[geo] Re: Important: make sunsets interview
Andrew, I'm not a regular listener, but this is a great podcast -- well done! I recommend others give it a listen. Josh On Saturday, December 31, 2022 at 1:00:56 PM UTC-5 Russell Seitz wrote: > The comparison of Ice 911 and Make Sunsets in your podcast is entirely > deserved. > > On Saturday, December 31, 2022 at 9:31:44 AM UTC-5 Andrew Lockley wrote: > >> I don't normally announce podcast episodes individually, but this is >> worth your attention. >> >> First (known) long form interview with SAI deployment company >> @makeSunsets >> https://open.spotify.com/episode/2Fr15fdX20qyyfVX8VCF3Q?si=J-kE7zqSR5eCuh9PLcD3fw >> > -- 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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/6c30bffc-46f6-4473-9aff-fed5a2501a7en%40googlegroups.com.
[geo] Re: Make Sunsets: Clarifications!
I want to repeat a set of questions I publicly posed to Luke on December 9, few if any of which have been fully answered (despite the statement "Happy to answer any questions"). Hi Luke, Can you provide more information about your launches--locations, flight descriptions, release altitudes and amounts, safety protocols, consultations, permits, funding, etc.? Josh Horton On Thursday, December 29, 2022 at 8:07:48 PM UTC-5 Russell Seitz wrote: > Luke, Make Sunsets has tweeted invoking "trade secrets ' in denying > simple requests to quantify how much helium is needed per > " cooling credit". > This lack of transparency cannot stop anyone , policy analysts included > from running the numbers . > > Dimensional analysis based on handbook and commercially disclosed values > of the physical constants of air, helium and SO2 indicates that you can at > best hope to lift 1.01 Kg per STP cubic meter of 97% pure balloon grade > He. > > Since SO2 vapor's molecular weight makes it over twice as dense as air ( > ~64/29), even if if the dead weigh of the balloon and its telemetry are > completely disregarded it will still take a tonne or more of helium to > loft a tonne of aerosol feedstock to stratospheric elevation. > > As you must be aware, the short supply of helium ( the US strategic > reserve acquired after WWII was largely sold off by 2021) has already > quadrupled its cost., and at present , annual global production is > below100,000 tonnes and recoverable reserves stand at around 30 million > tonnes globally. > > Using NOAA's numbers: > > https://research.noaa.gov/article/ArtMID/587/ArticleID/2756/Simulated-geoengineering-evaluation-cooler-planet-but-with-side-effects > it is clear that your scheme would require lofting of a megatonne or > more of SO2 a year per degree K of cooling: which is not only an order of > magnitude more that present production can bear, but enough to completely > deplete known reserves and resources by 2050. > > Finally, US helium is almost exclusively a byproduct of natural gas > production , and so entails substantial release of methane and other > hydrocarbons that are greenhouse gases more powerful than CO2 > > On Wednesday, December 28, 2022 at 6:09:51 PM UTC-5 lu...@lukeiseman.com > wrote: > >> Thanks Andrew, Olivier, Bala, and everyone else for diving in with >> critiques here. I'm a cofounder of Make Sunsets and want to clarify a few >> things: >> >> *Honesty: * >> We have no desire to mislead anyone. If we make a mistake (which we >> will), we'll correct it. >> *Radiative Forcing:* >> I didn't make this "gram offsets a ton" number up. It comes from David >> Keith's research: >> "a gram of aerosol in the stratosphere, delivered perhaps by high-flying >> jets, could offset the warming effect of a ton of carbon dioxide, a factor >> of 1 million to 1." >> <https://keith.seas.harvard.edu/news/whats-right-temperature-earth> >> and, again: "Geoengineering’s leverage is very high—one gram of >> particles in the stratosphere prevents the warming caused by a ton of >> carbon dioxide." >> <https://longnow.org/seminars/02015/feb/17/patient-geoengineering/> >> By stating "offsetting the warming effect of 1 ton of carbon for 1 year," >> I was trying to be more conservative than Professor Keith. I am correcting >> "carbon" to read "carbon dioxide" on the cooling credit description right >> now, and I'm adding a paragraph at the start of the post stating that >> estimates vary, but a leading researcher cites a gram offsetting a ton. >> For the several hundred dollars of cooling credits we've already sold, >> I'll be providing evidence to each purchaser that I've delivered at least 2 >> grams per cooling credit. >> Olivier, or anyone else: I'd be happy to post something by you to our >> blog explaining what you estimate the radiative forcing of 1g so2 released >> at 20km altitude from in or near the tropics will be and why. I will >> include language of your choosing explaining that you in no way endorse >> what we are doing. >> I very much hope to get suggestions from this community on >> instrumentation we should fly to improve the state of the science here. >> Again, I'm happy to do this with disclaimers about how researchers we fly >> things for are not endorsing our efforts. Or even without revealing who the >> researchers are: we'll fly test instruments and provide data, no questions >> asked:) >> *Telemetry: * >> My first 2 flights had no telemetry: in April, this was sti
[geo] Re: Actively Launching
Hi Luke, Can you provide more information about your launches--locations, flight descriptions, release altitudes and amounts, safety protocols, consultations, permits, funding, etc.? Josh Horton On Friday, December 2, 2022 at 12:14:16 PM UTC-5 lu...@lukeiseman.com wrote: > I wanted to let you all know we've launched: Make Sunsets is the first > place you can buy cooling credits <https://makesunsets.com>. This > directly funds our research launches of so2 into the stratosphere. We've > launched twice, and we'll have 3 more within the month. > > I hope some of you will take me up on my offer: we will fly any reasonable > test instrumentation. > > Happy to answer any questions, and I'll also be thrilled to help others > set up their own launch programs. I'm particularly interested in launch > sites on equatorial islands existentially threatened by climate change. > > -Luke > -- 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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/fcdcfccc-160e-4966-bd57-9a41b62d37fan%40googlegroups.com.
Re: [geo] HPAC comment on White House Office of Science and Technology Policy climate intervention program
Great, that's helpful, thanks Ron. Josh On Friday, September 23, 2022 at 2:28:07 PM UTC-4 rpba...@gmail.com wrote: > Hi Josh, > > As far as I know it was in response to a general call for comments (see > intro to the HPAC response) here: > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rByAkb7rBO8f5lMCKUcMqJPlaFuhftNi/edit > > I don't know of any documents from the OSTP or the USGCRP on the proposed > research program that have been publicly shared. > > Best, > Ron Baiman (HPAC OSTP response drafting committee) > > > > On Fri, Sep 23, 2022 at 12:19 PM Josh Horton wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> Obviously I'm late to this conversation, but I have a quick question for >> those of you who were engaged -- were the comments many of you submitted in >> response to a draft plan or something similar made available by OSTP, or in >> response to a general call for thoughts on research and research >> governance? I assume it was the latter, but if it was the former can >> someone please pass along any relevant documents? Thanks. >> >> Josh Horton >> >> On Saturday, September 10, 2022 at 2:14:25 AM UTC-4 Sev Clarke wrote: >> >>> My submission was: >>> >>> *THREE CLIMATE SOLUTIONS* >>> >>> >>> >>> *Introduction. *As harnessing industry is likely to be key to prompt >>> and effective climate action and investment, the text in blue bold below >>> indicates some of the industrial applications of the three conceptual >>> technologies. Some of them should be profitable. Most await independent >>> assessment, modelling, development, governance and deployment. Supporting >>> documentation is available on request. The three technologies are currently >>> under active investigation by a consortium of renowned research institutes. >>> >>> >>> >>> *Buoyant Flake Ocean Fertilization (BFOF)* is designed to nutriate >>> oligotrophic surface waters with the necessary nutrients. Rice husks rich >>> in opaline silica are coated in waste minerals containing iron, phosphate >>> and trace elements using hot-melt lignin glue derived from straw or woody >>> waste and a leavening agent to provide buoyancy. Reactive nitrogen is >>> provided by nutrient-supplemented cyanobacteria that convert atmospheric >>> nitrogen and CO2 into biomass. The flakes are pumped pneumatically from the >>> holds of bulk cargo ships thinly over the sea surface, into which flake >>> nutrients leach out over a year before the husks disintegrate and sink. >>> >>> >>> >>> Modelling should be able to establish the theoretical cooling effect >>> provided by increasing the albedo of these waters by increasing their >>> phytoplankton concentrations. Modelling and experimentation should also be >>> able to estimate the increase in marine biomass that would likely be >>> generated by such supplementary fertilization, together with its beneficial >>> effects on ocean de-acidification and the moving downwards (sequestration) >>> of the carbonaceous material contained in marine faeces, dead organisms, >>> marine ‘snow', flake residuals, and the bicarbonate released by bacterial >>> and chemical action. It has been estimated that this could sequester from >>> 6-13GtC/yr in the ocean depths - at very low cost, or even profitably. >>> >>> >>> >>> The ultra-slow release of nutrients into nutrient-poor, and increasingly >>> stratified, surface waters should allow a rich and stable marine ecology to >>> develop. Furthermore, it would tend to prevent eutrophication and toxicity >>> from occurring. The effectiveness of this proposed method has recently been >>> given a major boost, as it was realized that krill and other diel, >>> vertically-migrating (DVM) species form an Active Carbon Pump that, when >>> supplemented by increased phytoplankton numbers fed by the minerals >>> released by the buoyant flakes, could release sufficient carbon-rich faecal >>> pellets and respiration at depth fully to offset annual anthropogenic >>> carbon dioxide emissions. *The commercial opportunities offered by >>> this technology lie mainly in the additional fish catch or fishing >>> royalties that it could provide. In time, independently-verified carbon >>> credits might also become monetizable from proven carbon sequestration. The >>> increase in ocean cooling albedo caused by the solar-reflecting >>> phytoplankton and their cloud-thic
Re: [geo] HPAC comment on White House Office of Science and Technology Policy climate intervention program
Hi all, Obviously I'm late to this conversation, but I have a quick question for those of you who were engaged -- were the comments many of you submitted in response to a draft plan or something similar made available by OSTP, or in response to a general call for thoughts on research and research governance? I assume it was the latter, but if it was the former can someone please pass along any relevant documents? Thanks. Josh Horton On Saturday, September 10, 2022 at 2:14:25 AM UTC-4 Sev Clarke wrote: > My submission was: > > *THREE CLIMATE SOLUTIONS* > > > > *Introduction. *As harnessing industry is likely to be key to prompt and > effective climate action and investment, the text in blue bold below > indicates some of the industrial applications of the three conceptual > technologies. Some of them should be profitable. Most await independent > assessment, modelling, development, governance and deployment. Supporting > documentation is available on request. The three technologies are currently > under active investigation by a consortium of renowned research institutes. > > > > *Buoyant Flake Ocean Fertilization (BFOF)* is designed to nutriate > oligotrophic surface waters with the necessary nutrients. Rice husks rich > in opaline silica are coated in waste minerals containing iron, phosphate > and trace elements using hot-melt lignin glue derived from straw or woody > waste and a leavening agent to provide buoyancy. Reactive nitrogen is > provided by nutrient-supplemented cyanobacteria that convert atmospheric > nitrogen and CO2 into biomass. The flakes are pumped pneumatically from the > holds of bulk cargo ships thinly over the sea surface, into which flake > nutrients leach out over a year before the husks disintegrate and sink. > > > > Modelling should be able to establish the theoretical cooling effect > provided by increasing the albedo of these waters by increasing their > phytoplankton concentrations. Modelling and experimentation should also be > able to estimate the increase in marine biomass that would likely be > generated by such supplementary fertilization, together with its beneficial > effects on ocean de-acidification and the moving downwards (sequestration) > of the carbonaceous material contained in marine faeces, dead organisms, > marine ‘snow', flake residuals, and the bicarbonate released by bacterial > and chemical action. It has been estimated that this could sequester from > 6-13GtC/yr in the ocean depths - at very low cost, or even profitably. > > > > The ultra-slow release of nutrients into nutrient-poor, and increasingly > stratified, surface waters should allow a rich and stable marine ecology to > develop. Furthermore, it would tend to prevent eutrophication and toxicity > from occurring. The effectiveness of this proposed method has recently been > given a major boost, as it was realized that krill and other diel, > vertically-migrating (DVM) species form an Active Carbon Pump that, when > supplemented by increased phytoplankton numbers fed by the minerals > released by the buoyant flakes, could release sufficient carbon-rich faecal > pellets and respiration at depth fully to offset annual anthropogenic > carbon dioxide emissions. *The commercial opportunities offered by this > technology lie mainly in the additional fish catch or fishing royalties > that it could provide. In time, independently-verified carbon credits might > also become monetizable from proven carbon sequestration. The increase in > ocean cooling albedo caused by the solar-reflecting phytoplankton and their > cloud-thickening emissions is unlikely to be monetizable, though beneficial > to the biosphere and humanity. * > > > > Floating* Seatomizer* (seawater atomizing) units, powered by offshore > wind farms, could spray seawater into the lower atmosphere to humidify the > air, form high-albedo marine cloud, cool the surface water, restore coral > reefs, increase off-planet heat flow, and irrigate the land with > additional, gentle precipitation. BETE’s commercial spray nozzles, when > adapted to use higher and triphasic pressures, might generate droplets in > the right size distributions to produce sea salt aerosols, cloud > nucleation, atmospheric humidification up to the point where saturation > occurs, marine cloud forms or thickens, and rainfall or snow may be induced > to fall at predetermined distances downwind - saving crops, forests, and > homes. Performed in arctic warm seasons, ice albedo and thickness could be > protected. > > > > Anchored arrays of Seatomizer units should be able to have significant > regional cooling effects on the warming waters that power extreme weather &
[geo] Non-Use and Earth System Governance
Hi everyone, The proposed Non-Use Agreement seems to be largely driven by the leadership of the Earth System Governance Project (see here https://www.earthsystemgovernance.org). In that regard it's worth mentioning that I recently co-authored a couple of articles on how ESG and some of its prominent affiliates relate to solar geoengineering. The first, written with Jesse Reynolds, is titled *An Earth System Governance Perspective on Solar Geoengineering* (https://keith.seas.harvard.edu/files/tkg/files/an_earth_system_governance_perspective_on_solar_geoengineering.pdf?m=1603715657). Here's the abstract: *Solar geoengineering appears capable of reducing climate change and the associated risks. In part because it would be global in effect, the governance of solar geoengineering is a central concern. The Earth System Governance (ESG) Project includes many researchers who, to varying degrees, utilize a common vocabulary and research framework. Despite the clear mutual relevance of solar geoengineering and ESG, few ESG researchers have considered the topic in substantial depth. To stimulate its sustained uptake as a subject within the ESG research program, we identify significant contributions thus far by ESG scholars on the subject of solar geoengineering governance and survey the wider solar geo- engineering governance literature from the perspective of the new ESG research framework. Based on this analysis, we also suggest specific potential lines of inquiry that we believe are ripe for research by ESG scholars: nonstate actors’ roles, polycentricity, public engagement and participation, and the Anthropocene.* The second, written with Barbara Koremenos, is titled *Steering and Influence in Transnational Climate Governance: Nonstate Engagement in Solar Geoengineering Research* (https://keith.seas.harvard.edu/files/tkg/files/glep_a_00572_horton.pdf?m=1599010167). There's a big overlap between ESG and TCG. Here's the abstract: *Theorists of transnational climate governance (TCG) seek to account for the increasing involvement of nonstate and substate actors in global climate policy. While transnational actors have been present in the emerging field of solar geoengineering—a novel technol- ogy intended to reflect a fraction of sunlight back to space to reduce climate impacts— many of their most significant activities, including knowledge dissemination, scientific capacity building, and conventional lobbying, are not captured by the TCG framework. Insofar as TCG is identified with transnational governance and transnational governance is important to reducing climate risks, an incomplete TCG framework is problematic for effective policy making. We attribute this shortcoming on the part of TCG to its exclusive focus on steering and corollary exclusion of influence as a critical component of gover- nance. Exercising influence, for example, through inside and outside lobbying, is an important part of transnational governance—it complements direct governing with indi- rect efforts to inform, persuade, pressure, or otherwise influence both governor and gov- erned. Based on an empirical analysis of solar geoengineering research governance and a theoretical consideration of alternative literatures, including research on interest groups and nonstate advocacy, we call for a broader theory of transnational governance that integrates steering and influence in a way that accounts for the full array of nonstate and substate engagements beyond the state.* Both of these articles offer insights into some of the perspectives behind the proposal. Josh Horton -- 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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/d6809349-1f49-4a6a-bfd3-306236387758n%40googlegroups.com.
[geo] Re: Parametric Insurance for Solar Geoengineering: Insights from the Pacific Catastrophe Risk Assessment and Financing Initiative
Thanks for flagging Andrew. I'd also point those who are interested toward the guest blog we wrote for C2G - https://www.c2g2.net/solar-geoengineering-compensation-and-parametric-insurance-insights-from-the-pacific/ Among other things, we attempt to connect a number of different arguments about unilateralism, compensation, loss and damage, liability, and index-based climate risk insurance that are spread across three relatively recent papers. Josh On Wednesday, October 14, 2020 at 2:18:15 PM UTC-4 Andrew Lockley wrote: > > -- Forwarded message - > From: Andrew Lockley > Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2020, 12:50 > Subject: Parametric Insurance for Solar Geoengineering: Insights from the > Pacific Catastrophe Risk Assessment and Financing Initiative > To: carbondiox...@googlegroups.com < > carbondiox...@googlegroups.com> > > > > https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10./1758-5899.12864 > > Parametric Insurance for Solar Geoengineering: Insights from the Pacific > Catastrophe Risk Assessment and Financing Initiative > Joshua B. Horton Penehuro Lefale David Keith > First published: 10 October 2020 > https://doi.org/10./1758-5899.12864 > About > Sections > > > Share on > Abstract > Solar geoengineering (SG) entails using technology to modify the Earth's > radiative balance to offset some of the climate changes caused by > long‐lived greenhouse gases. Parametric insurance, which delivers payouts > when specific physical indices (such as wind speed) cross predefined > thresholds, was recently proposed by two of us as a compensation mechanism > for SG with the potential to ease disagreements about the technology and to > facilitate cooperative deployment; we refer to this proposal as > reduced‐rate climate risk insurance for solar geoengineering, or ‘RCG’. > Here we probe the plausibility of RCG by exploring the Pacific Catastrophe > Risk Assessment and Financing Initiative (PCRAFI), a sovereign risk pool > providing parametric insurance coverage against tropical cyclones and > earthquakes/tsunamis to Pacific island countries since 2013. Tracing the > history of PCRAFI and considering regional views on insurance as > compensation necessitates reconfiguring RCG in a way that shifts the focus > away from bargaining between developed and developing countries toward > bargaining among developed countries. This revised version of RCG is > challenged by an assumption of broad developed country support for > sovereign climate insurance in the developing world, but it also better > reflects the underlying incentive structure and distribution of power > -- 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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/c6cfe010-c183-4a4d-bd25-add4681b41d9n%40googlegroups.com.
[geo] Solar Geoengineering, Governance, and Parametric Insurance
Hi everyone, I wanted to draw your attention to a new blog post that summarizes a new article by me and David Keith titled *Multilateral Parametric Climate Risk Insurance: A Tool to Facilitate Agreement About Deployment of Solar Geoengineering?* As the blog summarizes, the paper sets out how parametric insurance, a novel compensation mechanism that relies on objective environmental indicators, might help countries overcome serious disagreements about using solar geoengineering with a view to reducing overall climate risk. Here's a link to the blog: https://climatestrategies.wordpress.com/2019/05/15/solar-geoengineering-governance-and-parametric-insurance/ Josh Horton -- 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. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/845334f1-2d64-403a-84b5-258e9880d593%40googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: [geo] "UN Convention still says “No” to manipulating the climate"
Hi everyone, For what it's worth, my quick two cents on all this: - I tend to agree with Anna-Maria and others that this decision is not so much an endorsement of geoengineering research as it is a recognition of the need for more of it, in the context of a general reaffirmation of the previous CBD position on geoengineering. - I disagree with Jim's characterization of this position as a "de facto moratorium" on research -- no serious legal reading of these texts leads to that conclusion. - In the scheme of things, I don't regard this latest decision as terribly significant one way or the other. It is a fairly routine non-binding decision adopted by parties to a convention that, while well-intentioned, exercises virtually no influence on international climate policy. Josh Joshua Horton, Ph.D. Research Director, Geoengineering Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs Harvard Kennedy School 12 Oxford Street, Link Rm. 276 Cambridge, MA 02138 On Sunday, December 18, 2016 at 10:18:00 AM UTC-5, p.williamson wrote: > > > Ron - and others > > > In response: > > > 1. My 'small part' related to the CBD decision text. I did not draft > that, but had the opportunity to comment on it at the 2015 CBD SBSTTA. I > should have been more careful in distinguishing three levels of "CBD > text": i) CBD decisions, the agreed position determined by the Conference > of Parties (COP) of signatories to the Convention, i.e. national > governments (although excluding the US, who has not ratified the > Convention, and is now very unlikely to do so); ii) documentation prepared > by the CBD Secretariat for consideration by parties at CBD SBSTTA and COP > meetings; and iii) externally-prepared information papers and reports, such > as mine, that have their final editing by the Secretariat, but are not > necessarily "accepted" by parties (I think Technical Series 84 was "noted" > by the 2015 CBD SBSTTA, but I haven't checked that). Thus, strictly > speaking, only (i) should be considered as CBD text. > > > 2. The CBD Secretariat took the lead role in drafting the Key Messages > part of the report. However, I was fully comfortable with that part of the > text (with sign-off also by my co-author, Ralph Bodle). > > > 3. There arguably never was a "moratorium": CBD decision X33 was a > request, with various provisos. For example, identifying the need for > adequate scientific justification, also including the exception for > small-scale scientific experiments in a controlled setting - without > defining what that meant. For a scientific study, the 'control' involves > measurements of the matching situation without experimental treatment. If > the intention was for 'controlled setting' to rigorously mean a > fully-enclosed, laboratory study, that could/should have been > stated. Furthermore, geoengineering was very poorly defined in X33, > without making clear whether land-based CDR (such as BECCS and large-scale > afforestation/reforestation) was or was not included. Definition issues > are discussed further in Annex 2 of Tech Ser 84. > > > 4. Thanks for mentioning my Nature World View article (the pdf is > downloadable from the link you gave). That is a different topic: I will > endeavour to keep you personally informed of the outcome, but would not > presume such issues are of interest to all the Geoengineering group members. > > > Regards > > Phil > > -- > *From:* Ronal W. Larson> *Sent:* 18 December 2016 06:26 > *To:* Phillip Williamson (ENV) > *Cc:* J.L. Reynolds; annamari...@ucalgary.ca ; > Geoengineering; macm...@cds.caltech.edu ; jim Thomas > *Subject:* Re: [geo] "UN Convention still says “No” to manipulating the > climate" > > Dr. Williamson, list, et al > > 1. You say below that you had a “small part” - but you seem to have been > the primary author for almost all of “Report 84” (cite given below). > I’ve only so far read the CDR part of most interest to me, but I will try > to at least skim the rest. I thought it the best summary overview of all I > have seen for “my” CDR approach. Of course I would have changed a few > words and phrases, but overall, you captured my area very well. Of most > help is finding more than a dozen new 2016 citations, of which I was > unaware. Amazing turn-around speed on a difficult topic.. > > 2. I didn’t feel the same about the “Key Messages” summary paragraph. > Did another person/group write that? > > 3. I now better understand the phrase “moratorium” - which you focus on > below. Am I correct that you disagree with the ETC group on moratorium > issues/actions at this COP (and whose perception I have retained below)? > > 4. New topic: In googling, I found your recent short article in Nature > at: > http://www.nature.com/news/take-the-time-and-effort-to-correct-misinformation-1.21106. > > Thanks for
[geo] SRM, Developing Countries, and the Philippines
Hi everyone, Tim O'Brien, a member of our Harvard group, has a new piece up online at Angle discussing solar geoengineering and the developing world, including some observations from a "listening tour" he undertook in the Philippines earlier this year. Here's the link: http://anglejournal.com/article/2015-12-solar-radiation-management-only-works-if-it-works-for-the-poor/ And here's a summary: *While the effects of climate change are typically discussed in abstract future terms, its impacts are already overwhelming the resources of a growing number of developing countries. The scale of climate change impacts and vulnerabilities in these developing countries warrants serious and inclusive international dialogue on geoengineering, and in particular a promising technology that aims to reflect a small percentage of sunlight back into space called Solar Radiation Management (SRM). There remains the possibility that SRM could complement mitigation and adaptation in the fight against climate change, but not without simultaneous increases in resources for research and informed debate that is grounded in the needs of those most affected by climate change right now.* Josh Horton -- 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] Designing Procedural Mechanisms for the Governance of Solar Radiation Management Field Experiments: Workshop Report
Hi everyone, Here's a link to the new report from a workshop that Neil Craik, Jason Blackstock, Jack Doughty, and I ran in Ottawa this past February: https://www.cigionline.org/sites/default/files/ottawa_workshop_feb_2015_1.pdf This two-day workshop considered and evaluated governance mechanisms that may be useful for managing proposed SRM field experiments. Two specific procedural mechanisms were under consideration: environmental impact assessments and research registries. To ensure discussions were as realistic as possible, participants used a set of recently published SRM field experiment proposals as hypothetical examples when considering and evaluating both mechanisms. The workshop operated under the Chatham House Rule, and no attempts were made to forge consensus positions or to generate policy recommendations. Rather, this workshop was exploratory in nature, with discussions ranging widely along with personal opinions on some topics. Josh Horton -- 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] First U.S. state proposed legislation on climate engineering
I live next door in Massachusetts so take a particular interest in this. The bill has two sponsors, both Democrats: - Rep. Karen MacBeth http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karen_MacBeth - Rep. James McLaughlin http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_McLaughlin_(politician) They serve together on the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, and both represent Cumberland. It just so happens that MacBeth is a member of Rhode Island Against Chemtrails and Geoengineering https://www.facebook.com/groups/RhodeIslandAgainstChemtrails/members/ Josh Horton On Monday, March 23, 2015 at 10:10:27 AM UTC-4, Alan Robock wrote: Since the bill defines geoengineering as counteracting global *warning* and not global *warming*, do we have anything to worry about? The bill makes no distinction between small scale experiments and large scale implementation, but I guess that is what the review process is for. Alan Robock Alan Robock, Distinguished Professor Editor, Reviews of Geophysics Director, Meteorology Undergraduate Program Department of Environmental Sciences Phone: +1-848-932-5751 Rutgers University Fax: +1-732-932-8644 14 College Farm Road E-mail: rob...@envsci.rutgers.edu javascript: New Brunswick, NJ 08901-8551 USA http://envsci.rutgers.edu/~robock http://twitter.com/AlanRobock Watch my 18 min TEDx talk at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qsrEk1oZ-54 On 3/22/2015 7:41 PM, Ken Caldeira wrote: If this is real and not a joke, and it passes in its present form, it seems as if someone in Rhode Island could potentially be fined and imprisoned for planting a tree with the intent of absorbing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. ___ Ken Caldeira Carnegie Institution for Science Dept of Global Ecology 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA +1 650 704 7212 kcal...@carnegiescience.edu javascript: website: http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab/ blog: http://kencaldeira.org @KenCaldeira My assistant is Dawn Ross dr...@carnegiescience.edu javascript:, with access to incoming emails. Postdoc positions available in my group: https://jobs.carnegiescience.edu/jobs/dge/ On Sun, Mar 22, 2015 at 3:03 PM, Hester, Tracy tdhe...@central.uh.edu javascript: wrote: We now have possibly the first state proposed legislation in the United States to control climate engineering efforts. A bill (H-5480) was recently introduced in the Rhode Island legislature that would require any climate engineering efforts to undergo an approval process and two (at least) public hearings. The bill would impose fines and up to 90 days imprisonment for each day that the unapproved climate engineering continues. The bill also gives Rhode Island's environmental agency the ability to enjoin and halt an unapproved project. If you’d like to get more details, you can review the bill itself at http://webserver.rilin.state.ri.us/BillText/BillText15/HouseText15/H5480.pdf These local initiatives might pop up in other state legislatures if climate engineering research gains momentum (especially after the NAS reports last month). If so, the prospect of overlapping or conflicting regulations from multiple states will often spur the federal government to impose its own consolidated regulatory scheme to preempt the state efforts. Professor Tracy Hester University of Houston Law Center 100 Law Center Houston, Texas 77204 713-743-1152 tdhe...@central.uh.edu javascript: Web bio: www.law.uh.edu/faculty/thester -- 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 javascript:. To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com javascript:. 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 geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com javascript:. To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com javascript:. 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
[geo] Geoengineering a Right-Wing Technology?
Clive Hamilton recently stated in a NYT op-ed that If there is such a thing as a right-wing technology, geoengineering is it. I submit that this is a gross oversimplification (or worse), and suggest that the following piece by a senior fellow at R Street (as in, Republican Party) is at least as likely to embody a conservative position on geoengineering. In it, Josiah Neeley objects to geoengineering (though not unequivocally) because it would represent the ultimate government overreach. My favorite part: Now imagine the equivalent of the Federal Reserve, but for global temperature. Maybe it would be based in Washington (shudder); maybe at the United Nations (double shudder). No doubt, it would be staffed by the world’s most eminent experts who made it through the political vetting process. Yet one wrong move, one over-reaction or under-correction, and the planet could turn into a hothouse or be headed into a new ice age. Josh http://www.rstreet.org/op-ed/geoengineering-the-cold-war-on-global-warming/ BY JOSIAH NEELEY http://www.rstreet.org/author/jneeley/. THE FEDERALIST http://thefederalist.com/2015/02/26/geoengineering-the-cold-war-on-global-warming/ . FEBRUARY 27, 2015 Geoengineering: The cold war on global warming A recent panel of the National Academy of Sciences http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/11/science/panel-urges-more-research-on-geoengineering-as-a-tool-against-climate-change.html?_r=0 called for increased research into geoengineering. The announcement drew a variety of reactions, ranging from “this is proof that mankind is doomed!” to “uh, what is geoengineering?” So in the spirit of science, I’ve prepared a brief “explainer” on this fascinating and complicated subject. *What is geoengineering? * Geoengineering, or climate engineering, is the attempt to alter the earth’s climate on a large scale via deliberate human intervention. Specifically, geoengineering aims to counteract the effects of global warming. Remember in old movies or kids’ television shows https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_vAe9cxru10 when a mad genius creates a weather-control device? Well, weather is not climate http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/02/weather-versus-climate-change-cosmos-video_n_5432366.html, so it’s nothing like that. But basically. *How would it work? * A lot of geoengineering proposals do sound like something out of a science-fiction movie. The most popular version involves pumping aerosols into the upper atmosphere to block some of the incoming sunlight. The idea is based on the fact that, just as there are greenhouse gases that trap sunlight and make the earth warmer, so there are others (such as sulfuric aerosols) that have a cooling effect. An unplanned demonstration of this strategy occurred in 1991, when Mount Pinatubo erupted, spewing tons of sulfur dioxide into the air http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2030804,00.html. Over the following 18 months, global temperatures declined by nearly a degree Fahrenheit. Other less-common proposals include dumping iron into the oceans http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_fertilization (to stimulate plankton growth), increasing the reflectivity of surfaces http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reflective_surfaces_%28geoengineering%29 and deploying giant space umbrellas http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_sunshade to block out the sun (not even kidding). Needless to say, the practicality of some of these plans is doubtful. *Who wants to do this? * Right now, nobody. But a variety of people have argued that geoengineering could be a much cheaper solution to global warming than cutting greenhouse-gas emissions. Most geoengineering proposals would cost a few billion to implement, and would not require painful government-mandated emissions reductions. For example, the economist Robert P. Murphy has written that “[t]he option of geo-engineering makes it much safer to continue using fossil fuels and thereby pass on extra trillions of dollars of wealth to the next generation at possibly little or even no cost.” http://www.econlib.org/library/Columns/y2009/Murphygeoengineering.html Similarly, Jim Manzi has advocated for “the development of geo-engineering technology that would be available on a ‘break-the-glass-in-case-of-emergency’ basis” http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2009/08/six_questions_for_jim_manzi in case warming were to reach dangerous levels. *Is there a downside? * Oh, yes. Milton Friedman famously noted that if you put the government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in five years there’d be a shortage of sand. Geoengineering would give the government control over the planet’s thermostat. Consider an analogy: For the past hundred years, control over the money supply has been given to the Federal Reserve. Led by a group of experts in economics and business, the Federal Reserve is justified as a means of tempering the boom and bust cycle of the pre-central bank
Re: [geo] Response to Svoboda and Irvine, J Reynolds
Jesse, thanks for posting the Svoboda and Irvine article as well as all four commentaries (including mine!). The question of intent may be misplaced here, because the standard for international liability is usually strict, no-fault liability, which would almost certainly apply to SRM in practice. Under this principle, the key issue is causation/attribution, not intent. Attribution will likely be difficult, but not impossible -- methods like Fraction Attributable Risk are making headway on this front. Josh On Wednesday, August 13, 2014 4:00:53 AM UTC-4, Jesse Reynolds wrote: My response is one of four to Svoboda and Irvine. In the same issue, there is also a relevant target article by David Morrow 'Starting a flood to stop a fire? Some moral constraints on solar radiation management' with five responses. All are at http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/cepe21/17/2 I am unsure of the unstated rules regarding posting articles which are behind firewalls. [If anyone knows, please clarify.] Here I am attaching Svoboda and Irvine and its responses. [I hope that this does not overstep the bounds of sharing.] I would be glad to share David's and those responses if anyone wishes and it is OK. There are a few other recent and forthcoming articles on compensation. I am working on one. See also Clare Heyward, Benefitting from Climate Geoengineering and Corresponding Remedial Duties: The Case of Unforeseeable Harms, Journal of Applied Philosophy, (2014) http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10./japp.12075/abstract Cheers, -Jesse - Jesse L. Reynolds European and International Public Law Tilburg Sustainability Center Tilburg University, The Netherlands Book review editor, Law, Innovation, and Technology email: j.l.re...@uvt.nl javascript: http://works.bepress.com/jessreyn/ -Original Message- From: geoengi...@googlegroups.com javascript: [mailto: geoengi...@googlegroups.com javascript:] On Behalf Of Andrew Lockley Sent: 12 August 2014 19:21 To: geoengineering Subject: [geo] Response to Svoboda and Irvine, J Reynolds Ethics, Policy Environment Volume 17, Issue 2, 2014 Response to Svoboda and Irvine Full access DOI:10.1080/21550085.2014.926080 Jesse Reynolds Published online: 08 Aug 2014 In this issue, Svoboda and Irvine (Svoboda Irvine, 20146. Svoboda, T., Irvine, P. (2014). Ethical and technical challenges in compensating for harm due to solar radiation management geoengineering. Ethics, Policy and Environment, 17(2), 157–174. [Taylor Francis Online] View all references) offer the most in-depth consideration thus far of possible compensation for harm from solar radiation management (SRM) geoengineering. This topic is indeed treacherous terrain, pulling together multiple complex debates, ethical and otherwise. Their description of the technical challenges to determining damages and causation in particular are illuminating. The reader cannot help, though, but be left with the sense that both SRM and compensation are futile efforts, bound to do more harm than good. Before proceeding, throughout any consideration of geoengineering, one must always bear in mind that it is under consideration as a possible complementary response (along with greenhouse gas emissions reductions—or ‘mitigation’—and adaptation) to climate change. Climate change poses risks to the environment and humans, among whom the world's poor are the most vulnerable. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change recently concluded that ‘Models consistently suggest that SRM would generally reduce climate differences compared to a world with elevated greenhouse gas concentrations and no SRM …’ (Boucher et al., 20133. Boucher, O., Randall, D., Artaxo, D., Bretherton, C., Feingold, G., Forster, P., … Zhang, X. Y. (2013). Clouds and aerosols. In T. F.Stocker, D.Qin, G. -K.Plattner, M.Tignor, S. K.Allen, J.Boschung… P. M. Midgley (Eds.), Climate change 2013: The physical science basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (pp. 571–657). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. View all references, p. 575). Therefore, SRM has the potential to reduce harm to the environment and humans, particularly to already disadvantaged groups. However, SRM is imperfect. The primary problem with SI's analysis is that they treat the shortcomings of SRM and of compensation for its potential negative secondary effects as if they were sui generis. In fact, these cited shortcomings are found among three existing policy domains, which happen to intersect at the proposed compensation for SRM's harms. The first such policy domain is socially organized responses to other complex problems, and the provision of public goods in particular. In a key passage, SI write that ‘The potential for SRM
[geo] National Review Weighs in on Russ George/Haida Gwaii
APRIL 22, 2014 4:00 AM The Pacific’s Salmon Are Back — Thank Human Ingenuityhttp://www.nationalreview.com/article/376258/pacifics-salmon-are-back-thank-human-ingenuity-robert-zubrin Geoengineering could turn our long-barren oceans into a bounty. By Robert Zubrin http://www.nationalreview.com/author/robert-zubrin See here (multiple pages) -- http://www.nationalreview.com/article/376258/pacifics-salmon-are-back-thank-human-ingenuity-robert-zubrin Bizarre article from a leading US conservative magazine. Here's a sample: *The George-Haida experiment is of world-historical significance.* Josh Horton -- 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] Geoengineering in IPCC WGI AR5 Summary for Policymakers
It's finally out and here's what it says about geoengineering: http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/uploads/WGIAR5-SPM_Approved27Sep2013.pdf 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 CO2 emissions could be partially offset by CDR on a century timescale. Modelling 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 confidence that 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. {6.5, 7.7} (p. 21) Not quite what the Guardian was reporting last week ... Josh -- 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/groups/opt_out.
