Re: [geo] On why we'll very likely need climate engineering

[Mike MacCracken]

 heading to a 2
>>> to 4 C climate with its uncertainties; and the costs of climate engineering
>>> may well be a good bit less than mitigation‹though mitigation costs do seem
>>> to be dropping), I would generally agree with your logic when one assumes
>>> rational leaders and policymakers thinking in terms of long-term interests
>>> and rights and idealized situations (e.g., no vested interests effectively
>>> pushing their views). Unfortunately, it is not at all clear to me that these
>>> (and some related) assumptions are valid, at least based on actions that
>>> seemingly rational leaders are taking, much less ones that are focused more
>>> on ideology than rational thinking. It seems to me this situation could
>>> perhaps be achieved with an approach that is relatively robust to the
>>> particular foibles of those making the decisions (e.g., a really aggressive
>>> energy technology development effort that makes the cost of transitioning
>>> energy systems less than the cost of staying as we are‹a situation that
>>> might well be achieved with a reasonable carbon tax with substantial
>>> resources devoted to the transition), but getting to this type of solution
>>> is also problematic. And so, given all that is at risk and the behavior of
>>> the leaders that we are seeing (so, for example in the US, leasing public
>>>  lands for coal mining and the Arctic seabed for drilling), it becomes hard
>>> to see how at least some climate engineering is not inevitable as a means to
>>> reduce overall suffering and loss.
>>>  
>>>  Mike MacCracken
>>>  
>>>  
>>>  On 6/2/15, 7:46 PM, "Jon Lawhead" http://lawh...@usc.edu>
>>> > wrote:
>>>  
>>>   
>>>> As a philosopher working on this issue, it seems to me that this provides a
>>>> really strong argument in favor of focused attention on mitigation. 
>>>> There's at least some degree of popular perception that geoengineering
>>>> provides a "fail safe" for fixing the climate if/when we fail to
>>>> successfully implement sufficient mitigation policies.  In some cases, this
>>>> leads to more lukewarm (or downright cold) support for mitigation than it
>>>> otherwise would have.  Philosophers and social scientists call this a
>>>> "moral hazard."
>>>>  
>>>>  But it seems to me that this position isn't just wrong--it's exactly
>>>> backward.  If a failure to adequately mitigate climate change means that
>>>> our only recourse will be geoengineering, that's a very strong reason to
>>>> mitigate early and mitigate often.  The costs associated with
>>>> geoengineering--both in terms of financial commitments and in terms of
>>>> potentially dangerous side-effects--are just too numerous for it to be
>>>> reasonable to think of a large-scale geoengineering program as a "fail
>>>> safe."  I think we would do well to work harder to promulgate that message
>>>> more widely and more forcefully than we do now.
>>>>  
>>>>  Naturally,
>>>>  
>>>>  Jon Lawhead, PhD
>>>>  Postdoctoral Research Fellow
>>>>  University of Southern California
>>>>  Philosophy and Earth Sciences
>>>>  
>>>>  3651 Trousdale Parkway 
>>>>  Zumberge Hall of Science, 223D
>>>>  Los Angeles, CA 90089-0740
>>>>  
>>>>  http://www.realityapologist.com <http://www.realityapologist.com/>
>>>>  
>>>>  On Sun, May 31, 2015 at 11:55 AM, Greg Rau >>> <http://gh...@sbcglobal.net> > wrote:
>>>>   
>>>>> Amen, Mike. Given this dangerous trajectory, I'd say it's time for another
>>>>> reading from our experts on the ethics of alternative climate management
>>>>> methods. And I don't mean adaptation.
>>>>>  Greg
>>>>>  
>>>>>  On Sun, 5/31/15, Mike MacCracken >>>> <http://mmacc...@comcast.net> > wrote:
>>>>>  
>>>>>   Subject: [geo] On why we'll very likely need climate engineering
>>>>>   To: "Geoengineering" >>>> <http://Geoengineering@googlegroups.com> >
>>>>>   Date: Sunday, May 31, 2015, 10:28 AM
>>>>>  
>>>>>   For those who argue that it is best
>>>>>   to keep relying on mi

Re: [geo] On why we'll very likely need climate engineering

[Adrian Tuck]

Here’s another from Albert Einstein: I have only two candidates for infinity, 
the universe and human stupidity, and I’m not sure about the universe. After 
two world wars, and with current examples like IS and the Tea Party, it’s hard 
to feel optimistic, with the world’s sociopaths concentrated in legislatures 
and boardrooms. There seems to be a fairly widespread impression that it’s the 
planet that’s under threat from fossil fuel burning. It isn’t, it’s us and our 
descendants. On any time scale longer than the 3 million year geological flea 
bite “we” have been around, the planet will roll along just fine without us or 
with our possibly chastened survivors for another 4.5 billion years, until it’s 
fried to a crisp as the sun becomes a red giant.


Adrian Tuck
 
'ATMOSPHERIC TURBULENCE: A Molecular Dynamics Perspective'.
Oxford University Press, 2008. ISBN 978-0-19-923653-4.
http://www.oup.com/uk/catalogue/?ci=9780199236534
 
***




On 11 Jun 2015, at 18:37, Greg Rau  wrote:

> Thanks, Veli, for the sweeping historical explanation of our ills.  At times 
> like this I turn to Erasmus's contemporary, Machiavelli,  to sum things up:
> "It ought to be remembered that there is nothing more difficult to take in 
> hand, more perilous to conduct, or more uncertain in its success, than to 
> take the lead in the introduction of a new order of things. Because the 
> innovator has for enemies all those who have done well under the old 
> conditions, and lukewarm defenders in those who may do well under the new. 
> This coolness arises partly from fear of the opponents, who have the laws on 
> their side, and partly from the incredulity of men, who do not readily 
> believe in new things until they have had a long experience of them."  
> Machiavelli, The Prince (1513) 
> 
> to which some corollaries can be added:
> “Problems cannot be solved at the same level of awareness that created them.”
> - Albert Einstein
> 
> “A technological society has two choices. First it can wait until 
> catastrophic failures expose systemic deficiencies, distortion and 
> self-deceptions... Secondly, a culture can provide social checks and balances 
> to correct for systemic distortion prior to catastrophic failures.”
> - Mahatma Gandhi
> 
> In a time of universal deceit — telling the truth is a revolutionary act. - 
> George Orwell
> 
> 
> Greg
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------
> On Tue, 6/2/15, Veli Albert Kallio  wrote:
> 
> Subject: RE: [geo] On why we'll very likely need climate engineering
> To: "Professor Mike MacCracken" , "David Hawkins" 
> 
> Cc: "rongretlar...@comcast.net" , "Geoengineering 
> FIPC" , "Mursalin Binte Monnaf" 
> 
> Date: Tuesday, June 2, 2015, 7:16 PM
> 
> #yiv7087512149
> #yiv7087512149 --
> .yiv7087512149hmmessage P
> {
> margin:0px;padding:0px;}
> #yiv7087512149 body.yiv7087512149hmmessage
> {
> font-size:12pt;font-family:Calibri;}
> #yiv7087512149  
>  
> http://motherboard.vice.com/read/the-10-billion-tons-of-coal-that-could-erase-obamas-progress-on-climate-change
> (The above link appeared fractured and as now
> above will connect to the site as intended)
>  
>  
> Motherboard: May 29, 2015 // 03:55 EST. 
> 
> "Some 10.2
> billion tons of coal, sitting on 106,00 acres of public
> land, have been authorized for sale by the Obama
> administration today. The Department of the Interior has
> released its Regional Management Plan for the Wyoming Powder
> River Basin, and in terms of the climate, it's ugly
> news. The region is home to the nation's largest coal
> field, and these 28 new coal leases mean a trully massive
> stock of pure carbon is about to be mined, for cheap."
> 
> 
> To Mike
> MacCracken's comment:
>  
> "The [Obama] Administration
> could have acceded to their calls for a high quality
> environmental review of the consequences of such leasing (so
> including GHG effect), but instead they have fought those
> lawsuits and rely on a really outdated EIS (their analysis
> starts on page 4-130--and is only a few pages long). Or they
> could have imposed the social cost of carbon as an
> additional fee if one wants to use the free market system to
> level the field across technologies--but no, leases would be
> at very low prices.  So, first, the criticism that those of
> us favour geoengineering first are just wrong--we've
> been fighting hard for mitigation. But decisions like this
> keep coming, and I would suggest have nothing to do with
> whether geoengineering might or might not help. So, we keep
> having to go deeper and deeper in to the barrel

