Sen. James Inhofe — a global warming denier and author of a book labeling it The Greatest Hoax — once served as mayor. The reasoning behind it doesn't matter; let's just get ready. To be sure, flood control projects and other so-called resiliency measures were taking place long before anyone spoke of planetary warming. But the climate threat has added urgency and spurred creative new proposals, including ones to help people escape searing temperatures or to protect coastlines from surging tides, like artificial reefs. It's also generated new sources of government funding. In Tulsa, the city has been buying out homeowners and limiting development near the Arkansas River to help prevent flooding from severe storms. Although two lakes provide ample drinking water, Brannin is beginning to push for conservation with future droughts in mind. A nonprofit, Tulsa Partners Inc., is advocating green infrastructure such as permeable pavement to soak up storm runoff. They emphasize disaster preparedness, saying little or nothing about climate change. Leaders in Grand Haven, a town of 10,600 in predominantly Republican western Michigan, will meet this fall with design consultants to explore such possibilities as cooling stations for low-income people during future heat waves, or development restrictions to prevent storm erosion of the Lake Michigan waterfront. City Manager Pat McGinnis isn't calling it a climate change initiative. I wouldn't use those words,' McGinnis said he told the consultants. Those are a potential flash point. Grand Haven's mayor, Geri McCaleb, is among the skeptics who consider warming merely part of nature's historical cycle. Yet she's on board with ideas for dealing with storms. History will bear out who has the right answers about climate change, McCaleb said. Joe Vandermeulin, whose organization runs the Grand Haven program and others, is accustomed to walking the language tightrope. The term 'global warming' seems to be thoroughly misunderstood, so we don't use it much, Vandermeulin said, even though a primary goal is helping communities prepare for ... global warming. During a climate conference this summer that drew about 175 community leaders, government officials and scientists, mostly from the Great Lakes area, organizers even distributed a pamphlet with tips for discussing the subject — or sidestepping it. For example, avoid hyperbolic climageddon warnings about impending catastrophe, it advises. It's really unfortunate that the political climate has poisoned the way we have to talk about these things, said Don Scavia, a University of Michigan environmental scientist and an organizer of the Ann Arbor session. In Fayetteville, Arkansas, Peter Nierengarten, the city's sustainability and resilience director, encounters a range of opinion about his efforts to make houses more energy and water efficient. A conspiracy theorist website headlined The 'Sustainable' Vampire Attacks! accuses him of colluding with a supposed United Nations-inspired plot to revoke individual rights. But Nierengarten and allies successfully lobbied the GOP-led state legislature to allow communities to issue tax-exempt bonds for efficiency projects. It was all about the economic health of businesses across the state and being more competitive, he said. Not global warming. The subject is especially touchy in coastal areas, where
[geo] Re: Thermostats and dials
http://www.etcgroup.org/sites/www.etcgroup.org/files/styles/issue-thumb/public/earthwrench%20.jpg?itok=iJvqbPW2The Verge has an image of Earth inside a dial thermostat with a hand outside turning the temperature up here http://www.theverge.com/2013/12/6/5181736/who-sets-the-planets-thermostat-the-politics-of-geoengineering. An ETC image of a wrench fitted on an Earth viewed from space is here http://www.etcgroup.org/sites/www.etcgroup.org/files/styles/issue-thumb/public/earthwrench%20.jpg?itok=iJvqbPW2 A University of Washington ad for a geoengineering seminar series used a graphical rendition of a wrench on a photo of Earth taken from space which is here http://www.atmos.washington.edu/~robwood/Geoengineering/ Getty Images has a channellock type wrench gripping an Earth photo taken from space here http://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/geo-engineering-artwork-royalty-free-image/99312630. The World Affairs Council of Harrisburg combined a crescent wrench photo and a graphical depiction of Earth from space here http://www.wacharrisburg.org/event/climate-change-geoengineering/. .And there is this cartoon of a hand turning a thermostat on an Earth. When Google Image Search finds this and you look for its source you are presented with a link to this page http://lexnatur.blogspot.com/. However the picture no longer exists on that blog. https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-MM43qNekdG4/VA82iH0uaeI/Ags/pzkiigyrP_c/s1600/earth%2Bthermostat.PNG On Friday, August 29, 2014 12:08:33 PM UTC-7, olivermorton wrote: Can anyone remember when they first saw an illustration in which the earth as seen from space was presented as a dial that a hand was adjusting, in the manner of a thermostat, or for that matter as a nut being turned by a wrench? (I associate the second with some ETC publications, but interested in other use, too) Thans for any help o -- 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.