[geo] Re: Russia urges UN climate report to include geoengineering
Bill, Here are some very high-altitude observations on the Russian POV from a poster I presented last year. The takeaway is that there is serious tension between Russian interest in geoengineering and the desire to take advantage of economic opportunities created by climate change. There is no mention of this underlying tension in the Guardian piece. Josh On Thursday, September 19, 2013 3:13:50 PM UTC-4, Bill Stahl wrote: In this context it's interesting to note that 1) a freighter just completed the first Asia-to-Europe trip, and 2) Russia a few days ago announced it is starting the first-ever naval patrols along its arctic coast. It is now a shipping lane for the first time, a development that I assume is profoundly startling to Russians. Can anyone on this list comment on Yuri Izrael and his work? I wonder if he is hoping to re-freeze that new coastal route and nip arctic economic development in the bud. Or on Russian GE research and POV generally? PS: cage-match ETC vs.Putin: bets on who comes out on top? On Thursday, September 19, 2013 12:23:09 PM UTC-6, andrewjlockley wrote: Russia urges UN climate report to include geoengineering The Russian government is asking for 'planet hacking' to be included in the climate science report, leaked documents show Martin Lukacs Suzanne Goldenberg Adam Vaughan Thu 19 September 2013 Russia is pushing for next week's landmark UN climate science report to include support for controversial technologies to geoengineer the planet's climate, according to documents obtained by the Guardian. As climate scientists prepare to gather for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in Stockholm to present the most authoritative state of climate science to date, it has emerged the Russian government is asking for planet hacking to be included in the report. The IPCC has not included geoengineering in its major assessments before. The documents seen by the Guardian show Russia is asking for a conclusion of the report to say that a possible solution of this [climate change] problem can be found in using of [sic] geoengineering methods to stabilise current climate. Russia also highlighted that its scientists are developing geoengineering technologies. Geoengineering aims to cool the Earth by methods including spraying sulphate aerosols into the stratosphere to reflect sunlight, or fertilising the oceans with iron to create carbon-capturing algal blooms. Such ideas are increasingly being discussed by western scientists and governments as a plan B for addressing climate change, with the new astronomer royal, Professor Sir Martin Rees, calling last week for such methods to buy time to develop sources of clean energy. But the techniques have been criticised as a way for powerful, industrialised nations to dodge their commitments to reduce carbon emissions. Some modelling has shown geoengineering could be effective at reducing the Earth's temperature, but manipulation of sensitive planetary systems in one area of the world could also result in drastic unintended consequences globally, such as radically disrupted rainfall. Responding to efforts to discredit the climate science with a spoiler campaign in advance of the report, the chairman of the IPCC, Rajendra K Pachauri, said he was confident the high standards of the science in the report would make the case for climate action. He said: There will be enough information provided so that rational people across the globe will see that action is needed on climate change. The Russian scientist Yuri Izrael, who has participated in IPCC geoengineering expert groups and was an adviser to the former Russian president Vladimir Putin, conducted an experiment in 2009 that sprayed particles from a helicopter to assess how much sunlight was blocked by the aerosol plume. A planned test in Britain that would have used a balloon attached to a 1km hose to develop equipment for spraying was prevented after a public outcry. Observers have suggested that Russia's admission that it is developing geoengineering may put it in violation of the UN moratorium on geoengineering projects established at the Biodiversity Convention in 2010 and should be discussed on an emergency basis when the convention's scientific subcommittee meets in Montreal in October. Civil society organisations have previously raised concerns that expert groups writing geoengineering sections of the IPCC report were dominated by US, UK and Canadian geoengineering advocates who have called for public funding of large-scale experiments or who have taken out commercial patents on geoenginering technologies. One scientist who served as a group co-chair, David Keith of Harvard University, runs a private geoengineering company, has planned tests in New Mexico, and is publicising a new book called The Case for Climate Engineering.
[geo] Re: Linking solar geoengineering and emissions reduction
We're talking about coupling SRM deployment to an extreme level of emissions mitigation achieved very rapidly--like some others here I think that is laudable in principle but effectively impossible to accomplish in practice. But we're also overlooking the much discussed possibility of linking SRM deployment to robust CDR measures. This would certainly be challenging as well but likely less so than an abrupt restructuring of the world economy. Assuming CDR methods worked cost-effectively (a big assumption), this could produce the same net result as prohibiting all new CO2-emitting devices, while admittedly allowing relatively greater use of the atmosphere as a waste dump. I would be uncomfortable at this stage limiting SRM use only to catastrophic, emergency scenarios and disallowing use for peak shaving. For all that has been written about emergency use, it's far from clear that this would be workable in practice. Much more research needs to be done on this aspect of SRM. Josh Horton On Wednesday, September 11, 2013 12:36:02 PM UTC-4, Ken Caldeira wrote: We do not want to be in a situation where a solar geoengineering system is used to enable continued increases in CO2 emissions. Therefore, a reasonable demand is that no new smokestacks or tailpipes be built after a solar geoengineering system is deployed. Another way of phrasing this is to demand that new construction of all new CO2-emitting devices cease prior to any solar geoengineering system deployment. This would help address the concern that solar geoengineering could provide cover for continued expansion of CO2-emitting industries. Norms that would prevent simultaneous solar geoengineering deployment and increasing CO2 emissions would help diminish the likelihood of bad outcomes and could help broaden political support for solar geoengineering research. -- This would limit deployment of solar geoengineering systems to the case of catastrophic outcomes and would not permit use of solar geoengineering for peak shaving amid promises of future reductions in CO2 emissions. Thus, this proposal does have a substantive implications for peak shaving strategies. -- *I am floating this idea without being certain that the formulation presented here is the best possible formulation.* ___ Ken Caldeira Carnegie Institution for Science Dept of Global Ecology 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA +1 650 704 7212 kcal...@carnegiescience.edu javascript: http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab @kencaldeira -- 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/groups/opt_out.
[geo] Lasers?
Potential GE applications ...? from the Daily Telegraph: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/topics/weather/10268455/Weather-could-be-controlled-using-lasers.html?utm_source=bufferutm_campaign=Bufferutm_content=buffer2eb6autm_medium=twitter Weather could be controlled using lasersScientists are attempting to control the weather by using lasers to create clouds, induce rain and even trigger lightning. [image: Scientists are attempting to control the weather by using lasers to create clouds, induce rain and even trigger lightning.] A laser beam (red) and the cloud of generated particles (illuminated by an auxiliary green laser, which makes each particle shine) in a cloud chamber Photo: J.P. Wolf / University of Geneva [image: Richard Gray] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ By Richard Gray http://www.telegraph.co.uk/journalists/richard-gray/, Science Correspondent 1:53PM BST 27 Aug 2013 [image: Comments]57 Commentshttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/topics/weather/10268455/Weather-could-be-controlled-using-lasers.html#disqus_thread Experts from around the world are to gather at the World Meteorological Organisation next month to discuss how powerful laser pulses can be used to generate changes in the atmosphere that influence the weather. Their experiments have shown that intense pulses of light can cause ice to form and water to condense, leading to the formation of clouds. The scientists have now begun testing their equipment outside for the first time with extremely short pulses of laser light were fired into the sky. Researchers have also proved that lightning discharges can be triggered and channelled through the air using laser pulses. They hope the technology could allow lightning during thunderstorms to be guided away from sensitive buildings such as power plants or airports. Related Articles - 'How we made the Chernobyl rain'http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1549366/How-we-made-the-Chernobyl-rain.html 22 Apr 2007 - Singapore haze: Cloud seeding explainedhttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/journalists/nick-collins/10134918/Singapore-haze-Cloud-seeding-explained.html 21 Jun 2013 It could also be used to manipulate the weather by creating clouds and triggering rainfall ahead of major public events. Professor Jean-Pierre Wolf and Dr Jerome Kasparian, both biophotonics experts at the University of Geneva, have now organised a conference at the WMO next month http://www.laserweatherandclimate.com/ in an attempt to find ways of speeding up research on the topic. They said: Ultra-short lasers launched into the atmosphere have emerged as a promising prospective tool for weather modulation and climate studies. Such prospects include lightning control and laser-assisted condensation. There is a long history of attempts by scientists to control the weather, including using techniques such as cloud seeding. This involves spraying small particles and chemicals into the air to induce water vapour to condense into clouds. In the 1960s the United States experimented with using silver iodide in an attempt to weaken hurricanes before they made landfall. The USSR was also claimed to have flown cloud seeding missionshttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1549366/How-we-made-the-Chernobyl-rain.html in an attempt to create rain clouds to protect Moscow from radioactive fallout from the Chernobyl nuclear disaster. More recently the Russian Air force has also been reported to have used bags of cement to seed clouds. Before the 2008 Olympic Games in Beijing, the Chinese authorities used aircraft and rockets to release chemicals into the atmosphere. Other countries have been reported to be experimenting with cloud seeding to prevent flooding or smoghttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/singapore/10133948/Singapore-haze-Indonesia-to-make-it-rain-to-stop-life-threatening-smog.html . However, Professor Wolf, Dr Kasparian and their colleagues believe that lasers could provide an easier and more controllable method of changing the weather. They began studying lasers for their use as a way of monitoring changes in the air and detecting aerosols high in the atmosphere. Experiments using varying pulses of near infra-red laser light and ultraviolet lasers have, however, shown that they cause water to condense. They have subsequently found the lasers induce tiny ice crystals to form, which are a crucial step in the formation of clouds and eventual rainfall. In new research published in the* Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences http://www.pnas.org/content/110/25/10106*, Professor Wolf said the laser beams create plasma channels in the air that caused ice to form. He said: Under the conditions of a typical storm cloud, in which ice and supercooled water coexist, no direct influence of the plasma channels on ice formation or precipitation processes could be detected. Under conditions typical for thin cirrus ice clouds, however,
[geo] Experiment Currently Taking Place in the Arctic?
Hi everyone, Near the end of a recent, otherwise unremarkable story about geoengineering at RTCC (link below), Piers Forster from Leeds University is quoted as follows: “There is one experiment we’re currently undertaking – we’re trying to look at rescuing Arctic Ice by stimulating aeroplanes flying from Spitzbergen in Norway – and dump out a lot of Sulphur Dioxide, and we’re trying to look at that as a very short term protection against the loss of Arctic Ice. (http://www.rtcc.org/scientists-warn-earth-cooling-proposals-are-no-climate-silver-bullet/) Does anyone know what he is talking about? Josh Horton joshuahorton...@gmail.com -- 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/groups/opt_out.
[geo] Second Haida OIF Test Set for June Cancelled
I think most of us will regard this as a very good development: http://www.timescolonist.com/news/local/dumping-of-iron-into-sea-off-haida-gwaii-suspended-amid-acrimony-1.229839 Dumping of iron into sea off Haida Gwaii suspended amid acrimony *Judith Lavoie* http://www.timescolonist.com/authors?author=Judith Lavoie/ Times Colonist May 23, 2013 - *Email* javascript:void(0); - *Print* javascript:window.print() ** *Previous*http://www.timescolonist.com/news/local/dumping-of-iron-into-sea-off-haida-gwaii-suspended-amid-acrimony-1.229839#story-carousel *Next*http://www.timescolonist.com/news/local/dumping-of-iron-into-sea-off-haida-gwaii-suspended-amid-acrimony-1.229839#story-carousel - - - Controversial U.S businessman Russ George, who orchestrated a dump of more than 100 tonnes of iron sulfate into international waters off the coast of Haida Gwaii last year, has been fired by the Old Massett-based Haida Salmon Restoration Corp. “We have parted ways,” Old Massett Village chief councillor Ken Rea said in an interview. The unauthorized iron experiment, which was designed to increase salmon runs by creating an algae bloom for fish to feed on, led to international controversy and accusations of geoengineering. The Haida Salmon Restoration Corp., which was funded to the tune of $2.5 million through the Gwaii Trust Society and a village reserve fund, will undergo a strategic review, Rea said. That means greater community input and restructuring the business “so that it … effectively responds to legitimate concerns raised by various stakeholders around the world,” he said. “It starts with some bold steps — like parting ways with Russ George,” he said. Old Massett economic development officer John Disney, who will serve as interim CEO, said he is confident in the technology but the right leadership and business plan are needed. “We have a responsibility, not only to the shareholders but the citizens of Old Massett and Haida Gwaii to get it right,” he said. However, in a twist, George denied in an email that he had been fired. “The reports that I have been removed as a director of Haida Salmon Restoration Corp. are, unfortunately, inaccurate,” he wrote. “The other board members of HSRC did not have any authority to remove me as a director.” Ocean Pastures, a company owned by George, holds 48 per cent of HSRC shares and has the right to appoint two out of the four board members, he said. “I shall remain a director of HSRC and look forward to moving the business plan of the company forward,” he said. That will include commercialization of last year’s experiment, he said. For Rea, the future does not include George. The strategic review means that the second iron fertilization test, planned for June, will not take place, Rea said. “I can’t say if it will be done again ever. I won’t know until we get the results of the strategic review,” he said. Rea would not speculate whether the village has lost out financially. “There’s value in the company and value in the data, and we intend to preserve that value,” he said. The unauthorized test was heavily criticized by the Council of the Haida Nation and federal Environment Minister Peter Kent, who called it a “demonstration of rogue science.” In March, Environment Canada officials seized scientific data, journals and files from the company’s Vancouver headquarters, and the corporation is now fighting to have them returned. It is too early to say whether the algae bloom will mean better salmon survival, but anecdotally other marine species are doing well, Rea said. George previously told Old Massett council that there was money to be made through the sale of carbon credits, although there is no proof it is a viable method of carbon capture. It was the second time that George had proposed a carbon-credit scheme for Old Massett. The first plan, to cut down alders beside creeks and replace them with fast-growing evergreens, was scuttled by Fisheries and Oceans. George has a history of trying to conduct iron fertilization experiments around the world, resulting in his ships being banned from ports by the Spanish and Ecuadorian governments. *jlav...@timescolonist.com* jlav...@timescolonist.com © Copyright 2013 -- 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?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
[geo] Re: Oz and the London Convention
This proposal would not ban OIF, rather it would create a procedural mechanism for regulating other types of geoengineering under the London Convention/London Protocol, while making current voluntary restrictions on OIF (i.e., no commercial activities) legally binding. Here's a brief summary from my blog that lays out the essentials as I understand them. Josh Horton (http://geoengineeringpolitics.blogspot.com/) New London Protocol Proposal to Regulate Marine Geoengineering Australia, Nigeria, and South Korea have jointly proposed amendmentshttp://www.smh.com.au/environment/water-issues/australia-seeks-to-limit-ocean-geoengineering-20130515-2jmkn.html to the London Protocol (LP) that would formally extend the instrument's remit beyond ocean fertilization to include other possible forms of marine geoengineering (such as enhanced weathering or ocean liming). The proposal defines marine geoengineering broadly as deliberate intervention in the marine environment to manipulate natural processes, including to counteract anthropogenic climate change and/or its impacts, and that has the potential for widespread, long-lasting or severe effects. A new annex to the Protocol would serve as a positive list specifying particular geoengineering techniques to be regulated under the LP; techniques not included on this list would remain subject to the regime's general prohibition on dumping of materials at sea. The only activity listed in the proposed annex is ocean fertilization, which would continue to be permitted only in cases of legitimate scientific research. The proposal also includes a generic assessment framework (modeled on the existing Assessment Framework for ocean fertilization--see *LC/LP Agrees on Ocean Fertilization Assessment Frameworkhttp://geoengineeringpolitics.blogspot.com/2010/10/lclp-agrees-on-ocean-fertilization.html *, 10/19/10) intended to serve as the basis for more specific frameworks used to arrive at permitting decisions for other geoengineering approaches added to the annex in the future. In essence, this proposal establishes a procedural mechanism for regulating any geoengineering technique involving the introduction of materials to the sea, based on processes previously developed to address ocean fertilization. Since the proposal takes the form of amendments to the London Protocol, if it is adopted, regulations covering ocean fertilization and other technologies would be legally binding rather than voluntary, as is currently the case with respect to operative resolutions on ocean fertilization. Parties to the LC/LP will take up the proposal at a meeting this October. On Friday, May 17, 2013 7:23:03 AM UTC-4, Wil Burns wrote: FYI, Australian move to ban OIF under the London Convention: http://www.smh.com.au/environment/water-issues/australia-seeks-to-limit-ocean-geoengineering-20130515-2jmkn.html -- Dr. Wil Burns, Associate Director Master of Science - Energy Policy Climate Program Johns Hopkins University 1717 Massachusetts Avenue, NW Room 104J Washington, DC 20036 202.663.5976 (Office phone) 650.281.9126 (Mobile) wbu...@jhu.edu javascript: http://advanced.jhu.edu/academic/environmental/master-of-science-in-energy-policy-and-climate/index.html SSRN site (selected publications): http://ssrn.com/author=240348 Skype ID: Wil.Burns Teaching Climate/Energy Law Policy Blog: http://www.teachingclimatelaw.org -- 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?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: [geo] Haida readying for second round of iron dumping in ocean - News - Times Colonist
One of the more interesting aspects of all this is the spectacle of the ETC Group, a self-described defender of indigenous rights, accusing a First Nations company of trying to get away with something, to borrow Jim Thomas' words. The typical response to this observation is that the Haida have been swindled by Russ George (of whom I am no fan), but this response can easily be read as dismissive and disempowering with regard to the Haida. If the Haida have chosen to do this, does that mean ETC Group has more insight into indigenous values and worldviews than actual indigenous people? Does the ETC Group just know what's best for them? That would be rich indeed. Josh Horton On Saturday, April 27, 2013 3:55:13 PM UTC-4, Greg Rau wrote: Or could the SRM crowd offer some solutions? Drop the iron out of the sky (planes, rockets, balloons etc, launched from secure land sites? Simulate volcanic dust?) Monitor the results from satellite and by sensors mounted on commercial cargo ships normally traversing the patch. Perhaps more importantly, get involvement and buy-in from the science community, governments, and NGO's to conduct carefully controlled and monitored field studies, rather than launch rogue, pirate operations (at indigenous peoples' expense). May I also suggest that adding ground limestone rather than iron to the ocean (Harvey 2008) might be a safer, less biologically impactful and hence less controversial way to mitigate CO2, though I can't promise increased salmon returns (but neither can George). -Greg -- *From:* Fred Zimmerman geoengin...@gmail.com javascript: *To:* Andrew Lockley andrew@gmail.com javascript: *Cc:* David Lewis jrando...@gmail.com javascript:; Ken Caldeira kcal...@carnegiescience.edu javascript:; geoengineering geoengi...@googlegroups.com javascript: *Sent:* Sat, April 27, 2013 12:11:50 PM *Subject:* Re: [geo] Haida readying for second round of iron dumping in ocean - News - Times Colonist 1) I generally agree with proposition that there is complacency about security. 2) I do not think it is a good idea to put heavy machine guns on research vessels. 3) I would extend the concern about security to information security. --- Fred Zimmerman Geoengineering IT! Bringing together the worlds of geoengineering and information technology GE NewsFilter: http://geoengineeringIT.net:8080 On Sat, Apr 27, 2013 at 5:53 AM, Andrew Lockley andrew@gmail.comjavascript: wrote: I have to say, I think those in this field are generally somewhat complacent about security. The animal rights movement shows what can happen. We shouldn't wait until after an attack to beef up security. Some of the larger conferences or specially convened meetings (eg Asilomar) may be a particularly appealing target for violent extremists. In this specific case, my suggestion is that for all the bombast, George's enemies are unlikely to ram his boat if it's firing warning shots at him. I've no particular love for Russ George methods, but killing his crew isn't the way to solve anything. As a first step, it would seem reasonable to have SSOs (ship security officers) or weapons on board research vessels where it's legal. A heavy machine gun costs only a few thousand dollars. It's a sad state of affairs when scientists have to be armed, but better armed than dead. The threat level seems to suggest this isn't an over reaction. On Apr 27, 2013 6:16 AM, David Lewis jrando...@gmail.comjavascript: wrote: Paul Watson wrote a commentary on Russ George entitled *The Return of a Dangerous Ecological Criminal*http://www.seashepherd.org/commentary-and-editorials/2012/10/29/the-return-of-a-dangerous-ecological-criminal-574 published by his Sea Shepherd Society online October 29 2012. This Watson commentary seems to be all the Toronto Globe and Mail had as a source for Paul Watson's views on Russ George and *geoengineering* as described in their Nov 7 2012 article (I cited previously). Watson, in his article, states his Sea Shepherd Society did not make any judgement on the scientific merits, if any, of this scheme [Russ George's 2007 plan to use PLANKTOS to dump iron into waters west of the Galapagos Islands]. Watson, apparently, was anxious that Ecuadorian, American and International law *be upheld*. * (This is what his article states*). The Globe and Mail reporter couldn't talk to Watson directly because Mr Watson hasn't been seen in public since July when *he skipped bail in Germany*... As for ETC, their *Geopiracy: The Case against Geoengineeringhttp://www.etcgroup.org/content/geopiracy-case-against-geoengineering *webpage is still up. ETC concludes, obviously, that A moratorium on real-world geoengineering experimentation is urgent, apparently because we don't know what will happen if the *slightest thing* is done that ETC classifies
Re: [geo] Re: Why geoengineering has immediate appeal to China (Guradian)
Even more to the point, see this (http://www.scribd.com/doc/131811730/China-and-the-blunt-temptations-of-geoengineering-the-role-of-solar-radiation-management-in-China’s-strategic-response-to-climate-change) current draft article on China and geoengineering: Some Western scholars have expressed concern that China may already be working on unilateral research and implementation of SRM. Although we cannot discount this possibility, we have found no evidence supporting this contention in published Chinese literature or our discussions with Chinese scientists. In fact, consideration of SRM currently seems to be confined to epistemic communities that are deeply cautious about the possible downsides of deliberate intervention into natural systems. (p. 28) Josh On Wednesday, March 27, 2013 8:58:33 PM UTC-4, Fred Zimmerman wrote: Before we go too far on this China priorities meme let me suggest that we make it a practice of the list to always cite Jason Blackstock's very persuasive post of 11/26/2012 https://groups.google.com/d/msg/geoengineering/wKAas01rdDA/h2eZpjmvviAJ the money quote of which is this from Kingsley Edney: So geoengineering and global change is one important research direction among a total of more than 50 that are listed in the field of earth science alone. Once we consider all the other categories of scientific research it seems quite possible that, as Blackstock claims, geoengineering would not make the top 100. If we focus solely on the narrower category of solar radiation management then there is no evidence to claim that SRM is a priority at this stage. Fred On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 7:23 PM, Bill Stahl bsta...@gmail.comjavascript: wrote: The comments I have on this excellent article are: 1, China is popularly used as an example of a country that will go it's own way on climate issues (and on anything else). This is natural- especially for an Australian like Hamilton! - but it's also true of Canada (as is sometimes overlooked in the battle over the Keystone pipeline). Rather than give up its tar sands it might be willing to be the first to take the plunge into geoengineering. And, unlike China, it has plenty of Arctic territory to give it both acute awareness of permafrost melting and easy entree into high-latitude SRM to cool the Arctic. Given the pace of Arctic melting that issue will be forced long, long before 2035, and because the directly affected zone is so much smaller than that of global SRM the governance barriers are lower (though still high). Canada is then at least as good a candidate for 'first adopter' as China. 2. That would not directly help China but Hamilton's description suggests that China's interests would lead it to support Canada (or any other high-latitude plunge-taker) to give itself more options later. 3. Hamilton's hypothetical 2035 scenario describes an interaction between China and the U.S. as one between two isolated states, as if the US would have available a practical option of shooting down planes. But there is no conceivable scenario in which only one country wants to do SRM, and none in which only one opposes it. Let's assume that a large number of low-lying countries (Pacific island states in particular) are ready to cool the Arctic Greenland, as soon as possible - starting next Thursday afternoon if they can. These 10 or 20 states are shopping around for a larger state or states with the political and technical muscle to implement it - China and Canada, since we've already mentioned them. A slew of mid-size players sign on for various reasons, leading to a coalition of 30 countries of varying size, location, wealth motives. Those opposed or undecided will not be invited, as Caldeira et all described in a recent game theory paper. At the risk of being flippant, let's say they give themselves a noble-sounding title - Alliance for Something or Other Virtuous With a Snappy Acronym - and they pick as their figurehead someone who can persuasively don the mantle of righteousness. The leader of an endangered atoll state would do nicely, even if some relatively 'unsympathetic' country such as China is the real muscle. What will stop them? Surely not some moratorium voted out of a UN committee room a decade or two before. Shooting down planes? Imagine some nation's networks interrupting their regular programming for a Presidential announcement: I have today authorized our armed forces to take action against Fiji, China, Malaysia, American Samoa, Mongolia, Zanzibar, Finland, The Seychelles and ... oh to hell with it, *lots* of others. Although I'm unsympathetic to those who oppose any geoengineering research as starting down a slippery slope to full deployment, I have to admit they have a point. On Saturday, March 23, 2013 6:26:35 PM UTC-6, andrewjlockley wrote: http://www.guardian.co.uk/**environment/2013/mar/22/**
[geo] Proposal for NASA to Lead CDR Effort
Curiously, no mention of possible NASA involvement in SRM--seems a bit more obvious... Josh http://www.project-syndicate.org/online-commentary/nasa-geo-engineering-to-prevent-climate-change-by-jim-hartung Can NASA Stop Global Warming?http://www.project-syndicate.org/online-commentary/nasa-geo-engineering-to-prevent-climate-change-by-jim-hartung - http://www.project-syndicate.org/online-commentary/nasa-geo-engineering-to-prevent-climate-change-by-jim-hartung# - ***30* - ***4* - ***8* - ***11* LOS ANGELES – In 1961, President John F. Kennedy asserted that the United States “should commit itself to achieving the goal…of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to earth,” by the end of the decade. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration accepted the challenge. From 1969 to 1972, NASA’s Apollo program achieved six manned landings on the moon – missions that expanded human knowledge, stimulated economic growth, bolstered America’s geopolitical standing at a critical time, and inspired people worldwide. [image: This illustration is by Dean Rohrer and comes from a href=http://www.newsart.com;NewsArt.com/a, and is the property of the NewsArt organization and of its artist. Reproducing this image is a violation of copyright law.]http://www.project-syndicate.org/default/library/63d5a3ba4ad86aa80fa43c0308d49e63.jpgIllustration by Dean Rohrer Since then, NASA has repeatedly overcome adversity in pursuit of important breakthroughs and achievements, including exploring the solar system with robotic spacecraft, peering deep into the universe with space telescopes, and building the Space Shuttle and International Space Station. These successes far outweigh NASA’s few failures. But, since the Apollo program, NASA has lacked a clear, overarching goal to guide its activities. To drive progress in crucial areas, the agency needs a compelling vision that is consequential and relevant to current needs – and it is up to US President Barack Obama to define it. Obama should challenge NASA to address one of today’s most important issues, global warming, by developing safe, cost-effective technologies to remove carbon dioxide from the planet’s atmosphere and oceans. This mission could be accomplished in two phases.**During the first phase, which could be completed by 2020, researchers would identify roughly 10-20 candidate geo-engineering technologies and test them in small-scale experiments. The second phase would include large-scale test demonstrations to evaluate the most promising technologies by 2025. Developing these technologies is crucial, given that, over the last half-century, the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased from roughly 320 parts per million to almost 400 parts per million, heating up the planet and increasing the acidity of the world’s oceans. At this rate, the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere will exceed 450 parts per million in roughly 25 years. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change estimates that this increase will raise the average global temperature by roughly 2°C (3.6°F) over pre-industrial levels. It is widely agreed that exceeding this threshold would trigger the most devastating consequences of climate change. In other words, humanity has less than 25 years to stabilize the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. Given this time constraint, decarbonization alone will be insufficient to avert irreversible, catastrophic climate change. In 2000-2011, the world decarbonized at an average annual rate of 0.8%. The *Massachusetts Institute of Technology estimateshttp://globalchange.mit.edu/files/document/MITJPSPGC_Rpt169.pdf *that, given current trends, the concentration of atmospheric CO2 will exceed 500 parts per million by 2050, and 800 parts per million by 2100. According to a report by the professional services firm PricewaterhouseCoopershttp://www.pwc.com/en_GX/gx/low-carbon-economy-index/assets/pwc-low-carbon-economy-index-2012.pdf, even if the world decarbonizes at an annual rate of 3% until 2050, the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere will rise to 750 parts per million, triggering an average global temperature increase of 4°C (7.2°F) over pre-industrial levels. So, while the world should reduce its reliance on fossil fuels in favor of lower-carbon alternatives as quickly as possible, another approach is needed to avoid crossing the two-degree threshold. The best option is to develop technologies capable of removing large quantities of CO2 from the atmosphere and oceans, offsetting emissions during the transition from fossil fuels. NASA is the best organization for this mission for several reasons. Geo-engineering (large-scale intervention in the Earth’s climate system aimed at moderating global warming) could have severe unintended consequences. Developing such technologies safely and efficiently will require the kind of creativity, technical
Re: [geo] Strategic incentives for climate geoengineering coalitions to exclude broad participation (new paper)
I'm pretty sure the authors didn't intend this article as an endorsement of social authoritarianism, but that seems to be the conclusion reached here ... Josh Horton http://www.science20.com/news_articles/geoengineering_committee_time_get_totalitarian-104431 Geoengineering By Committee? Time To Get Totalitarian By News Staff http://www.science20.com/profile/news_staff | February 22nd 2013 11:03 AM | 19 commentshttp://www.science20.com/news_articles/geoengineering_committee_time_get_totalitarian-104431#comments | Print http://www.science20.com/print/104431 | E-mailhttp://www.science20.com/forward/104431 | Track Commentshttp://www.science20.com/news_articles/trackarticle/104431?destination=node%2F104431 http://www.science20.com/news_articles/feed http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php Tweet http://twitter.com/share News Articles http://www.science20.com/news_articles *MORE ARTICLES* - Alcohol Sales In England Far Higher Than Self-Reported Consumptionhttp://www.science20.com/news_articles/alcohol_sales_england_far_higher_selfreported_consumption-104864 - Can You Give Kids A Choice And Still Have Healthy School Lunches?http://www.science20.com/news_articles/can_you_give_kids_choice_and_still_have_healthy_school_lunches-104856 - Bariatric Surgery Restores Pancreatic Function In Diabetes Patientshttp://www.science20.com/news_articles/bariatric_surgery_restores_pancreatic_function_diabetes_patients-104767 All Articles http://www.science20.com/news_articles *ABOUT NEWS* News From All Over The World, Right To You... View News's Profile http://www.science20.com/profile/news_staff [image: User pic.]News Staff http://www.science20.com/profile/news_staff Solar geo-engineering is one proposed approach to mitigating the effects of climate change - the idea being to deflect some of the sun's incoming radiation. Ignoring the technology issues, in a world where countries can't even agree they contribute to greenhouse gases, the political uncertainties and geopolitical questions about who would be in charge of solar geo-engineering activity and its goals are daunting. A UN of climate change is the worst of all possible worlds. Social authoritarianism may be the way to go, according to modeling work from Carnegie's Katharine Ricke and Ken Caldeira and Juan Moreno-Cruz from the Georgia Institute of Technology. Their game-theoretic computer model found that a suitably powerful coalition would have incentive to exclude other countries from participating in the decision-making process about geo-engineering Earth. Though carbon dioxide emissions from the burning of coal, oil, and gas have decreased in developed nations, they have been increasing over the past decades due to greater emissions by developing nations. Feedbacks aside, no one disagrees that CO2 is bad. The idea behind solar geoengineering is to constantly replenish a layer of small particles in the stratosphere - basically duplicating the effect of volcanic eruptions, which scatter sunlight back into space. Attempts to form coalitions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions have repeatedly hit the wall, because it's difficult to get everybody to participate in a substantive and meaningful way, Ricke said. Members of coalitions to reduce emissions have incentives to include more countries, but countries have incentives not to participate, so as to avoid costs associated with emission reduction while benefiting from reductions made elsewhere. The model developed by Ricke, Caldeira and Moreno-Cruz found that when it comes to geoengineering, the opposite is true. Smaller coalitions would be more desirable to the participants, not less, because those members could set the target temperature to their liking without having to make everyone happy. And excluded countries would want to 'get with the program' if they they could move the thermostat in the direction that better suits their interests. Since the costs of geoengineering are lower than mitigation, once a coalition has formed and has successfully implemented geoengineering, it would have an incentive to exclude permanently other willing participants. My view, aside from any technical result, is that it should remain a central goal to maintain openness and inclusiveness in geoengineering coalitions, so that all people who want a voice in the decision-making process are able to have that voice, Caldeira said. Published in *Environmental Research Letters*. On Saturday, February 23, 2013 8:12:16 PM UTC-5, Ron wrote: Katherine: Thanks for the very complete response. Almost nothing left to ask. I have excised all below except for a few follow-ups. -- *From: *K.Ricke kle...@gmail.com javascript: *To: *geoengi...@googlegroups.com javascript: *Cc: *kle...@gmail.com javascript:, Ken Caldeira kcal...@gmail.comjavascript:, Juan Moreno-Cruz juan.mor...@econ.gatech.edu javascript: *Sent: *Friday, February 22
[geo] Commentary on Ocean Fertilization by IOC Executive Secretary
Hi all, The Executive Secretary of IOC-UNESCO and others have weighed in on ocean fertilization, including the Haida experiment. Nothing really new here, but gives a sense of their position. Josh Horton http://climate-l.iisd.org/guest-articles/climate-change-and-geoengineering-ocean-fertilization-practicalities-opportunities-and-threats/ Climate Change and Geoengineering: Ocean Fertilization Practicalities, Opportunities and Threats *posted on: Monday, February 4th, 2013* by: Wendy Watson-Wright, Executive Secretary, Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission of UNESCO; Jorge Luis Valdes, Head, Ocean Sciences; and Henrik Enevoldsen, Program Specialist, Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission of UNESCO Concern over human-driven climate change and the lack of success in constraining greenhouse gas emissions have increased scientific and policy interest in geo-engineering - deliberate interventions in the Earth's climate system that might moderate global warming. One of the earliest proposed carbon-removal techniques is large-scale ocean fertilization. This is accomplished by adding iron or other nutrients to surface waters. The intention is to enhance microscopic marine plant growth on a scale large enough to not only significantly increase the uptake of atmospheric carbon by the ocean, but also remove it from the atmosphere for long enough to provide global climatic benefit. This suggestion grew out of scientific ideas developed in the late 1980s, based on analyses of natural, long-term climate changes (i.e., ice age cycles) and experiments that provided new insights into the natural factors that limit ocean productivity, and thereby control the cycling of carbon between sea and sky. *Major political and ethical challenges* Unfortunately, the practicalities, opportunities and threats associated with ocean fertilization are only partly understood, and will in all likelihood include unintended ecological consequences, which in turn can pose important political, social and ethical challenges. Small-scale field experiments and associated modelling have shown that the likely maximum benefits of ocean fertilization as a negative emissions technique are modest in relation to anthropogenic climate forcing. It would also be highly challenging to quantify with acceptable accuracy the amount of carbon removed from circulation on a long-term basis, and in particular to adequately monitor unintended impacts over large space and time-scales. Meeting the political, ethical and regulatory challenges of geo-engineering, including ocean fertilization, requires building toward an international governance framework to ensure that research of this nature is conducted responsibly and transparently. A global and effective regulatory mechanism is needed to be put in place for ocean fertilization, other than for small-scale scientific research studies within coastal waters. The United Nations General Assembly has encouraged States to support further study and to enhance understanding of ocean fertilization (Resolution 62/215; December 2007). Four UN entities have major interests in this topic: the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission of UNESCO (IOC), the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), the London Convention and Protocol (LC/LP) and the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). Together they cover the spectrum of marine science, marine conservation and pollution regulation. *Ocean fertilization activities on hold* In response to concerns that large-scale ocean fertilization might be attempted before its consequences were fully understood, and upholding the precautionary principle, the Parties to the CBD decided in 2008 that no further ocean fertilization activities for whatever purpose should be carried out in non-coastal waters until there is stronger scientific justification, assessed through a global regulatory mechanism. Such a regulatory framework is now being developed by the LC/LP. The IOC has been closely involved in CBD and LC/LP discussions. Our 2009 publication, Ocean Fertilization: A Scientific Summary for Policy Makers, was commissioned in conjunction with the Surface Ocean - Lower Atmosphere Study (SOLAS), the International Commission on Atmospheric Chemistry and Global Pollution (ICACGP), the World Climate Research Programme (WCRP), the International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme (IGBP) and the Scientific Committee on Oceanic Research (SCOR) of the International Council for Science (ICSU). It includes in its key messages that 'large-scale fertilization could have unintended (and difficult to predict) impacts, not only locally... but also far removed in space and time. Impact assessments need to include the possibility of such 'far-field' effects on biological productivity, sub-surface oxygen levels, biogas production and ocean acidification'. Despite this, an uncontrolled geo-engineering project was carried out in July
Re: Fw: [geo] New Draft CCS Methodology from ACR Covers DAC
Hi Greg, Your point is well taken, but I come at EOR from a different perspective, as the only significant source of demand for CO2 from direct air capture for the foreseeable future, and thus as the key current driver for DAC technology development. A while back I wrote about this on my blog (http://geoengineeringpolitics.blogspot.com/2012/04/dac-and-eor.html)--here's a snippet summarizing my view: The reality of DAC today is stated succinctly by Gunther: air-capture technology has become *a solution in search of a market*, while its backers wait for the world to get serious about climate threathttp://www.marcgunther.com/2012/03/11/direct-air-capture-of-co2-is-becoming-a-business-for-better-or-worse/#more-10795 (boldface original). And the reality of the CO2 market today is that it is dominated by demand for use in EOR--there are currently more than 100 EOR projects in operation paying $20-40 per ton of CO2, and the key constraint on future growth is lack of CO2 injectant supply. Like any other firm, for DAC start-ups to be successful they will need to be financially viable, and the surest road to financial viability in the foreseeable future is supplying CO2 to the EOR market. Other markets are either too small (for example, greenhouses) or too embryonic (algae-based biofuels), and support from the carbon allowance market is essentially nonexistent. Right now, EOR is the only meaningful game in town, and represents the only realistic option for DAC technology developers and their financial backers. To swear off involvement in EOR would deprive DAC of its most powerful motive force, and may well permanently consign DAC technology to the drawing-board. The quote is from Marc Gunther's e-book Suck It Up. Josh On Thursday, January 3, 2013 12:36:23 PM UTC-5, Greg Rau wrote: Thanks, Josh. Anyone who really cares about stabilizing air CO2 needs to be aware that in typical CO2-EOR the equivalent of 3 tonnes of CO2 ultimately are released to the atmosphere via product combustion for every tonne CO2 injected. Such activity is therefore a strong CO2 source not a net CO2 sink, a feature that is completely ignored in the oh-so-detailed equations offered here* to calculate carbon credits. To be touted as part of a Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction strategy qualifying for carbon credits, on par with non-EOR geologic CO2 injection and storage, is something I find outrageous and offensive. It's one thing to facilitate fossil energy (and carbon) extraction and give the fossil fuel industry yet another subsidy, but it is shameful to do this under the guise of and monetary crediting for CO2 emissions reduction. Anyone care to join me in sending a comment on this report to Winrock International**, a...@winrock.org javascript:? -Greg * http://americancarbonregistry.org/carbon-accounting/css-for-oil-and-gas-reservoirs-public-comment ** Winrock promotes sustainable use and management of natural resources to support the food and income needs of growing populations and the health of the planet. These activities encompass a broad range of programs and services. Clean Energy Ecosystem Services Forestry Natural Resource Management And Winrock is apparently willing to perform other activities, if the price is right. - G From: Josh Horton joshuah...@gmail.com javascript: Reply-To: joshuah...@gmail.com javascript: joshuah...@gmail.comjavascript: Date: Wednesday, January 2, 2013 9:52 AM To: geoengineering geoengi...@googlegroups.com javascript: Subject: [geo] New Draft CCS Methodology from ACR Covers DAC An interesting note for those who follow direct air capture -- American Carbon Registry has released a draft CCS methodology that explicitly covers DAC. To my knowledge, this is the first offset methodology that makes specific provision for DAC activities. There is a public comment period that runs through the end of January: http://americancarbonregistry.org/carbon-accounting/carbon-capture-and-storage-in-oil-and-gas-reservoirs Josh Horton joshuah...@gmail.com javascript: -- 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/-/DnPRghAoVmwJ. To post to this group, send email to geoeng...@googlegroups.comjavascript: . To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineeri...@googlegroups.com javascript:. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. -- 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/-/gpcALg4j6AAJ. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr
[geo] New Draft CCS Methodology from ACR Covers DAC
An interesting note for those who follow direct air capture -- American Carbon Registry has released a draft CCS methodology that explicitly covers DAC. To my knowledge, this is the first offset methodology that makes specific provision for DAC activities. There is a public comment period that runs through the end of January: http://americancarbonregistry.org/carbon-accounting/carbon-capture-and-storage-in-oil-and-gas-reservoirs Josh Horton joshuahorton...@gmail.com -- 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/-/DnPRghAoVmwJ. 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] Chicago Tribune - Geo-engineering wins scant enthusiasm at U.N. climate talks - Chicago Tribune
I wonder if Pachauri's comments signal something about the IPCC's work on geoengineering for AR5. In 2009, he said At some point we will have to cross over and start sucking some of those [greenhouse] gases out of the atmosphere.http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/health/suck-co2-from-air-to-save-world-from-global-warming-says-pachauri_100282510.html Has he changed his tune? Josh On Sunday, December 2, 2012 9:44:01 AM UTC-5, Stephen Salter wrote: Hi All If somebody suggested a great way to stop the rise of ocean acidity would Jean-Pascal van Ypersele, a vice-chair of the IPCC, claim that is does nothing about rising temperatures? Stephen Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design School of Engineering University of Edinburgh Mayfield Road Edinburgh EH9 3JL Scotland s.sa...@ed.ac.uk javascript: Tel +44 (0)131 650 5704 Cell 07795 203 195 WWW.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs On 02/12/2012 13:19, Andrew Lockley wrote: http://my.chicagotribune.com/#story/sns-rt-us-climate-talks-geoengineeringbre8b103y-20121202/ Geo-engineering wins scant enthusiasm at U.N. climate talks Environment Correspondent Alister Doyle,Reuters11:06 am, December 2, 2012DOHA Cheap, short-cut ideas to cool the planet such as shading sunlight are failing to win support from U.N. delegates looking to improve on the slow progress made by existing technologies.Many scientists say the proposed solutions, known as geo-engineering, are little understood and might have side effects more damaging than global warming, which is projected to cause more floods, heatwaves, droughts and rising sea levels.Let's first use what we know, said Christiana Figueres, head of the U.N. Climate Change Secretariat, dismissing suggestions that it was time to try geo-engineering to halt a rise in greenhouse gas emissions.There are so many proven technologies we know exist that are tried and true that have not been used to their maximum potential, she told Reuters. To begin with, the simplest is energy efficiency.Geo-engineering options include adding sun-reflecting chemicals to the upper atmosphere to mimic the effect of big volcanic eruptions that mask the sun, or fertilizing the oceans to promote the growth of algae that soak up carbon from the air.Among other ideas, a giant mirror could be placed in space to block some sunlight or sea spray could be injected into the air to create clouds whose white tops would reflect sunlight.Let's face it, geo-engineering has a lot of unknowns, Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the U.N.'s panel of climate scientists, told Reuters on the sidelines of U.N.-led climate change talks among 200 nations in Doha from November 26-Dec 7.How can you go into an area where you don't know anything? he said. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is examining geo-engineering in depth for the first time as part of a major report due in 2013 and 2014.Still, one study by U.S. scientists in August indicated that planes or airships could carry a million tonnes a year of sun-dimming sulfate materials high into the atmosphere for an affordable price tag of below $5 billion.CHEAPERThat would be far cheaper than policies to cut world greenhouse gas emissions, estimated to cost between $200 billion and $2 trillion a year by 2030, they wrote in the journal Environmental Research Letters.If you are looking at solutions you could look at solar energy, said Mira Mehrishi, head of India's delegation in Doha. It's a little premature to start looking at geo-engineering.There's a lot of skepticism about geo-engineering, said Artur Runge-Metzger of the European Commission. Research is necessary to see if it could be viable in one way or other.U.N. negotiations on slowing global warming have been running since a U.N. Climate Convention was agreed in 1992.One problem is that adding sulfates - a form of pollution - to the air would not slow an acidification of the oceans since concentrations of greenhouse gases led by carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would keep building up.Some carbon dioxide, absorbed into the oceans, reacts to form carbonic acid. That erodes the ability of creatures from clams or mussels to lobsters and crabs to build their protective shells. In turn, that could disrupt marine food chains.You might temporarily delay the warming but you are certainly not going to help the oceans at all, said Jean-Pascal van Ypersele, a vice-chair of the IPCC, of using sulfates. Ocean acidification is a real emerging issue.A mask of pollution might help some crops by reducing heat stress but it might have other side-effects, for instance, by disrupting Monsoon patterns. That could bring disputes between countries that benefited and others that suffered.And Van Ypersele said that, if geo-engineering went wrong and needed to be shut down after a few
[geo] Public Perception of Climate Geoengineering in Japan as Revealed in an Online Survey :
As someone pointed out to me, this survey was conducted just before Fukushima, so it's a good bet that opinions on geoengineering have become more hostile, at least for now. Josh Horton -- 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/-/vZ5FnuVypKMJ. 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: UN agreement urges caution over geoengineering tests | RTCC - Responding to Climate Change
The LC/LP Conference of the Parties (COP) is scheduled to run from October 29 to November 2. I don't know much about the agenda--maybe Chris Vivian can offer something? Josh On Friday, October 19, 2012 11:59:30 AM UTC-4, andrewjlockley wrote: We could do with more posts on this list about how folks can influence this process - and similar ones. Bearing in mind the expertise on this list, there's very little briefing on the list for proactive involvement. I'm not sure.whether the scientists are engaged in the political process properly. Anyone know of upcoming political events that people should be feeding in to? A On Oct 19, 2012 4:48 PM, Josh Horton joshuah...@gmail.comjavascript: wrote: There are several inaccuracies in this report, but from this and other sources it *looks like* things will remain much as they were before. ETC Group and its allies were pushing for a full test ban, but they didn't get it. Instead, parties will reaffirm the 2010 moratorium, including its non-binding status. So we're basically back to where we were before the Russ George/Haida OIF story broke. Of course all this still needs to be adopted by the full COP. Josh Horton joshuah...@gmail.com javascript: http://geoengineeringpolitics.blogspot.com/ On Friday, October 19, 2012 5:31:30 AM UTC-4, andrewjlockley wrote: http://www.rtcc.org/**technology/un-agreement-urges-** caution-over-geoengineering-**tests/http://www.rtcc.org/technology/un-agreement-urges-caution-over-geoengineering-tests/ UN agreement urges caution over geoengineering tests 18 October 2012 By Tierney Smith RTCC in Hyderabad Guidelines on the deployment of geoengineering have been agreed at the UN biodiversity summit in Hyderabad following intense negotiations.Countries agreed on a text that specifies what geoengineering means, outlines when it should be used, acknowledges its potential impacts on biodiversity and the potential cross-border consequences of its use.The document stresses the priority of addressing climate change through mitigation measures, such as increasing natural carbon sinks, and calls on all experiments to take into account international laws and conventions, including the UNFCCC, the UN’s climate change convention.It also reaffirms the decisions taken at COP10 in Nagoya that called for scientific evidence for the need of geoengineering before any experiments take place.Geoengineering is designed to tackle the effects of climate change by either removing CO2 from the air – by pulling gas from the atmosphere or increasing absorption in the sea – or limiting the amount of sunlight reaching the earth’s surface.Large scale projects are still largely in the concept phase but given the deadlocked state of mitigation efforts, many think geoengineering will be essential for the world to avoid dangerous climate change.The document aims to address the potential impacts to biodiversity from large scale geoengineering projects aimed at mitigating climate change (Source: CBD/Flickr)This agreement will come as unwanted to news to the companies and countries wanting to invest in these technologies as climate change predictions worsen. This year there have been two major efforts to test methods of sucking CO2 from the atmosphere.In May a UK-backed project that planned to inject 150 litres of water into the atmosphere to create a cooling effect was cancelled at the last minute over concerns that certain researchers had a conflict of interest.But in July, the largest experiment to date took place off the west coast of Canada when 100 tonnes of iron sulphate was dumped into the ocean. Iron in the sea can create a ‘bloom’ of plankton that absorbs carbon dioxide and then sinks to the ocean bed – storing the carbon there.Scientists have, however, raised concerns that it can harm ecosystems, produce lifeless waters and worsen ocean acidification. It was also revealed earlier this week that the Canadian government may have known of the plans before they went ahead.The test was criticised by the international community who said the experiments breached moratoriums of two UN conventions, one under the CBD – set out in the Nagoya outcome – and the other in the 1972 London Convention that prohibits the for-profit dumping of iron into the sea.Test banAhead of the conference, groups including Bolivia, the Philippines and African nations, as well as indigenous peoples groups called for an enforceable test ban on geoengineering experiments.However, the paragraph calling on parties to ensure all tests of geoengineering technologies take place in “controlled laboratory conditions” was removed from the text, despite protests from countries including Peru and Argentina.Countries traded giving up the paragraph with text that ‘reaffirms’ – over a weaker ‘recalls’ – decisions agreed in Nagoya:“No climate-related geo-engineering
[geo] Re: m.guardian.co.uk
I'm no fan of Guardian reporting on GE, but note that this story is a year old (published 10/6/11). Josh On Thursday, October 11, 2012 8:44:09 PM UTC-4, andrewjlockley wrote: Posters note: The Guardian has forgotten to take its medicine again. Apparently David K, Ken C and John S are about to take over the world and get really rich. This sounds awesome fun and I'd love to join in. A http://m.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2011/oct/06/us-push-geoengineering?cat=environmenttype=article 12.10.12 Big names behind US push for geoengineering A coalition representing the most powerful academic, military, scientific and corporate interests has set its sights on vast potential profitsBritish scientists have pulled back from geoengineering projects but the US is forging ahead. Photograph: Gallo Images/Getty ImagesJohn VidalGuardian Weekly, Thu 6 Oct 2011 12.04 BSTBlogpostShare on twitterShare on facebookShare on emailMore Sharing Services0UK scientists last week postponedone of the world's first attempts to physically manipulate the upper atmosphere to cool the planet. Okay, so the Stratospheric Particle Injection for Climate Engineering project wasn't actually going to spray thousands of tonnes of reflective particles into the air to replicate a volcano, but the plan to send a balloon with a hose attached 1km into the sky above Norfolk was an important step towards the ultimate techno-fix for climate change.The reason the British scientists gave for pulling back was that more time was needed for consultation. In retrospect, it seems bizarre that they had only talked to a few members of the public. It was only when 60 global groups wrote to the UK governmentand the resarch groups behind the project requesting cancellation that they paid any attention to critics.Over the Atlantic, though, the geoengineers are more gung-ho. Just days after the British got cold feet, the Washington-based thinktank the Bipartisan Policy Center (BPC)published a major report calling for the United States and other likeminded countries to move towards large-scale climate change experimentation. Trying to rebrand geoengineering as climate remediation, the BPC report is full of precautionary rhetoric, but its bottom line is that there should be presidential leadership for the nascent technologies, a coalition of willing countries to experiment together, large-scale testing and big government funding.So what is the BPC and should we take this non-profit group seriously? For a start these guys - and they are indeed mostly men - are not bipartisan in any sense that the British would understand. The operation is part-funded by big oil, pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, and while it claims to represent a consensus among what have historically been divergent views, it appears to actually represent the most powerful US academic, military, scientific and corporate interests. It lobbies for free trade, US military supremacy and corporate power and was described recently as a collection of neo-conservatives, hawks, and neoliberal interventionists who want to make war on Iran.Their specially convened taskforce is, in fact, the cream of the emerging science and military-led geoengineering lobby with a few neutrals chucked in to give it an air of political sobriety. It includes former ambassadors, an assistant secretary of state, academics, and a chief US climate negotiator.Notable among the group is David Whelan, a man who spent years in the US defence department working on the stealth bomber and nuclear weapons and who now leads a group of people as Boeing's chief scientist working on ways to find new solutions to world's most challenging problems.There are signs of cross US-UK pollination – one member of the taskforce is John Shepherd, who recently wrote for the Guardian: I've concluded that geoengineering research – and I emphasise the term research – is, sadly, necessary. But he cautioned: what we really need is more and better information. The only way to get that information is through appropriate research.It also includes several of geoengineering's most powerful academic cheerleaders. Atmosphere scientist Ken Caldeira, from Stanford University, used to work at the National laboratory at Livermore with the people who developed the ill-fated star wars weapons. Together with David Keith, a researcher at the University of Calgary in Canada, who is also on the BPC panel, Caldeira manages billionaire Bill Gates's geoengineering research budget. Both scientists have patents pending on geoengineering processes and both were members of of the UK Royal Society's working group on geoengineering which in 2009 recommended more research. Meanwhile, Keith has a company developing a machine to suck CO2 out of the year and Caldeira has patented ideas to stop hurricanes forming.In sum, this coalition of US
Re: [geo] Does Geoengineering Present a Moral Hazard? by Albert Lin :: SSRN
This article makes for an interesting read but is based on some fuzzy logic. To my knowledge, the limited empirical data available on moral hazard in the geoengineering context (Ipsos MORI, work by Dan Kahan, etc.) all suggest that the issue is pretty inconsequential. But here the author simply dimisses that data in favor of purely theoretical psychological considerations from which he derives bold and confident predictions that moral hazard is real and deeply problematic: Heuristics and biases will influence risk perceptions among the general public, fostering overconfidence in seemingly easy technological 'solutions' and neglect of accompanying risks, and cultural cognition will lead persons of hierarchical and individualistic orientations to favor geoengineering over other climate policy options (pp. 23-24). Whatever happened to basing predictions on facts and observations? Josh Horton On Thursday, September 27, 2012 1:48:14 PM UTC-4, Mike MacCracken wrote: Initial reactions to the abstract: While many of the geoengineering approaches might be said to be unconventional (even though virtually all imitate some natural or existing phenomenon) and untested (at least untested adequately), this charge that the proposals are risky seems to me to need to be put in the context of the very great risks created by the increasing concentrations of GHGs (indeed, even by sustaining the concentrations that we have) for which geoengineering approaches are intended to reduce the likelihood. This issue is not geoengineering or not, but human-induced climate change due to GHGs with or without various approaches to geoengineering. There will be different consequences depending on the choices made, and the issue would seem to be the relative consequences (very likely all negative compared to having human-induced GHG emissions being near zero). And yes, governance aspects and moral hazard and Man-nature perspectives, etc. are different too, and so is the likelihood of international actions on cutting emissions, etc., so a lot to consider. But the critical matter this is a relative risk issue—and saying that geoengineering alone (as done here) is (inherently) risky seems to me to be an unfortunate way to start off the consideration. Mike MacCracken On 9/27/12 5:09 AM, Andrew Lockley andrew.lock...@gmail.com wrote: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2152131 Albert Lin University of California, Davis - School of Law August 23, 2012 Ecology Law Quarterly, Forthcoming Abstract: Geoengineering, a set of unconventional, untested, and risky proposals for responding to climate change, has attracted growing attention in the wake of our collective failure so far to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions. Geoengineering research and deployment remain highly controversial, however, not only because of the risks involved, but also because of concern that geoengineering might undermine climate mitigation and adaptation efforts. The latter concern, often described as a moral hazard, has been questioned by some but not carefully explored. This article examines the critical question of whether geoengineering presents a moral hazard by drawing on empirical studies of moral hazard and risk compensation and on the psychology literature of heuristics and cultural cognition. The article finds it likely that geoengineering efforts will undermine mainstream strategies to combat climate change and suggests potential measures for ameliorating this moral hazard. Number of Pages in PDF File: 39 Keywords: geoengineering, climate change, moral hazard, risk compensation Accepted Paper Series -- 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/-/p_f701RG3DIJ. 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.
[geo] Re: UK GOVERNMENT VIEW ON GEOENGINEERING RESEARCH Department of Energy and Climate Change
This is an important development, particularly in light of the SPICE affair. It's good to see a statement of unequivocal support for research. It will be interesting to see whether any additional UK funding is forthcoming (I suspect not) or whether this has any effect in the US (maybe post-election?). Josh Josh Horton joshuahorton...@gmail.com http://geoengineeringpolitics.blogspot.com/ On Friday, September 28, 2012 5:25:18 AM UTC-4, andrewjlockley wrote: http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/about/science/activities/climate_change/ger/ger.aspx GOVERNMENT VIEW ON GEO-ENGINEERING RESEARCH Geo-engineering proposals to counter climate change are attracting growing attention, yet the scientific evidence base to inform a rational debate on their merits or otherwise is currently limited.Geo-engineering can be described as the deliberate intervention in the planetary environment of a nature and scale intended to counteract man-made climate change and/or its impacts. A wide range of different techniques may be encompassed by this term and can be broadly placed into two categories: those techniques that aim to remove carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases directly from the atmosphere, and those that aim to reflect some of the Sun’s energy that reaches Earth back into space.Based on the evidence currently available, it is premature to consider geo-engineering as a viable option for addressing climate change. The priority is, and must be, to tackle the root cause by reducing emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities and adapting to those impacts that are unavoidable. Mitigation of climate change, by reducing emissions and protecting natural carbon sinks, remains the surest way of increasing our chances of avoiding dangerous climate change in the future.Some, including scientists, have suggested that in the future geo-engineering may have a role to play in supplementing our efforts to mitigate climate change. However, for most techniques, current understanding of the costs, feasibility, environmental and societal impacts is limited.International regulation of geo-engineering is currently inadequate. A specific international legal instrument to regulate geo-engineering is not currently available, and work is underway to examine how existing instruments could be used. Therefore the Government has supported the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) in their review of existing regulatory instruments, and has contributed to work under the London Protocol on the prevention of marine pollution by dumping of wastes and other matter to regulate ocean fertilisation research and develop a framework to assess its potential impacts on the marine environment.Should the need ever arise to deploy geo-engineering techniques in the future, a thorough understanding of all the options available to counteract dangerous climate change and knowledge of their risks and benefits will be needed. This understanding can only be developed through relevant, careful and responsible multi-disciplinary research. The Government is supportive of the need to undertake such studies, in accordance with Decision X/33 and Article 14 of the CBD1 and relevant agreements such as the London Convention and its Protocol.Research and ongoing dialogue with the public and other key stakeholders, is vital to inform future policy and decision-making. The conduct of research does not imply an intention to deploy geo-engineering. FURTHER READING: Command paper 7936: Government response to the House of Commons Science and Technology Select Committee 5th report of session 2009-10: The regulation of geoengineering[External link].The Royal Society (2009): Geoengineering the climate: science, governance and uncertainty[External link].Natural Environment Research Council (NERC)/Sciencewise public dialogue exercise on geoengineering: Experiment Earth? A report on a public dialogue on Geoengineering[External link].Pursuant to the Decision X/33 on the application of geo-engineering approaches adopted by the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity in October 2010; no climate-related geo-engineering activities that may affect biodiversity should take place, until there is an adequate scientific basis on which to justify such activities and appropriate consideration of the associated risks for the environment and biodiversity and associated social, economic and cultural impacts, with the exception of small scale scientific research studies that would be conducted in a controlled setting in accordance with Article 3 of the Convention, and only if they are justified by the need to gather specific scientific data and are subject to a thorough prior assessment of the potential impacts on the environment. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To view
[geo] WWF Now Supports Geoengineering Research
Hi everyone, This is significant news - the Climate Change Programme Manager at WWF-UK stated the following yesterday on the Huffington Post: So alongside our main efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions through smarter use of sustainable energy and through reducing and reversing deforestation, WWF is cautiously supporting research into geo-engineering approaches in order to find out what is possible. Here's the link to the full post - http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/jon-taylor/geoengineering-climate-change_b_1873231.html WWF is arguably the most influential environmental NGO in the world, so publicly stating this position could open up a lot of political space for useful engagement and help create breathing room for small-scale experiments and field tests. Josh Horton -- 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/-/b6mD-oALLsUJ. 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.
[geo] Re: Dan Kahan's draft paper showing negative moral hazard - Geoengineering and the Science Communication Environment: A Cross-Cultural Experiment
In addition to the moral hazard issue, this study also presents evidence suggesting that discussions of geoengineering can have a depolarizing effect on the wider climate change debate. In essence, the argument is that geoengineering doesn't carry the same amount of cultural/political baggage as other, more charged aspects of the climate debate (for example, implicit anti-capitalism), and so allows for a less intense, more deliberative focus on the facts. The authors point out that this doesn't necessarily lead to greater support for geoengineering, just a more considered debate. Josh Horton On Wednesday, August 22, 2012 2:52:25 AM UTC-4, andrewjlockley wrote: Dan Kahan seeks prepublication comments of the folloing paper (abs below): http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1981907# This is the 3rd or 4th study I've seen (including my own) which found negative moral hazard. There have been no findings of positive moral hazard in any study of which I'm aware. Dan works on the Yale cultural cognition project http://www.culturalcognition.net/ Please note his email, cc and dan@yale.edu javascript: for comments. Thanks A Abstract: We conducted a two-nation study (United States, n = 1500; England, n = 1500) to test a novel theory of science communication. The cultural cognition thesis posits that individuals make extensive reliance on cultural meanings in forming perceptions of risk. The logic of the cultural cognition thesis suggests the potential value of a distinctive two-channel science communication strategy that combines information content (“Channel 1”) with cultural meanings (“Channel 2”) selected to promote open-minded assessment of information across diverse communities. In the study, scientific information content on climate change was held constant while the cultural meaning of that information was experimentally manipulated. Consistent with the study hypotheses, we found that making citizens aware of the potential contribution of geoengineering as a supplement to restriction of CO2 emissions helps to offset cultural polarization over the validity of climate-change science. We also tested the hypothesis, derived from competing models of science communication, that exposure to information on geoengineering would provoke discounting of climate-change risks generally. Contrary to this hypothesis, we found that subjects exposed to information about geoengineering were slightly more concerned about climate change risks than those assigned to a control condition. Number of Pages in PDF File: 41 Keywords: climate change, geoengineering, cultural cognition, risk perception -- 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/-/WY24Zt6j0NQJ. 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.
[geo] New Survey Data from Brookings
Hi all, The Brookings Institution has released a short report on a recent US survey on geoengineering (and adaptation). Here's the link: http://www.brookings.edu/research/papers/2012/05/30-geo-engineering-rabe-borick Their findings appear less friendly toward geoengineering (e.g., 69% agree it will do more harm than good, 17% disagree, 14% unsure) than those published last year by Mercer, Keith, and Sharp (http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/6/4/044006). But the Brookings questions are more predictive in nature and a lot more vague, and don't provide respondents with any context or even description of geoengineering--it speaks of adding materials to the atmosphere. I think Mercer/Keith/Sharp gives a better indication of current attitudes toward geoengineering, both concern about deployment and support for research. Josh Horton joshuahorton...@gmail.com http://geoengineeringpolitics.blogspot.com/ -- 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/-/mVCa2ULGTG0J. 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.
[geo] Re: More SPICE
There's no question that geoengineering and intellectual property (especially as it relates to SRM) is a complicated issue, but it's worth noting that intellectual property per se did not derail the SPICE field test. Rather, according to the facts that have been made public, it was a (contested) violation of EPSRC IP rules, i.e., failing to disclose a patent application, that led to cancellation of the field trial. This is different from a scenario in which an experiment is cancelled due to objections to the application of an IP framework to SRM geoengineering, which is how some are portraying the SPICE debacle. That's not to say that EPSRC IP rules strike the right balance, or that patents should even be permissible when it comes to SRM, only that the IP regime itself does not appear to be responsible for the cancellation. Josh Horton joshuahorton...@gmail.com On Wednesday, May 23, 2012 2:26:11 PM UTC-4, Greg Rau wrote: A charter for geoengineering Nature 485, 415 (24 May 2012) doi:10.1038/485415a Published online 23 May 2012 A controversial field trial of technology to mitigate climate change has been cancelled, but research continues. A robust governance framework is sorely needed to prevent further setbacks. Geoengineering research has a problem. That much should be clear following last week's cancellation of a field trial for the Stratospheric Particle Injection for Climate Engineering (SPICE) project. The solutions to this problem are not so obvious, but they must be found — and fast. The SPICE field trial was supposed to involve spraying water into the atmosphere at an altitude of 1 kilometre using a balloon and hosepipe, as part of a host of work exploring whether it is possible to mitigate global warming by introducing particles into the stratosphere to reflect some of the Sun's energy away from Earth. But the field trial — which is only a small part of the overall SPICE project — became bogged down in protests and delays almost as soon as it was announced. Last week, as first reported by *Nature*, the project's lead investigator announced that it was being abandoned, citing concerns about intellectual-property rights, public engagement and the overall governance regime for such work. Colleagues have leapt to the defence of the SPICE team, and praised its decision to continue with the theoretical strands of its work. Indeed, the researchers have acted with commendable honesty. But the SPICE issue is a perfect example of the problems that will persist until geoengineers grasp the nettle of regulation and oversight. We have been here before. Work on 'fertilizing' the oceans to promote blooms of phytoplankton that would lock up carbon dioxide ran into similar protests and governance wrangles. In 2009, an experiment to test the idea by dumping tonnes of iron sulphate into the Southern Ocean caused huge public disquiet and went ahead only after further discussions. “Problems will persist until geoengineers grasp the nettle of regulation and oversight.” Researchers argue that 'geoengineering' is a falsely inclusive term. They say that SPICE-style 'solar-radiation management' is completely different from ocean fertilization, and different again from carbon capture. But these technologies have similar aims and, when it comes to rules and regulations, they probably need to be dealt with together. The geoengineering community has tried to bring some discipline to the emerging field. The 'Oxford Principles' — developed in 2010 by researchers at the University of Oxford, UK — offer some useful ground rules. They say that geoengineering should be regulated as a public good; there should be public participation in decision-making; research should be disclosed and results published openly; impacts should be assessed independently; and decisions to deploy the technologies should be made within a robust governance framework. These are excellent principles. But they are vague, and cannot serve as a guide to conducting specific experiments in such a broad field. A meeting of geoengineers in Asilomar, California, in 2009 — influenced by a meeting at the same location in 1975, when researchers hashed out guidelines for genetic engineering — produced similarly vague recommendations, such as the need to conduct research openly and to consult the public when planning research. It also called for governments to “when necessary, create new mechanisms for the governance and oversight of large-scale climate engineering research activities”. The SPICE fiasco starkly demonstrates the need for such mechanisms. For a project of such high profile to founder on problems of intellectual property, regulation or public protest would be bad enough. That it ran into difficulties in all three areas shows an underlying problem. Of the issues raised, intellectual property may turn out
[geo] Re: EGU methane session
Did anyone on the list attend this EGU ESAS methane session? If not, has anyone seen relevant coverage or picked up any related information? I know this topic is of great interest to many group members, myself included. Josh Horton On Tuesday, April 17, 2012 7:17:10 AM UTC-4, andrewjlockley wrote: http://arctic-news.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/highlights-of-egu-general-assembly-2012.html?m=1 Highlights of EGU General Assembly 2012 If you will be attending the European Geosciences Union (EGU) General Assembly on April 25, 2012, make sure to attend, from 14:00 to 14:15 in room 23, the presentation: Methane release from the East-Siberian Arctic Shelf and its connection with permafrost and hydrate destabilization: First results and potential future developments by Natalia Shakhova and Igor Semiletov The East Siberian Arctic Shelf (ESAS) is home to the world’s largest hydrocarbon stocks, which consist of natural gas, coal bed methane (CH4), and shallow Arctic hydrates. Until recently, the ESAS was not considered a CH4 source due to the supposed impermeability of sub-sea permafrost, which was thought to completely isolate the CH4 beneath from modern biogeochemical cycles. However, the ESAS represents an enormous potential CH4 source that could be responsive to ongoing global warming. Such response could occur in substantially shorter time than that of terrestrial Arctic ecosystems, because sub-sea permafrost has experienced long-lasting destabilization initiated by its inundation during the Holocene ocean transgression. ESAS permafrost stability and integrity is key to whether sequestered ancient carbon escapes as the potent greenhouse gas CH4. Recent data suggest the sub-sea permafrost is currently experiencing significant changes in its thermal regime. For example, our recent data obtained in the ESAS during the drilling expedition of 2011 showed no frozen sediments at all within the 53 m long drilling core at water temperatures varying from -0.6˚C to -1.3˚C. Unfrozen sediments provide multiple potential CH4 migration pathways. We suggest that open taliks have formed beneath the areas underlain or influenced by the nearby occurrence of fault zones, under paleo-valleys, and beneath thaw lakes submerged several thousand years ago during the ocean transgression. Temporary gas migration pathways might occur subsequent to seismic and tectonic activity in an area, due to sediment settlement and subsidence; hydrates could destabilize due to development of thermokarst-related features or ice-scouring. Recently obtained geophysical data identified numerous gas seeps, mostly above prominent reflectors, and the ubiquitous occurrence of shallow gas-charged sediments containing numerous gas chimneys, underscoring the likelihood that the ability of sub-sea permafrost to capture CH4 released from the seabed is failing. Available data suggest the ESAS sub-sea permafrost is currently leaking a substantial amount of CH4. We propose that a few different types of CH4 exist, and are becoming involved in the modern carbon cycle due to permafrost destabilization in the ESAS: modern biogenic CH4 produced from ancient substrate, relatively old biogenic CH4 mobilized from hydrate deposits, and old thermogenic CH4 accumulated within seabed deposits. Isotopic data obtained by sampling CH4 in the water column and atmospheric CH4 in close proximity to the sea surface confirm the contribution from different sources, and demonstrate that the isotopic signature of CH4 from the ESAS can be used to create an interpretive plot for defining hydrates. CH4 fluxes could occur as numerous weak seeps, as large areas of strong bubble plumes, or as sites where CH4 releases are flare- or torch-like and the emissions are non-gradual. Due to the shallow and oligotrophic nature of the ESAS, the majority of aqueous CH4 may avoid biological oxidation in the water column and escape to the atmosphere. Further investigations should be focused on quantifying the total CH4 pool of the ESAS, improving our understanding of the mechanisms responsible for sub-sea permafrost destabilization and gas migration pathways formation, and decreasing uncertainties regarding the current CH4 emission mode and its future alteration by progressing permafrost degradation. Geophysical Research Abstracts Vol. 14, EGU2012-3877-1, 2012 EGU General Assembly 2012 Above presentation is part of the session: Methane cycling in marine and terrestrial systems which also features, as part of the poster program: Display Time: Wednesday, 25 Apr 08:00–19:30 Attendance Time: Wednesday, 25 Apr 17:30–19:00 Poster Area BG First drilling subsea permafrost in the southeastern Laptev Sea, the East Siberian Arctic Shelf: results and challenges by Igor Semiletov, et al. highlighting the following two challenges: 1) observed Arctic warming in early 21st century is stronger
[geo] Re: geoengineers as God(s)?
Fair enough, but I don't know of any researchers in this field (as represented by those on this list) who propose to play God or make deployment decisions about geoengineering. Scientists and engineers propose to develop different options for managing risk, and leave it to accountable decision-makers (political leaders) to choose the path forward. So the title and premise of the article are mistaken from the outset. Josh On Wednesday, April 25, 2012 10:41:05 AM UTC-4, Christopher Preston wrote: Like it or not, the ‘playing God’ frame is widely used to raise questions about a certain types of technology (e.g. biotechnology and synthetic biology). If you don’t take the ‘God’ part literally, the framing can be thought of in secular terms as raising questions about the proper role humans should adopt in relation to planetary processes. It seems to me that this remains an open question….. and some legitimate ethical discussions could take place. On Apr 24, 7:32 pm, Mike MacCracken mmacc...@comcast.net wrote: What a truly terrible title (or maybe tag line) for an article in a science magazine. Both greenhouse gas induced climate change, and the proposed response to it, are, or would be, a result of humans relying on the laws of physics and chemistry‹not some sort of super power. Whom does the article say is causing the change‹human activities or God? Is not causing the change with GHGs and choosing not to act to control emissions ³playing² God? And ³play² makes this all sound like a little game when the discussion is much more serious. And no way are engineers saying they are in charge, so they miss all the discussion on governance, etc. I¹ll agree I am a literalist because scientists try to be precise in their use of words (it might be interesting to ask them to define ³God²--their capital letter). Really poorly title choice, in my view. Mike MacCracken On 4/24/12 9:05 PM, RAU greg gh...@sbcglobal.net wrote: ET asks whether engineers should play God, making fundamental changes to the environment and attempting to control climate change. Should engineers control the eco-system? 23 April 2012By Anne Harris With the visible effects of climate change growing, is it time for engineers to step in and make fundamental changes to the eco-system? Anyone who has delved into the morass of conflicting reports and opinions that surround the thorny issue of climate change will readily admit that plain Œtruth¹ is not easy to come by. There are many fields in science where controversies still remain. This is healthy for science. It keeps us on our toes and forces us to question our assumptions and models. So it is revealing that, when it comes to climate change, the overwhelming majority of scientists acknowledge that it is taking place, that it is potentially catastrophic and is, in all likelihood, caused by humans. Having given this acceptance, the next question on scientists¹ lips is whether anything can be done. The drive is on, albeit grudgingly and at an agonisingly torpid pace, to limit the volume of greenhouse gases that are pumped into the atmosphere, but that alone is unlikely to be sufficient. What is really required is a solution that will reverse the climate-change effects, and this has been dubbed Œgeoengineering¹. much more here: http://eandt.theiet.org/magazine/2012/04/index.cfm -- 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/-/ZMmtIPXOMjAJ. 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.
[geo] Re: new CBD report on impacts on biodiversity, and more
Here's the new CBD regulatory report to supplement Jesse's list: http://www.cbd.int/doc/meetings/sbstta/sbstta-16/information/sbstta-16-inf-29-en.pdf Josh On Tuesday, April 10, 2012 8:12:53 AM UTC-4, Jesse Reynolds wrote: Returning from a holiday weekend, there's a bundle of stuff at my twitter feed (http://twitter.com/geoengpolicy) and below. This seems rather relevant: Impacts of climate-related geoengineering on biological diversity CBD 2012 SUBSIDIARY BODY ON SCIENTIFIC, TECHNICAL AND TECHNOLOGICAL ADVICE Sixteenth meeting Montreal, 30 April-5 May 2012 http://www.cbd.int/doc/meetings/sbstta/sbstta-16/information/sbstta-16-inf-28-en.pdf Best, - Jesse 23m J Reynolds @geoengpolicy Reply Delete Favorite · Open Governance and equity in the development and deployment of negative emissions technologies #geoengineering http://bit.ly/Hsj3Y0 [PDF] 37m J Reynolds @geoengpolicy Reply Delete Favorite · Open Reflective roofs and pavements SRM #geoengineering http://bit.ly/HwD6Kv 41m J Reynolds @geoengpolicy Reply Delete Favorite · Open Australia's office chief scientist paper: #geoengineering would not work, and poses risk http://bit.ly/Iv5ya4 [PDF] 55m J Reynolds @geoengpolicy Reply Delete Favorite · Open Metaphors we die by? #Geoengineering, metaphors, and the argument from catastrophe http://bit.ly/Huaktm [PDF] 1h J Reynolds @geoengpolicy Reply Delete Favorite · Open Sucking carbon dioxide out of the air: Neat idea, but impractical @bradplumer on CDR #geoengineering http://wapo.st/IdIsG6 - 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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/geoengineering/-/Vn6T4HzC6CgJ. 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.
[geo] Re: Stoat strongly criticises AMEG
I agree with Nathan that we shouldn't lose sight of the methane issue, which is the motive force behind AMEG's assertions and activities. In this regard, here is a short excerpt from something I posted in December: * * *While declaring a methane emergency and calling for immediate action is rooted in good intentions, such advocacy is both premature and misguided. In scientific terms, the available evidence simply does not support assertions that a worst-case scenario is unfolding. Shakhova and Semiletov have discovered an important phenomenon in the ESAS, but there are no data to indicate that this is a new phenomenon, or that methane venting is increasing at a statistically significant rate, or that venting is tightly connected to sea-ice retreat and the ice-albedo feedback. Arctic climate expert Ed Dlugokencky has written that There is no evidence from our atmospheric measurements that there has been a significant increase in emissions during the past 20 years from natural methane sources in the Arctic so far.http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/12/19/392242/carbon-time-bomb-in-arctic-new-york-times-print-edition-gets-the-story-right/ Ice expert Richard Alley states the physical understanding agrees with the paleoclimatic data that methane can be an important feedback but isn't likely to have giant rapid climate-changing belches.http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/28/more-views-on-global-warmin-and-arctic-methane/#more-4 Even Shakhova and Semiletov urge restraint: we have never stated that the reason for the currently observed methane emissions were due to recent climate change. ... We would urge people ... not jump to conclusions and be open to the idea that new observations may significantly change what we understand about our world.http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/27/leaders-of-arctic-methane-project-clarify-climate-concerns/ * * * *Demands for quick deployment are also politically unwise. Given the mainstream scientific views described above, such calls will not be heeded, but instead will be attributed to the scientific fringehttp://www.newscientist.com/article/dn21275-call-for-arctic-geoengineering-as-soon-as-possible.html, which could in turn contribute to the marginalization of the broader geoengineering community. This would be especially tragic if compelling evidence subsequently emerges that we are indeed at an Arctic tipping point: climate remediation solutions may be dismissed as the science-fiction fantasies of doomsday prognosticators, even if the underlying engineering is sound and deployment warranted by an objective reading of events. Monitoring of Arctic methane venting should be increased, and research on global and regional geoengineering schemes should be intensified, but assertions that we are on the brink of calamity and must act now should cease. There is a difference between vigilance and alarmism, and the Arctic Methane Emergency Group is rapidly drifting toward the latter.* (see here for the full post including links -- http://geoengineeringpolitics.blogspot.com/2011/12/arctic-methane-emergencies-and-alarmism.html) I'm not aware of any subsequent developments that warrant revising these statements. A close look at the methane issue gives us even more reason to question the claims put forward by AMEG, and perhaps for AMEG to reconsider its approach. Josh Horton On Sunday, March 18, 2012 7:59:29 AM UTC-4, Andrew Lockley wrote: This is very damning. I have also asked John several times to clarify the membership of the group and he has not done so. Bearing in mind the high media profile of the AMEG group, the issue is a major threat to the public credibility of the entire geoengineering research community. http://t.co/OZnj6dMM Arctic Methane Emergency Group? Posted on: March 17, 2012 4:16 PM, by William M. Connolley From Climate 'tech fixes' urged for Arctic methane I find ameg.me who say: AMEG POSITION DECLARATION OF EMERGENCY We declare there now exists an extremely high international security risk* from abrupt and runaway global warming being triggered by the end-summer collapse of Arctic sea ice towards a fraction of the current record and release of huge quantities of methane gas from the seabed. Such global warming would lead at first to worldwide crop failures but ultimately and inexorably to the collapse of civilization as we know it. This colossal threat demands an immediate emergency scale response to cool the Arctic and save the sea ice. The latest available data indicates that a sea ice collapse is more than likely by 2015 and even possible this summer (2012). Thus some measures to counter the threat have to be ready within a few months. So who are these bozos? (Note: I've been fairly dismissive about methane before). Aunty says Scientists told UK MPs this week... At a meeting in Westminster organised by the Arctic Methane Emergency Group (Ameg), Prof
[geo] Re: We are top story on BBC environmental news
The idea of putting dust particles into the stratosphere to reflect sunlight, mimicking the cooling effect of volcanic eruptions, would in fact be disastrous for the Arctic, said Prof Salter, with models showing it would increase temperatures at the pole by perhaps 10C. That's a pretty strong statement--what's the evidence for this? Josh Horton On Saturday, March 17, 2012 6:25:22 AM UTC-4, Andrew Lockley wrote: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-17400804 Climate 'tech fixes' urged for Arctic methane By Richard Black Environment correspondent, BBC News An eminent UK engineer is suggesting building cloud-whitening towers in the Faroe Islands as a technical fix for warming across the Arctic. Scientists told UK MPs this week that the possibility of a major methane release triggered by melting Arctic ice constitutes a planetary emergency. The Arctic could be sea-ice free each September within a few years. Wave energy pioneer Stephen Salter has shown that pumping seawater sprays into the atmosphere could cool the planet. The Edinburgh University academic has previously suggested whitening clouds using specially-built ships. At a meeting in Westminster organised by the Arctic Methane Emergency Group (Ameg), Prof Salter told MPs that the situation in the Arctic was so serious that ships might take too long. I don't think there's time to do ships for the Arctic now, he said. We'd need a bit of land, in clean air and the right distance north... where you can cool water flowing into the Arctic. Favoured locations would be the Faroes and islands in the Bering Strait, he said. Towers would be constructed, simplified versions of what has been planned for ships. In summer, seawater would be pumped up to the top using some kind of renewable energy, and out through the nozzles that are now being developed at Edinburgh University, which achieve incredibly fine droplet size. In an idea first proposed by US physicist John Latham, the fine droplets of seawater provide nuclei around which water vapour can condense. This makes the average droplet size in the clouds smaller, meaning they appear whiter and reflect more of the Sun's incoming energy back into space, cooling the Earth. On melting ice The area of Arctic Ocean covered by ice each summer has declined significantly over the last few decades as air and sea temperatures have risen. For each of the last four years, the September minimum has seen about two-thirds of the average cover for the years 1979-2000, which is used a baseline. The extent covered at other times of the year has also been shrinking. What more concerns some scientists is the falling volume of ice. Analysis from the University of Washington, in Seattle, using ice thickness data from submarines and satellites, suggests that Septembers could be ice-free within just a few years. Data for September suggests the Arctic Ocean could be free of sea ice in a few years In 2007, the water [off northern Siberia] warmed up to about 5C (41F) in summer, and this extends down to the sea bed, melting the offshore permafrost, said Peter Wadhams, professor of ocean physics at Cambridge University. Among the issues this raises is whether the ice-free conditions will quicken release of methane currently trapped in the sea bed, especially in the shallow waters along the northern coast of Siberia, Canada and Alaska. Methane is a much more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, though it does not last as long in the atmosphere. Several teams of scientists trying to measure how much methane is actually being released have reported seeing vast bubbles coming up through the water - although analysing how much this matters is complicated by the absence of similar measurements from previous decades. Nevertheless, Prof Wadhams told MPs, the release could be expected to get stronger over time. With 'business-as-usual' greenhouse gas emissions, we might have warming of 9-10C in the Arctic. That will cement in place the ice-free nature of the Arctic Ocean - it will release methane from offshore, and a lot of the methane on land as well. This would - in turn - exacerbate warming, across the Arctic and the rest of the world. Abrupt methane releases from frozen regions may have played a major role in two events, 55 and 251 million years ago, that extinguished much of the life then on Earth. Meteorologist Lord (Julian) Hunt, who chaired the meeting of the All Party Parliamentary Group on Climate Change, clarified that an abrupt methane release from the current warming was not inevitable, describing that as an issue for scientific debate. But he also said that some in the scientific community had been reluctant to discuss the possibility. There is quite a lot of suppression and non-discussion of issues that are difficult, and one of those is in fact methane, he said
[geo] Kiribati Buying Land in Fiji as Climate Insurance
Apparently it's come to this ... On a related note, up until a few weeks ago I was involved in exploratory work looking to engage the President of the Maldives on political advocacy for geoengineering research (and perhaps even actual research on micro-bubble technology) via a direct connection ... then he was overthrown in a coup. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-16945764 Josh Horton joshuahorton...@gmail.com http://www.unisdr.org/archive/25649 Migration not a matter of choice but survival, says Kiribati President*By Brigitte Leoni* *BANGKOK, 15 March 2012* - Following a recent decision by its Cabinet to buy land in Fiji as 'climate change insurance' for its population, Kiribati President, Anote Tong has called on the international community to address the effects of climate change that could wipe out the entire Pacific archipelago. While the governments of both the Pacific island nations are currently in talks about the nearly 6,000 acres of fertile land on Fiji's main island, Viti Levu which is being offered by a church group for $9.6 million, President Tong hopes that it will never be necessary for the 103,000 people of Kiribati to leave. The move comes three years after President Tong took centre stage at the Global Platform for Disaster Risk Reduction to implore the international community to take effective action against climate change before it became too late for Kiribati and other small island developing states of the Pacific. This week he told the media: We would hope not to put everyone on one piece of land, but if it became absolutely necessary, yes, we could do it. It wouldn't be for me, personally, but would apply more to a younger generation. For them, moving won't be a matter of choice. It's basically going to be a matter of survival. Jerry Velasquez, Head of UNISDR Asia Pacific, believes that now is not time to give up. We still have time to build community resilience and press on with efforts to mitigate catastrophic climate change before it's too late. Climate migration, if it has to happen, should be an adaptation option for resilient communities, he said. Kiribati is at the heart of the debate on climate change. Many of its atolls rise just 2.0 metres above sea level. It is comprised of 33 tiny islands scattered across the ocean with more than half its population crowded onto one island - South Tarawa, the capital. This recent development in Kiribati comes on the heels of a new Asia Development Bank (ADB) report released last week, which states that low-lying Pacific islands will be extremely vulnerable to sea-level rise, high intensity cyclones, and storm surges. The report, Addressing Climate Change and Migration in Asia and the Pacific highlights that with warmer seas, more intense cyclones could become a pattern. It further predicts widespread coastal inundation for Kiribati's main island. Released at the Second Asia-Pacific Climate Change Adaptation Forum in Bangkok, the report identifies Kiribati, Tuvalu, and Papua New Guinea as Pacific migration hotspots due to climate change. Kiribati and Tuvalu face the highest threat from sea-level rise while Papua New Guinea is expected to experience greater risk from flash flooding across the highlands and coastal flooding along the south coast, according to the report. According to ADB some 42 million people in the Asia Pacific region were displaced by environmental disasters in the past two years. Larger countries will also face tough migration challenges due to climate change in the coming years. India, for example, has the highest number of people who may be affected by rising sea levels; thirty seven million of its citizens may be impacted by climate change by 2050. If we cannot save Kiribati tomorrow, we will also be obliged to move millions of people from Dhaka, the capital of Bangladesh, Manila, the capital of the Philippines and many other cities in the world sooner or later'', said Jerry Velasquez. Over the last five years, President Tong has continued to stress that his country may become uninhabitable by the 2050s due to rising sea levels and salination provoked by climate change. On Abaiang, one of Kiribati's remote outer islands, an empty sandbar is evidence of the encroaching sea. There was a village there once called Tebunginako. Residents were forced to relocate after the sea ruined crops and drinking water. Then a large storm destroyed their houses. Some of the villagers have rebuilt further inland; others have scattered for good. -- 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/-/wGDrZfdwGFkJ. 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
[geo] Re: Emerging consensus on geo-engineering
Ben, With respect to your original question, I think Alan's right that it's important to distinguish geoengineering research from geoengineering deployment. I also think it's inaccurate to speak of an economic/ scientific community--in my experience these are two distinct knowledge communities with different assumptions and worldviews. My impression is that there is still limited familiarity with geoengineering among scientists as a whole, and even less among economists. But to the extent there is awareness, Ken's characterization seems fair--growing support for research, little support for deployment. In addition, rather than speaking of an emerging consensus, it might be better to say that discussions of geoengineering have attained greater legitimacy over time. Josh Horton On Mar 3, 5:08 am, Andrew Lockley and...@andrewlockley.com wrote: I strongly believe you should publish this as a formal paper. There are social policy journals which represent perhaps a more appropriate route than climate science journals. It would seem that a statistical test for significance, plus a formal statement of hypotheses, would be appropriate. I'd personally be happy to work on this. NB The fact that you survey the perceived causes of climate change is of great general media interest. We should ensure the general public are regularly reminded of the scientific opinion on AGW. If scientists don't tell the truth, they'll only hear the Fox News version. A On Mar 3, 2012 6:45 AM, David Mitchell david.mitch...@dri.edu wrote: Dear Ken et al., In July of 2010 the American Meteorol. Soc. had its Cloud Physics Conference and Atmospheric Radiation Conference combined into a single conference in Portland Oregon, and on Thursday evening of that conference week an informal discussion was held on climate engineering with 94 scientists in attendence. The convenors of this meeting, Greg McFarquhar and myself, provided each participant with a questionaire on climate engineering that was deposited into the ballot box at the end of the event. We thought the results of this survey would be of interest to the editors of the AMS Bulletin (BAMS), who seemed initially interested but then became non-responsive; it has been well over a year since we have heard from them. So since BAMS does not want this, Greg and I felt that it would be appropriate to share this survey/questionaire with this geo-group. Attached is the proposal we sent to BAMS that includes the questionaire on attitudes towards climate engineering. I think you will find some of your impressions reflected in this survey. The group discussion addressed all types of climate engineering but was more focused on marine stratus cloud brightening and cirrus removal since these were mostly cloud physicists. Enjoy! David Mitchell Associate Research Professor Desert Research Institute Division of Atmospheric Sciences 2215 Raggio Parkway Reno, Nevada, USA Phone: 775-674-7039 E-mail: david.mitch...@dri.edu - Original Message - From: Ken Caldeira kcalde...@carnegie.stanford.edu Date: Friday, March 2, 2012 17:49 Subject: Re: [geo] Emerging consensus on geo-engineering To: voglerl...@gmail.com Cc: euggor...@comcast.net, theseglyphsaredu...@gmail.com, geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.com In going around and giving talks on this sunshade geoengineering, I find scientists with relevant skills much more interested in doing relevant research. A few years ago, my sense is that scientists felt this was a pariah subject, and they did not want to engage in research relevant to the topic. There is of course a sample bias in the people who come to my talks, but I sense that many more scientists feel that they have something to contribute to improving scientific understanding of the issues surrounding sunshade geoengineering. That said, I come across almost no scientists who are in favor of deployment at this time. My sense is that there is an increase in support for at least limited research (and less of an opposition to research) but very little support for active development of a deployment capability. This is how I feel so I might of course just be seeing a reflection of myself in the people that I speak with. ___ Ken Caldeira Carnegie Institution Dept of Global Ecology 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA +1 650 704 7212 kcalde...@carnegie.stanford.edu http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralabhttp://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab @kencaldeira * YouTube:* http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9LaYCbYCxo Climate change and the transition from coal to low-carbon electricityhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9LaYCbYCxo Crop yields in a geoengineered climatehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-0LCXNoIu-c On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 3:02 PM, Michael Hayes voglerl...@gmail.comwrote: Hello Ben et
[geo] Re: Fwd: Environmental Audit Inquiry - comments to the Members
Here is a recent post on this topic from my blog, that might be of interest to some of you ... http://geoengineeringpolitics.blogspot.com/2012/02/environmental-audit-committee-hearing.html Saturday, February 25, 2012 Environmental Audit Committee Hearing in the UK Earlier this week, the UK House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee held a hearing on Protecting the Arctic (available for viewing here). The session focused on threats to the Arctic posed by climate change and potential responses. Key topics included tipping points, sea-ice retreat, methane releases, and geoengineering. The proceedings were very much in line with recent discussions about a supposed methane emergency in the Arctic (see Arctic Methane, Emergencies, and Alarmism, 12/29/11), and cast a decidedly negative light on calls by the Arctic Methane Emergency Group (AMEG) for near- term deployment of geoengineering technologies to avert impending climate catastrophe. After initial remarks on tipping points (by Tim Lenton, University of Exeter) and sea-ice retreat (by Peter Wadhams, University of Cambridge), John Nissen, founder and Chair of AMEG, argued that recently detected methane plumes in the East Siberian Arctic Shelf (ESAS) may signal the onset of runaway climate change, and hence regional stratospheric aerosol and cloud brightening schemes must be implemented as soon as possible. Lenton, arguably the world's leading authority on climate tipping points, was quick to dismiss the nightmare scenario laid out by Nissen, stating that I don't think the alarmist story adds up in what I've seen (15:20:33). Lenton was hugely skeptical of proposed geoengineering deployment in the Arctic. Caroline Lucas MP, leader of the Green Party, questioned Nissen about the possible risks of geoengineering proposed by AMEG, and expressed serious reservations about Arctic deployment. Wadhams, an expert on sea ice and also a member of AMEG, was caught uncomfortably between the two positions, deeply concerned about positive feedbacks and nonlinearities, but seeming to lack enthusiasm for immediate deployment. (Wadhams did not fully articulate his views on geoengineering, and one wonders how forcefully he backs the aggressive demands put forward by AMEG.) On balance, geoengineering did not fare well in the hearing. This is not surprising given that its implementation in the Arctic is clearly premature at present. The absence of support from the scientific establishment for rapid implementation ought to signal to advocates of Arctic deployment that the case for action now is not persuasive, and calls for geoengineering in the near future are unwise. Unfortunately, AMEG and its sympathizers may draw the opposite conclusion, and redouble their efforts to convince skeptical scientists and policymakers that the end is nigh, further marginalizing geoengineering in the process. In addition, here is a link to a post by Matt Watson (head of SPICE), who uses my piece as a starting point to articulate his own views on the subject: http://thereluctantgeoengineer.blogspot.com/2012/02/ameg.html Josh Horton joshuahorton...@gmail.com http://geoengineeringpolitics.blogspot.com/ On Feb 24, 1:34 pm, Douglas Spence dspenc...@gmail.com wrote: arctic-news.blogspot.com/2012/02/protecting-arctic.html Is that the right link? (assuming it remains available, I find it ever harder to remain informed on these matters) Frankly I think if you expect a meaningful and productive response from governments (or people en masse) you are grossly misjudging human behaviour. I listened to the video there, and for what it's worth I agree with John Nissen, assuming I correctly understood him to be saying that civilisation is on a path to absolute failure within the near future (coming years, not decades). I do not agree that it is possible or probable that we can prevent this. I also probably can't contribute to discussions in this group as I'm not a scientist and my focus is very much on that complete failure scenario (and has been for some years). On that note, if anyone has anything to better help me understand the regional consequences of abrupt release of large volumes of methane I'd like to know. For example a few of my questions: - is hydrogen sulphide a concern and if so, on what timescales and in what general regions? - is methane outgassing likely to reach levels where it can form large scale explosive mixtures with the atmosphere? - if hydrogen sulphide is produced, is there a risk to the ozone layer and over what timescale? I appreciate it's a long shot, since established science seemed to be saying only a few years ago that the sea ice would last until the end of the century... Regards, Douglas On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 8:01 AM, Andrew Lockley and...@andrewlockley.comwrote: I went. Lenton and Wadhams gave evidence, as well as Nissen. It was surprisingly moderate. The MPs seemed semi-well-informed, but seemingly more concerned
[geo] Re: Fwd: Environmental Audit Inquiry - comments to the Members
This letter is heartening to see, as many of us are very uncomfortable with the notion of near-term deployment in the Arctic. Did anyone attend this hearing? I know John Nissen was scheduled to be a witness. Is this available for viewing online? Josh Horton On Feb 23, 11:20 am, Andrew Lockley and...@andrewlockley.com wrote: As sent to UK environmental audit committee. From: Hugh Coe hugh@manchester.ac.uk Date: 21 February 2012 02:59:50 GMT To: wall...@parliament.uk wall...@parliament.uk, peter.aldous...@parliament.uk peter.aldous...@parliament.uk, z...@zacgoldsmith.com z...@zacgoldsmith.com, caroline.nokes...@parliament.uk caroline.nokes...@parliament.uk, neil.carmichael...@parliament.uk neil.carmichael...@parliament.uk, caroline.lucas...@parliament.uk caroline.lucas...@parliament.uk, ucas...@parliament.uk ucas...@parliament.uk, paul.uppal...@parliament.uk paul.uppal...@parliament.uk, martin.caton...@parliament.uk martin.caton...@parliament.uk, whitehe...@parliament.uk whitehe...@parliament.uk, cla...@parliament.uk cla...@parliament.uk, perciv...@parliament.uk perciv...@parliament.uk, sher...@sheryllmurray.com sher...@sheryllmurray.com, sheryll.murray...@parliament.uk sheryll.murray...@parliament.uk, off...@simonwright.org.uk off...@simonwright.org.uk, simon.wright...@parliament.uk simon.wright...@parliament.uk, rich...@richardbenyon.com rich...@richardbenyon.com, richard.benyon...@parliament.uk richard.benyon...@parliament.uk, m...@marklazarowicz.org.uk m...@marklazarowicz.org.uk, mark.spencer...@parliament.uk mark.spencer...@parliament.uk, Lenton, Timothy t.m.len...@exeter.ac.uk, p...@damtp.cam.ac.uk p...@damtp.cam.ac.uk, John Latham john.latha...@manchester.ac.uk, s.sal...@ed.ac.uk s.sal...@ed.ac.uk, a...@env.leeds.ac.uk a...@env.leeds.ac.uk, Brian Launder brian.laun...@manchester.ac.uk, tom.choular...@manchester.ac.uk tom.choular...@manchester.ac.uk Subject: Environmental Audit Inquiry - comments to the Members Dear Members of the the Environmental Audit Inquiry We understand that you will be considering an evidence session titled Protecting the Arctic on Tuesday 21st February. There is a mounting evidence that significant changes are occurring in the Arctic and we are pleased that your Committee is considering this in detail. However, we would like to stress that whilst such indicators of rapid change are a major cause for concern, implementing any geoengineering approach to adjust an Arctic warming on the basis of its undemonstrated, causal effects on rapid Arctic change should not be considered at this time. Any such scheme needs to have its concepts rigorously challenged and then undergo rigorous, peer reviewed testing and scrutiny before any consideration of its use takes place. Systematic, deliberate modification of climate is, itself, likely to have effects on global weather systems, including large scale changes to regional rainfall. Such changes have been shown to occur in climate model simulations but as the key processes remain poorly understood at the present time, the climate models, our only predictive tools, are at present unable to provide a reliable means of quantifying the magnitude of the changes that may occur. Until this can be done and the balance of risks be well understood we strongly urge that a geoengineering solution of any kind is not to taken forward to address changing Arctic temperatures. Nevertheless, the increased evidence that such major changes may occur and the lack of progress in mitigating CO2 induced climate change means that investing in research into the viability of geoengineering is both very important and timely. Furthermore, it is important that Government does support the area, as the evidence base needs to be considered free from vested interests. We thankyou for your considerating our short note yours sincerely Professor John Latham, UCAR, Boulder, USA Professor Tom Choularton, University of Manchester Professor Brian Launder, FRS, University of Manchester Professor Hugh Coe, University of Manchester Stephen Salter, University of Edinburgh Dr Alan Gadian, University of Leeds- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - -- 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.
[geo] Re: more on CBD: geoengineering impacts and regulatory framework
I finally had a chance to take another look at the regulatory study. I think this is an improvement compared to earlier versions, portions of which came across as ideological and one-sided. Maybe some of the comments helped to restore some neutrality. In any event, this is a more balanced document than previous iterations. I had a similar reaction to the section on the precautionary principle (KM-8) flagged by Ken; here are the comments I submitted on that point: The first sentence of KM-8 states “the implications of its [the precautionary principle] application to geo-engineering may be unclear,” but should read “the implications of its application to geo- engineering are unclear.” Disagreement on these implications is well- established and widely recognized, and using the words “may be” unfairly biases the key message against the view that geoengineering is warranted by the precautionary principle. Similarly, the last sentence states “an interpretation in support of geo-engineering or pursuing further geo-engineering research would not be evidently contrary to the wording,” but should instead read “an interpretation in support of geo-engineering or pursuing further geo- engineering research is also consistent with the wording.” The phrase “would not be evidently contrary to” is inelegant and suggests that geoengineering may be implicitly contrary to the wording, which again clearly biases the key message against geoengineering. The precautionary principle has two legitimate interpretations in this context, neither one of which is objectively “true.” This key message and the broader study should remain neutral on this point. Josh Horton joshuahorton...@gmail.com http://geoengineeringpolitics.blogspot.com/ On Jan 30, 3:59 am, Ken Caldeira kcalde...@carnegie.stanford.edu wrote: It should be noted that the CBD is requesting input on two different documents, on on geoengineering impacts and one of regulatory framework.Documents and instructions are here:http://www.cbd.int/climate/geoengineering/review/ - * *My main issue with CBD statements on this matter (see 'regulatory framework' document, paragraph KM-8) is implications drawn from the following sentence:* **Under the CBD, the precautionary approach has been introduced recognizing that “where there is a threat of significant reduction or loss of biological diversity, lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing measures to avoid or minimize such a threat”. * Many people believe that temperature increases resulting from greenhouse gas emissions pose a threat of significant reduction or loss of biological diversity, perhaps most acutely for Arctic ecosystems. Various people have proposed deploying 'geoengineering' measures to avoid or minimize the threat that greenhouse gases pose to these ecosystems. Should the lack of full scientific certainty be used as a reason to postpone deploying these measures? Is the most cautious course of action self-evident? Which is being more cautious: artificially keeping the Arctic cool vs. letting the Arctic melt? Lack of full scientific certainty is a reason I would give for wanting to postpone such action. With respect to the threat that Arctic melting poses for Arctic biodiversity, some in the CBD are apparently arguing that we should be postponing measures to avoid or minimize such a threat”, based on a statement about not postponing such measures. In some readings, the 'precautionary approach' is encapsulated in the concept that if one cannot assure a positive outcome, one should not act. However, life is a gamble and every action (or inaction) entails risk. The best thing we as a society can do is to try to create bets where the odds are in our favor, and then bet sensibly. From my perspective, the odds offered by deployment aerosol-based geoengineering proposals do not yet look all that attractive. In the future, it is possible the odds may look different. ___ Ken Caldeira Carnegie Institution Dept of Global Ecology 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA +1 650 704 7212 kcalde...@carnegie.stanford.eduhttp://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab @kencaldeira *YouTube:* Crop yields in a geoengineered climatehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-0LCXNoIu-c Influence of sea cucumbers on a coral reef CaCO3 budgethttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-FSd4zy8iMo draft-study-impacts-geoengineering-second-review-en.docx 3109KViewDownload draft-study-regulatory-framework-geoengineering-second-review-en.docx 218KViewDownload template-comments-geoeng-study-impacts-en.doc 58KViewDownload template-comments-geoeng-study-regulatory-en.doc 73KViewDownload -- 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
[geo] Re: Facebook
Ken's right, the Facebook group is an official extension of the CBD- sponsored Climate Frontlines forum on geoengineering for indigenous peoples and local communities. (Climate Frontlines is sponsored by UNESCO.) We'd do well to keep an eye on the proceedings. I've been monitoring the Climate Frontlines comments section, and haven't seen anything too egregious yet. As a reminder, all of this is intended to feed into the current CBD review and consultation process. Josh On Feb 10, 6:20 am, Ken Caldeira kcalde...@carnegie.stanford.edu wrote: Seems to be created by this group: http://www.climatefrontlines.org/ * A global forum for indigenous peoples, small islands and vulnerable communities* You can read more about this here: http://www.handsoffmotherearth.org/2012/02/online-discussion-forum-fo... Josh Horton pointed to this in a posting to this group on Feb 3, referring to a somewhat more neutral source: http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering/browse_thread/thread/17... ___ Ken Caldeira Carnegie Institution Dept of Global Ecology 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA +1 650 704 7212 kcalde...@carnegie.stanford.eduhttp://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab @kencaldeira *YouTube:* Crop yields in a geoengineered climatehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-0LCXNoIu-c Influence of sea cucumbers on a coral reef CaCO3 budgethttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-FSd4zy8iMo On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 2:58 AM, Andrew Lockley and...@andrewlockley.comwrote: There's a Facebook group called 'Engineering the climate? What impacts? What benefits?' It seems to be a more international and cross cultural perspective than this group, with multilingual postings. I've joined A -- 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.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - -- 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.
[geo] CBD Online Discussion Forum – Please Take Note
Hi Group, The CBD Secretariat has announced an online discussion forum for indigenous and local communities to talk about geoengineering (see notification and links below). This forum is intended to tie directly into the draft scientific report currently under review, which in turn will inform the CBD's more general reconsideration of its moratorium on geoengineering activities later this year. ETC Group/HOME have identified this forum as an opportunity to influence the debate, and have alerted partner organizations accordingly. Given the process by which the CBD moratorium was imposed, and the questionable tactics used by some opponents of geoengineering research, I encourage everyone to monitor this forum closely, and to contest any inaccurate or misleading statements that might be made. It is important that the conversation among indigenous peoples, small island states, and local communities proceeds in an open and honest manner, free from distortions and undue outside influences. http://www.cbd.int/doc/notifications/2012/ntf-2012-021-8j-en.pdf http://www.climatefrontlines.org/ N O T I F I CAT I O N Online Discussion Forum for Indigenous and Local Communities on the possible impacts of geo-engineering techniques on biodiversity and associated social, economic and cultural considerations Dear Madam/Sir, The tenth meeting of the Conference of the Parties (COP) to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) adopted decision X/33, which includes the issue of climate-related geo-engineering as it relates to the achievement of the objectives of the CBD. The relevant paragraphs are annexed. In particular, the Executive Secretary was requested to compile and synthesize available scientific information, and views and experiences of indigenous and local communities and other stakeholders, on the possible impacts of geo-engineering techniques on biodiversity and associated social, economic and cultural considerations, and options on definitions and understandings of climate-related geo-engineering relevant to the CBD; and to make it available for consideration at the meeting of the Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice (SBSTTA), 30 April - 5 May 2012, Montreal, Canada, as well as COP 11 . In order to assist with this, I have the pleasure to inform you that an Online Discussion Forum on the possible impacts of geo-engineering techniques on biodiversity and associated social, economic and cultural considerations for indigenous and local communities will be held from 2 February to 2 March 2012 through the Climate Frontlines Online Forum (www.climatefrontlines.org ). The Climate Frontlines online forum is an electronic participation tool developed by UNESCO, in partnership with Secretariat of the CBD, the Secretariat of the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues and the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, to draw attention to community level observations of climate change and to strengthen the voices of vulnerable communities in global climate change debates. In order to participate, please visit the Climate Frontlines online forum link on geo-engineering at www.climatefrontlines.org. An abstract has been posted to the web-page in order to provide context and stimulate discussion. Participants, particularly those not familiar with the issue, may also wish to read the draft background studies at http://www.cbd.int/climate/geoengineering/review/. Participants are encouraged to register in advance by contacting Ms Jennifer Rubis at j.ru...@unesco.org . I wish to invite all National Focal Points, indigenous and local community organizations, nongovernmental organizations, academics, other interested parties, and in particular indigenous and local communities and their representatives to participate in the discussions. I thank you in advance for your participation and for your continued support to the work of the Convention. Please accept, Madam/Sir, the assurances of my highest consideration. Ahmed Djoghlaf Executive Secretary Josh Horton joshuahorton...@gmail.com http://geoengineeringpolitics.blogspot.com/ -- 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.
[geo] Re: CBD report on geoengineering and biodiversity
Just a quick note on process - please make sure you use the official template available at the address below to submit your comments - this is the only way to ensure they will reach the CBD Secretariat. http://www.cbd.int/climate/geoengineering/review/ Josh On Feb 1, 3:33 am, Chris chris.viv...@cefas.co.uk wrote: Wit reference to the text on climate change threats to species extinction: *Climate change poses an increasingly severe range of threats to biodiversity and ecosystem services, with ~10% of species estimated to be at risk of extinction for every 1⁰C rise in global mean temperature.* This text in the main part of the report is referenced to a CBD Technical Report 'Connecting Biodiversity and Climate Change: Mitigation and Adaptation' Report of the Second Ad Hoc Technical Expert Group on Biodiversity and Climate Change, CBD Technical Series report No. 41. However, when you look into that report you find that the text derives from IPCC AR4! The text in the CBD report reads: *Information in Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC AR4) suggests that approximately 10% of species assessed so far will be at an increasingly high risk of extinction for every 1°C rise in global mean temperature, within the range of future scenarios modelled in impacts assessments (typically 5°C global temperature rise).* Chris Vivian chris.viv...@cefas.co.uk On Jan 27, 5:38 pm, Ken Caldeira kcalde...@carnegie.stanford.edu wrote: On a quick read, it seems mostly sensible. A few points (which I should make formally): *Climate change poses an increasingly severe range of threats to biodiversity and ecosystem services, with ~10% of species estimated to be at risk of extinction for every 1⁰C rise in global mean temperature.* My guess is that this statement is hard to support empirically. The argument would need to be about rates of change and not amounts of change. For example, we did not see 30 to 50% of species going extinct as a result of the 3 to 5 C warming coming out of the last glacial. This statement might be more supportable if it were phrased in terms of rates of change (e.g., for every 1 C per century increase in the rate of warming) which was probably implicit in the minds of the writers. *Enhanced weathering would involve large-scale mining and transportation of carbonate and silicate rocks, and the spreading of solid or liquid materials on land or sea with major impacts on terrestrial and coastal ecosystems and, in some techniques, locally excessive alkalinity in marine systems.* I do not know of any evidence that spreading carbonate or silicate minerals in the land or sea would have major impacts on terrestrial and coastal ecosystems. Those of us who have considered using such approaches to ameliorate effects of ocean acidification on coastal communities have been somewhat dismayed at the difficulty of obtaining significant impact on coastal ecosystems -- impacts, by the way, that are anticipated to be beneficial to these ecosystems. The authors could echo the language from the afforestation bullet -- i.e., impacts (postitive and negative) would depend on the method and scale of implementation. *Ocean storage of biomass (e.g. crop residues) would likely have negative impacts on biodiversity.* I do not know of any evidence to support this contention. While it could be true, I would guess that adoption of this approach would make the seafloor a more heterogeneous place and bring food to the seafloor. Both of these things could increase biodiversity. That said, we should not fall into the trap of thinking that more biodiversity is necessarily good. Introduced species often increase local biodiversity. The issue is helping natural ecosystems to persist, not increasing biodiversity. *The very fact that the international community is presented with geo-engineering as a potential option to be further explored is a major social and cultural issue*.* * Is this intended to be an empirically testable statement? If so, how do I determine what is a major social and cultural issue? War, poverty, justice, freedom, geoengineering? *Climate change could be addressed by a rapid and significant reduction in greenhouse gas emissions through a transition to a low-carbon economy with overall positive impacts on biodiversity. Measures to achieve such a transition would avoid the adverse impacts of climate change on biodiversity *. Even with a hypothetical rapid transition, much more climate change is in the pipeline. Should read: Measures to achieve such a transition would REDUCE adverse impacts of climate change on biodiversity. *The deployment of geo-engineering techniques, if feasible and effective, could reduce some aspects of climate change and its impacts on biodiversity. At the same time, geo-engineering techniques are associated with
[geo] Soil Carbon Sequestration
Carbon farming continues to gain momentum ... http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTCARBONFINANCE/Resources/New_Soil_Carbon_Methodology_Approved.pdf New Soil Carbon Methodology Approved World Bank and partners help smallholder farmers increase productivity and revenue Washington, January 30, 2012 –A new methodology to encourage smallholder farmers in Kenya – and potentially worldwide -- to adopt improved farming techniques, boost productivity, increase their resilience to climate change, and earn carbon credits, has been given international approval. The Verified Carbon Standard approved this first methodology on soil carbon, a new approach for sustainable agricultural land management (SALM) practices. The methodology was developed by the World Bank for the Smallholder Agriculture Carbon Finance Project run by the non-governmental organization Vi Agroforestry in western Kenya. The pilot, involving more than 60,000 smallholders who are farming 45,000 hectares of land, is run together with smallholder farmers and supported by the World Bank’s BioCarbon Fund. Farmers in western Kenya experience the dire effects of climate change first hand every day, through drought and the decline of soil fertility that can be so severe as to seriously threaten their livelihoods. “Our aim is to combat erosion and enrich degraded soil,” said Bo Lager, Programme Director, Vi Agroforestry. “The project farmers are increasing soil carbon and organic matter through mulching, cover crops, manure and plant waste management.” These measures improve soil water infiltration and holding capacity, as well as nutrient supply and soil biodiversity. Better soils raise farm yields and incomes, improving food security, and should make agriculture more resilient to climate change. Further SALM techniques such as less plowing also reduce the release of carbon dioxide. “Smallholders can earn carbon credits for that,” added Lager. “Carbon finance helps make the project financially sustainable.” “Given the limited leverage of carbon finance for the agricultural sector to date, this is an important step in promoting linkages between agricultural productivity, adaptation and climate change mitigation,” said Joëlle Chassard, Manager of the World Bank’s Carbon Finance Unit. “The SALM methodology is a major step forward”, said Professor Pete Smith, a Convening Lead Author for the IPCC, based at Aberdeen University, UK. “Most importantly, it extends carbon finance to smallholders. It also enables cost-effective monitoring of soil productivity improvements, which can be particularly difficult across remote farms in developing countries.” “Carbon solutions need to be easily scalable, which requires broadly applicable methodologies and robust finance mechanisms”, pointed out Mike Robinson, Chief Science Advisor at the Syngenta Foundation for Sustainable Agriculture, a contributor to the World Bank’s BioCarbon Fund. “We see considerable potential for SALM replication across Africa and beyond.” “The validation of this new methodology by the VCS is an important achievement and a first step to demonstrate the potential of carbon finance for rural development. Soil carbon is of fundamental importance not only to soil fertility, sustainable agriculture and the development of rural populations, particularly in Africa, but it is also strategic for climate chage mitigation,” said Jean-Luc François, Manager of the agriculture, rural development and biodiversity division at the Agence française de développement. Josh Horton -- 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.
[geo] Re: Crop yields in a geoengineered climate (notes from the blogosphere ...)
I am traveling and have not had a chance to read the Pongratz article closely yet, but it looks like the comparison is between a control scenario, a 2xCO2 world, and a 2xCO2 + stratospheric aerosols world. This is common practice, and the analytical logic is clear, however presenting model runs this way plays into the hands of critics who mischaracterize the policy choice as between mitigation and geoengineering. Opponents point to these results and portray researchers as supporting geoengineering as an alternative to mitigation - or else why wouldn't emissions cuts be represented in the models? Couldn't modelers include mixed mitigation/ geoengineering scenarios as a routine feature of such studies, to make it harder for critics to misrepresent things? After all, almost no one is arguing for intervention without emissions cuts. Josh Horton joshuahorton...@gmail.com http://geoengineeringpolitics.blogspot.com/ On Jan 24, 4:09 pm, rongretlar...@comcast.net wrote: Ken and list: 1. I have enjoyed the Pongratz article sent recently which is the subject of this NPR interview given below. In it, Dr. Pongratz, you and your co-authors did a pretty good job of separating SRM from Geoengineering. (I don't think the phrase CDR appeared, however) This is to again hope that all authors doing fine work like yours at Carnegie go out of their way to say that Geoengineering has both SRM and CDR parts. like 2. The NPR interview below does not do that at all. Fortunately the other two (bitsof science and smartplanet) do at least use the terms SRM and sunshade. All of them fail to mention that CDR is a second (and much less controversial) part of Geoengineering. 3. I mention this mainly because your Carnegie team is (I think correctly) not arguing for any SRM at this time. However, there are many on this list who think we are ready now for an accelerated push on CDR. 4. I also have hopes that your modeling work can be extended into the CDR world. We need such modeling - urgently. As previously, thanks for alerting us - and (especially) making your Carnegie papers available - to the list. Ron - Original Message - From: Ken Caldeira kcalde...@carnegie.stanford.edu To: geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.com Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2012 9:59:00 AM Subject: [geo] Crop yields in a geoengineered climate (notes from the blogosphere ...) Some coverage in the blogosphere of our recent paper from Nature Climate Change (attached): http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2012/01/20/145535536/geoengineered-f... Geoengineered Food? Climate Fix Could Boost Crop Yields, But With Risks For a few years now, a handful of scientists have been proposing grandiose technological fixes for the world's climate to combat the effects of global warming — schemes called geoengineering . Climate change has the potential to wreak all kinds of havoc on the planet, including the food system. Scientists predict that two variables farmers depend on heavily — temperature and precipitation — are already changing and affecting food production in some arid parts of the world where there isn't a lot of room for error. And if the problem worsens on a larger scale, it could do a lot of damage to agricultural yields and food security. At some point, governments may decide to do something desperate to protect our food and our people, Ken Caldeira , an environmental scientist at Stanford University, tells The Salt. And that something desperate could be geoengineering. One proposal scientists are batting around is to fill the upper atmosphere with tiny particles that could scatter sunlight before it reaches, and warms, the Earth's surface. Sulfate droplets inside volcanic ash clouds already do this naturally. So the idea is that a few million tons of sulfates, sprayed into the stratosphere by airplanes, could produce the same effect artificially. Scientists have been messing with local weather for decades. China does it all the time, most infamously during the 2008 Olympics . But around 2006, the notion of doing it on a global scale got more traction, especially when Nobel laureate Paul Crutzen got behind it . A backlash ensued, as many pointed out that tampering with such a complex system was far too risky. Caldeira began studying geoengineering with the intent of proving that it's a bad idea. But his new research suggests that manipulating the climate could actually produce benefits, at least for food production. For instance: a study from his lab, published Sunday in Nature Climate Change , compares the effect on the global food supply of unmitigated global warming versus geoengineering. The result? Crop yields of wheat, rice and corn would actually get a boost from geoengineering. Julia Pongratz , a post-doc researcher, led the study. She used computer climate models to simulate a doubling of carbon dioxide levels
[geo] Big News on Criegee Biradicals?
From Reuters ... http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/12/us-molecule-climate-idUSTRE80B1U820120112 New molecule could help cool planet By Nina Chestney LONDON | Thu Jan 12, 2012 2:02pm EST (Reuters) - A new molecule has been detected in the earth's atmosphere which could help produce a cooling effect, scientists said, but it remains to be seen whether it can play a major role in tackling global warming. The molecule can convert pollutants, such as nitrogen dioxide and sulphur dioxide, into compounds which can lead to cloud formation, helping to shield the earth from the sun, the researchers said. Over the past century, the earth's average temperature has risen by 0.8 degrees Celsius. Scientists say the increase must be limited to below two degrees Celsius this century to prevent rising sea levels and other unwelcome consequences. But mainstream ways of curbing warming, such as renewable power and energy efficiency, are not delivering results fast enough. In a paper published in the journal Science on Thursday, researchers from the Universities of Manchester and Bristol, and the U.S.-based Sandia National Laboratories detected the new molecules, called Criegee biradicals, using a powerful light source 100 million times stronger than the sun. We found the biradicals could oxidise sulfur dioxide, which eventually turns into sulphuric acid, which has a known cooling effect, Carl Percival, one of the study's authors and a reader in atmospheric chemistry at the University of Manchester, told Reuters. However, it is too early to predict how many molecules would have to be formed to make a substantial impact on the world's temperature and their safety would have to be tested. The effects of cloud formation on the climate are also still far from understood. COOLING OFF When Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines erupted in 1991 it released huge amounts of sulphur dioxide, which formed a haze of sulphuric acid. This reduced the amount of sunlight which was able to reach the earth by about 10 percent, lowering global temperatures by around 0.5 degrees Celsius over two years. However, high concentrations of sulphur dioxide injected into the atmosphere by large explosions could also cause lung ailments, acid rain, and the depletion of the earth's protective ozone layer. The biradicals themselves are not a geo-engineering candidate, Percival said, referring to radical ways of cooling the planet down, such as artificial volcanoes or whitening the clouds to make them reflect more sunlight. The molecules detected by the research team occur naturally in the presence of alkenes, chemical compounds which are mostly released by plants. Plants will release these compounds, make the biradicals and end up making sulphuric acid, so in effect the ecosystem can negate the warming effect by producing these cooling aerosols, Percival said. The greatest cooling effect could be potentially felt in areas where there are high concentrations of both alkenes and pollutants, which enable the biradicals to react. (The effect) would really kick in hot spots like Hong Kong or Singapore, Percival said. -- 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.
[geo] Re: more clarity on the questions surrounding Arctic methane.
Andy, Thanks for posting this communication from Semiletov and Shakhova - they clearly urge caution when interpreting their findings: We would first note that we have never stated that the reason for the currently observed methane emissions were due to recent climate change. We have been working in this scientific field and this region for a decade. We understand its complexity more than anyone. All models must be validated by observations. New data obtained in our 2011 cruise and other unpublished data give us a clue to reevaluate if the scale of methane releases from the East Siberian Arctic Shelf seabed is assessed correctly (papers are now in preparation). This is how science works: step by step, from hypothesis based on limited data and logic to expanded observations in order to gain more facts that could equally prove or disprove the hypothesis. We would urge people to consider this process, not jump to conclusions and be open to the idea that new observations may significantly change what we understand about our world. None of this means methane plumes aren't a serious problem, but their comments hardly support near-term Arctic deployment. Josh Horton joshuahorton...@gmail.com On Dec 27, 5:13 pm, Andrew Revkin rev...@gmail.com wrote: The researchers who've been out in the slushy waters off Siberia have offered some clarity after a lot of media torquing. December 27, 2011, *12:54 PM*Leaders of Arctic Methane Project Clarify Climate Concernshttp://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/27/leaders-of-arctic-methan... By ANDREW C. REVKINhttp://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/author/andrew-c-revkin/ I’ve been in touch with Natalia Shakhovahttp://www.iarc.uaf.edu/people/nshakhova and Igor Semiletov http://www.iarc.uaf.edu/people/igorsm, the intrepid Russian researchers, based at the International Arctic Research Center in Fairbanks, Alaska, who for more than a decade have been leading an important international projecthttp://research.iarc.uaf.edu//index.php analyzing methane plumes rising from the seabedhttp://www.nsf.gov/news/news_images.jsp?cntn_id=116532org=NSF in the shallow Arctic waters spreading north from eastern Siberian shores. (Here’s video of Shakhovahttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eD8hU-lbqpEfeature=player_embedded#! describing the methane releases and their work.) As I wrote recentlyhttp://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/14/methane-time-bomb-in-arc..., “Given that methane, molecule for molecule, has at least 20 times the heat-trapping properties of carbon dioxide, it’s important to get a handle on whether these are new releases, the first foretaste of some great outburst from thawing sea-bed stores of the gas, or simply a longstanding phenomenon newly observed.” After their expedition this summer, Shakhova and Semiletov presented their latest observations at the American Geophysical Union fall meetinghttp://sites.agu.org/fallmeeting/media-center/virtual-newsroom/ in San Francisco early this month, describing vastly larger methane releases in the mid-outer continental shelf than they had seen before in shallower water, leading to a fresh burst of headlineshttp://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/shock-as-retr... about risks of runaway warming. Shakhova and Semiletov, whose earlier analysis of methane in the regionhttp://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=116532 was published in Sciencehttp://www.sciencemag.org/content/327/5970/1246.abstract last year, had been unavailable for comment when I was preparing my piece, as they had gone on vacation shortly after their presentation. When they were back on the grid they got my e-mail inquiries and saw the post. Their response clarifies their differences with other research groups and emphasizes the importance of critically evaluating scientific findings before rushing to conclusions, either alarming or reassuring. One clear message, which I endorse, is the need to sustain the kind of fieldwork they’re doing. Whether the issue is tracking Arctic methane or American stream flowshttp://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/08/29/irenes-rain-impacts-come..., there’s a vital need for sustained, consistent observations, but — unfortunately — there’s a two-edged bias against such investments, given the appeal of focusing on science’s frontiers and the tendency to target monitoring programs — which are akin to bridge maintenancehttp://ascelibrary.org/proceedings/resource/2/ascecp/421/41186/27_1?i... — when looking to cut budgets. That’s all fine until the bridge groans and buckles, of course. Here is the contribution from Semiletov and Shakhova: Read more…http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/27/leaders-of-arctic-methan... * * *_* * * ANDREW C. REVKIN Dot Earth blogger, The New York Timeshttp://www.nytimes.com/dotearth Senior Fellow, Pace Acad. for Applied Env. Studies Cell: 914-441-5556 Fax: 914-989-8009 Twitter: @revkin Skype: Andrew.Revkin -- You
[geo] Re: UK Independent: Russian team shocked at scale of methane plumes
indicator at all of the seriousness of what is going on. It certainly is indisputable that hydrate release could become devastating, and the leading experts keep finding larger and larger plumes as they keep looking - simply put, if those are caused by the contemporary local conditions, then that's a feedback loop, and then their increase constitutes grounds for considering it the beginnings of a potential runaway situation. The kind of thing I was proposing could hardly create some frankenclimate, and is no different than what is allowed to go on all over the planet all the time. Since it is relatively harmless, and the fear is of something catastrophic, it seems like an obvious sense of prudence to act - and sooner rather than later. Nathan On Dec 18, 6:30 pm, Josh Horton joshuahorton...@gmail.com wrote: Nathan, John, et al., One aspect of the methane issue bothers me in particular: is there evidence indicating a significant increase in the rate of methane release in the ESAS over the past decade? Anecdotal evidence from the most recent Russian expedition suggests an increased rate of release, but hard data will not be available until next spring. Such data may have been included in the recent Shakhova et al. AGU poster, but so far I have been unable to obtain it. Were comparable measurements taken at identical locations in 2003-2008 (basis for the initial findings) and in 2011 (basis for recent Semiletov comments)? Was there a significant increase in the volume of methane released at these locations over these periods? If so, is such an increase inconsistent with the Dmitrenko thaw hypothesis (noted by Andy Revkin)? Until we have answers to these questions, I hesitate to jump to any conclusions. Maybe you have information I have overlooked? Josh Horton joshuahorton...@gmail.comhttp://geoengineeringpolitics.blogspot.com/ On Dec 18, 4:06 pm, Nathan Currier natcurr...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, John list – Until now, my view has generally been that we should try like crazy to get some rapid SLCF declines, by promoting a separate near-term-focused emissions strategy, in an attempt to blunt accelerating arctic methane emissions, while at the same time researching geoengineering techniques, which would probably still be needed at some point later down the road. The hope was that the need could be pushed a few decades off, if a strong CH4/BC program – something considerably stronger than the GMF or the GMI – were started up soon enough. But I am now coming more and more to your position, John – I now think that a local-scale intervention should probably be pursued as quickly as possible. I still believe that everyone interested in the goals of this list should also be thinking about how SLCF reduction can somehow be expedited, since it is ultimately the cheapest, safest -RF there is, in that every dollar spent on it goes at the same time both to solving our long-term climate problem (and is thus in any case essential), and also mitigates the immediate “feedback crisis” we are increasingly in, to use Wasdell’s apt term. But I would have to agree that it is now becoming more and more rational to want to act right away, albeit on a local scale. Moreover, those promoting the views of ‘nay-sayer’ scientists on ESAS dangers, like Andy Revkin at the NYT, are starting to look less and less rational, almost desperate, and reading his post of a few days ago, linked below, in fact only convinced me that his attitude is really no longer tenable. http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/14/methane-time-bomb-in-arc... A year and a half earlier, Revkin had a post of much the same gist: http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/05/the-heat-over-bubbling-a... I’m not sure how Ed Dlugokensky and Euan Nisbet really feel about being used to promote complacency about this now, as Euan Nisbet has long been concerned about it (although very wary of any geoengineering), and I gather from powerpoints of Dlugokensky I have seen that he really is, too. To summarize, the key justifications for this “don’t worry about it” attitude on ESAS methane emissions have been and still are: 1. the methane plumes might not be new, merely newly observed. 2. these emissions still count for but a small fraction of the global methane budget. 3. the driver of these emissions is actually not contemporary warming, but adjustment of the underlying hydrate stability zone to the re-submergence of the shelf ~8,000/ya. First, 2. brings pretty cold comfort, like telling someone that a tumor growing in them is still but a tiny fraction of their body weight. It’s almost irrelevant. If they intend to 'wait and see' until arctic methane emissions perhaps ARE a substantial fraction of all global natural emissions
[geo] Re: UK Independent: Russian team shocked at scale of methane plumes
Nathan, John, et al., One aspect of the methane issue bothers me in particular: is there evidence indicating a significant increase in the rate of methane release in the ESAS over the past decade? Anecdotal evidence from the most recent Russian expedition suggests an increased rate of release, but hard data will not be available until next spring. Such data may have been included in the recent Shakhova et al. AGU poster, but so far I have been unable to obtain it. Were comparable measurements taken at identical locations in 2003-2008 (basis for the initial findings) and in 2011 (basis for recent Semiletov comments)? Was there a significant increase in the volume of methane released at these locations over these periods? If so, is such an increase inconsistent with the Dmitrenko thaw hypothesis (noted by Andy Revkin)? Until we have answers to these questions, I hesitate to jump to any conclusions. Maybe you have information I have overlooked? Josh Horton joshuahorton...@gmail.com http://geoengineeringpolitics.blogspot.com/ On Dec 18, 4:06 pm, Nathan Currier natcurr...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, John list – Until now, my view has generally been that we should try like crazy to get some rapid SLCF declines, by promoting a separate near-term-focused emissions strategy, in an attempt to blunt accelerating arctic methane emissions, while at the same time researching geoengineering techniques, which would probably still be needed at some point later down the road. The hope was that the need could be pushed a few decades off, if a strong CH4/BC program – something considerably stronger than the GMF or the GMI – were started up soon enough. But I am now coming more and more to your position, John – I now think that a local-scale intervention should probably be pursued as quickly as possible. I still believe that everyone interested in the goals of this list should also be thinking about how SLCF reduction can somehow be expedited, since it is ultimately the cheapest, safest -RF there is, in that every dollar spent on it goes at the same time both to solving our long-term climate problem (and is thus in any case essential), and also mitigates the immediate “feedback crisis” we are increasingly in, to use Wasdell’s apt term. But I would have to agree that it is now becoming more and more rational to want to act right away, albeit on a local scale. Moreover, those promoting the views of ‘nay-sayer’ scientists on ESAS dangers, like Andy Revkin at the NYT, are starting to look less and less rational, almost desperate, and reading his post of a few days ago, linked below, in fact only convinced me that his attitude is really no longer tenable. http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/14/methane-time-bomb-in-arc... A year and a half earlier, Revkin had a post of much the same gist: http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/05/the-heat-over-bubbling-a... I’m not sure how Ed Dlugokensky and Euan Nisbet really feel about being used to promote complacency about this now, as Euan Nisbet has long been concerned about it (although very wary of any geoengineering), and I gather from powerpoints of Dlugokensky I have seen that he really is, too. To summarize, the key justifications for this “don’t worry about it” attitude on ESAS methane emissions have been and still are: 1. the methane plumes might not be new, merely newly observed. 2. these emissions still count for but a small fraction of the global methane budget. 3. the driver of these emissions is actually not contemporary warming, but adjustment of the underlying hydrate stability zone to the re-submergence of the shelf ~8,000/ya. First, 2. brings pretty cold comfort, like telling someone that a tumor growing in them is still but a tiny fraction of their body weight. It’s almost irrelevant. If they intend to 'wait and see' until arctic methane emissions perhaps ARE a substantial fraction of all global natural emissions, they would clearly be waiting too long. The relevant questions are whether the tumor is growing, how fast it is growing, and what is driving the growth. Let’s say highly organized observations are only a half-decade old in the area. Initially, we were in a black hole of ignorance, so we say it was then 50/50 whether the tumor was cancerous. But the more we keep finding larger plumes, the less likely it becomes that a sequential growth of what we are finding is mere chance, based on randomly finding things, and the more likely it becomes that this sequential growth reflects current changes based on current conditions. Leading on-the- ground researchers seem to keep finding larger plumes. It's no longer 50/50. Moreover, and most significantly, the reassuring mechanism proposed to explain such emissions doesn’t really seem to fit well with what we see, because if there is an emerging pattern of finding the biggest hotspots around river mouths, that certainly
[geo] How Concerned Should We Be About Methane Plumes?
Hi all, There has been a lot of talk about ESAS methane plumes over the past few months. I know John Nissen believes this is a significant development, and Russian researchers are shocked at what they've observed, but what do others in the group (particularly scientists) think about these plumes, accelerating sea-ice retreat, etc.? Is this just something for us to monitor closely going forward, or should we be seriously concerned about what this portends for the near future? Josh Horton joshuahorton...@gmail.com -- 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.
[geo] Sir David Attenborough Calls Geoengineering Fascist
On a BBC interview show ... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/8949297/Sir-David-Attenborough-says-geo-engineering-solutions-to-climate-change-are-fascist.html Sir David Attenborough says geo-engineering solutions to climate change are 'fascist' Sir David Attenborough, the wildlife presenter, has described high- tech “geo-engineering” solutions to climate change as “fascist” because they put too much power in the hands of advanced nations. Sir David, 85, said he believed that global warming was inevitable but that everything possible should be done to slow the process. However, he added that said that large-scale geoengineering projects - such schemes to remove carbon monoxide from the atmosphere – were problematic. Speaking on the BBC’s Andrew Marr Show yesterday, he said: “Geoengineering is a very difficult thing because what that means is that you allow one nation or, indeed, one small group within that nation to determine what's going to happen to the whole globe. ”And they may say 'Yes, we are absolutely confident about the science' but what about all those other people who don't know about that? “It's, dare I say the word, fascist.” Sir David’s latest work is the Frozen Planet series, the final instalment of which was broadcast last week. Frozen Planet - and its presenter – have been criticised for promoting opinions on global warming. Lord Leach of Fairford, a Tory peer who claims global warming is debatable, said: “He’s very endearing but I don't think there's any truth to what he says - he has no idea about it. “The fact is you can be jolly nice to monkeys but it isn't the same as knowing what you're talking about on climate change.” Sir David also had an exchange of views with Lord Lawson, the former Chancellor, who accused the presenter of “sensationalism”. Speaking on the Marr show, Sir David said: “If you go and ask people who are living up there whether it’s happening they don’t have any doubt. “There isn’t any question but that the poles are warming. “The North Pole is warming. The South Pole is a different thing. The South Pole is a huge ice cap miles thick and to some extent it makes its own weather but it is quite possible that within the next 20 or 30 years that North Pole in winter will remain open so you will be able to sail from the Atlantic to the Pacific. “It means extinction for the polar bears but you might say “What does it mean for world trade?” and killer whales will be able to travel [between the two]. “We should be trying to reduce the rate at which the planet warms. We aren’t going to be able to stop it, that’s for sure. All we are going to be able to do is slow it down.” Josh Horton joshuahorton...@gmail.com -- 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: Fwd: [geo] U.S. Defense Science Board Emphasizes Risk of Unilateral Climate Engineering
Looking strictly at the geoengineering section in Appendix B, I find the analysis pretty thin and a little sloppy (Solar Radiation Management techniques ... seek to increase the amount of the solar radiation reflected back into space thus increasing the Earth's albedo by a small percentage to offset the effects of increased greenhouse gases). Extrapolating from cloud-seeding during the Beijing Olympics to the threat of unilateral SRM deployment is a pretty big leap. Josh Horton joshuahorton...@gmail.com http://geoengineeringpolitics.blogspot.com/ On Nov 21, 2:37 pm, rongretlar...@comcast.net wrote: William and list: I happened to have received as separate notification of the DoD report you have identified below and have skimmed the 175 pages. My link was tohttp://www.fas.org/irp/agency/dod/dsb/climate.pdf- and seemed to download a little faster than the one you give below. The title is Trends and Implications of Climate Change for National and International Security. There is no well defined author, but there are four staff persons from the DC-based firm Science Applications, Inc (This is NOT SAIC). The full study panel (mostly military from all the services) began work in the spring of 2010. As you noted, there is some material on China, but by far the greatest emphasis is on Africa. There are some climate impact maps for Africa that are the best I can recall seeing. (This emphasis because of the part of DoD that co-sponsored the report.) I found this to be as strong a statement on urgency as from any US government agency I can recall. Hence I think it can be important - perhaps especially in the US House - to convert the opinions of some in Congress who might believe DoD on a climate topic.. I hope a hearing can be arranged for this pretty definitive study. There is really very little in the main report on what to do, but Appendix A is entitled Climate Information System Needs, with 29 pages - and is noting that not much money really is going into climate information. Then Appendix B (Special topics) has nine pages on tipping points and Geoengineering. Not much new detail, but all fairly supportive of geoengineering. I look through these sorts of reports of course looking for Biochar, and found it only on the very last page (p138) in a diagram showing 7 CDR alternatives. The previous figure shows 6 SRM alternatives. There are probably/possibly some more errors in the text, but the only one I found was in reversing the titles of these two figures. The last few pages of the report describe the intent of the Defense Science Board committee and the membership. It seems possible that the most key person was Dr. William Howard, listed as a consultant and co-chair. The CIA was listed as a participant - and I'll bet the CIA does indeed have some good climate information they could be sharing. I searched around a bit for more DoD material on climate and found nothing as urgent or current (this report being labeled Oct. 2011). But, I found this additional report looked pretty good on monitoring CO2 emissions:http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/dod/jason/emissions.pdf There was emphasis at one site on the transmittal 2-pager from the two co-chairs - which sai d this: The recommendations fall into five main areas: • The need for developing a robust climate information system • Instituting water security as a core element of DOD strategy • Roles of the national security community, including the intelligence community, the Department of State, and the White House • Guidance and DOD organization to address the full range of international climate change-related issues and their impact on the evolution of DOD’s missions • Combatant command roles, responsibilities, and capacities I also found the report at:http://www.scribd.com/doc/72728850/Trend-and-Implications-of-Climate-... I also found that Joe Romm, a few days ago, also caught this report (seehttp://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/11/17/370727/defense-science-board...) - but there is not much there by Joe. He doesn't make it as big a breakthrough as I am (still) thinking it is. If anyone can identify more on whether this report is really important, I think that information could be helpful to this list Ron - Original Message - From: William Pentland wpentl...@gmail.com To: geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.com Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2011 7:24:35 PM Subject: [geo] U.S. Defense Science Board Emphasizes Risk of Unilateral Climate Engineering The U.S. Defense Science Board's new report on security implications of climate change concludes that there is significant potential for unilateral geoengineering activity. The discussion focuses on China's propensity to attempt modifying weather in Beijing and other areas. The full report is available athttp://www.acq.osd.mil/dsb/reports2000s.htm -- You received this message
[geo] Re: GE governance
On a related note, here's the UK government response to the HOME letter mentioned in Nature, which amounts to a pretty thorough rejection of ETC Group. http://www.handsoffmotherearth.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Helena-Paul-1.pdf Josh Horton On Nov 17, 2:15 pm, Rau, Greg r...@llnl.gov wrote: Environmental science: Good governance for geoengineering * Phil Macnaghten http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v479/n7373/full/479293a.html?WT 1 http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v479/n7373/full/479293a.html?WT * Richard Owen http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v479/n7373/full/479293a.html?WT 2 http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v479/n7373/full/479293a.html?WT * Affiliations http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v479/n7373/full/479293a.html?WT * Corresponding authors http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v479/n7373/full/479293a.html?WT Phil Macnaghten and Richard Owen describe the first attempt to govern a climate-engineering research project. Climate-engineering research must have strong governance if it is to proceed safely, openly and responsibly1 http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v479/n7373/full/479293a.html#ref1 , 2 http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v479/n7373/full/479293a.html#ref2 . But what this means in practice is not clear. The Stratospheric Particle Injection for Climate Engineering (SPICE) study demonstrates the difficult judgements involved. As chairman of the panel that supported decisions by the UK Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) as to whether and how this project should proceed (P.M.), and the architect of the project's governance process (R.O.), we draw lessons from these challenges. In mid-September 2011, SPICE announced the go-ahead for the United Kingdom's first field trial of climate-engineering technology. SPICE aims to assess whether the injection of sulphur particles into the stratosphere would mimic the cooling effects of volcanic eruptions and provide a possible means to mitigate global warming. An equipment test — spraying water at a height of 1 kilometre — was proposed (see 'SPICE field trial'). No climate engineering would result from the test, but response to the announcement was dramatic, and the project was soon at the centre of a storm of criticism. [cid:3404373349_35757568] Careful review On 26 September 2011, the EPSRC, one of the study's main funders, postponed the trial after a review. Later the same day, the council received a letter and open petition3 http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v479/n7373/full/479293a.html#ref3 , also sent to UK energy and climate-change secretary Chris Huhne and signed by more than 50 non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and civil-society organizations, demanding that the project be cancelled. The signatories saw the research as a first, unacceptable step towards a fix that would deflect political and scientific action away from reducing greenhouse-gas emissions. Others, by contrast, saw the research as urgently needed to find possible ways of coping with climate change4 http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v479/n7373/full/479293a.html#ref4 . The question at the heart of this debate was: should work in this controversial field proceed at all, and if so, under what conditions? The strong feelings about the first test of SPICE's equipment show how important it is to have robust governance, and for scientists and funders to ensure that the public and other parties are consulted at the earliest opportunity. This is an unfamiliar and difficult process, but it is crucial for the evaluation of climate-engineering approaches. SPICE was conceived in March 2010 at an EPSRC interdisciplinary workshop, at which researchers were invited to develop innovative geoengineering proposals. The project's funding incorporated field testing, but release of money was conditional upon it passing a 'stage-gate' review — a governance process in which funding for each phase of research and development is preceded by a decision point. To pass the review, SPICE scientists were required to reflect on the wider risks, uncertainties and impacts surrounding the test and the geoengineering technique to which it could lead — solar-radiation management. On 15 June 2011, the stage-gate panel (including atmospheric scientists, engineers and social scientists, as well as an adviser to an environmental NGO) evaluated the SPICE team's response to five criteria for responsible innovation. These were that: the test-bed deployment was safe and principal risks had been identified, managed and deemed acceptable; the test-bed deployment was compliant with relevant regulations; the nature and purpose of SPICE would be clearly communicated to all relevant parties to inform and promote balanced discussion; future applications and impacts had been described, and mechanisms put in place
[geo] Re: Advice to GE decision makers: More BAU?
Ron, I agree with your assessment, this report is a solid handbook for policymakers that lays out the basic issues without oversimplifying them. The five geoengineering scenarios (No Geoengineering, Safe CDR Only, Technology Transformation, Insurance Policy, Needed Soon) are a useful way to map the evolving debate. Some of the recommendations seem loosely connected to the report content--for example, Do not allow geoengineering to be used as a source of carbon offsets, because this would divert effort from emissions reduction (p. 42) is pretty sweeping and requires much more elaboration. All in all, though, this is a very helpful document that I hope makes the rounds inside the beltway. Josh On Nov 11, 7:02 pm, rongretlar...@comcast.net wrote: Dr. Rau and cc's (including the author, R. Olson, of the Wilson Center report) This is mainly to thank you for the lead to the report identified below and to urge others to take this report seriously. It has done a better job of summarizing a lot of SRM policy issues than anything I know of earlier (eg Royal Society, NAS, etc - all referenced). It is well written - little repetition. It contains a minimum of technical material on each of the SRM and CDR approaches, but enough. The emphasis is on SRM. I found only a few cases where it was unclear whether Geoengineereing really meant SRM. I am left with the impression that CDR will be involved in decisions on SRM policy - but the CDR policy issues can be thought of very differently. They are not much covered and don't seem to be needing much new policy There were two new CDR approaches I have not seen anywhere else. One is the last on p 12 in Table 2 - called Magnetic levitation of CO2, saying about it: Using Earth’s magnetic field, given a helping hand by lasers and microwave beams, as a conveyor belt that vents CO2 molecules into space . Reference is given to the 2009 Lenton-Vaughn article, but I don't think it is mentioned there. Googling got me to a UCLA emeritus Professor Alfred Wong, Dr. Olson is not in any way endorsing this approach, but I wonder if any list member can affirm that this is deserving of being included in a list of CDR approaches. It doesn't seem to have any active proponents. The other was closely to my own interest. On page 4, Box 1, we have: Unders t anding this leads to recognition that const r ucti v e approa c hes m a y appear laterally from ma n y parts of the whole socio-te c hnical e n vironment, and that the best approa c hes will usually h av e beneficial e f f ects across a wide range of problems and potential oppor t unities. F or e xample, emerging methods to produce “cul t ured” or “in vitr o ” meat from stem cells in f actories m a y h av e the potential to h av e large climatic impacts as w ell as being healthie r , less polluting and more humane than co nv entional meat production methods. F at content could easily be controlled. T he incidence of f ood-borne disease could be dramatical - ly reduced, thanks to strict quali t y control r ules that are impossible to introduce in modern animal f arms, slaughterhouses and meat pa c king plants. T he use of hormones and antibiotics w ould be unnecessa r y . Methane releases from li v esto c k – a major contributor to climate c hange – could be eliminated, along with pollution from confined animal- f eeding operations and c hemical use in gr o wing f eed crops. Demands f or w ate r , energy and other resources could be cut sharpl y . Large land areas could be freed to plant v ege t a tion that is mu c h more e f f ecti v e than f ood crops in cap t uring and storing carbon. 9 T his strategy w ould not be recogni z ed as “geoengineering” as the w ord is usually defined tod a y . But gi v en its impact on methane emissions, carbon storage, land use, w ater c y cles and other Earth s y stems, this is arguably a more com prehensi v e “geoengineering” strategy than a n y te c hnologies listed in the traditional litera t ure. [RWL: Should this replace Prof. Wong's approach in the CDR category? Are there any other Geoengineering technologies we are missing? A few more comments coming later - but I wonder if others had the same positive feelings about a well-done report addressed to the right group - Policy Makers. Ron - Original Message - From: Greg Rau r...@llnl.gov To: geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.com Cc: david rejeski david.reje...@wilsoncenter.org, bol...@altfutures.com, perso...@gao.gov, Jane Long janecsl...@gmail.com Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2011 10:09:47 AM Subject: [geo] Advice to GE decision makers: More BAU? Advice to GE decision makers: More BAU? “It [the report*] recommends that policymakers consider geoengineering as a third strategy, to use only if clearly needed. Likewise, governments should not fund geoengineering research at the expense of research and development of
[geo] Re: More anti-science from ETC
How intrinsically risky is geoengineering? The risk is proportional to the planetary scale upon which it would operate and, like nuclear war, its effects are not reversible or predictable. *Scientists agree that the outcome of geoengineering cannot be certain, therefore, the risk is commensurate with that of nuclear war.* Commensurate with nuclear war? This statement is simply ridiculous. ETC Group is trying to equate geoengineering technologies with WMDs, but here we see this argument taken to its logical, patently absurd conclusion. This is embarrassing. Josh Horton joshuahorton...@gmail.com http://geoengineeringpolitics.blogspot.com/ On Nov 8, 2:28 pm, Mike MacCracken mmacc...@comcast.net wrote: Dear Gregory B‹On the reduced solar, it all depends what one measures. An important side effect of a layer intended to reflect back out into space about 1% of the incoming solar radiation would be to reduce the downward direct radiation by roughly 10% and shift that into forward-scattered diffuse radiation that is not useful at all in mirror-based solar concentrating technologies. So, there can certainly be a noticeable impact‹whether from volcanic eruptions (where it has been measured) or from human injection (which has not yet been measured). Indeed, it is this scattering that gives such beautiful orange sunrises and sunsets while whitening the sky somewhat when the Sun is overhead. Mike On 11/8/11 1:25 PM, Gregory Benford xbenf...@gmail.com wrote: We're all aware that the moral hazard argument has no real evidence for it and plenty of ambiguity. As for There are also direct impacts on other mitigation responses, such as less effective solar power in the presence of solar radiation management techniques. -- this is a tiny effect, about 1%, not worth worrying about. Gregory Benford On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 10:06 AM, Ben Hale bh...@colorado.edu wrote: Hey Nils: I'm working on a paper on the moral hazard argument against geoengineering at this very moment, essentially arguing that the moral hazard objection is beset with complications of ambiguity, vagueness, and accuracy. Would you mind passing along this paper to me? Thanks! Best, Ben Benjamin Hale Assistant Professor Philosophy and Environmental Studies University of Colorado, Boulder Tel: 303 735-3624 tel:303%20735-3624 ; Fax: 303 735-1576 tel:303%20735-1576 http://www.practicalreason.com http://cruelmistress.wordpress.com Ethics, Policy Environment -Original Message- From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Motoko M. Sent: Tuesday, November 08, 2011 7:14 AM To: geoengineering Subject: [geo] Re: More anti-science from ETC Has anyone evidence for this ETC-statement? If yes, then this would be the moral hazard working. But I do not know any actual proof. Could geoengineering's development/deployment negatively impact other responses to climate change? - All parties recognize that the prospect of even temporary technological fixes to climate change encourages some governments and industries to lower their (already weak) commitment to mitigation and adaptation. Further, if technological alternatives are thought to be cheaper, other options and funds will attract less support. There are also direct impacts on other mitigation responses, such as less effective solar power in the presence of solar radiation management techniques. [ETC proposal Nov 4. 2011, p. 12] Best Nils -- 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 mailto:geoengineering%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. -- 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 mailto:geoengineering%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - -- 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.
[geo] Occupy Wall Street Goes After Geoengineering
Hi everyone, Whatever your views, it was only a matter of time ... (John Bellamy Foster is editor of the socialist Monthly Review) http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/2011/foster291011.html Capitalism and Environmental Catastrophe by John Bellamy Foster John Bellamy Foster and Fred Magdoff at Occupy Wall Street. Photo by Carrie Ann Naumoff This is a reconstruction from notes of a talk delivered at a teach-in on The Capitalist Crisis and the Environment organized by the Education and Empowerment Working Group, Occupy Wall Street, Zuccotti Park (Liberty Plaza), New York, October 23, 2011. It was based on a talk delivered the night before at the Brecht Forum. Fred Magdoff also spoke on both occasions. The Occupy Wall Street movement arose in response to the economic crisis of capitalism, and the way in which the costs of this were imposed on the 99 percent rather than the 1 percent. But the highest expression of the capitalist threat, as Naomi Klein has said, is its destruction of the planetary environment. So it is imperative that we critique that as well.1 I would like to start by pointing to the seriousness of our current environmental problem and then turn to the question of how this relates to capitalism. Only then will we be in a position to talk realistically about what we need to do to stave off or lessen catastrophe. How bad is the environmental crisis? You have all heard about the dangers of climate change due to the emission of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere -- trapping more heat on earth. You are undoubtedly aware that global warming threatens the very future of the humanity, along with the existence of innumerable other species. Indeed, James Hansen, the leading climatologist in this country, has gone so far as to say this may be our last chance to save humanity.2 But climate change is only part of the overall environmental problem. Scientists, led by the Stockholm Resilience Centre, have recently indicated that we have crossed, or are near to crossing, nine planetary boundaries (defined in terms of sustaining the environmental conditions of the Holocene epoch in which civilization developed over the last 12,000 years): climate change, species extinction, the disruption of the nitrogen-phosphorus cycles, ocean acidification, ozone depletion, freshwater usage, land cover change, (less certainly) aerosol loading, and chemical use. Each of these rifts in planetary boundaries constitutes an actual or potential global ecological catastrophe. Indeed, in three cases -- climate change, species extinction, and the disruption of the nitrogen cycle -- we have already crossed planetary boundaries and are currently experiencing catastrophic effects. We are now in the period of what scientists call the sixth extinction, the greatest mass extinction in 65 million years, since the time of the dinosaurs; only this time the mass extinction arises from the actions of one particular species -- human beings. Our disruption of the nitrogen cycle is a major factor in the growth of dead zones in coastal waters. Ocean acidification is often called the evil twin of climate change, since it too arises from carbon dioxide emissions, and by negatively impacting the oceans it threatens planetary disruption on an equal (perhaps even greater) scale. The decreased availability of freshwater globally is emerging as an environmental crisis of horrendous proportions.3 All of this may seem completely overwhelming. How are we to cope with all of these global ecological crises/catastrophes, threatening us at every turn? Here it is important to grasp that all of these rifts in the planetary system derive from processes associated with our global production system, namely capitalism. If we are prepared to carry out a radical transformation of our system of production -- to move away from business as usual -- then there is still time to turn things around; though the remaining time in which to act is rapidly running out. Let's talk about climate change, remembering that this is only one part of the global environmental crisis, though certainly the most urgent at present. Climate science currently suggests that if we burn only half of the world's proven, economically accessible reserves of oil, gas, and coal, the resulting carbon emissions will almost certainly raise global temperatures by 2° C (3.6° F), bringing us to what is increasingly regarded as an irreversible tipping point -- after which it appears impossible to return to the preindustrial (Holocene) climate that nourished human civilization. At that point various irrevocable changes (such as the melting of Arctic sea ice and the ice sheets of Greenland and Antarctica, and the release of methane from the tundra) will become unstoppable. This will speed up climate change, while also accelerating vast, catastrophic effects, such as rising sea levels and extreme weather. Alternatively, if our object is the rational one of
[geo] Re: Can We Test Geoengineering? paper and YouTube videos
In his earlier email, Ron wrote that The uncertainty Doug found about (for instance) rainfall impacts in India, strikes me as pretty strong proof that the impacts are almost certain to be negative for some groups/countries. Did I miss something? Is there anything in this paper that SRM proponents would find supportive? I had a different take on this aspect of the article. As I read it, the argument is that some regional impacts, for example, changes in monsoons over the subcontinent, would likely be more pronounced over the short term than the long term, since they are a function of the temperature differential between land and ocean. Land warms more quickly than ocean, so this differential would be highest at the beginning of an intervention, but over time the differential would shrink as the ocean caught up, and this type of impact would moderate. From the perspective of an SRM proponent, therefore, the news would be good insofar as some initial costs of deployment would appear to decrease over time. Josh Horton joshuahorton...@gmail.com On Oct 22, 11:30 am, Hawkins, Dave dhawk...@nrdc.org wrote: My comment is not an argument against doing SRM research. It is an argument against trying to persuade people that SRM research is no different than tests of any other new technical systems. I doubt that is what Ken intended but I want to point out the importance of careful articulation of the rationales for SRM research and, more importantly, the need to acknowledge that SRM research will require extraordinary efforts to minimize risks that could emerge in course of such research at levels designed to produce significant forcing. From: Mike MacCracken [mailto:mmacc...@comcast.net] Sent: Saturday, October 22, 2011 11:16 AM To: Hawkins, Dave; Ken Caldeira Cc: Doug MacMynowski; rongretlar...@comcast.net; Geoengineering; nadine.brachat...@sowi.uni-stuttgart.de Subject: Re: [geo] Can We Test Geoengineering? paper and YouTube videos True-but we also don't know nearly everything about what ongoing GHG emissions will bring, so what we need to work toward, in my view, is a relative risk analysis. Not at all easy to do, but the question is not really SRM or not, but GHG without or with SRM. Mike On 10/22/11 8:49 AM, David Hawkins dhawk...@nrdc.org wrote: Ken, You argue that we won't know everything about SRM deployment ahead of time but this is no different than any test that is done of anything. I don't think this is helpful as a response to concerns about the challenges of designing protocols for an SRM research program. There are real differences in the risk profile for SRM tests that are intended to produce detectable forcing. This needs to be acknowledged and a research program needs to examine whether effective approaches to manage these risks can be developed. David Sent from my iPad On Oct 22, 2011, at 6:39 AM, Ken Caldeira kcalde...@gmail.com wrote: As Doug states below and I pointed out in our YouTube discussion, the question Can geoengineering be tested? is either trivially true or trivially false depending on what you mean by tested. If by Can geoengineering be tested? we mean Is it in principle possible to perform tests that would give us more information about the likely consequences of an SRM deployment?, the answer is of course 'yes'. If by this question we mean Is it in principle possible to know everything one would like to know about the consequences of an SRM deployment prior to the deployment?, the answer is of course 'no'. Fundamentally, this is no different than any test that is ever done of anything. Every test is designed to give us useful information; some tests are more useful than others; no test gives you the same information as a full deployment. ___ Ken Caldeira Carnegie Institution Dept of Global Ecology 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA +1 650 704 7212 tel:%2B1%20650%20704%207212 kcalde...@carnegie.stanford.edu mailto:kcalde...@carnegie.stanford.edu http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab @kencaldeira See our YouTube: Sensitivity of temperature and precipitation to frequency of climate forcing: Ken Caldeira http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kDRYM_5S0AE Her lab, mules, and carbon capture and storage: Sally Benson speaks to Near Zero http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oMJJn6eP8J0 On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 2:06 PM, Doug MacMynowski macma...@cds.caltech.edu mailto:macma...@cds.caltech.edu wrote: Hi Ron, My thanks for your comments too. Re your specific concern about CDR, I think that to the extent that those outside this list have an opinion associated with the word geoengineering, it is most likely associated with SRM, at least if they have negative connotations with the word. So I would agree that there's no advantage to CDR folk to use the word geoengineering. And personally, I see no disadvantage to SRM to use the word
[geo] Re: HOME article
I don't agree with many of Joe Romm's positions, but I have to admit this is a pretty effective piece. Most of us are familiar with the terminological arguments over geoengineering vs. climate engineering vs. ..., but introducing yet another term to the general public like this begins to feel like a hoodwink. I also noted with some unease the use of the word coalition in the report, although I can't think of anything better at the moment. Lopsidedness and clubbiness are also fair charges. I generally agree with the conclusions of the BPC report, but unfortunately some of these criticisms stick. I also think it's smart of HOME to repost this article by Romm rather than offer original content and commentary, as the credibility of HOME is questionable at best. Josh Horton joshuahorton...@gmail.com http://geoengineeringpolitics.blogspot.com/ On Oct 8, 7:00 pm, Andrew Lockley andrew.lock...@gmail.com wrote: I in no way endorse any of HOME's content. But here it is anyway. A Ethicist quit geoengineering panel and other thoughts from Climate Progress http://www.handsoffmotherearth.org/2011/10/ethicist-quit-geoengineeri... Exclusive: Dysfunctional, Lop-Sided Geoengineering Panel Tries to Launch Greenwashing Euphemism, “Climate Remediation” By Joe Romm on Oct 6, 2011 at 3:48 pm | [ original article ] Revealing Interview with Ethicist Who Withdrew from Panel, Equally Revealing Article by Panel Member on Report’s Dysfunctional Process Earlier this week a panel of experts released a report calling for more research into geoengineering — directly manipulating the Earth’s climate to minimize the harm from global warming. This panel, put together by the Bipartisan Policy Center, inanely — and pointlessly — tried to rename “geoengineering” as “climate remediation.” Geoengineering is not a remedy. No one should try to leave the public with any such impression. Frankly, it would be more literally accurate to rename geo-engineering “smoke and mirrors,” as those are two of the most widely discussed measures for managing incoming solar radiation. Climate Progress has an exclusive interview with Prof. Stephen Gardiner, an ethicist who has written extensively on climate change and geoengineering — and who withdrew from the panel earlier this year. I contacted him when I learned he had originally been on the panel. He confirmed “I was indeed originally on the panel.” He “withdrew in March of this year when it became clear to me that there wasn’t going to be movement on some of the report’s recommendations, and I wouldn’t be able to endorse them.” I also interviewed a number of the leading experts on geoengineering for this post, including a panel member, Ken Caldeira. I will publish his response in full in a subsequent post. As science advisor John Holdren reasserted in 2009 of strategies such as aerosol injection or space mirrors — called solar radiation management (SRM) these days — “The ‘geo-engineering’ approaches considered so far appear to be afflicted with some combination of high costs, low leverage, and a high likelihood of serious side effects.” I appreciate that since a serious mitigation effort appears to be non-imminent, people are casting about for other ways to avoid multiple catastrophes (see “Real adaptation is as politically tough as real mitigation, but much more expensive and not as effective in reducing future misery“). But geo-engineering without aggressive mitigation makes even less sense than adaptation without aggressive mitigation (see Caldeira calls the vision of Lomborg’s Climate Consensus “a dystopic world out of a science fiction story”). So I’m glad the panel stated upfront: This task force strongly believes that climate remediation technologies are no substitute for controlling risk through climate mitigation (i.e., reducing emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases) and climate adaptation (i.e., enhancing the resilience ofhuman-made and natural systems to climate changes) I don’t think it’s terribly surprising that a panel stacked with advocates of geoengineering research (and some actual researchers) ends up advocating for more research into geoengineering. A number of people I talked to raised questions about the composition of the panel and the lack of disclosure that some of the panel members have a financial interest in geoengineering research (see below). Many thought the effort of the “Task Force on Climate Remediation” to replace the term geoengineering was particularly misguided. Here are the comments of journalist Jeff Goodell, author of the award-winning (!) book, How to Cool the Planet: Geoengineering and the Audacious Quest to Fix Earth’s Climate: The phrase “climate remediation” is almost as bad as the phrase “clean coal.” In both cases, it’s a phrase that reeks of spin and marketing. And while I can understand why Big Coal wants to push it, I think it was a mistake for this panel
[geo] Interesting EU Biochar Project
Apparently EuroChar has been underway since the beginning of this year. I had not previously run across it. Josh http://cordis.europa.eu/fetch?CALLER=FP7_PROJ_ENACTION=DDOC=1CAT=PROJQUERY=0132e028e623:102a:252b68b1RCN=97271 Project description In the context of climate change mitigation, technologies for removing the CO2 from the atmosphere are key challenges. The transfer of carbon from the atmosphere into useful carbon deposits is currently one promising option. Transferring biomass to carbon-rich materials with potential mega-scale application is an option to sequester carbon from plant material, taking it out of the short-term carbon cycle and therefore binding CO2 efficiently and even in a useful, productive, way into longer term non-atmospheric carbon pools. EuroChar will investigate carbon sequestration potentials that can be achieved by transforming plant biomass into charcoal (or Biochar) and add that to agricultural soils. Biochar production will be demonstrated using thermochemical (TC) or hydrothermal carbonization processes (HTC) that can produce energy and store 15 to 20% of the Carbon originally contained in the biomass. Detailed ISO-accredited whole Life Cycle Assessment will be carried out according to the International Reference Life Cycle Data System (ILCD) Handbook on LCA, for both TC and HTC production systems to evaluate the net Carbon sequestration capacity associated to Biochar production. Physico-chemical properties of Biochar will be analysed in a series of laboratory studies that will use standardized analytical protocols, and a specific phyto- toxicity test will be made using molecular approaches involving a model plant. Part of the study will also address the short versus long-term stability of Biochar using recently produced and aged charcoal samples coming from archaeological sites. Specific investigations will also be made to assess Biochar decomposition using CO2-efflux measurements from 13C labelled Biochar. Three large-scale field experiments will be made in Italy, France and UK to analyse realistic scale application of Biochar. Up-scaling will be considered by scenario analyses that will both consider the potential C-sequestration actually achievable at the European scale and the climate warming balance associated to carbon sequestration and potential changes in the mean surface albedo, due to massive use of Biochar as soil amendant. A number of stakeholders will be involved to review project's activities. For this the EuroChar Stakeholder Committee will be created and met periodically during annual project meetings. Dissemination activities will be implemented to make project's results available to a wider audience and the media. -- 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.
[geo] After BPC?
Ken and others, I think the BPC report is strong and sensible, but I wonder if anything is planned to follow up on its recommendations. The report does a good job communicating the urgent need for a federal research program, going so far as to call for action in the FY2013 budget, however it's silent on next steps. Do you know if the BPC or any Task Force members plan to engage with key players such as OSTP, congressional staff, etc.? It would be a shame to miss this opportunity. Josh Horton joshuahorton...@gmail.com http://geoengineeringpolitics.blogspot.com/ -- 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.
[geo] Re: New report(s) on carbon dioxide removal
Duncan, Repeating what others have already said, kudos on your report, which represents a great first step toward a systematic comparison of competing CDR technologies/NETs. One of your main policy conclusions is that NETs should be excluded from carbon markets due to the possible (probable?) effects of offsets. If carbon markets are off the table, how else do you propose to achieve large-scale deployment of these various technologies? Josh Horton joshuahorton...@gmail.com http://geoengineeringpolitics.blogspot.com/ On Sep 28, 11:49 pm, Ning Zeng z...@atmos.umd.edu wrote: Ron: At this stage, I'm not sure how meaningful it is to say which method is better. One should be particularly careful with inferring which is better based on single criteirion comparison. So I thought Duncan's analysis is nice in trying to look at many aspects simultaneously. We should also look at factors/constraints that could 'kill' an idea, though this has its own danger of taking something off the table by subjective choice. My feeling is that ultimately many of these methods, or some aspects of them will be useful and each will have its own niche depending on the local circumstances.. Another thing is of course that, we need to know more how these technologies work in the real world by a lot more research and demo projects. Best! -Ning Zeng On Sep 28, 2:16 pm, rongretlar...@comcast.net wrote: Duncan, Ning, list: I wholeheartedly support the idea of sequestering through forestry products. The analysis of them is straightforward. But the potential is obviously quite limited compared to the GtC/yr values in your (Duncan's) recent report. So this seems like a good opportunity to ask Duncan what the criteria should be for evaluating different NET (CDR) options. I hope others will answer the following methodology questions as well. 2. Dr. Zeng obviously feels that ground burial is better (being cheaper as a NET (Negative Emissions Technology) and more widely applicable) than the BECCS approach which I believe Duncan has favored in his report. Duncan's likely reasoning: BECCS uses the same (tree) resource both for carbon-neutral replacement of fossil fuels at electrical power plants and then captures almost as much in a carbon-negative placement of the resulting CO2 deep underground. Presumably Duncan (maybe most on this list) would say that the large gain in carbon neutrality (with monetary income to offset part of the sequestration costs) more than balances the small (?) loss in carbon negativity. But is there a more specific definition of better here? How would Dr. Zeng rebut the argument that we need biomass for its energy content? Does it include questions about the eventual success of CCS? 3. I think almost the same questions would be asked by those favoring ocean burial of biomass. I presume that ocean or pit burial are roughly equivalent - and the preference would be based on location (and resulting cost differences). But both have foregone the carbon-neutral energy contribution. Nevertheless, I can understand both the pit and ocean burial proponents' concerns, as they are focusing on NET (carbon negativity). I hope Duncan can first address this narrow issue of combining carbon-neutrality and carbon-negativity; in discussing and comparing NETs, should carbon-neutral benefits be part of the dialog and/or exactly how should they be balanced? 4. But along comes Biochar - and it further confuses the debate by saying that other criteria should also prevail besides the neutral (Energy) - and negative carbon issue above. Biochar is almost as good as BECCS on both carbon-negativty and carbon-neutrality (much of biomass energy value is in the hydrogen content which both capture, and BECCS has some energy losses in capture). But overall, Biochar proponents can agree that BECCS is superficially able to impact more CO2 than can Biochar. But I say superficially because Biochar out-year benefits seem to have a chance of overcoming the first-year advantages of both BECCS and burial. Many of those are spelled out by Duncan, but they do not seem to have made their way into the numerical computation on either carbon neutral or carbon negative sides of the ledger. 5. I will send more on this to Duncan (others please let me know if they want to see this), but I think it likely that most readers will know that anthropogenic Amazonian Terra Preta soils (not mentioned by Duncan) are today several times more productive than the poor parent soils from which they were constructed. Increased Ag production may be replaced in some already excellent soils by a halving of fertilizer needs. Nitrous Oxide, methane, and nutrient capture are other carbon-equivalent out-year continuing benefits that do not appear in Duncan's analyses - some with long term offsetting dollar income values
[geo] Monbiot Claims SAI already tested ... with catastrophic results
I'm no climate scientist, but seems like a bit of a stretch ... http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/sep/02/giant-balloon-and-hosepipe-geoengineering A balloon and hosepipe as the answer to climate change? It's just pie in the sky Increasingly bizarre attempts at geo-engineering simply deflect attention from the fact we need to cut greenhouse gases George Monbiot guardian.co.uk, Friday 2 September 2011 08.01 EDT Article history A team of British academics will undertake the world's first major 'geo-engineering' field test in the next few months It's atmospheric liposuction: a retrospective fix for planetary over- indulgence. Geo-engineering, which means either sucking carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere or trying to shield the planet from the sun's heat, is an admission of failure, a failure to get to grips with climate change. Is it time to admit defeat and check ourselves into the clinic? The question has arisen again with the launch of a new experiment funded by Britain's Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council, injecting particles (in this case water droplets) into the atmosphere from a gigantic balloon attached to a hosepipe. The eventual aim, if such experiments are deemed successful, is to squirt large amounts of sulphate aerosols into the stratosphere, to reduce global warming by scattering sunlight back into space. There are five issues affecting all the proposed geo-engineering technologies. Are they effective? Are they cheap? Are they safe? Do they solve the other problem associated with rising greenhouse gas emissions: ocean acidification? Do they introduce moral hazard? (This means the risk that you'll behave more recklessly if you're insulated from the effects of your actions.) Broadly speaking, the cheap and effective options are dangerous; the safe options are expensive or useless. This isn't always the case. Seeding the oceans with iron filings, for example, is probably both useless and dangerous. The intention is to stimulate a bloom of algae which absorbs carbon dioxide then sinks to the ocean bed. Not only is little of the gas removed from surface waters by this method; but, because the iron mops up oxygen, it stimulates the production of methane, a potent greenhouse gas. The technique is likely both to damage life in the oceans and cause more global warming than it cures. There are dozens of proposed techniques. Here's a small sample: Sucking CO2 out of the air using artificial trees. Safe. Effective. Fantastically expensive. Growing biomass then burying it or dumping it in the sea. Ecologically damaging. Likely to exacerbate famine. Ineffective (because it can't be scaled up sufficiently). Fairly cheap. Dumping lime or calcium or magnesium silicates into the sea, where they react with carbon dioxide. Fairly safe. Effective. Expensive. Has the advantage of potentially reversing ocean acidification, but the amount of quarrying required to produce enough ground-up rock is likely to be prohibitive. Painting buildings white to ensure that the earth absorbs less of the sun's heat. Safe. Useless. Expensive. Whitening clouds to reflect more sunlight, most feasibly by spraying salt water into the air. Middling dangerous. Middling useless. Middling cheap. Shooting mirrors into space. Not very dangerous. Effective. Staggeringly expensive. You can read more detailed summaries of these options in a report published by the Royal Society. But of all techniques, it's the notion of injecting reflective particles into the atmosphere – the technique the balloon and hosepipe experiment is designed to test – that has received most attention. There's an obvious reason for this: it is both cheap and effective. It is also extremely dangerous. The reason seems almost as incredible as the proposed technologies, but it's rooted in solid science. In fact we've already tested the method at a very large scale, with catastrophic results. Unfortunately no one realised we were running the experiment until three decades after it began. It wasn't until 2002 that a paper was published linking the great famines of the 1970s and 1980s with atmospheric sulphate particles produced in the northern hemisphere. But the link, which has now been made in a number of papers, listed below, seems to be conclusive: LD Rotstayn and U Lohmann, 1 August 2002. Tropical Rainfall Trends and the Indirect Aerosol Effect. Journal of Climate, vol 15, pp2103-2116 IM Held, TL Delworth, J Lu, KL Findell, and TR Knutson, 13 December 2005. Simulation of Sahel drought in the 20th and 21st centuries. PNAS, vol 102, no 50, pp17891-17896. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0509057102 M Biasutti and A Giannini, 8 June 2006. Robust Sahel drying in response to late 20th century forcings. Geophysical Research Letters, vol 33, no 11. DOI: 10.1029/2006GL026067 JE Kristjansson et al, 23 December 2005. Response of the climate system to aerosol direct and indirect forcing: Role of cloud feedbacks. Journal of Geophysical Research –
[geo] Re: New Paper on Ethics and Geoengineering
One more thing ... I question the use of the acronym SAG (Stratospheric Aerosol Geoengineering), less because geoengineering is a contested term than because the word sag has obvious negative connotations. Instead, I suggest using the more neutral SAI (Stratospheric Aerosol Injections). Josh On Aug 24, 5:05 am, Michael Hayes voglerl...@gmail.com wrote: Toby et al., D-5-W is a common intravenous (I.V.) fluid given to a trauma patient. It is a 5% Dextrose (sugar) solution in water. This solution helps prevent the body from converting stored body fat into needed energy (and thus preventing a strong acid influx-and thus preventing a cascade of physiological problems). Polar Stratospheric Aerosol Injection-Sulfide (PSAI-S) has somewhat of an analogy to the use of D-5-W. In that, the use of such a (simple) technique can prevent a cascade of global environmental problems. Keeping the polar regions cold can prevent the need for more...invasive...procedures. I point this out as a means to help clarify this debate. Geoengineering has so quickly evolved, in both scientific and engineering understanding, that the broad use of a term such as SAG is counterproductive for use in detailed discussions. I go to this length of explanation, not as a means of correction, but as a means to help sharpen the focus of this debate. Mike points out the reasonable logic of starting slow (and early) and building up climate intervention means as conditions warrant. Others have pointed out the potential use of different aerosols in relation to different atmospheric circulation patterns to produce even seasonal effects. Your paper does not take a close look at the physical reality of just how close we are to seeing a methane tipping point. You have, however recognized that such a situation would rearrange the debate...thank you. I feel that we must focus the debate on dealing with the worst case scenario before we have the freedom to set out long term and somewhat Idealized standards. Crawling into a wrecked and smoldering car to simply start an I.V. of D-5-W on the bleeding driver is not good quality basic health care. But, it can lead to just that.given time and lots of early, intelligent and cooperative work. The core concept of Geoengineering is not good quality basic health care for the planet, but simply a means and way to better care for the planet until we can move beyond fossil fuels. Unfortunately, the concept of Geoengineering is so new that few people truly understand the means, motives and even objectives of the science and engineering. I personally see it as Geo Trauma Care (GTC). Yes, the fossil fuel economy has traumatized this planet and I see the potential of PSAI-S as potentially being the equivalent of an emergency I.V. procedure. However, the long-term prognosis of our existence on this planet is predicated upon the universal use of renewable energy, not on the use of climate engineering. Your work (as well as Wil Burns) on raising the different ethical aspects of the debate is helping us get there. Ideally, I would like to see the debate continued with focus upon *specific* emerging science and engineering developments. Polar aerosol injection is different than global SAG. We must build the practical knowledge and techniques of climate engineering as the effects of the fossil fuel economy will be with us for generations. Inventing an I.V., developing D-5-W and testing the two only when the car crashes is neither reasonable nor logical. Creating social fences against climate engineering can be a close analogy. Thanks, Michael On Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 12:38 AM, Toby Svoboda tobysvob...@gmail.comwrote: Thank you all for the interesting and helpful feedback. Michael mentions a case (a methane tipping point) in which deployment of SAG might satisfy requirements of justice. Perhaps in certain scenarios, SAG would be (or would be part of) a just climate policy, or at least a policy that is less unjust than other policies available in those scenarios. Our paper is rather preliminary in the sense that it raises some ethical worries about SAG but does not take a position on whether it ought to be deployed. Perhaps, even with certain ethical imperfections, in some likely scenarios SAG would be the best option from a justice perspective. I don't know whether this would be the case. It seems that further work would be needed to get clear on that. As for unilateralism, our paper does not argue that there is a high probability of unilateral deployment but rather that such deployment would be unjust. As you know, there are a number of papers in the literature that discuss unilateral deployment. Josh's paper (which appeared after ours was in press) and Dan's comments raise some interesting points. Perhaps worries over unilateralism are overblown. That would be a welcome result from a procedural justice perspective,
[geo] Carbon Farming Passes in Australia
Hi everyone, Earlier today, Australia's Carbon Farming Initiative (CFI) passed its last major hurdle in Parliament before becoming law. The CFI will create carbon credits for reforestation and (probably) biochar projects, and offsets will be tradable within a proposed domestic emissions trading system as well as internationally. Here's a Reuters article with more details: http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/22/australia-carbon-idUSL3E7JI4ID20110822 Josh Horton joshuahorton...@gmail.com http://geoengineeringpolitics.blogspot.com/ -- 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.
[geo] Re: New Paper on Ethics and Geoengineering
Toby, I'd like to focus on your third case, in which you argue that stratospheric aerosol injections would violate principles of procedural justice if pursued unilaterally. As you frame it, ANY unilateral action at the international level would violate principles of procedural justice, since non-citizens of the acting state either (a) would not have taken part in the decision process (Rawls), or (b) would not be able to appeal that action (Daniels and Sabin). The US could decide to drop manna from the sky over the entire world, and by definition this would be unilateral and hence unjust. The real culprit, in this instance, is unilateralism rather than climate engineering. Earlier this year I had an article published titled Geoengineering and the Myth of Unilateralism (available free at http://www.stanford.edu/group/sjlsp/cgi-bin/users_images/pdfs/61_Horton%20Final.pdf). As the title suggests, I am deeply skeptical of the threat of unilateral stratospheric aerosol injections (SAI), as summarized in the following extract from the article: the incentive structure faced by a state interested in implementing SAI would strongly discourage unilateral postures that dismissed the need for international agreement and coordination. Any country considering unilateral deployment would find itself tangled in a web of technical and political constraints and steered toward reaching some form of global consensus. Individual incentives may be inadequate to deter unilateralism on their own, but their collective weight is likely to tilt the playing field decisively in favor of multilateral cooperation. For instance, Country B may be sufficiently motivated to accept the costs associated with the termination problem and dispense with efforts to synchronize emissions mitigation policies. But once deployed, a large number of international actors would effectively exercise joint control over any injection system, frustrating any attempt by Country B to pursue a coherent SAI policy managed solely by its national government. Furthermore, any actor opposed to the project could easily (and anonymously) counter its effects using relatively simple means such as release of black carbon, thereby neutralizing the entire scheme. For Country B, the costs of unilateral SAI would exceed the benefits, due to the technical limitations inherent in unilateral deployment of such technology, and as a consequence, interest in SAI would require a multilateral approach. The net result is that states are unlikely to view unilateral deployment as a sound, effective policy option. If unilateralism is the real problem, and unilateralism is unlikely in the case of stratospheric aerosols, then this form of climate engineering is much less problematic than you contend, at least from the procedural justice point of view. Josh Horton joshuahorton...@gmail.com http://geoengineeringpolitics.blogspot.com/ On Aug 16, 10:44 pm, Michael Hayes voglerl...@gmail.com wrote: Please allow me a few comments. However, SAG faces obstacles to meeting these requirements, so it is incumbent upon proponents of SAG either to present a version of SAG that is distributively just or to argue why SAG ought to be implemented despite its ethical shortcomings. Prevention of a methane tipping point would seem distributively just for life in general. More generally, it is arguably intergenerationally unjust for present generations to bring about states of affairs that are distributively unjust for future generations. In other words, one requirement of intergenerational justice is that present persons not compromise the distributive justice of future generations. Prevention of a methane tipping point does seem to comply with this concept regardless of the arguable validity of the concept. On the subject of procedural justice; Unilateral SAG violates Rawls’ theory of procedural justice, which holds that a policy is procedurally just only if all persons affected by that decision have the opportunity to contribute to that decision process. The current UN panel on Bio Diversity would seem to be in violation of Rawls' theory. In fact, no known treaty or policy has ever complied with this theory. The use of representatives to contribute to that decision process is simply the exercise of political policy. Thank you for your work and I hope to see this paper vigorously debated by the group. Michael On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 9:50 AM, Toby Svoboda tobysvob...@gmail.com wrote: Yes, the link provided by Masa is an up-to-date version (aside from some formatting changes, etc. in the published version). Toby Svoboda On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 10:18 PM, Masa Sugiyama s-m...@criepi.denken.or.jp wrote: Here's the manuscript. (I don't know if this is the most up-to-date.) http://www3.geosc.psu.edu/~kzk10/Svoboda_PAQ_11.pdf -Masa On 8月16日, 午前1:04, Dan Whaley dan.wha...@gmail.com wrote: Is it possible for someone to post the article here
[geo] Re: website for climate science and engineering
Hi all, Michael, sorry to hear about your computer and house problems, hopefully they are on their way to a quick resolution. And thanks again for your leadership in getting the website effort up and running. I don't mean to be a buzzkill, but as discussions about the website have proceeded, several issues have cropped up that I think should be brought into sharper relief, to avoid difficulties down the road: 1. There are some obvious advantages to piggybacking on the Climate101 project, but there are also disadvantages, the most important of which is loss of independence. I appreciate what David says about complete editorial freedom, but the fact is this can never exist so long as the site is funded by NSF and NASA. I have nothing against either organization, but make no mistake that joining Climate101 will inevitably result in losing some editorial control, and this will ultimately affect site content. However, these costs may be worth the gains in efficiency. 2. In a similar vein, Ken raised the issue of whether we should address geoengineering on its own or as one element of broader climate risk reduction. There seems to be some consensus on the latter, and joining with Climate101 would make this effective, but there was never much debate or explicit agreement on this point. It's worth noting that this list is oriented toward geoengineering, not climate risk reduction including mitigation, adaptation, and geoengineering. If the proposed site were to adopt a broader climate risk management perspective, this would necessarily entail a change in focus. 3. There seem to be multiple conceptions of what the website should be, and there are important differences among them. This project is variously referred to as a website, a portal, an organization, a voice, etc. Some view it as purely informational, but others view it as a sovereign actor taking part in policy debates. One of the critical questions here is how proactive (for lack of a better word) this body should be--should it function as an educational resource, an advocate, or something in between? Obviously, the answer to this question also affects the question of Climate101 membership. These are some tricky issues, but I think it's better to raise them at the outset and reach some form of consensus rather than gloss them over and hope they never become real impediments. Josh Horton joshuahorton...@gmail.com On Aug 10, 6:18 pm, David Mitchell david.mitch...@dri.edu wrote: Dear Mike, I think this type of presentation makes a lot of sense, and it would be nice to develop some graphical indicator to show the relative level of effort on each of these steps. But it seems that some of the temperature estimates depend on climate sensitivity. Are you assuming the Charney sensitivity adopted by IPCC of ~ 3 deg. C? If so, some temperature predictions may look different if we used a climate sensitivity based on paleoclimate data, such as 7.8 deg. C as advocated by Jeff Kiehl and David Wasdell (see attached). These authors argue that the uncertainty in climate sensitivity from paleoclimate measurements is much less relative to GCM predicted climate sensitivity since it is based on the Earth's climate system (i.e. whether we comprehend it or not). Perhaps we could show an analysis similar to what you describe but done twice; one for each climate sensitivity assumption. Best, David Mitchell On 8/10/2011 9:31 AM, Mike MacCracken wrote: Dear David and Michael (and et al.)---I too think a formulation based on climate risk and the set of possible options make most sense, and David may recall that that was how I tried to frame the discussion in my introduction to the geoengineering symposium in Melbourne at the IUGG General Assembly. To sort of summarize the situation (and I use units of mass of C, not CO2), very roughly (others can do this all quantitatively with lost of scenarios, but this sort of sets the issue out a bit more simply, and I think is close): 1. Situation faced if trends continue (so roughly a central fossil fuel estimate with few controls on emissions; including ongoing deforestation adds a bit more): Per capita global emissions of CO2 rover the 21st century rise to the present European average and continue a bit after (more reliance on coal would mean less useful energy from emissions of given amount). So, say an average of 3 tons of C/capita for 9 billion people gives emissions over century of 2700 GtC by 2100. Divide by 4 (roughly) to get ppm increase in CO2 concentration (and uptake of CO2 could go down, so divisor would be less) and one ends up with atmospheric concentration at 1000 ppm and rising significantly after 2100. So, very significant temperature increase. 2. Aggressive mitigation (so collectively: conservation, efficiency, alternative sources of energy, ending deforestation, etc.): Keeping the CO2 concentration to 550 ppm in 2100 requires C
[geo] Re: My AGU abstract: We Don¹t Need a ³Geoengineering² Research Program
I understand the conceptual and tactical reasons Ken cites for dropping talk of a geoengineering research program, but Eugene is on to something with his stinkweed analogy. Fairly or unfairly, disaggregating geoengineering into more conventional research categories will be viewed by many as an attempt at obfuscation, and this is an important political consideration. It also tends to obscure the unique nature of the geoengineering enterprise as a deliberate attempt to intervene in the climate system, something which should not be overlooked. Josh Horton joshuahorton...@gmail.com On Aug 5, 9:48 pm, Rau, Greg r...@llnl.gov wrote: Good luck -G __ Science And The Debt Deal Politics: Compromise includes cuts that will hit science agencies over the next decade Susan R. Morrissey, Glenn Hess and Raj Mukhopadhyay Legislation signed by President Barack Obama this week to raise the debt ceiling and avoid a default on government loans presents a mixed bag for science. The deal includes more than $900 billion in cuts over the next decade to federal discretionary funds—money that includes support for science agencies. In terms of an immediate impact, the Budget Control Act of 2011 sets the discretionary spending limit for fiscal 2012 at $1.04 trillion. This is the amount of money Congress can dole out to agencies for the next fiscal year. It is actually $24 million above the amount the House of Representatives set for its 2012 spending limit. Having this essentially flat cap on spending in place provides agencies with some certainty that there will not be huge across-the-board cuts in 2012, a White House official says. As a result, agencies can begin making preliminary spending decisions for 2012. Business leaders also appreciate the certainty the measure provides. Thomas J. Donohue, president and chief executive of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the nation’s largest business lobby, says the agreement, “while far from perfect, ... begins the process of getting America’s fiscal house in order and was necessary to avoid a default that would have resulted in an economic catastrophe.” But all federal agencies will face cuts over the long term. Congress will need to make tough spending decisions to comply with the legislation. The impact on science funding remains unclear. “Everything is subject to being cut,” noted Rep. Ed Whitfield (R-Ky.) at a press briefing last week. A bipartisan, bicameral “supercommittee,” said Whitfield, chairman of a House Energy Commerce subcommittee, will closely scrutinize all federal spending. As Congress irons out the details, the science community will be watching closely. “Budgets for fiscal 2012 and future years will be impacted by mandated reductions in the debt-ceiling deal,” notes Glenn S. Ruskin, director of the Office of Public Affairs at the American Chemical Society. “But how those reductions will be spread out over the agencies is not at all clear right now. ACS will continue to advocate on behalf of predictable and sustained funding for key RD agencies.” Chemical Engineering News ISSN 0009-2347 Copyright © 2011 American Chemical Society From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [geoengineering@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Ken Caldeira [kcalde...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, August 05, 2011 4:37 PM To: Stuart Strand Cc: xbenf...@gmail.com; mmacc...@comcast.net; Geoengineering@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [geo] My AGU abstract: We Don¹t Need a ³Geoengineering² Research Program If something is not now in the mission of an agency, Congress can cause it to be in the mission. DOE managed to find the Human Genome Project within their domain even though it didn't fit with their energy mission: http://genomics.energy.gov/ If Congress allocates money to an agency to do something, most agencies will take the money and do it. Congress decides what agencies do, not the agencies themselves (although agencies can influence congressional decisions). ___ Ken Caldeira Carnegie Institution Dept of Global Ecology 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA +1 650 704 7212 kcalde...@carnegie.stanford.edumailto:kcalde...@carnegie.stanford.eduhttp://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab @kencaldeira On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 12:12 PM, Stuart Strand sstr...@u.washington.edumailto:sstr...@u.washington.edu wrote: The problem is that geoengineering doesn't really fit with the missions of any of the national scientific funding agencies as far as I can tell. As an example, when I talked to the Department of Energy about ways to remove methane and nitrous oxide from the atmosphere they said that it wasn't in their mission because those gases did not relate to energy production. Although this argument was flawed in addition to being somewhat boneheaded, you hear this type
[geo] Bill Clinton Champions White Roofs
From The Atlantic (http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/07/ paint-your-roofs-white/241784/): Paint Your Roofs White By Bill Clinton Jul 18 2011, 9:13 AM ET 122 What's the single best idea to jumpstart job creation? Look at the tar roofs covering millions of American buildings. They absorb huge amounts of heat when it's hot. And they require more air conditioning to cool the rooms. Mayor Bloomberg started a program to hire and train young people to paint New York's roofs white. A big percentage of the kids have been able to parlay this simple work into higher-skilled training programs or energy-related retrofit jobs. (And, believe it or not, painting the roof white can lower the electricity use by 20 percent on a hot day!) Every black roof in New York should be white; every roof in Chicago should be white; every roof in Little Rock should be white. Every flat tar-surface roof anywhere! In most of these places you could recover the cost of the paint and the labor in a week. It's the quickest, cheapest thing you can do. In the current environment it's been difficult for the mayors to get what is otherwise a piddling amount of money to do it everywhere. Yet lowering the utility bill in every apartment house 10 to 20 percent frees cash that can be spent to increase economic growth. Josh Horton -- 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.
[geo] Climate Change, Security, and Small Island States
On July 20, the UN Security Council held an open debate on the subject of climate change and risks to international security. The topic was introduced by Germany, which currently holds the rotating presidency of the Security Council. Following on from earlier efforts to raise the issue of climate security within the Council, Germany sought to begin an ongoing dialogue on the security risks posed by climate change, in particular the threat of sea-level rise and dangers to food supplies. Discussion also focused on the possible future need for UN green helmets for deployment to violent conflicts around the world caused or exacerbated (threat-multiplied) by climate change. Germany was strongly supported by the Pacific Small Island Developing States grouping. The chairman of this organization, President Marcus Stephen of Nauru, urged in a July 18 op-ed in the New York Times that the Security Council should join the General Assembly in recognizing climate change as a threat to international peace and security. It is a threat as great as nuclear proliferation or global terrorism. Yet he went on to write that Negotiations to reduce emissions should remain the primary forum for reaching an international agreement. Climate engineering was not mentioned as a potential strategy. The existential threat faced by small island states as a result of global warming and rising seas is more than sufficient reason to explore geoengineering as an additional climate policy option. Emissions mitigation, even if deep cuts were somehow achieved over the next decades, will not be enough to prevent the demise of low-lying island states such as Nauru, the Marshall Islands, and the Maldives. In the absence of climate intervention, such countries will cease to exist in any meaningful sense. When rising sea levels are treated as a matter of war and peace before the UN Security Council, national leaders compare their climate predicaments to nuclear proliferation and terrorism, and the future existence of entire nation-states is in doubt, surely it is appropriate to consider all possible solutions. Small island developing states, and representative organizations such as the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS), ought to be at the forefront of diplomatic efforts to jump-start research into geoengineering. Josh Horton joshuahorton...@gmail.com http://geoengineeringpolitics.blogspot.com/ -- 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.
[geo] Re: HOME/ETC Group Targets IPCC: Data on public perception
David, Thanks for making this available. Note some earlier public opinion focus group work on geoengineering done by UK NERC - http://www.nerc.ac.uk/about/consult/geoengineering-dialogue-final-report.pdf. This contains some very interesting results, particularly on the moral hazard issue. Josh On Jul 11, 9:35 pm, David Keith ke...@ucalgary.ca wrote: Folks Earlier comments on this thread contained lots of speculation about what people think about SRM/geo. We recently submitted a paper that has some of the first results from a high-quality surveys of public perception. (Where for a survey, high-quality=that is big numbers, good demographic sampling, and well tested questions.) The paper is athttp://people.ucalgary.ca/~keith/Preprints.html. You need a username password which you can get (quickly) from the Hollie Roberts see email link on the page (and I don't change it). Yours, David -- 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.
[geo] Re: NGO opposition to geo
On IPSO, BBC suggests that the report supports certain types of geoengineering, but the long version of the summary report, which is all that has been released, talks only of significantly increased measures for mitigation of atmospheric CO2 (p. 8) (http:// www.stateoftheocean.org/pdfs/1906_IPSO-LONG.pdf). This is pretty vague. I guess we'll have to wait for the full report for more details. As an aside, see Annex 2 for the proposed Global Ocean Compliance Commission--nice sentiment, but unlikely. Josh On Jun 21, 5:07 pm, Emily em...@lewis-brown.net wrote: Hi, It might be useful to engage with the NGO community and connect on some geo-eng issues as currently, the opposition to intervening with climate change actively is mounting. This is a risky strategy also. Either way - to intervene or not - has its risks and moral and ethical dilemmas. NGO letter to the IPCC geoengineering meeting (http://www.etcgroup.org/en/node/5267) http://www.etcgroup.org/en/node/5267 Hands Off Mother Earth : HOME campaign (http://www.handsoffmotherearth.org) http://www.handsoffmotherearth.org/ best wishes, Emily. -- 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.
[geo] Re: Cost of Air Capture and the APS report
Robert, Setting aside SRM for the moment, have you ever revisited the wedges paper to incorporate the full suite of potential CDR strategies? This strikes me as an obvious way to broaden the wedge concept. I imagine this has already been done one way or another Josh Horton joshuahorton...@gmail.com http://geoengineeringpolitics.blogspot.com/ On Jun 21, 5:14 pm, David Keith ke...@ucalgary.ca wrote: Of course it's not only an emergency strategy. Each group that has begun to think about it seriously has realized that. I said just this to the group in Lima an hour ago. David From: Alvia Gaskill [mailto:agask...@nc.rr.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2011 3:07 PM To: soco...@princeton.edu; rongretlar...@comcast.net Cc: geoengineering@googlegroups.com; David Keith Subject: Re: [geo] Cost of Air Capture and the APS report I leave the Lima group with a final thought. Is SRM only an emergency strategy? What are the pros and cons of a continuous ground-bass deployment of 1 W/m^2 of stratospheric aerosol negative forcing, as an overall helper on the margin and as a way of learning about larger deployment? No, it shouldn't only be considered as an emergency option, a term which has never been adequately defined anyway and tends to be used as a defense against the media and the opponents of geoengineering by those working in the field who can't or don't want to pardon the expression, take the heat. Paul Crutzen included use of stratospheric aerosols at about this level of negative forcing to replace the loss of tropospheric sulfate from pollution controls and others have made similar proposals (including me). To get to some kind of full-scale offset of AGW forcing (back to pre-industrial from today or some future date) you have to pass through 1 W/m2 anyway. Plus, a slowdown of warming now means less ice melted that we can't replace in the future (given what we know about how difficult that will be). This applies to cloud brightening as well or some other technology that could achieve the same impact. But i also note that to get to 1 W/m2 you have to get through 0.1 and 0.2 and 0.3, etc. You have to start somewhere. - Original Message - From: Robert Socolowmailto:soco...@princeton.edu To: rongretlar...@comcast.netmailto:rongretlar...@comcast.net Cc: geoengineering@googlegroups.commailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com ; ke...@ucalgary.camailto:ke...@ucalgary.ca Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2011 2:57 Subject: RE: [geo] Cost of Air Capture and the APS report Ron, Ken, and others: Given that the Lima meeting is in its middle day today, let me push everything aside to write answers to Ron's questions. I am speaking only for myself. 1. Yes, there is only one change, aside from formatting, in the June 1 version of the APS report. We say so on the second page of the preface. As we were issuing the unformatted version at the end of April, David Keith identified a clear mistake in our report, involving the pressure drop per meter for a specific packing material, which we had carried forward from a 2006 paper. Fortunately, one member of our committee, Marco Mazzotti, was an author of that paper. With one of his co-authors, he updated his earlier work with new information from the manufacturer of the packing, additionally found an error in his earlier analysis, followed a hunch that there was an easy fix for us by substituting one packing for another, and we buttoned this up. The new packing is cheaper, but we verified that our initial cost estimate for packing had been so conservative that the new packing actually fit the assumed price better. I am aware at this time of no outright error in our report. People may find some, and if they do I hope they will tell me about them. 2. Item a. In my view, the experts (specifically Keith, Lackner, and Eisenberger) were given adequate time to interact with us. Our project took two years. We established groundrules at the front end that there would be an arms-length relationship and (confirmed more than once) that as a matter of policy we would not learn confidential information. All three presented to us at our kick-off meeting in March 2009, reviewed a draft (along with almost 20 others) in April 2010, and communicated repeatedly with us. I had the personal goal of being sure that the key ideas in their work were understood by our committee and commented upon in our report. Nonetheless, none of the three of them is happy with the result. One comment all three would make is that they would have done the study differently. They would have asked what air capture could cost if one were to assume success in the presence of risk; our committee felt that in the absence of reviewable published data, this was an illegitimate task. We decided to include one cost estimate based on a benchmark design, resulting in a system whose cost
[geo] Re: HOME/ETC Group Targets IPCC
Several interesting points have been raised: 1. Ken describes several basic ETC positions. From what I can tell, there is one additional underlying premise: modern capitalism, built on science and technology, is responsible for the climate crisis, therefore, the modern rationalist worldview is incapable of providing a solution to climate change. The first part of this premise may or may not be correct, but the second part certainly does not follow, and the argument itself is divorced from our present reality of economic inertia, political impasse, and limited options. I invite anyone from the ETC Group to amend these characterizations. 2. I am willing to accept the list of signatory organizations at face value, although the extent to which they represent global civil society is questionable (from my neck of the woods, the Enviro Show? - http://envirosho.blogspot.com/). 3. Friends of the Earth is a credible group, but it seems to be fracturing on the question of geoengineering. FOE International and its US chapter signed this letter, but John cites a 2009 FOE Briefing Note expressing openness to geoengineering, and FOE (England, Wales Northern Ireland) expressed similar openness in a report last year (http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Environment/documents/ 2010/12/15/CarbonBudgetsReportdec14final.pdf). Where exactly does FOE stand as an organization? 4. It appears that the Guardian has come out in opposition to geoengineering. Its June 15 article (flagged by Wil Burns and others) is clearly sympathetic to the HOME campaign, arguably mischaracterizes the IPCC abstracts as leaks, and is now followed by a featured opinion piece from the ETC Group (noted by Stephen earlier). Getting them to reprint Ken's points may be a challenge. 5. Andrew's draft is well written and timely - please add my name - Joshua B. Horton, PhD. Josh On Jun 16, 7:18 am, John Gorman gorm...@waitrose.com wrote: happy to add my name to your draft John Gorman M. A. (Cantab.) Chartered Engineer Member of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers Member of the Institution of Engineering and Technology - Original Message - From: Stephen Salter s.sal...@ed.ac.uk To: Andrew Lockley and...@andrewlockley.com Cc: geoengineering@googlegroups.com Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2011 11:09 AM Subject: Re: [geo] HOME/ETC Group Targets IPCC Andrew I cannot improve your draft. Stephen Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design Institute for Energy Systems School of Engineering Mayfield Road University of Edinburgh EH9 3JL Scotland Tel +44 131 650 5704 Mobile 07795 203 195www.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs On 16/06/2011 10:25, Andrew Lockley wrote: Suggested wording, for amendment and endorsement. A We the undersigned represent a selection of the scientists, engineers and social policy experts involved in the development of geoengineering and its governance. We write with frustration at the sentiments expressed in the recent letter sent by ETC et al to the press and IPCC. As a result, we would like to express the following views on the IPCC's process on geoengineering, and more generally: 1) We do not propose geoengineering as a substitute for emissions cuts, and never have done. 2) We believe that research demonstrates that emissions cuts are necessary, but may not be sufficient to control dangerous climate change. 3) We note that several geoengineering schemes have been proposed which appear to be workable, but that we currently lack the research necessary to determine the full extent of any role they may play in the future control of global warming. 4) We fear the deployment in emergency of poorly tested geoengineering techniques 5) We argue for the proper funding and testing of possible geoengineering technologies, in order to better understand them 6) We note that, despite the lack of clear geoengineering solutions available for deployment at present, efforts to curtail emissions have thus far achieved little or nothing. As such, we believe that further research will not in itself raise climate risks due to any perceived panacea which the existence of the technology may wrongly appear to offer. Nevertheless, we note the the IPCCs consideration of this issue represents a departure from its traditional pure science remit. We argue therefore for greater transparency of the process, the inclusion of experts from social policy fields in the process, and the opening up of sessions to external observers, notably civil society groups. Yours sincerely On 16 June 2011 09:39, Stephen Salters.sal...@ed.ac.uk wrote: Hi All Pat Mooney of the ETC group repeats much of the IPCC letter in today's Guardian see http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jun/15/geo-engineering-cli... Can we get the Guardian to print Ken's list of points? Stephen Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design Institute for Energy Systems School of
[geo] CDR Raised at Bonn Climate Talks
The UNFCCC Executive Secretary has raised the possibility of negative emissions ... http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jun/05/global-warming-suck-greenhouse-gases?intcmp=122 Global warming crisis may mean world has to suck greenhouse gases from air As Bonn talks begin, UN climate chief warns of temperature goals set too low and clock ticking on climate change action Fiona Harvey, environment correspondent guardian.co.uk, Sunday 5 June 2011 18.10 BST Article history The world may have to resort to technology that sucks greenhouse gases from the air to stave off the worst effects of global warming, the UN climate change chief has said before talks on the issue beginning on Monday. We are putting ourselves in a scenario where we will have to develop more powerful technologies to capture emissions out of the atmosphere, said Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. We are getting into very risky territory, she added, stressing that time was running out. The UN climate talks starting on Monday in Bonn, which run for the next two weeks, will try to revive the negotiations before the next climate conference, taking place in Durban, South Africa, in December. But little progress is expected, as the negotiating time is likely to be taken up with details such as rules on monitoring emissions. Figueres tried to inject a greater sense of urgency into the proceedings by pointing to research from the International Energy Agency that found that emissions had soared last year by a record amount. The strong rise means it will take more effort by governments to curb emissions. Figueres told the Guardian in an interview that governments should act now to save money: We add $1 trillion to the cost [of tackling climate change] with every year of delay. However, as the latest talks begin, the world's leading climate change official has upset governments by insisting that the aim of the negotiations ought to be to hold warming to less than 1.5C. That would be a much tougher goal than that set by governments last year, which seeks to limit the temperature rise to no more than 2C – the safety threshold, scientists say, beyond which warming becomes catastrophic and irreversible. In my book, there is no way we can stick to the goal that we know is completely unacceptable to the most exposed [countries], Figueres said. The difference between the two goals may not seem great, but since it has taken more than 20 years of talks for countries to agree on the 2C limit, many are unwilling to reopen the debate. Delegates are conscious that wrangling over whether to stick to 1.5C or 2C was one of the main sources of conflict at the Copenhagen climate summit in 2009; the hope has been that talks can move on to other issues such as how to pay for emissions curbs in poorer countries. This is an extraordinary intervention, said one official involved in the climate talks, who could not be named. Figueres said that she had the support of the world's least developed countries, most of Africa, and small island states. Another factor casting a pall over this year's talks, which are intended to forge a new global treaty on climate change, is criticism of the South African government, which will host the Durban talks. No interim meetings have yet been set up, and countries have complained of disorganisation and a lack of enthusiasm. But Figueres said: South Africa has been very carefully listening, trying to understand where there are commonalities and where the weaknesses are. She also predicted the US would play a strong role in the talks, despite the Obama administration facing Republican opposition in Congress to action on emissions. It's very evident that the legislative body in the US has disengaged, but … the administration continues to be engaged. she said. But Todd Stern, chief negotiator for the US, called for participants in the talks to roll up their sleeves and be constructive. -- 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.
[geo] Re: Deep ocean disposal
Michael writes in an earlier email that These are the same oil fields that are being proposed for massive CO2 geological storage. Fracking is rapidly taking that option off the table. I know a little about CCS but not much about fracking - if this is a zero-sum game then we've got a problem. Oil/gas, coal, and power plants do not neatly overlap, so if fracking comes at the expense of CCS, we could see conflicting interests within the broader resource extraction industry. Josh Horton joshuahorton...@gmail.com On Jun 2, 1:10 pm, Stephen Salter s.sal...@ed.ac.uk wrote: Mike We could be picky about our trenches. We do not have to be all that deep, only about 700 metres. Stephen Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design Institute for Energy Systems School of Engineering Mayfield Road University of Edinburgh EH9 3JL Scotland Tel +44 131 650 5704 Mobile 07795 203 195www.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs On 02/06/2011 17:00, Mike MacCracken wrote: But aren't deep ocean trenches generally subduction zones, so subject to rather massive earthquakes, as recently occurred off Japan? Mike On 6/2/11 5:42 AM, Stephen Salter s.sal...@ed.ac.uk wrote: Hi All I used to think that if gas fields had not leaked their natural gas then they should not leak CO2 but I can now see that this argument would be changed by fracking. However if the pressure is high enough the density of CO2 is higher than that of sea water. If you fill a deep sea depression with it and then cover the CO2 puddle with a material which prevents or greatly slows diffusion of CO2 to the sea water then most of it should stay put. The cover could be a layer of liquid with a density intermediate between the CO2 and sea water and very low miscibility with both. This would allow it to self repair. We could also stab pipes through it to add more CO2 of to release some in order to offset Lowell Wood's overdue ice age. We need to look for deep depressions close to where CO2 is being produce or could be concentrated. I did suggest this in a previous contribution to the blog quite a while ago but I think that it sank without trace. This is what we want for the CO2. Stephen Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design Institute for Energy Systems School of Engineering Mayfield Road University of Edinburgh EH9 3JL Scotland Tel +44 131 650 5704 Mobile 07795 203 195 www.see.ed.ac.uk/~shshttp://www.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs http://www.see.ed.ac.uk/%7Eshs On 01/06/2011 21:35, Gregory Benford wrote: Michael raises the crucial issue: */Should the oil and gas industry be relied upon at the geological time scale needed for massive CO2 sequestration? /*There are measurements Sherry Rowland told me about ~5 years ago, made by his group at UCI, of the methane content of air across Texas Oklahoma. /He found no difference in methane levels in cities vs oil fields and farms. / He inferred that many oil wells, including spot drillings that yielded no oil, but penetrated fairly deeply, were leaking methane into the air. No one has contradicted this. That made me forget CCS in such domes. Thus I went back to working on CROPS, where we know it takes ~1000 years to return to the atmosphere. Gregory Benford On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 1:25 PM, Michael Hayes voglerl...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Folks, After reading Greg's post, I have spent some time looking into the methane release being caused by Fracking. Here is a link to a resent film on the subject. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZe1AeH0Qz8If you are interested in the methane issue in general, I encourage you to take the time to view this film. I do realize that any media based documentary is subject to dispute and debate. However, I bring this to the group for 2 reasons. 1) These are the same oil fields that are being proposed for massive CO2 geological storage. Fracking is rapidly taking that option off the table. I have never believed oil field CO2 sequestration was practical. However, this type of information should raise profound questions about the entire concept of geological CO2 sequestration. 2) The methane release (GHG effect) from such wide spread use of this drilling method can equal all other anthropogenic GHG sources at the regional level. Fracking is a methane wild card which can not be ignored. And, oil field CO2 sequestration is in direct opposition
[geo] Re: BECCS -- How much research is going on into biomass energy with carbon capture and storage?
In case anyone missed it, the Global CCS Institute recently put out a global BECCS assessment report, which you can find here http://www.globalccsinstitute.com/sites/default/files/GCCSI_Biorecro_Global_Status_of_BECCS_110302_report.pdf Section 4 covers current BECCS projects. I notice that Biorecro authored the report, so I assume Henrik is intimately familiar with it. Josh Horton On May 24, 1:24 pm, rongretlar...@comcast.net wrote: Ken, Henrik and list 1. Ken specifically asked about the list's reaction to his final sentence being questioned by Henrik, which read (adding the previous sentence also): If the plants are burned in power plants that capture CO2and store it underground in geologic reservoirs, then the net effect is to move carbon from the active biosphere to the deep geosphere, reversing the effect of producing and burning fossil fuels. This approach is already being investigated within DOE and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), and the interagency cooperation seems to be working well. Living in Golden (CO), where a lot of this type of biomass work is done or managed I have been following this topic for some years. I think both Henrik and Ken are correct. Their differing perceptions can be reconciled by noting that DoE (specifically NREL/Golden) used to have fairly large research programs in both biofuels and biopower. In one of our nation's many misguided attempts to save money, the biopower program was cancelled some years ago and all the US bioenergy effort since has been on biofuels. Ken is correct that there has been considerable money expended on biofuels from both the DoE and USDA appropriations. They alternate years on which department is in charge. I don't have the statistics, but working well' is probably accurate, given funding limits. Working well does not apply to carbon negativity - which is closely allied with biopower. Henrik is correct that none of those dual-Agency funds (I think) have been deemed appropriate (in the past) for BECCS (and Biochar somewhat less). The dual-Agency funds are restricted to the biofuel program and none for (the no-longer-researched) fixed biopower plants. The funding restriction away from sequestration may have been slightly relaxed in the last fiscal year procurement (I vaguely recall hearing). However, more than a year ago, in Denver, DoE ran a several-day policy study to gain opinion on re-starting the now-defunct national biopower program. I attended, as did maybe three-four others interested in Biochar (out of maybe a hundred attendees). I do not recall BECCS being similarly represented or pushed, but it could have been. The reaction of the (mostly biopower) attendees (naturally) was positive to re-start a national biopower program. A draft report was issued for comment. I thought and said their comments on Biochar showed little understanding of the technology - but the word Biochar was included. I do not recall if BECCS was included. My guess is that someone within OMB may have killed the whole re-start concept - but the biopower option may still be filtering through the Bioenergy bureaucracy. I would not expect any new biopower funding to have much on carbon negativity, in any case. CDR needs to gain more of a following than it has at present (and which I expect to come more from rural/ag America - after it is successful in China and Brazil). My naive perception on the need for specific BECCS (and to a lesser extent - Biochar) research is that there would seem to be much more need for a carbon tax than RD. On the resource side - biofuel-related research is already happening (mostly through Oak Ridge National Laboratory), and is applicable also to biopower. The many (and increasing number of) biopower plants seem to have limited need for research on chipping, pelletizing, and combustion (although gasification RD is probably needed). And NETL seems to have $ billions for CCS - into which BECCS would seem to fit comfortably (and Biochar has no place). I ask (certainly naively) Henriks where the need is for specific BECCS RD (as opposed to CCS).. 2. More also for Henriks - whose biorecro web site I have now looked over quite a bit, as well as those of his several partners. I like everything I see there - clearly Biorecro is a leader in the BECCS technology. However, it is not clear what Biorecro's business is beyond general development. Also, at none of the half-dozen recommended partner sites, did I find the much more recent word Biochar, which it seems to me could/should also be part of the Biorecro portfolio. I favor Biochar over BECCS for third reasons. First, it seems to be applicable to virtually every farm or forest, whereas BECCS requires a relatively short distance to a relatively large power plant (ie not as applicable in the tropics where most biomass sequestration potential exists). Second, I think
[geo] Re: Research Thesis on Geoengineering
Hi Panagiota, I would be happy to answer some of your questions, unfortunately I'll be unavailable for the next couple of weeks - please let me know if I can help out. Josh Horton joshuahorton...@gmail.com On May 20, 2:18 pm, Panagiota Stathaki pswrite...@yahoo.com wrote: My name is Panagiota Stathaki and I am a Master’s student at the VU University Amsterdam, the Netherlands. I am sending this message because of your knowledge and interest in geoengineering. I would be interested in your opinion on this topic. My research thesis is on the social responsibility of geoengineering experimental research, focused on cloud albedo enhancement. I am investigating how experimental research on geoengineering can be organized in order to explore the opportunities of preventing climate change in a socially responsible manner. My supervisors are Prof. dr. Arthur Petersen and dr. Eleftheria Vasileiadou. I have already had a few interviews, but in order to have a complete picture of this topic I would appreciate your inputs. I am open to taking phone interviews or sending my questions via email. The duration of a phone interview is expected to be around 30 minutes. It would be unobtrusive and would take place at the date and time of your convenience. The questions that I am seeking answers to are: The answers to the questions will be anonymised, to ensure no link between responses and specific individuals. Following are questions concerning the elements of organizing such experiments 1. Should developing countries be involved in such research? If yes, how? Through which funding mechanisms could they be involved? 2. Do you see a role for international coordination of research on cloud albedo enhancement? If yes, under which actor? For instance the UN, IPCC, other authority? 3. Which actors from the scientific community, do you think, need to be involved in geoengineering research? What should their discipline be? 4. What should be the role of the private sector (private companies) in deployment/experimentation of such schemes? 5. Should the governments be involved in mechanisms for managing geoengineering? Should they for example regulate the private sector's research? 6. During research funding decisions for geoengineering should stakeholder participation be taken into account? 7. Are the existing legal instruments enough to cover such experiments, or are new ones in need? 8. Do you think that existing agencies can/should be responsible for organizing such experiments or are new agencies in need? 9. What, do you think, is the level of responsibility of the institutes conducting these experiments? How do you think they can take responsibility? For instance with insurance or compensation schemes? 10. Many are discussing about the openness of results with respect to geoengineering research. This could create problems for establishing authorship claims. It could also be difficult when companies are involved in the experimentation and deployment. What are your thoughts on this? 11. Do you think that internet, for instance open access journals, can play a role in openness of results of geoengineering research? I would like to thank you very much for your time and interest. What is your specialization and location? Would you be interested in being notified about the outcomes from this project? (If yes-email address?) Do you know anyone else who would be interesting to interview with respect to this topic. -- 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.
[geo] Re: Arctic Council meeting on Thursday - the truth is out
Here's a related post from my blog that might be of interest ... Despite the recent release of an Arctic Council report on climate change and regional collapse (see Alarming New Study from the Arctic Council, 5/5), the past week has witnessed discouraging developments on the Arctic front. On Thursday, the Arctic Council held its seventh Ministerial Meeting in Greenland, with attendees including US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. The focus of the meeting was not regional deterioration and possible mitigation, but rather the accelerating scramble for Arctic resources made possible by global warming. The main purpose of the gathering was to sign a new Search and Rescue (SAR) Agreement, necessitated by increasing traffic resulting from intensified oil and gas exploration and regional shipping. Prior to the conference, WikiLeaks released a series of US diplomatic cables detailing the quickening rush to carve up newly accessible Arctic mineral resources. In one cable, Danish Foreign Minister Per Stig Moeller is quoted as saying (with reference to US failure to ratify the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea and consequent difficulty establishing claims in the Arctic), if you stay out, then the rest of us will have more to carve up in the Arctic. Another cable quotes the Russian Ambassador to NATO remarking that The twenty- first century will see a fight for resources, and Russia should not be defeated in this fight ... NATO has sensed where the wind comes from. It comes from the North. The Arctic is in a grave state, but the reality is that many national and corporate interests stand to gain considerably from a thawing Arctic. Mineral resources, fisheries, superior shipping lanes--climate change is creating a resource bonanza for extractive and other industries. The irony, of course, is that the region most sensitive to global warming, and therefore most likely to benefit from expeditious geoengineering, is the same region giving rise to some of the most powerful incentives to acquiesce in, or even hasten, climate change. Josh Horton On May 14, 2:09 pm, voglerl...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Folks, John asked a few important questions and I also thank him for moving the trawler problem forward. As to nutrient question. I have found a correlation between 2 studies and explored an idea for nutrient enhancement. Here is a copy of the post under the thread Lecture on Methane... May 12. If you take a look at this paper http://www.mumm-research.de/download_pdf/treude_et_al_aom_hr.pdfPg 2 The AOM consortium predominant at HR consists of sulfate-reducing bacteria of the branch Desulfosarcina/Desulfococcus and archaea of the ANME-2 group (Boetius et al. 2000b). The archaea are surrounded by the sulfate-reducing bacteria and both grow together in dense aggregates that comprise up to 90% of the microbial biomass in hydrate-bearing sediments. The current hypothesis on the functioning of AOM assumes that archaea oxidize methane in a process that is reverse to methanogenesis (Valentine Reeburgh 2000, and references therein). The role of the sulfate-reducing bacteria in AOM-consortia is the oxidation of a so far unknown intermediate by simultaneous reduction of sulfate, thus maintaining thermodynamic conditions allowing methane oxidation to proceed exergonically. Now take a look at this: http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-05-scientists-links-biology-cloud-fo... The so far unknown intermediate seems to have been found by the second group. Thus, I believe sulfite enhancement might be used to both feed the sulfate-reducing bacteria in the vent areas to enhance the biomass around vents and thus methane oxidation. There may also be a synergistic link between increasing this process and believe it on not.cloud nucleation. This brings up the possibility of transplanting biotic colonies to less well populated vents to kick start the natural process. Methane hydrates are associated with local sulfate production in some vents. This may be a clue as to how we might get new biotic masses growingfeed them sulfate through dispersing blocks of compressed sulfate around vents. Just a thoughtAny comments, suggestions? This nutrient enhancement can be done by aircraft. I will not take that much per sq km. Also, I believe the methane can be captured and used to cool the surrounding water without extensive invasion of the area by industrial processes. The broad sketch of the concept is the first post at Lecture on Methane. One last thing. I think the ESAS has a mean depth of 150mstill not much. I try to address enhanced oxidation through hydrosol assimilation in todays post to Sam on the same thread. Thanks, Michael On May 14, 2011 2:24am, John Nissen j...@cloudworld.co.uk wrote: Hi all, Thanks Albert and thanks to Michael before you (about the trawling danger). Albert, the problem of the ESAS (East Siberian
[geo] Stanford Journal of Law, Science Policy Volume on Geoengineering
Hi all, The Stanford Journal of Law, Science Policy has released its new volume on geoengineering at the following link: http://www.stanford.edu/group/sjlsp/cgi-bin/articles/index.php?CatID=1013 This issue follows on from the Asilomar conference, and is dedicated to Stephen Schneider. It includes several contributions from regular group participants, including Wil Burns and myself. Josh Horton joshuahorton...@gmail.com http://geoengineeringpolitics.blogspot.com/ -- 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.
[geo] Re: Vatican Report
Ron, Note the following on p. 4: Nations should also avoid removal of carbon sinks by stopping deforestation, and should strengthen carbon sinks by reforestation of degraded lands. They also need to develop and deploy technologies that draw down excess carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. I would also be interested in learning more about the working group dialog, especially the views of those non-scientists in attendance. Josh Horton joshuahorton...@gmail.com On May 7, 7:03 pm, rongretlar...@comcast.net wrote: Prof. Robock (with ccs) 1. There has been a good bit of web traffic in the last few days about a report ( Fate of Mountain Glaciers in the Anthropocene), where you are listed as a co-author. The full 17-pp report is down-loadable athttp://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_academies/acdscien/2011/... 2. In general, I think this is well done. I have hopes it will be influential. My question is how the dialog went within your fellow co-authors (any others knowledgeable on Geoengineering?) on Geoengineering. More specifically can you say anything on the differences discussed between CDR and SRM? The first Geoengineering sentence below would seem to suggest that Biochar (clearly a CDR technique) should not be considered a Mitigation measure (which I consider it to be) 3. The description of Geoengineering for your C45 panel (re message sent just before this one) clearly states that Geoengineering has two distinct parts (CDR and SRM) - but this below seems to be directed only at SRM. Can you explain why this discrepancy? 4. A new paper was released yesterday by Jim Hansen of relevance. He has (for the first time?) a goal for new additional standing biomass of 100 gigatons carbon (about a 20% increase?). This proposed activity (which I believe qualifies also as both CDR and mitigation) will be a great base for Biochar. Biochar can even accelerate that new 100 GtC through utilizing this substantial new addition to today's land-based NPP of about 60 GtC/yr.. Seehttp://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2011/20110505_CaseForYoungPeop... Ron (The Vatican Geoengineering material on pp 14-15 is sufficiently short that I include it all here) Geoengineering: Further Research and International Assessment Are Required Geoengineering is no substitute for climate change mitigation. There are many questions that need to be answered about potential irreversibilities, and of the disparities in regional impacts, for example, before geoengineering could be responsibly considered. There has not been a dedicated international assessment of geoengineering. Geoengineering needs a broadly representative, multi-stakeholder assessment performed with the highest standards, based for example on the IPCC model. The foundation for such an assessment has to be much broader with deeper scientific study than there has been a chance to carry out thus far. It may be prudent to consider geo-engineering if irreversible and catastrophic climate impacts cannot be managed with mitigation and adaptation. A governance system for balancing the risks and benefits of geoengineering, and a transparent, broadly consultative consensus decision-making process to determine what risks are acceptable must be developed before any action can be taken. -- 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.
[geo] Biochar - Good, Bad, or Something in Between?
Hi all, Below is a link to an excellent survey of the politics of biochar, titled Land Grabs for Biochar? Narratives and Counter Narratives in Africa's Emerging Biogenic Carbon Sequestration Economy. Hopefully this type of assessment helps moderate extremes on both sides of the biochar debate. http://www.future-agricultures.org/index.php?option=com_docmantask=doc_downloadgid=1091Itemid=510 Josh Horton joshuahorton...@gmail.com http://geoengineeringpolitics.blogspot.com/ -- 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.
[geo] Re: Testing brightwater
There is an additional, very significant difference between bright water (as well as marine cloud brightening) on the one hand, and sulfate aerosols on the other: microbubbles and seawater sprays would be much more socially acceptable to most people than sulfate aerosol injections. I'm willing to bet that the average person in any part of the world would find air bubbles and whiter clouds a lot more benign than sulfur dioxide, regardless of the fact that any sulfur injected would amount to a fraction of current emissions, would mimic natural eruptions, etc. We shouldn't underestimate these sociocultural dimensions, which will influence decisions on testing and deployment. Josh Horton joshuahorton...@gmail.com http://geoengineeringpolitics.blogspot.com/ On Apr 25, 12:17 pm, Nathan Currier natcurr...@gmail.com wrote: The recent bright water discussions are interesting to me partly as a psychological phenomenon. Just as Seitz begins his paper noting the similarity between hydrosols in water and aerosols in air, with hydrosols having their attendant analogues to the “Twomey effect” – similarly complex issues of their size and their effects on light scattering, etc. – so the bright water story starts to seem like a kind of oceanic parallel of the whole stratospheric sulfur story. In their joint piece last year reviewing various geoengineering options (in Issues in Science and Technology, 2010), white surfacing was listed by Keith/Caldeira at the very bottom in order of “likelihood of feasibility at large scale” for all SRM approaches, even below satellites in space. Obviously, it was a minor error in their fine review and was partly just grammatical – spreading white paint is surely more ‘feasible’ than putting reflector shields into outer space – but I think it was also partly a reflection of a common reflex: there is a natural desire to find a geoengineering technique that can have the greatest maximum potential impact and gives the greatest bang for the buck, as quickly as possible. Just as aerosol SRM quickly became a cynosure, bright water now is starting to have a similar kind of fascination and buzz – it could have significant maximum potential, sounds initially like it might not be too costly, and it involves physical issues that are notoriously complex, meaning that one can easily keep one’s eye on the extremely simple and highly desired goal – its potential for lots of cheap, quick cooling – but be unable to draw any precise picture of its negatives and thus to compare it accurately to much more modest proposals. Keith/Caldeira surely meant to say that white surfacing is more limited in its maximum potential impacts than the other SRM techniques they discussed, which is true. But it is clearly much more ‘feasible,’ really at the top of feasibility, of all SRM today, in the sense that there are few objections from anyone to doing it right now, it wouldn’t be very costly, could even save people money and give some modest help to the climate through its SRM and its co-benefit of reduced GHG emissions (biochar is in a somewhat analogous position, and wasn’t mentioned). With a Pacala/Socolow-type approach to stabilization of emissions applied to geoengineering techniques, white surfacing could become an important technique within the mix, one we can start with right away, unlike almost all others, and it might be that the impact it can offer safely might not be that small compared to that of aerosols in the end (and its comparative economics might look pretty good, too, if aerosol ‘collateral damage’ remains a problem). Now then, let’s jump into the ocean – there’s bright water in place of aerosols, and there could be floats just like white surfacing. Just as aerosol SRM seems more dicey the closer one looks at it, there might be all kinds of analogous issues involving the mixing of surface waters and their oxygenation, and surely problems involving biotic impacts are likely to be much more thorny with hydrosols than with aerosols. Meanwhile, simple floats are something like the oceanic equivalent of white roofing, and they seem among the least explored here in these discussions. They are low-tech and they aren’t very sexy, but perhaps floats could be designed to be strung together as ‘artifical ice floes’ to be used in previously iced-over areas or somewhat south of the Bering strait, perhaps taking advantage of differing currents to stay held in gyre-like motions, their surfaces above the water except for their ‘legs,’ allowing heat release, and with hanging “side-teeth” to create windbreak, and the tops having a very high albedo, made from recycled plastics. Compared to white roofing, they would have the advantage that once developed they could be placed in areas of great immediate strategic value for the climate, like the ESAS, or south of it. I guess I’m a bit skeptical about the ‘1,000 windmills’ energy cost in the Seitz paper
[geo] Re: How would you allocate US$10 million per year to most reduce climate risk?
I agree, this would be a grave mistake. There would be no surer way of firing up international political opposition to geoengineering, mobilizing civil society, encouraging suspicion and hostility, even dragging in ENMOD. Imagine how China would react! Whether or not the military has the appropriate capacity, handing it to DARPA would be hugely counterproductive. Josh On Apr 19, 3:39 am, Oliver Morton olivermor...@economist.com wrote: I think giving the whole thing to Darpa would be a great mistake. The symbolism of the D in Darpa would not be lost on international politicians and potential participants (to say nothing of Greenpeace). And I think designing policy specifically to be Anthony-Watts proof is a mug's game. Much better to innovate in another context than to take a Darpa program architecture, and the baggage of the pentgon connections, off the shelf. On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 5:06 AM, rongretlar...@comcast.net wrote: Ken with few ccs 1. Thanks for reporting this $10 M news (and probably for scouting it up) 2. Oliver's note (below) comes closest to my own of the ideas so far put forth. It may be presumptive to assume multi year funding (and anything over $10 million in the first year), but why not assume a continuing effort? I endorse the idea of three parallel SRM efforts. I hope one would be Bright Water - as it has been more on this list recently ((and positively) than any other - and it seems to have special relevance to the Arctic. Oliver's call for some independent efforts is also worthy. 3. Oliver didn't mention the Arctic. I put in my vote for limiting activities to the Alaskan portion of the Arctic. Rationale - Alaska is way ahead of the rest of the country in recognizing something is happening. We can probably do almost nothing soon in Canada, Russia, Greenland, Iceland and Norway - but we should try immediately to get parallel efforts going in all. Some funds should be reserved to encourage their attendance at events. 4. Oliver calls out CDR in the context of some possibilities that are neither CDR or SRM. I would lump these possibilities with CDR and reserve perhaps 15-20% for those. Rationale - need for low cost and speed, but also need buy-in from CDR-folk. Any big activity will suffer politically .if CDR is not coupled with SRM, and if there is not a darn good reason for leaving something out. One option alone would be a disaster, especially if theri effects can be shown to be additive and not duplicative. 5. Oliver mentions DARPA. I think it would (stronger than might) be wise to ask them to lead. Rationale - politics. Few AGW critics (eg Watts) are going to say anything negative about DARPA. In this regard, I see that DARPA met at Stanford in 2009 on this topic - so you should be in a position to know if they would be interested (as a favor to the actual agency with funds). [ http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2009/03/exclusive-milit.html] 6. Carrying politics further, I hope you or someone can soon alert Alaska's 2 R's and 1 D in the Congress. This whole package should not be sold as having anything to do with AGW. All three of the elected representatives seem to agree that temperaures are rising rapidly. in Alaska and they must have some appreciation of pending methane release. None want to talk about causality - and we don't need to either. I believe they would not object strongly to money being spent primarily in Alaska. Your project (everything discussed on this list) needs political cover. If you can get the idea attributed to Rush or Glenn, all the better. Mitt Romney, Tim Pawlenty and Newt Gingrich might even find it politically expedient to weigh in; we are not talking taxes here. 7. Native Americans may/could/should have a role in this - especially as regards CDR use of dead/fallen trees and re-vegetation with high reflectivity biomass. They make up the population most impacted. More political cover. 8. Last is the issue of speed. I hope you are talking about this fiscal year's funding - and it would be great if you/DARPA could have some experimental results by the end of FY11. This will only be possible with something autocratic - and DARPA seems to know how to do that. But they will certainly listen to informal proposals - presumably from teams. One month to do that should be enough - being informal. 9. Re speed and expertise I urge giving the modeling task (mentioned by several) to Prof. Wieslaw Maslowski. I think he is the only modeler (and he has a big team) who has been correctly predicting the timing of an ice-free Arctic (now apparently at 2016 +/- 3 years). See http://www.oc.nps.edu/NAME/Maslowski_CV.htm and http://www.oc.nps.edu/NAME/name.html Having a connection with the US Navy has some other advantages - but those are
[geo] Re: How would you allocate US$10 million per year to most reduce climate risk?
Ken, Here's one suggestion: As a general rule, I would favor SRM over CDR for short-term funding, for a couple of reasons. First, the technical attributes of SRM mean that it would be called upon if there was a need for immediate action - I think CDR has to be viewed as a medium- to long-term strategy. Second, and related, as currently conceived, the deployment of CDR techniques will depend to a great extent on the policy context, in particular the existence of mandatory and robust carbon markets - as we are all aware, these are not likely to develop in the near future. Given this, I would propose splitting funding three ways: - $3.3m for general modeling efforts, tailored to meet needs specific to geoengineering research - this support would benefit both SRM and CDR - $3.3m for stratospheric aerosols - perhaps targeting key issues like variable aerosol effectiveness (nanoparticles?) - good preliminary work exists on delivery systems - $3.3m for marine cloud brightening, probably focused on spray nozzles This rough distribution would spread the wealth in a way that supports basic research while honing in on key technical challenges that must be addressed to mitigate the risk of a climate emergency. Josh Horton On Apr 18, 11:08 am, Ken Caldeira kcalde...@carnegie.stanford.edu wrote: Folks, There is some discussion in DC about making some small amount of public funds available to support SRM and CDR research. In today's funding climate, it is much more likely that someone might be given authority to re-allocate existing budgets than that they would actually be given significantly more money for this effort. Thus, the modest scale. If you were doing strategic planning for a US federal agency, and you were told that you had a budget of $10 million per year and that you should maximize the amount of climate risk reduction obtainable with that $10 million, what would you allocate it to and why? Best, Ken ___ Ken Caldeira Carnegie Institution Dept of Global Ecology 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA +1 650 704 7212 kcalde...@carnegie.stanford.eduhttp://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab @kencaldeira -- 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.
[geo] Re: Global CCS Institute report on bio energy with CCS (BECCS)
Very informative report. I was unaware of the great potential of coupling biofuel/ethanol production with CCS due to the pure CO2 streams resulting from fermentation. With biofuels on the ropes again, this may be a useful way to increase their attractiveness. Josh On Apr 14, 4:46 pm, Ron Larson rongretlar...@comcast.net wrote: Oliver Thanks for forwarding this. I conclude BECCS is ahead of Biochar in a few senses, but Biochar is moving a lot faster. The difference has to be made up in annual, continuing benefits from Biochar - whereas BECCS has mostly costs ( except where EOR is possible). EOR must negate the carbon negativity potential of course. Ron Sent from my iPad On Apr 14, 2011, at 12:04 AM, Oliver Morton olivermor...@economist.com wrote: overview page http://www.globalccsinstitute.com/resources/publications/global-statu... full report http://www.globalccsinstitute.com/sites/default/files/GCCSI_Biorecro_... -- 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 athttp://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. -- 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.
[geo] Re: calling all CDRers
This report gives the impression that the bill is narrowly focused on conventional point-source post-combustion CCS, but note its title: A bill to provide incentives to encourage the development and implementation of technology to capture carbon dioxide from dilute sources on a significant scale using direct air capture technologies. The bill appears to be directed at ambient-air CDR combined with CCS, which is more encouraging from the standpoint of climate engineering. Of course, there is tremendous distance from a bill to a law to implementation to success, so more than a fair amount of skepticism is in order. Josh Horton joshuahorton...@gmail.com http://geoengineeringpolitics.blogspot.com/ On Apr 8, 3:16 pm, Rau, Greg r...@llnl.gov wrote: CLIMATE: Barrasso, Bingaman reintroduce CCS prize bill (04/08/2011) Katie Howell, EE reporter Sens. John Barrasso and Jeff Bingaman yesterday reintroduced their bipartisan measure that would award monetary prizes to researchers who figure out a way to suck carbon dioxide directly from the air. Barrasso, a Republican from Wyoming, and Bingaman, the New Mexico Democrat who chairs the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, first introduced the carbon capture and storage (CCS) legislation last Congress, where it stalled in committee. But Bingaman in recent weeks has targeted CCS as an area with potential for bipartisan cooperation on the committee. Several Republicans, including Barrasso, are co-sponsors of CCS legislation he floated last week (EENews PM, April 1). And yesterday, Bob Simon, the committee's Democratic chief of staff, said, the whole area of carbon capture and storage is one that is ripe for bipartisan cooperation in the Senate. Frankly, if we can make sure, if we can demonstrate that you can economically capture and store carbon dioxide, you dramatically increase the range of technologies you can call clean energy technologies, Simon said yesterday at an event in Washington, D.C. Barrasso and Bingaman's latest bill (S. 757), which is also co-sponsored by Wyoming Republican Sen. Mike Enzi, would encourage development of technology to capture CO2 from the atmosphere and permanently sequester it by establishing a federal commission within the Energy Department to award prizes to scientists and researchers making headway in the field. The commission members, who would be appointed by the president, would be climate scientists, physicists, chemists, engineers, business managers and economists. Prizes would be awarded to innovators who design technology to mop up CO2 and permanently store it. This bill taps into American ingenuity and innovation, Barrasso said in a statement. This will increase America's energy security by ensuring the long-term viability of coal and other sources of traditional energy. Our bill provides the technology to eliminate excess carbon in the atmosphere without eliminating jobs in our communities. But despite Bingaman's optimism about moving CCS legislation this Congress, he said earlier this week that no decisions had been made about when the committee would take up the CCS measures. -- 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.
[geo] AP Story on SRMGI Meeting
AP reports on the recent SRMGI conference here: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110403/ap_on_hi_te/eu_the_sunshade_option Any thoughts or impressions from those of you who might have attended? Josh Horton joshuahorton...@gmail.com http://geoengineeringpolitics.blogspot.com/ -- 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: Fwd: [geo] AP Story on SRMGI Meeting
Yes, but it's hard to see how many of the technologies we talk about can be developed, and their consequences understood, in the absence of a regulatory framework. I don't see how a system such as stratospheric aerosols could be developed, tested, and refined without a facilitative policy context. In practice, experimentation will cross national boundaries, so it's impossible to remove policy and governance aspects from the equation. I'm saying what's been said a million times before, but I think it's important to stress that technology on the scale of geoengineering is inseparable from governance, and they have to be developed together. Josh On Apr 4, 10:12 am, Gregory Benford xbenf...@gmail.com wrote: This seems to have been the usual sort of governance wonks, who don't realize that to make concrete governance decisions you need to know a lot about the technology and how it plays out. Until we do, there's little point to such pontificating. Much like Asilomar. Gregory Benford On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 6:20 AM, Josh Horton joshuahorton...@gmail.comwrote: AP reports on the recent SRMGI conference here: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110403/ap_on_hi_te/eu_the_sunshade_option Any thoughts or impressions from those of you who might have attended? Josh Horton joshuahorton...@gmail.com http://geoengineeringpolitics.blogspot.com/ -- 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.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - -- 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: Cloud Brightening:[geo] Geoengineering at EGU 2011, April 3-8
John, Do you know if these posters will be made available to the public? I am particularly interested in the second one you mention. Josh On Mar 10, 11:38 am, John Latham john.latha...@manchester.ac.uk wrote: Hello All, To answer question posed by John, there are two poster papers on cloud brightening scheduled for EGU. One is concerned with the spray technology work conducted by Armand Neukermans and team. The other is a general review of our work, a la Royal Society oral presentation in November 2010. Alan Gadian will be representing us in Vienna, re both posters. Cheers, John lat...@ucar.edu Quoting John Gorman gorm...@waitrose.com: well done for getting this into the meeting presentations. (Actually You rare in CL1.16 not CL1.6) http://meetingorganizer.copernicus.org/EGU2011/oral_programme/6416 john gorman - Original Message - From: John Nissen To: Geoengineering ; bioc...@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2011 5:56 PM Subject: [geo] Geoengineering at EGU 2011, April 3-8 SRM Geoengineering Monday 04 April, 13:30 to 15:00 http://meetingorganizer.copernicus.org/EGU2011/session/6429/geoengine... Geoengineering schemes have been proposed to temporarily counteract global warming, as nations work to implement mitigation strategies based on reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. Examples include the injection of reflective aerosols into the lower stratosphere, seeding of marine clouds to modify their albedo, and placement of mirrors beyond the atmosphere to deflect incoming sunlight. While this session covers all so-called management techniques of the Earth's radiative budget via processes internal or external to the atmosphere, special emphasis is placed on stratospheric aerosols and the climate impact of volcanic eruptions. Large volcanic eruptions are indeed considered as a natural albeit imperfect anolog for stratospheric aerosol injection. The impact of volcanic eruptions, their influence on atmospheric and ocean chemistry and dynamics as well as on the hydrological and carbon cycle and on vegetation are of high relevance to the session. This session also invites papers describing the most recent scientific and engineering results on global radiation control strategies. Particularly sought are objective and scientifically sound papers describing the feasibility, effectiveness, unintended consequences, risks, costs, and the ethical and political dimensions of global radiation intervention. Authors are encouraged to consider all of the local, regional and global impacts, including predictions of changes in climatological, biological, and socio-economical parameters. Presentations of well-developed designs for laboratory or field experiments relevant as well as data analysis and in-situ and remotes sensing techniques to the topics outlined above are also welcome. CDR Geoengineering Monday 04 April, 13:30 to 17:00 http://meetingorganizer.copernicus.org/EGU2011/session/7037/geoengine... The stabilization of organic matter in terrestrial and marine environments is one of the most ill-defined factors in global element cycles. The total stock of organic carbon in sediments, soils and marine dissolved organic matter (DOM) exceeds the amount of carbon in the atmosphere by orders of magnitude. Yet large uncertainties exist on the rates of and mechanisms behind the turnover of organic carbon on earth. The sequestration of organic carbon is a major research topic for a variety of scientific disciplines. Major technological advances in analytical chemistry, remote sensing or process-based modelling have led to significant advances over the past years. For this session we invite contributions from marine and terrestrial sciences, working with chemical and microbial tools on the stabilization of organic matter in the different environments. Observational and experimental studies are welcome. Scales can range from molecular to global levels and from minutes to hundreds of millions of years. We also invite contributions involving experimental studies on geoengineering in terrestrial and marine environments (for example biochar, microbial carbon pump,...). The main objective of this session is to advance the dialog among the different disciplines and to integrate knowledge of disciplines that traditionally have a low level of information exchange. These are of rather paltry length, as Andrew was fearing they would be [1]. Is anybody in the geoengineering or biochar lists contributing/presenting at EGU? I'm presenting a short paper in CL1.6. Cheers, John [1] http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering/browse_thread/thread/f6... -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To post to this group, send email to
[geo] Re: Geoengineering and U.S. Environmental Laws
Tracy, I found your paper comprehensive and informative, and I think it will serve as a valuable resource going forward. I also think it serves as an important reality check for the geoengineering community. There is much discussion about research guidelines, experimental protocols, and even governance arrangements, but to move from modeling to possible deployment requires overcoming many other obstacles--social, cultural, economic, business, ethical. You do a great job of sketching out the legal landscape that any climate engineering project would encounter in the US. Perhaps this will encourage aspiring geoengineers to set up offshore in less restrictive jurisdictions, as with manufacturing, finance, etc. By the way, you've probably already seen it, but there is a similar though much less thorough discussion of some of these legal issues in the recent CRS report Geoengineering: Governance and Technology Policy (pp. 23-28) - http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R41371.pdf Josh Horton joshuahorton...@gmail.com On Feb 7, 5:20 pm, Mike MacCracken mmacc...@comcast.net wrote: Dear Tracy-- I look forward to reading the article. My first thought is that it would certainly be nice if all US environmental laws also applied to the decision not to take dramatic action to limit greenhouse-induced climate change through mitigation. Massachusetts vs. EPA is a start (as are a couple of other lawsuit victories) as it has prompted the EPA Endangerment Finding (seehttp://www.epa.gov/climatechange/endangerment.html), and the lawsuit against the Am-Ex Bank and the Overseas Private Investment Corporation did lead to a requirement for NEPA, but it is interesting that it might require much more legal consideration for taking action to keep the climate near to what it is than to decide not to take and let the climate keep changing without control. Indeed, starting to try to make sense of all this sounds appropriate. Mike MacCracken On 2/7/11 4:48 PM, Tracy thester0...@gmail.com wrote: I've lurked in this group for quite a while, but I'm now stepping into the light to provide a working paper for your consideration. While this group has usually focused on technical and policy issues, you might have an interest in some of the potential legal battles that could affect climate engineering projects. This working paper discusses how existing U.S. environmental laws can be used to challenge geoengineering research or field tests. U.S. environmental laws have often served as the first line of legal resistance to new technologies (GMOs, nanomaterials), so it struck me as a likely scenario for geoengineering as well. You can access the working paper at tinyurl.com/6e7ejtf . I'd welcome any comments or suggestions. Thanks! ** Tracy Hester Director, Environment, Energy Natural Resource Center Assistant Professor University of Houston Law Center 100 Law Center Houston, Texas 77204 713-743-1152 (office) tdhes...@central.uh.edu web bio: www.law.uh.edu/faculty/thester -- 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.
[geo] Re: FW: A Scientific Summary for Policymakers on Ocean Fertilization
Thanks for passing along Mike. The guide is fairly neutral, but some of its conclusions don't bode well for ocean fertilization - Estimates of the overall efficiency of atmospheric CO2 uptake in response to iron-based ocean fertilization have decreased greatly (by 5 – 20 times) over the past 20 years. Although uncertainties still remain, the amount of carbon that might be taken out of circulation through this technique on a long-term basis (decades to centuries) would seem small in comparison to fossil-fuel emissions (p. 1-2). Doesn't mean OIF can't play a role, but would need to figure as part of a portfolio. Josh Horton joshuahorton...@gmail.com http://geoengineeringpolitics.blogspot.com/ On Jan 25, 10:31 am, Mike MacCracken mmacc...@comcast.net wrote: From: Henrik Enevoldsen [mailto:h.enevold...@bio.ku.dk] Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2011 9:00 AM Subject: RE: A Scientific Summary for Policymakers on Ocean Fertilization ANNOUNCEMENT (for wider distribution as appropriate): Dear friends, A Scientific Summary for Policymakers on Ocean Fertilization, commissioned by the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission of UNESCO and prepared with the assistance of the Surface Ocean Lower Atmosphere Study (SOLAS), is now available through online and in print. The Summary considers the practicalities, opportunities and threats associated with large-scale ocean fertilization. The Summary for Policymakers is available for download athttp://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0019/001906/190674e.pdf To request a print copy please contact Kathy Tedesco at IOC-UNESCO (k.tede...@unesco.org) or Emily Breviere at SOLAS (ebrevi...@ifm-geomar.de). Best regards, Henrik EnevoldsenIntergovernmental Oceanographic Commission of UNESCO image.gif 1KViewDownload -- 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.