RE: [geo] On why we'll very likely need climate engineering

[Greg Rau]

Thanks, Veli, for the sweeping historical explanation of our ills.  At times 
like this I turn to Erasmus's contemporary, Machiavelli,  to sum things up:
"It ought to be remembered that there is nothing more difficult to take in 
hand, more perilous to conduct, or more uncertain in its success, than to take 
the lead in the introduction of a new order of things. Because the innovator 
has for enemies all those who have done well under the old conditions, and 
lukewarm defenders in those who may do well under the new. This coolness arises 
partly from fear of the opponents, who have the laws on their side, and partly 
from the incredulity of men, who do not readily believe in new things until 
they have had a long experience of them."  Machiavelli, The Prince (1513) 

to which some corollaries can be added:
“Problems cannot be solved at the same level of awareness that created them.”
- Albert Einstein

“A technological society has two choices. First it can wait until catastrophic 
failures expose systemic deficiencies, distortion and self-deceptions... 
Secondly, a culture can provide social checks and balances to correct for 
systemic distortion prior to catastrophic failures.”
- Mahatma Gandhi

In a time of universal deceit — telling the truth is a revolutionary act. - 
George Orwell


Greg




On Tue, 6/2/15, Veli Albert Kallio  wrote:

 Subject: RE: [geo] On why we'll very likely need climate engineering
 To: "Professor Mike MacCracken" , "David Hawkins" 

 Cc: "rongretlar...@comcast.net" , "Geoengineering 
FIPC" , "Mursalin Binte Monnaf" 

 Date: Tuesday, June 2, 2015, 7:16 PM
 
 #yiv7087512149
 #yiv7087512149 --
 .yiv7087512149hmmessage P
 {
 margin:0px;padding:0px;}
 #yiv7087512149 body.yiv7087512149hmmessage
 {
 font-size:12pt;font-family:Calibri;}
 #yiv7087512149  
  
 
http://motherboard.vice.com/read/the-10-billion-tons-of-coal-that-could-erase-obamas-progress-on-climate-change
 (The above link appeared fractured and as now
 above will connect to the site as intended)
  
  
 Motherboard: May 29, 2015 // 03:55 EST. 
 
 "Some 10.2
 billion tons of coal, sitting on 106,00 acres of public
 land, have been authorized for sale by the Obama
 administration today. The Department of the Interior has
 released its Regional Management Plan for the Wyoming Powder
 River Basin, and in terms of the climate, it's ugly
 news. The region is home to the nation's largest coal
 field, and these 28 new coal leases mean a trully massive
 stock of pure carbon is about to be mined, for cheap."
 
 
 To Mike
 MacCracken's comment:
  
 "The [Obama] Administration
 could have acceded to their calls for a high quality
 environmental review of the consequences of such leasing (so
 including GHG effect), but instead they have fought those
 lawsuits and rely on a really outdated EIS (their analysis
 starts on page 4-130--and is only a few pages long). Or they
 could have imposed the social cost of carbon as an
 additional fee if one wants to use the free market system to
 level the field across technologies--but no, leases would be
 at very low prices.  So, first, the criticism that those of
 us favour geoengineering first are just wrong--we've
 been fighting hard for mitigation. But decisions like this
 keep coming, and I would suggest have nothing to do with
 whether geoengineering might or might not help. So, we keep
 having to go deeper and deeper in to the barrel to try to
 find some way to slow the devastating consequences of
 warming lying ahead. Second, given decisions like this by
 the US, no wonder the rest of the world is not yet really
 making commitments that are strong enough to make a
 difference for the future. Truly embarrassing decision--it
 makes all the clamour over stopping the Keystone pipeline to
 limit tar sands development ring very hollow."
 
 The President Obama's
 decision to go ahead with the massive further expansion of
 coal indusrty with this latest project is based on pure
 political expediency keeping in mind the next Presidential
 elections the Democrats want to win. As the United States
 administration is continuously exchanging hands between the
 Democrat and the Republican administrations in perpetually
 repetitive rounds, much of the environmental progress
 President Obama has put down using his Executive Orders will
 be struck down by the subsequent Republican administrations
 and Obama has been made aware of this through the Republican
 Tea Party.
 
  The right wing
 Tea Party wants to refocus NASA's operations from all
 earth monitoring activities to the hocus pocus of deep space
 exploration - and the wonderful wonders the sending of
 satellite cameras can bring about our planetary
 neighbourhood in our solar system. NASA's re-focus from
 the low orbit operations solely to deep space manned and
 unmanned exploration -

RE: [geo] On why we'll very likely need climate engineering

[Veli Albert Kallio]

of warm high latitude oceans] which 
runaway tight feedback loop was ended by the sea level drop destabilising 
methane clathrates then driving the snow back to oceans and ultimately 
stabilising the system instability by the onset of Holocene. I cannot give more 
sussinct desription of our own political efforts to try to alter the 
disasterous and locked in course where our world has been put by the leading 
elites. In this kind of work we have been attacked by many kinds of oil and 
other interests, and also the scientific community that jealously tries to 
defend its own corner. 

Our immediate hope is best set to wish that the Pope Frances' Papal encyclical 
is changing the course within establishments, and perhaps after that the 
countries like Indonesia, India, China and Brazil will increasingly understand 
that a crash is inevitable if we all want to fly holidays abroad, drive cars 
indefinite miles, have cruises over the oceans etc. Today 10% of Chinese own 
their own car and soon India and Indonesia follow. Already bicycles have gone 
into bin and been replaced by motorcycles. No one will agree to curtail the 
increasing use of these while the West have given them the economic initiative 
and model of mimicry. Any politician will lose his post straightaway. Because 
of these constraints and the growing populations, geoengineering is the next 
best try!

Many thanks Mike rising the points, and hope the above observations would help 
you to clarify the reasons why the things are as they are...

 
> Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2015 20:53:36 -0400
> Subject: Re: [geo] On why we'll very likely need climate engineering
> From: mmacc...@comcast.net
> To: dhawk...@nrdc.org
> CC: rongretlar...@comcast.net; Geoengineering@googlegroups.com
> 
> So far I've been unable to download the files at the BLM site and look at
> their very lengthy materials, but it was possible to do a search on the
> draft, and (no guarantees I did it right) I did not find a single mention of
> "climate" or "carbon dioxide". That, I think, gives a hint at how much they
> care about the President's Plan and the global situation.
> 
> Mike
> 
> 
> On 6/2/15, 8:44 PM, "David Hawkins"  wrote:
> 
> > Thanks for sending this chapter. One indicator of its sloppiness is that it
> > stops its description of proposed legislation IN THE U.S. Congress in 2009,
> > ignoring what happened in the six years since then.
> > 
> > Sent from my iPad
> > 
> > On May 31, 2015, at 7:45 PM, Mike MacCracken
> > mailto:mmacc...@comcast.net>> wrote:
> > 
> > See attachment
> > 
> > 
> > On 5/31/15, 6:05 PM, "Ronal W. Larson"  wrote:
> > 
> > Mike  cc List
> > 
> > I have a few friends deeply involved in this issue - and agree that a 
> > travesty
> > is going on here, and worth making a noise about as this dwarfs EPA¹s Clean
> > Power Plan activities.  I have found some very lengthy documents just 
> > released
> > late last week on this - but can¹t find anything resembling the reference 
> > you
> > make to ³page 4-130².  Can you give a more specific citation?
> > 
> > The one I found (almost 3000 pages) is at:
> > https://www.blm.gov/epl-front-office/projects/lup/36597/58409/63200/BFO_PRMP-F
> > EIS.pdf
> > 
> > Ron
> > 
> > 
> > On May 31, 2015, at 11:28 AM, Mike MacCracken  wrote:
> > 
> > For those who argue that it is best to keep relying on mitigation as the
> > only acceptable approach, it is because of disgraceful decisions such as
> > described in:
> > 
> > http://motherboard.vice.com/read/the-10-billion-tons-of-coal-that-could-eras
> > e-obamas-progress-on-climate-change
> > 
> > that this will be the case. I've done declarations for a couple of lawsuits
> > trying to fight the leasing of such coal lands. The Administration could
> > have acceded to their calls for a high quality environmental review of the
> > consequences of such leasing (so including GHG effect), but instead they
> > have fought those lawsuits and rely on a really outdated EIS (their analysis
> > starts on page 4-130--and is only a few pages long). Or they could have
> > imposed the social cost of carbon as an additional fee if one wants to use
> > the free market system to level the field across technologies--but no,
> > leases would be at very low prices.
> > 
> > So, first, the criticism that those of us favor geoengineering first are
> > just wrong--we've been fighting hard for mitigation. But decisions like this
> > keep coming, and I would suggest have nothing to do with whether
> > geoengineering might or might not help. So, we keep havi

Re: [geo] On why we'll very likely need climate engineering

[David Lewis]

The House bill requires all Federal agencies to ignore indications of 
future accelerated sea level rise.  The House wants all new Federal 
facilities to be built on the assumption that future flood risk will be the 
same as the flood risk of the last 100 years. 

Rob Moore, head of the water and climate team at the Natural Resources 
Defense Council: "We thought a lot of these people were fiscal 
conservatives, but apparently they support the idea of building things so 
they can be knocked down and we can build them again."


On Wednesday, June 3, 2015 at 5:36:42 AM UTC-7, Mike MacCracken wrote:
>
>  And if you want to get a sense of how the US Congress is facing up to 
> climate change, I’ve attached a letter from the head of OMB back to the 
> chair of one of the Senate committees on their actions on the energy and 
> water parts of the budget.
>

-- 
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] On why we'll very likely need climate engineering

[John Latham]

wrote:
>
> Dear Jon—While I think you overstate the situation with climate
> engineering in terms of both uncertainties and costs (i.e., keeping the
> climate roughly as it is likely has fewer uncertainties that heading to a 2
> to 4 C climate with its uncertainties; and the costs of climate engineering
> may well be a good bit less than mitigation—though mitigation costs do seem
> to be dropping), I would generally agree with your logic when one assumes
> rational leaders and policymakers thinking in terms of long-term interests
> and rights and idealized situations (e.g., no vested interests effectively
> pushing their views). Unfortunately, it is not at all clear to me that
> these (and some related) assumptions are valid, at least based on actions
> that seemingly rational leaders are taking, much less ones that are focused
> more on ideology than rational thinking. It seems to me this situation
> could perhaps be achieved with an approach that is relatively robust to the
> particular foibles of those making the decisions (e.g., a really aggressive
> energy technology development effort that makes the cost of transitioning
> energy systems less than the cost of staying as we are—a situation that
> might well be achieved with a reasonable carbon tax with substantial
> resources devoted to the transition), but getting to this type of solution
> is also problematic. And so, given all that is at risk and the behavior of
> the leaders that we are seeing (so, for example in the US, leasing public
>  lands for coal mining and the Arctic seabed for drilling), it becomes hard
> to see how at least some climate engineering is not inevitable as a means
> to reduce overall suffering and loss.
>
> Mike MacCracken
>
>
> On 6/2/15, 7:46 PM, "Jon Lawhead"  wrote:
>
>  As a philosopher working on this issue, it seems to me that this
> provides a really strong argument in favor of focused attention on
> mitigation.  There's at least some degree of popular perception that
> geoengineering provides a "fail safe" for fixing the climate if/when we
> fail to successfully implement sufficient mitigation policies.  In some
> cases, this leads to more lukewarm (or downright cold) support for
> mitigation than it otherwise would have.  Philosophers and social
> scientists call this a "moral hazard."
>
> But it seems to me that this position isn't just wrong--it's exactly
> backward.  If a failure to adequately mitigate climate change means that
> our only recourse will be geoengineering, that's a *very* strong reason
> to mitigate early and mitigate often.  The costs associated with
> geoengineering--both in terms of financial commitments and in terms of
> potentially dangerous side-effects--are just too numerous for it to be
> reasonable to think of a large-scale geoengineering program as a "fail
> safe."  I think we would do well to work harder to promulgate that message
> more widely and more forcefully than we do now.
>
> Naturally,
>
> Jon Lawhead, PhD
> Postdoctoral Research Fellow
> University of Southern California
> Philosophy and Earth Sciences
>
> 3651 Trousdale Parkway
> Zumberge Hall of Science, 223D
> Los Angeles, CA 90089-0740
>
> http://www.realityapologist.com <http://www.realityapologist.com/>
>
> On Sun, May 31, 2015 at 11:55 AM, Greg Rau  wrote:
>
> Amen, Mike. Given this dangerous trajectory, I'd say it's time for another
> reading from our experts on the ethics of alternative climate management
> methods. And I don't mean adaptation.
> Greg
> 
> On Sun, 5/31/15, Mike MacCracken  wrote:
>
>  Subject: [geo] On why we'll very likely need climate engineering
>  To: "Geoengineering" 
>  Date: Sunday, May 31, 2015, 10:28 AM
>
>  For those who argue that it is best
>  to keep relying on mitigation as the
>  only acceptable approach, it is because of disgraceful
>  decisions such as
>  described in:
>
>
> http://motherboard.vice.com/read/the-10-billion-tons-of-coal-that-could-eras
>  e-obamas-progress-on-climate-change
>
>  that this will be the case. I've done declarations for a
>  couple of lawsuits
>  trying to fight the leasing of such coal lands. The
>  Administration could
>  have acceded to their calls for a high quality environmental
>  review of the
>  consequences of such leasing (so including GHG effect), but
>  instead they
>  have fought those lawsuits and rely on a really outdated EIS
>  (their analysis
>  starts on page 4-130--and is only a few pages long). Or they
>  could have
>  imposed the social cost of carbon as an additional fee if
>  one wants to use
>  the f

Re: [geo] On why we'll very likely need climate engineering

[Andrew Lockley]

lopment effort that makes the cost of transitioning energy systems
> less
> >> than the cost of staying as we are‹a situation that might well be
> achieved
> >> with a reasonable carbon tax with substantial resources devoted to the
> >> transition), but getting to this type of solution is also problematic.
> And
> >> so, given all that is at risk and the behavior of the leaders that we
> are
> >> seeing (so, for example in the US, leasing public  lands for coal
> mining and
> >> the Arctic seabed for drilling), it becomes hard to see how at least
> some
> >> climate engineering is not inevitable as a means to reduce overall
> suffering
> >> and loss.
> >>
> >> Mike MacCracken
> >>
> >>
> >> On 6/2/15, 7:46 PM, "Jon Lawhead"  http://lawh...@usc.edu>>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> As a philosopher working on this issue, it seems to me that this
> provides a
> >> really strong argument in favor of focused attention on mitigation.
> There's
> >> at least some degree of popular perception that geoengineering provides
> a
> >> "fail safe" for fixing the climate if/when we fail to successfully
> implement
> >> sufficient mitigation policies.  In some cases, this leads to more
> lukewarm
> >> (or downright cold) support for mitigation than it otherwise would have.
> >> Philosophers and social scientists call this a "moral hazard."
> >>
> >> But it seems to me that this position isn't just wrong--it's exactly
> >> backward.  If a failure to adequately mitigate climate change means
> that our
> >> only recourse will be geoengineering, that's a very strong reason to
> mitigate
> >> early and mitigate often.  The costs associated with
> geoengineering--both in
> >> terms of financial commitments and in terms of potentially dangerous
> >> side-effects--are just too numerous for it to be reasonable to think of
> a
> >> large-scale geoengineering program as a "fail safe."  I think we would
> do
> >> well to work harder to promulgate that message more widely and more
> >> forcefully than we do now.
> >>
> >> Naturally,
> >>
> >> Jon Lawhead, PhD
> >> Postdoctoral Research Fellow
> >> University of Southern California
> >> Philosophy and Earth Sciences
> >>
> >> 3651 Trousdale Parkway
> >> Zumberge Hall of Science, 223D
> >> Los Angeles, CA 90089-0740
> >>
> >> http://www.realityapologist.com <http://www.realityapologist.com/>
> >>
> >> On Sun, May 31, 2015 at 11:55 AM, Greg Rau
> >> http://gh...@sbcglobal.net>> wrote:
> >> Amen, Mike. Given this dangerous trajectory, I'd say it's time for
> another
> >> reading from our experts on the ethics of alternative climate management
> >> methods. And I don't mean adaptation.
> >> Greg
> >> 
> >> On Sun, 5/31/15, Mike MacCracken
> >> http://mmacc...@comcast.net>> wrote:
> >>
> >> Subject: [geo] On why we'll very likely need climate engineering
> >> To: "Geoengineering"
> >> http://Geoengineering@googlegroups.com
> >>
> >> Date: Sunday, May 31, 2015, 10:28 AM
> >>
> >> For those who argue that it is best
> >> to keep relying on mitigation as the
> >> only acceptable approach, it is because of disgraceful
> >> decisions such as
> >> described in:
> >>
> >>
> http://motherboard.vice.com/read/the-10-billion-tons-of-coal-that-could-eras
> >> e-obamas-progress-on-climate-change
> >>
> >> that this will be the case. I've done declarations for a
> >> couple of lawsuits
> >> trying to fight the leasing of such coal lands. The
> >> Administration could
> >> have acceded to their calls for a high quality environmental
> >> review of the
> >> consequences of such leasing (so including GHG effect), but
> >> instead they
> >> have fought those lawsuits and rely on a really outdated EIS
> >> (their analysis
> >> starts on page 4-130--and is only a few pages long). Or they
> >> could have
> >> imposed the social cost of carbon as an additional fee if
> >> one wants to use
> >> the free market system to level the field across
> >> technologies--but no,
> >> leases would be at very low prices.
> >>
> >>

Re: [geo] On why we'll very likely need climate engineering

[Mike MacCracken]

 System²), 38, 162-185.
>> 
>> Don't you think that the more we look at geoengineering, the more it is clear
>> that it will not be a solution, and the more imperative mitigation is?  I
>> agree that Obama, who is the best President ever on this subject, could be
>> doing much more.  This just means he needs more pushing, and the Chinese and
>> Indians need to agree to take strong steps.  We're certainly not there yet,
>> but let's not tell them that geoengineering will give them an out.
>> 
>> Alan
>> 
>> 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<mailto:rob...@envsci.rutgers.edu>
>> 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 6/2/2015 8:29 PM, Mike MacCracken wrote:
>> Dear Jon‹While I think you overstate the situation with climate engineering
>> in terms of both uncertainties and costs (i.e., keeping the climate roughly
>> as it is likely has fewer uncertainties that heading to a 2 to 4 C climate
>> with its uncertainties; and the costs of climate engineering may well be a
>> good bit less than mitigation‹though mitigation costs do seem to be
>> dropping), I would generally agree with your logic when one assumes rational
>> leaders and policymakers thinking in terms of long-term interests and rights
>> and idealized situations (e.g., no vested interests effectively pushing their
>> views). Unfortunately, it is not at all clear to me that these (and some
>> related) assumptions are valid, at least based on actions that seemingly
>> rational leaders are taking, much less ones that are focused more on ideology
>> than rational thinking. It seems to me this situation could perhaps be
>> achieved with an approach that is relatively robust to the particular foibles
>> of those making the decisions (e.g., a really aggressive energy technology
>> development effort that makes the cost of transitioning energy systems less
>> than the cost of staying as we are‹a situation that might well be achieved
>> with a reasonable carbon tax with substantial resources devoted to the
>> transition), but getting to this type of solution is also problematic. And
>> so, given all that is at risk and the behavior of the leaders that we are
>> seeing (so, for example in the US, leasing public  lands for coal mining and
>> the Arctic seabed for drilling), it becomes hard to see how at least some
>> climate engineering is not inevitable as a means to reduce overall suffering
>> and loss.
>> 
>> Mike MacCracken
>> 
>> 
>> On 6/2/15, 7:46 PM, "Jon Lawhead" http://lawh...@usc.edu>>
>> wrote:
>> 
>> As a philosopher working on this issue, it seems to me that this provides a
>> really strong argument in favor of focused attention on mitigation.  There's
>> at least some degree of popular perception that geoengineering provides a
>> "fail safe" for fixing the climate if/when we fail to successfully implement
>> sufficient mitigation policies.  In some cases, this leads to more lukewarm
>> (or downright cold) support for mitigation than it otherwise would have.
>> Philosophers and social scientists call this a "moral hazard."
>> 
>> But it seems to me that this position isn't just wrong--it's exactly
>> backward.  If a failure to adequately mitigate climate change means that our
>> only recourse will be geoengineering, that's a very strong reason to mitigate
>> early and mitigate often.  The costs associated with geoengineering--both in
>> terms of financial commitments and in terms of potentially dangerous
>> side-effects--are just too numerous for it to be reasonable to think of a
>> large-scale geoengineering program as a "fail safe."  I think we would do
>> well to work harder to promulgate that message more widely and more
>> forcefully than we do now.
>> 
>> Naturally,
>> 
>> Jon Lawhead, PhD
>> Postdoctoral Research Fellow
>> University of Southern California
>> Philosophy and Earth Sciences
>> 
>> 3651 Trousdale Parkway
>> Zumberge Hall of Science, 223D
>> Los Angeles, CA 900

Re: [geo] On why we'll very likely need climate engineering

[Hawkins, Dave]

ion that geoengineering provides a 
> "fail safe" for fixing the climate if/when we fail to successfully implement 
> sufficient mitigation policies.  In some cases, this leads to more lukewarm 
> (or downright cold) support for mitigation than it otherwise would have.  
> Philosophers and social scientists call this a "moral hazard."
> 
> But it seems to me that this position isn't just wrong--it's exactly 
> backward.  If a failure to adequately mitigate climate change means that our 
> only recourse will be geoengineering, that's a very strong reason to mitigate 
> early and mitigate often.  The costs associated with geoengineering--both in 
> terms of financial commitments and in terms of potentially dangerous 
> side-effects--are just too numerous for it to be reasonable to think of a 
> large-scale geoengineering program as a "fail safe."  I think we would do 
> well to work harder to promulgate that message more widely and more 
> forcefully than we do now.
> 
> Naturally,
> 
> Jon Lawhead, PhD
> Postdoctoral Research Fellow
> University of Southern California
> Philosophy and Earth Sciences
> 
> 3651 Trousdale Parkway
> Zumberge Hall of Science, 223D
> Los Angeles, CA 90089-0740
> 
> http://www.realityapologist.com <http://www.realityapologist.com/>
> 
> On Sun, May 31, 2015 at 11:55 AM, Greg Rau 
> http://gh...@sbcglobal.net>> wrote:
> Amen, Mike. Given this dangerous trajectory, I'd say it's time for another 
> reading from our experts on the ethics of alternative climate management 
> methods. And I don't mean adaptation.
> Greg
> 
> On Sun, 5/31/15, Mike MacCracken 
> http://mmacc...@comcast.net>> wrote:
> 
> Subject: [geo] On why we'll very likely need climate engineering
> To: "Geoengineering" 
> http://Geoengineering@googlegroups.com>>
> Date: Sunday, May 31, 2015, 10:28 AM
> 
> For those who argue that it is best
> to keep relying on mitigation as the
> only acceptable approach, it is because of disgraceful
> decisions such as
> described in:
> 
> http://motherboard.vice.com/read/the-10-billion-tons-of-coal-that-could-eras
> e-obamas-progress-on-climate-change
> 
> that this will be the case. I've done declarations for a
> couple of lawsuits
> trying to fight the leasing of such coal lands. The
> Administration could
> have acceded to their calls for a high quality environmental
> review of the
> consequences of such leasing (so including GHG effect), but
> instead they
> have fought those lawsuits and rely on a really outdated EIS
> (their analysis
> starts on page 4-130--and is only a few pages long). Or they
> could have
> imposed the social cost of carbon as an additional fee if
> one wants to use
> the free market system to level the field across
> technologies--but no,
> leases would be at very low prices.
> 
> So, first, the criticism that those of us favor
> geoengineering first are
> just wrong--we've been fighting hard for mitigation. But
> decisions like this
> keep coming, and I would suggest have nothing to do with
> whether
> geoengineering might or might not help. So, we keep having
> to go deeper and
> deeper in to the barrel to try to find some way to slow the
> devastating
> consequences of warming lying ahead.
> 
> Second, given decisions like this by the US, no wonder the
> rest of the world
> is not yet really making commitments that are strong enough
> to make a
> difference for the future. Truly embarrassing decision--it
> makes all the
> clamor over stopping the Keystone pipeline to limit tar
> sands development
> ring very hollow.
> 
> Mike MacCracken
> 
> --
> 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<http://geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>
>  <mailto:geoengineering%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com> .
> To post to this group, send email to 
> geoengineering@googlegroups.com<http://geoengineering@googlegroups.com>.
> Visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
> 
> 
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "geoengineering" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to 
> geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com<http://geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>
> 

Re: [geo] On why we'll very likely need climate engineering

[Mike MacCracken]

So far I've been unable to download the files at the BLM site and look at
their very lengthy materials, but it was possible to do a search on the
draft, and (no guarantees I did it right) I did not find a single mention of
"climate" or "carbon dioxide". That, I think, gives a hint at how much they
care about the President's Plan and the global situation.

Mike


On 6/2/15, 8:44 PM, "David Hawkins"  wrote:

> Thanks for sending this chapter. One indicator of its sloppiness is that it
> stops its description of proposed legislation IN THE U.S. Congress in 2009,
> ignoring what happened in the six years since then.
> 
> Sent from my iPad
> 
> On May 31, 2015, at 7:45 PM, Mike MacCracken
> mailto:mmacc...@comcast.net>> wrote:
> 
> See attachment
> 
> 
> On 5/31/15, 6:05 PM, "Ronal W. Larson"  wrote:
> 
> Mike  cc List
> 
> I have a few friends deeply involved in this issue - and agree that a travesty
> is going on here, and worth making a noise about as this dwarfs EPA¹s Clean
> Power Plan activities.  I have found some very lengthy documents just released
> late last week on this - but can¹t find anything resembling the reference you
> make to ³page 4-130².  Can you give a more specific citation?
> 
> The one I found (almost 3000 pages) is at:
> https://www.blm.gov/epl-front-office/projects/lup/36597/58409/63200/BFO_PRMP-F
> EIS.pdf
> 
> Ron
> 
> 
> On May 31, 2015, at 11:28 AM, Mike MacCracken  wrote:
> 
> For those who argue that it is best to keep relying on mitigation as the
> only acceptable approach, it is because of disgraceful decisions such as
> described in:
> 
> http://motherboard.vice.com/read/the-10-billion-tons-of-coal-that-could-eras
> e-obamas-progress-on-climate-change
> 
> that this will be the case. I've done declarations for a couple of lawsuits
> trying to fight the leasing of such coal lands. The Administration could
> have acceded to their calls for a high quality environmental review of the
> consequences of such leasing (so including GHG effect), but instead they
> have fought those lawsuits and rely on a really outdated EIS (their analysis
> starts on page 4-130--and is only a few pages long). Or they could have
> imposed the social cost of carbon as an additional fee if one wants to use
> the free market system to level the field across technologies--but no,
> leases would be at very low prices.
> 
> So, first, the criticism that those of us favor geoengineering first are
> just wrong--we've been fighting hard for mitigation. But decisions like this
> keep coming, and I would suggest have nothing to do with whether
> geoengineering might or might not help. So, we keep having to go deeper and
> deeper in to the barrel to try to find some way to slow the devastating
> consequences of warming lying ahead.
> 
> Second, given decisions like this by the US, no wonder the rest of the world
> is not yet really making commitments that are strong enough to make a
> difference for the future. Truly embarrassing decision--it makes all the
> clamor over stopping the Keystone pipeline to limit tar sands development
> ring very hollow.
> 
> Mike MacCracken
> 
> --
> 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 googlegroups.com>.
> To post to this group, send email to
> geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
> 


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [geo] On why we'll very likely need climate engineering

[Alan Robock]

Dear Mike and Jon,

I agree with Jon.

And Mike, I think you are ignoring all the unsolvable problems with 
geoengineering (considering only stratospheric aerosols - the most 
likely option).  First, it looks like the aerosols will grow as more SO2 
is injected.  As Niemeier and Timmreck (2015) found, "[A] solar 
radiation management strategy required to keep temperatures constant at 
that anticipated for 2020, whilst maintaining ‘business as usual’ 
conditions, would require atmospheric injections of the order of 45 
Tg(S)/yr which amounts to 6 times that emitted from the Mt. Pinatubo 
eruption each year."


Niemeier U., and C. Timmreck, 2015: What is the limit of stratospheric 
sulfur climate engineering? /Atmos. Chem. Phys. Discuss./, *15*, 
10,939–10,969.


And how will you deal with everyone of these risks?  From Robock (2014), 
updated:


_Benefits___



_Risks___

1.Reduce surface air temperatures, which could reduce or reverse 
negative impacts of global warming, including floods, droughts, stronger 
storms, sea ice melting, land-based ice sheet melting, and sea level rise




1.Drought in Africa and Asia

2.Perturb ecology with more diffuse radiation

3.Ozone depletion

4.Continued ocean acidification

5.Will not stop ice sheets from melting

6.Impacts on tropospheric chemistry

2.Increase plant productivity



7.Whiter skies

3.Increase terrestrial CO2sink



8.Less solar electricity generation

4.Beautiful red and yellow sunsets



9.Degrade passive solar heating

5.Unexpected benefits



10.Rapid warming if stopped




11.Cannot stop effects quickly




12.Human error




13.Unexpected consequences




14.Commercial control




15.Military use of technology




16.Societal disruption, conflict between countries




17.Conflicts with current treaties




18.Whose hand on the thermostat?




19.Effects on airplanes flying in stratosphere




20.Effects on electrical properties of atmosphere




21.Environmental impact of implementation




22.Degrade terrestrial optical astronomy




23.Affect stargazing




24.Affect satellite remote sensing




25.More sunburn




26.Moral hazard – the prospect of it working would

reduce drive for mitigation




27.Moral authority – do we have the right to do this?



Robock, Alan, 2014: Stratospheric aerosol geoengineering. /Issues Env. 
Sci. Tech./ (Special issue “Geoengineering of the Climate System”), 
*38*, 162-185.


Don't you think that the more we look at geoengineering, the more it is 
clear that it will not be a solution, and the more imperative mitigation 
is?  I agree that Obama, who is the best President ever on this subject, 
could be doing much more.  This just means he needs more pushing, and 
the Chinese and Indians need to agree to take strong steps.  We're 
certainly not there yet, but let's not tell them that geoengineering 
will give them an out.


Alan

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
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 6/2/2015 8:29 PM, Mike MacCracken wrote:
Re: [geo] On why we'll very likely need climate engineering Dear 
Jon—While I think you overstate the situation with climate engineering 
in terms of both uncertainties and costs (i.e., keeping the climate 
roughly as it is likely has fewer uncertainties that heading to a 2 to 
4 C climate with its uncertainties; and the costs of climate 
engineering may well be a good bit less than mitigation—though 
mitigation costs do seem to be dropping), I would generally agree with 
your logic when one assumes rational leaders and policymakers thinking 
in terms of long-term interests and rights and idealized situations 
(e.g., no vested interests effectively pushing their views). 
Unfortunately, it is not at all clear to me that these (and some 
related) assumptions are valid, at least based on actions that 
seemingly rational leaders are taking, much less ones that are focused 
more on ideology than rational thinking. It seems to me this situation 
could perhaps be achieved with an approach that is relatively robust 
to the particular foibles of those making the decisions (e.g., a 
really aggressive energy technology development effort that makes the 
cost of transitioning energy systems less than the cost of staying as 
we are—a situation that might well be achieved with a reasonable 
carbon tax with su

Re: [geo] On why we'll very likely need climate engineering

[Hawkins, Dave]

Thanks for sending this chapter. One indicator of its sloppiness is that it 
stops its description of proposed legislation IN THE U.S. Congress in 2009, 
ignoring what happened in the six years since then.

Sent from my iPad

On May 31, 2015, at 7:45 PM, Mike MacCracken 
mailto:mmacc...@comcast.net>> wrote:

See attachment


On 5/31/15, 6:05 PM, "Ronal W. Larson"  wrote:

Mike  cc List

I have a few friends deeply involved in this issue - and agree that a travesty 
is going on here, and worth making a noise about as this dwarfs EPA’s Clean 
Power Plan activities.  I have found some very lengthy documents just released 
late last week on this - but can’t find anything resembling the reference you 
make to “page 4-130”.  Can you give a more specific citation?

The one I found (almost 3000 pages) is at:   
https://www.blm.gov/epl-front-office/projects/lup/36597/58409/63200/BFO_PRMP-FEIS.pdf

Ron


On May 31, 2015, at 11:28 AM, Mike MacCracken  wrote:

For those who argue that it is best to keep relying on mitigation as the
only acceptable approach, it is because of disgraceful decisions such as
described in:

http://motherboard.vice.com/read/the-10-billion-tons-of-coal-that-could-eras
e-obamas-progress-on-climate-change

that this will be the case. I've done declarations for a couple of lawsuits
trying to fight the leasing of such coal lands. The Administration could
have acceded to their calls for a high quality environmental review of the
consequences of such leasing (so including GHG effect), but instead they
have fought those lawsuits and rely on a really outdated EIS (their analysis
starts on page 4-130--and is only a few pages long). Or they could have
imposed the social cost of carbon as an additional fee if one wants to use
the free market system to level the field across technologies--but no,
leases would be at very low prices.

So, first, the criticism that those of us favor geoengineering first are
just wrong--we've been fighting hard for mitigation. But decisions like this
keep coming, and I would suggest have nothing to do with whether
geoengineering might or might not help. So, we keep having to go deeper and
deeper in to the barrel to try to find some way to slow the devastating
consequences of warming lying ahead.

Second, given decisions like this by the US, no wonder the rest of the world
is not yet really making commitments that are strong enough to make a
difference for the future. Truly embarrassing decision--it makes all the
clamor over stopping the Keystone pipeline to limit tar sands development
ring very hollow.

Mike MacCracken

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to 
geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to 
geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [geo] On why we'll very likely need climate engineering

[Mike MacCracken]

Dear Jon‹While I think you overstate the situation with climate engineering
in terms of both uncertainties and costs (i.e., keeping the climate roughly
as it is likely has fewer uncertainties that heading to a 2 to 4 C climate
with its uncertainties; and the costs of climate engineering may well be a
good bit less than mitigation‹though mitigation costs do seem to be
dropping), I would generally agree with your logic when one assumes rational
leaders and policymakers thinking in terms of long-term interests and rights
and idealized situations (e.g., no vested interests effectively pushing
their views). Unfortunately, it is not at all clear to me that these (and
some related) assumptions are valid, at least based on actions that
seemingly rational leaders are taking, much less ones that are focused more
on ideology than rational thinking. It seems to me this situation could
perhaps be achieved with an approach that is relatively robust to the
particular foibles of those making the decisions (e.g., a really aggressive
energy technology development effort that makes the cost of transitioning
energy systems less than the cost of staying as we are‹a situation that
might well be achieved with a reasonable carbon tax with substantial
resources devoted to the transition), but getting to this type of solution
is also problematic. And so, given all that is at risk and the behavior of
the leaders that we are seeing (so, for example in the US, leasing public
lands for coal mining and the Arctic seabed for drilling), it becomes hard
to see how at least some climate engineering is not inevitable as a means to
reduce overall suffering and loss.