Re: [geo] Re: Thermostats and dials
Here's one from MIT in 2009 (attached) [image: Inline image 1] James R. Fleming Professor of Science, Technology, and Society, Colby College Research Associate, Columbia University Profile: http://www.colby.edu/directory/profile/jfleming/ On Tue, Sep 9, 2014 at 1:39 PM, David Lewis jrandomwin...@gmail.com wrote: http://www.etcgroup.org/sites/www.etcgroup.org/files/styles/issue-thumb/public/earthwrench%20.jpg?itok=iJvqbPW2The Verge has an image of Earth inside a dial thermostat with a hand outside turning the temperature up here http://www.theverge.com/2013/12/6/5181736/who-sets-the-planets-thermostat-the-politics-of-geoengineering. An ETC image of a wrench fitted on an Earth viewed from space is here http://www.etcgroup.org/sites/www.etcgroup.org/files/styles/issue-thumb/public/earthwrench%20.jpg?itok=iJvqbPW2 A University of Washington ad for a geoengineering seminar series used a graphical rendition of a wrench on a photo of Earth taken from space which is here http://www.atmos.washington.edu/~robwood/Geoengineering/ Getty Images has a channellock type wrench gripping an Earth photo taken from space here http://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/geo-engineering-artwork-royalty-free-image/99312630. The World Affairs Council of Harrisburg combined a crescent wrench photo and a graphical depiction of Earth from space here http://www.wacharrisburg.org/event/climate-change-geoengineering/. .And there is this cartoon of a hand turning a thermostat on an Earth. When Google Image Search finds this and you look for its source you are presented with a link to this page http://lexnatur.blogspot.com/. However the picture no longer exists on that blog. https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-MM43qNekdG4/VA82iH0uaeI/Ags/pzkiigyrP_c/s1600/earth%2Bthermostat.PNG On Friday, August 29, 2014 12:08:33 PM UTC-7, olivermorton wrote: Can anyone remember when they first saw an illustration in which the earth as seen from space was presented as a dial that a hand was adjusting, in the manner of a thermostat, or for that matter as a nut being turned by a wrench? (I associate the second with some ETC publications, but interested in other use, too) Thans for any help o -- 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. -- 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.
[geo] UK Job - Climate Change Adaptation and Geoengineering science advisor , - Ref:1427031
Poster's note : it's good to see that advising the UK government on geoengineering is valued a tiny bit more than a London policeman's starting salary (although the lack of a permanent contract with rights and the need for 2 academic degrees means the lifetime earnings would still be significantly lower). https://www.civilservicejobs.service.gov.uk/csr/jobs.cgi?jcode=1427031 IRC89058 - Climate Change Adaptation and Geoengineering science advisor - Ref:1427031 Department of Energy and Climate Change Location: DECC, 3 Whitehall Place, London Job Description This is an opportunity to work in a high profile and scientifically challenging area of DECC’s work assessing and responding to the risks posed by climate change. The Science and Innovation Directorate (SID) provides DECC and wider government with evidence and analysis to underpin our climate change and energy activities. In particular DECC Science provides scientific advice in support of DECC’s international and domestic policies on issues including negotiations under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), adaptation to climate change in the UK, geo-engineering, bioenergy and mitigation options. It leads on the UK’s input to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). It oversees research in support of the above and is responsible for advising Ministers on scientific developments and communicating information on climate science. We are looking for someone to provide scientific support and advice in three key areas of SID work: geoengineering, adaptation to climate change, and input to the IPCC. Geoengineering is attracting increasing attention and DECC needs to be in an informed position to respond to both its proponents and opponents. Adaptation to climate change in the UK is led by Defra, but with input from, and actions upon, all relevant departments including DECC. DECC Science is responsible for providing a steer and monitoring the evolution of the evidence base to inform policies in these areas and drawing relevant developments to the attention of colleagues in a style appropriate for non-scientists. We also provide the UK's link with the IPCC, influencing the scope and content of reports, including the current 5th Assessment Report, and working to shape the future structure and work programme of the Panel. You will need sound scientific skills and the ability to work across teams of scientists and policy experts to shape DECC work going forward. Open to UK, British Commonwealth and European Economic Area (EEA) Nationals and certain non EEA members What security level is required for this post? Basic check Working Pattern This/these jobs are available for full-time, part-time or flexible working arrangements (including job share arrangements) Fixed Term 12 Months Hours 37 Allowances £4,045 Scientist specialist allowance Competence 1 Seeing the Big Picture Competence 2 Collaborating and Partnering Competence 3 Leading and Communicating Competence 4 Delivering at Pace Competence 5 Managing a Quality Service Qualification(s) A good first degree in a physical science or other relevant science subject, and a relevant second degree and/or equivalent research experience, are essential. Experience of using scientific evidence to draw conclusions and communicate recommendations to non-specialists is essential. For further information on this post, please contact Dr Cathy Johnson on 0300 068 5584 or email cathy.john...@decc.gsi.gov.uk Salary £30149-£35117 -- 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.