Mike MacCracken


On 6/2/15, 7:46 PM, "Jon Lawhead"  wrote:

> As a philosopher working on this issue, it seems to me that this provides a
> really strong argument in favor of focused attention on mitigation.  There's
> at least some degree of popular perception that geoengineering provides a
> "fail safe" for fixing the climate if/when we fail to successfully implement
> sufficient mitigation policies.  In some cases, this leads to more lukewarm
> (or downright cold) support for mitigation than it otherwise would have. 
> Philosophers and social scientists call this a "moral hazard."
> 
> But it seems to me that this position isn't just wrong--it's exactly
> backward.  If a failure to adequately mitigate climate change means that our
> only recourse will be geoengineering, that's a very strong reason to mitigate
> early and mitigate often.  The costs associated with geoengineering--both in
> terms of financial commitments and in terms of potentially dangerous
> side-effects--are just too numerous for it to be reasonable to think of a
> large-scale geoengineering program as a "fail safe."  I think we would do well
> to work harder to promulgate that message more widely and more forcefully than
> we do now.
> 
> Naturally,
> 
> Jon Lawhead, PhD
> Postdoctoral Research Fellow
> University of Southern California
> Philosophy and Earth Sciences
> 
> 3651 Trousdale Parkway 
> Zumberge Hall of Science, 223D
> Los Angeles, CA 90089-0740
> 
> http://www.realityapologist.com <http://www.realityapologist.com/>
> 
> On Sun, May 31, 2015 at 11:55 AM, Greg Rau  wrote:
>> Amen, Mike. Given this dangerous trajectory, I'd say it's time for another
>> reading from our experts on the ethics of alternative climate management
>> methods. And I don't mean adaptation.
>> Greg
>> 
>> On Sun, 5/31/15, Mike MacCracken  wrote:
>> 
>>  Subject: [geo] On why we'll very likely need climate engineering
>>  To: "Geoengineering" 
>>  Date: Sunday, May 31, 2015, 10:28 AM
>> 
>>  For those who argue that it is best
>>  to keep relying on mitigation as the
>>  only acceptable approach, it is because of disgraceful
>>  decisions such as
>>  described in:
>> 
>>  http://motherboard.vice.com/read/the-10-billion-tons-of-coal-that-could-eras
>>  e-obamas-progress-on-climate-change
>> 
>>  that this will be the case. I've done declarations for a
>>  couple of lawsuits
>>  trying to fight the leasing of such coal lands. The
>>  Administration could
>>  have acceded to their calls for a high quality environmental
>>  review of the
>>  consequences of such leasing (so including GHG effect), but
>>  instead they
>>  have fought those lawsuits and rely on a really outdated EIS
>>  (their analysis
>>  starts on page 4-130--and is only a few pages long). Or they
>>  could have
>>  imposed the social cost of carbon as an additional fee if
>>  one wants to use
>>  the free market syst

Re: [geo] On why we'll very likely need climate engineering

[Hawkins, Dave]

Jon,
I think you are underestimating the human propensity to assume the best about 
alternatives to paths that worry them.  We are not mitigating enough because 
there are too many people who think mitigation will have all sorts of negative 
impacts on them.  Those same people are unlikely to assume geoengineering will 
make them worse off.
David

Sent from my iPad

On Jun 2, 2015, at 7:50 PM, Jon Lawhead 
mailto:lawh...@usc.edu>> wrote:

As a philosopher working on this issue, it seems to me that this provides a 
really strong argument in favor of focused attention on mitigation.  There's at 
least some degree of popular perception that geoengineering provides a "fail 
safe" for fixing the climate if/when we fail to successfully implement 
sufficient mitigation policies.  In some cases, this leads to more lukewarm (or 
downright cold) support for mitigation than it otherwise would have.  
Philosophers and social scientists call this a "moral hazard."

But it seems to me that this position isn't just wrong--it's exactly backward.  
If a failure to adequately mitigate climate change means that our only recourse 
will be geoengineering, that's a very strong reason to mitigate early and 
mitigate often.  The costs associated with geoengineering--both in terms of 
financial commitments and in terms of potentially dangerous side-effects--are 
just too numerous for it to be reasonable to think of a large-scale 
geoengineering program as a "fail safe."  I think we would do well to work 
harder to promulgate that message more widely and more forcefully than we do 
now.

Naturally,

Jon Lawhead, PhD
Postdoctoral Research Fellow
University of Southern California
Philosophy and Earth Sciences

3651 Trousdale Parkway
Zumberge Hall of Science, 223D
Los Angeles, CA 90089-0740

http://www.realityapologist.com<http://www.realityapologist.com/>

On Sun, May 31, 2015 at 11:55 AM, Greg Rau 
mailto:gh...@sbcglobal.net>> wrote:
Amen, Mike. Given this dangerous trajectory, I'd say it's time for another 
reading from our experts on the ethics of alternative climate management 
methods. And I don't mean adaptation.
Greg

On Sun, 5/31/15, Mike MacCracken 
mailto:mmacc...@comcast.net>> wrote:

 Subject: [geo] On why we'll very likely need climate engineering
 To: "Geoengineering" 
mailto:Geoengineering@googlegroups.com>>
 Date: Sunday, May 31, 2015, 10:28 AM

 For those who argue that it is best
 to keep relying on mitigation as the
 only acceptable approach, it is because of disgraceful
 decisions such as
 described in:

 http://motherboard.vice.com/read/the-10-billion-tons-of-coal-that-could-eras
 e-obamas-progress-on-climate-change

 that this will be the case. I've done declarations for a
 couple of lawsuits
 trying to fight the leasing of such coal lands. The
 Administration could
 have acceded to their calls for a high quality environmental
 review of the
 consequences of such leasing (so including GHG effect), but
 instead they
 have fought those lawsuits and rely on a really outdated EIS
 (their analysis
 starts on page 4-130--and is only a few pages long). Or they
 could have
 imposed the social cost of carbon as an additional fee if
 one wants to use
 the free market system to level the field across
 technologies--but no,
 leases would be at very low prices.

 So, first, the criticism that those of us favor
 geoengineering first are
 just wrong--we've been fighting hard for mitigation. But
 decisions like this
 keep coming, and I would suggest have nothing to do with
 whether
 geoengineering might or might not help. So, we keep having
 to go deeper and
 deeper in to the barrel to try to find some way to slow the
 devastating
 consequences of warming lying ahead.

 Second, given decisions like this by the US, no wonder the
 rest of the world
 is not yet really making commitments that are strong enough
 to make a
 difference for the future. Truly embarrassing decision--it
 makes all the
 clamor over stopping the Keystone pipeline to limit tar
 sands development
 ring very hollow.

 Mike MacCracken

 --
 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<mailto:geoengineering%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com>.
 To post to this group, send email to 
geoengineering@googlegroups.com<mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com>.
 Visit this group at
 http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to 
geoengineering+u

Re: [geo] On why we'll very likely need climate engineering

[Jon Lawhead]

As a philosopher working on this issue, it seems to me that this provides a
really strong argument in favor of focused attention on mitigation.
There's at least some degree of popular perception that geoengineering
provides a "fail safe" for fixing the climate if/when we fail to
successfully implement sufficient mitigation policies.  In some cases, this
leads to more lukewarm (or downright cold) support for mitigation than it
otherwise would have.  Philosophers and social scientists call this a
"moral hazard."

But it seems to me that this position isn't just wrong--it's exactly
backward.  If a failure to adequately mitigate climate change means that
our only recourse will be geoengineering, that's a *very* strong reason to
mitigate early and mitigate often.  The costs associated with
geoengineering--both in terms of financial commitments and in terms of
potentially dangerous side-effects--are just too numerous for it to be
reasonable to think of a large-scale geoengineering program as a "fail
safe."  I think we would do well to work harder to promulgate that message
more widely and more forcefully than we do now.

Naturally,

Jon Lawhead, PhD
Postdoctoral Research Fellow
University of Southern California
Philosophy and Earth Sciences

3651 Trousdale Parkway
Zumberge Hall of Science, 223D
Los Angeles, CA 90089-0740

http://www.realityapologist.com

On Sun, May 31, 2015 at 11:55 AM, Greg Rau  wrote:

> Amen, Mike. Given this dangerous trajectory, I'd say it's time for another
> reading from our experts on the ethics of alternative climate management
> methods. And I don't mean adaptation.
> Greg
> --------------------
> On Sun, 5/31/15, Mike MacCracken  wrote:
>
>  Subject: [geo] On why we'll very likely need climate engineering
>  To: "Geoengineering" 
>  Date: Sunday, May 31, 2015, 10:28 AM
>
>  For those who argue that it is best
>  to keep relying on mitigation as the
>  only acceptable approach, it is because of disgraceful
>  decisions such as
>  described in:
>
>
> http://motherboard.vice.com/read/the-10-billion-tons-of-coal-that-could-eras
>  e-obamas-progress-on-climate-change
>
>  that this will be the case. I've done declarations for a
>  couple of lawsuits
>  trying to fight the leasing of such coal lands. The
>  Administration could
>  have acceded to their calls for a high quality environmental
>  review of the
>  consequences of such leasing (so including GHG effect), but
>  instead they
>  have fought those lawsuits and rely on a really outdated EIS
>  (their analysis
>  starts on page 4-130--and is only a few pages long). Or they
>  could have
>  imposed the social cost of carbon as an additional fee if
>  one wants to use
>  the free market system to level the field across
>  technologies--but no,
>  leases would be at very low prices.
>
>  So, first, the criticism that those of us favor
>  geoengineering first are
>  just wrong--we've been fighting hard for mitigation. But
>  decisions like this
>  keep coming, and I would suggest have nothing to do with
>  whether
>  geoengineering might or might not help. So, we keep having
>  to go deeper and
>  deeper in to the barrel to try to find some way to slow the
>  devastating
>  consequences of warming lying ahead.
>
>  Second, given decisions like this by the US, no wonder the
>  rest of the world
>  is not yet really making commitments that are strong enough
>  to make a
>  difference for the future. Truly embarrassing decision--it
>  makes all the
>  clamor over stopping the Keystone pipeline to limit tar
>  sands development
>  ring very hollow.
>
>  Mike MacCracken
>
>  --
>  You received this message because you are subscribed to the
>  Google Groups "geoengineering" group.
>  To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails
>  from it, send an email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>  To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
>  Visit this group at
>  http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
>  For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "geoengineering" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

-- 
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] On why we'll very likely need climate engineering

[Ronal W. Larson]

Mike  cc List

I have a few friends deeply involved in this issue - and agree that a 
travesty is going on here, and worth making a noise about as this dwarfs EPA’s 
Clean Power Plan activities.  I have found some very lengthy documents just 
released late last week on this - but can’t find anything resembling the 
reference you make to “page 4-130”.  Can you give a more specific citation?   

The one I found (almost 3000 pages) is at:   
https://www.blm.gov/epl-front-office/projects/lup/36597/58409/63200/BFO_PRMP-FEIS.pdf

Ron


On May 31, 2015, at 11:28 AM, Mike MacCracken  wrote:

> For those who argue that it is best to keep relying on mitigation as the
> only acceptable approach, it is because of disgraceful decisions such as
> described in:
> 
> http://motherboard.vice.com/read/the-10-billion-tons-of-coal-that-could-eras
> e-obamas-progress-on-climate-change
> 
> that this will be the case. I've done declarations for a couple of lawsuits
> trying to fight the leasing of such coal lands. The Administration could
> have acceded to their calls for a high quality environmental review of the
> consequences of such leasing (so including GHG effect), but instead they
> have fought those lawsuits and rely on a really outdated EIS (their analysis
> starts on page 4-130--and is only a few pages long). Or they could have
> imposed the social cost of carbon as an additional fee if one wants to use
> the free market system to level the field across technologies--but no,
> leases would be at very low prices.
> 
> So, first, the criticism that those of us favor geoengineering first are
> just wrong--we've been fighting hard for mitigation. But decisions like this
> keep coming, and I would suggest have nothing to do with whether
> geoengineering might or might not help. So, we keep having to go deeper and
> deeper in to the barrel to try to find some way to slow the devastating
> consequences of warming lying ahead.
> 
> Second, given decisions like this by the US, no wonder the rest of the world
> is not yet really making commitments that are strong enough to make a
> difference for the future. Truly embarrassing decision--it makes all the
> clamor over stopping the Keystone pipeline to limit tar sands development
> ring very hollow.
> 
> Mike MacCracken 
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "geoengineering" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
> 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [geo] On why we'll very likely need climate engineering

[Greg Rau]

Amen, Mike. Given this dangerous trajectory, I'd say it's time for another 
reading from our experts on the ethics of alternative climate management 
methods. And I don't mean adaptation.   
Greg

On Sun, 5/31/15, Mike MacCracken  wrote:

 Subject: [geo] On why we'll very likely need climate engineering
 To: "Geoengineering" 
 Date: Sunday, May 31, 2015, 10:28 AM
 
 For those who argue that it is best
 to keep relying on mitigation as the
 only acceptable approach, it is because of disgraceful
 decisions such as
 described in:
 
 http://motherboard.vice.com/read/the-10-billion-tons-of-coal-that-could-eras
 e-obamas-progress-on-climate-change
 
 that this will be the case. I've done declarations for a
 couple of lawsuits
 trying to fight the leasing of such coal lands. The
 Administration could
 have acceded to their calls for a high quality environmental
 review of the
 consequences of such leasing (so including GHG effect), but
 instead they
 have fought those lawsuits and rely on a really outdated EIS
 (their analysis
 starts on page 4-130--and is only a few pages long). Or they
 could have
 imposed the social cost of carbon as an additional fee if
 one wants to use
 the free market system to level the field across
 technologies--but no,
 leases would be at very low prices.
 
 So, first, the criticism that those of us favor
 geoengineering first are
 just wrong--we've been fighting hard for mitigation. But
 decisions like this
 keep coming, and I would suggest have nothing to do with
 whether
 geoengineering might or might not help. So, we keep having
 to go deeper and
 deeper in to the barrel to try to find some way to slow the
 devastating
 consequences of warming lying ahead.
 
 Second, given decisions like this by the US, no wonder the
 rest of the world
 is not yet really making commitments that are strong enough
 to make a
 difference for the future. Truly embarrassing decision--it
 makes all the
 clamor over stopping the Keystone pipeline to limit tar
 sands development
 ring very hollow.
 
 Mike MacCracken 
 
 -- 
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the
 Google Groups "geoengineering" group.
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails
 from it, send an email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
 Visit this group at
 http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.