Re: [geo] The Emergence of the Geoengineering Debate Within The IPCC (Case Study) | Geoengineering Our Climate?
Thanks Andrew and esp thanks Prof. Petersen (cc'd). Good to have the history of this important issue out in the open. To summarize my concerns, I'd like to comment on the very well crafted AR5 WGI SPM paragraph highlighted by Prof. Petersen: Methods that aim to deliberately alter the climate system to counter climate change, termed geoengineering, have been proposed. Limited evidence precludes a comprehensive quantitative assessment of both Solar Radiation Management (SRM) and Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) and their impact on the climate system. CDR methods have biogeochemical and technological limitations to their potential on a global scale. There is insufficient knowledge to quantify how much CO2emissions could be partially offset by CDR on a century timescale. Modeling indicates that SRM methods, if realizable, have the potential to substantially offset a global temperature rise, but they would also modify the global water cycle, and would not reduce ocean acidification. If SRM were terminated for any reason, there is high confidencethat global surface temperatures would rise very rapidly to values consistent with the greenhouse gas forcing. CDR and SRM methods carry side effects and long-term consequences on a global scale. While we may have limited evidence on the impacts of intentional, human SRM and CDR, we certainly have plenty of quantitative evidence of the benefits of natural SRM and CDR that very effectively moderate Earth's climate. The composition of the atmosphere very effectively manages solar and thermal radiation and our climate, as we are witnessing by disrupting this natural management by adding CO2. However, the impacts of our CO2 emissions would be far worse were it not for well documented, natural CDR that annually removes the equivalent of about 55% of our emissions from the atmosphere (*). The WG I SPM claims: CDR methods have biogeochemical and technological limitations to their potential on a global scale and There is insufficient knowledge to quantify how much CO2 emissions could be partially offset by CDR on a century timescale. The following was added to WGIII SPM at the insistence of policymakers: The availability and scale of these [afforestation and BECCS, acp] and other Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) technologies and methods are uncertain and CDR technologies and methods are, to varying degrees, associated with challenges and risks. The preceding statements seem rather naieve, considering that some 16 GT of our CO2 emissions (and associated climate impacts) that are, lucky for us, already conveniently removed from the atmosphere each year by natural CDR, so far dwarfing any alternative CO2/climate mitigation actually done or contemplated by humans. While we can all agree that drastically reducing CO2 emissions is an obvious remedy, we are failing at this task and will likely continue to do so (**). In the meantime, it would seem unwise to downplay the potential of the one technology that has been saving our bacon all along, CDR, by suggesting that it is some sort of new, exotic, unnatural, scary process whose proactive/engineered enhancement would cause risks greater than those of alternative actions. To quote CDRmethods carry side effects and long-term consequences on a global scale. Is there any action that we could take at this point that will not have side effects and long-term consequences? Certainly we need to research and better understand the costs, benefits, risks, and impacts of enhanced/engineered CDR (relative to other actions) before deploying, but that will not happen as long as this approach is unjustifably relegated to the backwaters of consideration by IPCC and, hence, international policymaking, investment, and action. That policymakers are allowed to play an active roll in editing (watering down) these critically important SPM's that are supposed to summarize the best science available is a topic discussed elsewhere (***). I look forward a reciprocal invitation from policymakers to allow scientists to edit their policies. To conclude, we are in the midst of a quickly unfolding planetary emergency (IPCC, 1996-2014). Is it really a good idea to downplay if not vilify any potential remedies, especially ones that are already actually working at global scales? for free? despite the worries of policymakers and others? (*) http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v488/n7409/abs/nature11299.html http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2009GL040613/abstract;jsessionid=9CAB60CC2D4EE2D28B073F1C1CC76686.f01t01 http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v2/n12/full/ngeo689.html (**) http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/9/8/084018 (***)http://www.sciencemag.org/content/345/6198/739.3.full?sid=4fe88d7a-3513-439d-8746-c764948d03d6 Thanks for listening, Greg From: Andrew Lockley andrew.lock...@gmail.com To: geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.com Sent:
