Re: [geo] new article by Clive Hamilton
OOps - thought this went out three days ago. Apologies if this duplicative. List and ccs: 1. Thanks to David for this lead on Prof. Stavins letter (found at http://www.robertstavinsblog.org/2014/04/25/is-the-ipcc-government-approval-process-broken-2/) 2. Since this provides some (not all by any means) of the detail we have been wondering about as the SPM changed character, I read the Stavins letter with interest. But it is hard to go back and forth between the versions A and B of April 7 and 12 when they are in different documents. So I have combined them as follows (no way to shorten this exercise). I have underlined what seems to be new in the final version and underlined what was retained in April 7 draft. The numbering of paragraphs is not in the originals, nor the short summary titles I gave. The only major style IPCC change is that the final contains no bolding. There was some shuffling and deletion of paragraphs 3. I have added some comments from a biochar perspective and hope others will do similarly #1 On UNFCC The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) is the main multilateral forum focused on addressing climate change, with nearly universal participation. Other institutions organized at different levels of governance have resulted in diversifying international climate change cooperation. [13.3.1, 13.4.1.4, 13.5] Replaced International cooperation on climate change has diversified over the past decade. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) remains a primary international forum for climate negotiations, and is seen by many as the most legitimate international climate policy venue due in part to its virtually universal membership [13.3.1, 13.4.1.4, 13.5]. However, other institutions organized at many different scales have ……… risen in importance due to the inclusion of climate change issues in other policy arenas and growing awareness of the co‐benefits that can arise from linking climate mitigation and other issues [13.3, 13.4, 13.5]. [RWL comment #1 - Sorry to see the word “co-benefit” disappear. Objection maybe to the words “risen in importance”?? #2 On cooperation agreements Existing and proposed international climate change cooperation arrangements vary in their focus and degree of centralization and coordination. They span: multilateral agreements, harmonized national policies and decentralized but coordinated national policies, as well as regional and regionally‐ coordinated policies. [Figure TS.37, 13.4, 13.13.2, 14.4] Replaced Existing and proposed international climate agreements and instruments vary in their focus and degree of centralization. International climate agreements and instruments span: multilateral agreements (such as the Kyoto Protocol targets and accounting rules), harmonized national policies, and decentralized but coordinated national policies (such as planned linkages of national and sub‐ national emissions trading schemes) Also, .regional and regionally coordinated policies exist and have been proposed. [Figure 13.2, 13.4, 13.13.2, 14.4] RWL comment: Doesn’t seem to be a big change, especially from biochar angles. #3 On Kyoto The Kyoto Protocol offers lessons towards achieving the ultimate objective of the UNFCCC, particularly with respect to participation, implementation, flexibility mechanisms, and environmental effectiveness. (medium evidence, low agreement). [5.2, 13.7.2, 13.13.1.1, 13.13.1.2, 14.3.7.1, Table TS.9] Replaced The Kyoto Protocol was the first binding step toward implementing the principles and goals provided by the UNFCCC, but it has had limited effects on global emissions because some countries did not ratify the Protocol, some Parties did not meet their commitments, and its commitments applied to only a portion of the global economy (medium evidence, low agreement). The Parties collectively surpassed their collective emission reduction target in the first commitment period, but the Protocol credited emissions reductions that would have occurred even in its absence. The Kyoto Protocol does not directly influence the emissions of non‐Annex I countries, which have grown rapidly over the past decade. [5.2, 13.13.1.1] The Kyoto Protocol’s Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), which created a market for emissions offsets from developing countries, had generated credits equivalent to over 1.3 GtCO2eq by July 2013. Its environmental effectiveness has been mixed due to concerns about the additionality of projects, the validity of baselines, the possibility of emissions leakage, and recent credit price decreases (medium evidence; medium agreement). CDM projects were concentrated in a limited number of countries. [13.7.2, 13.13.1.2, 14.3.7.1] RWL comment: Missing details on Kyoto now, but I am not sure how or if this impacts biochar. #4 ON UNFCCC
Re: [geo] new article by Clive Hamilton
On the other hand, Robert Stavins has published his call http://www.robertstavinsblog.org/2014/04/25/is-the-ipcc-government-approval-process-broken-2/to the three Co-chairs of the AR5 WGIII ( cc'd to Pachauri) that the IPCC should tell all people interested in this latest IPCC effort that they need to read the entire 2,000 page plus document rather than the 33 page summary. It matters, when governments are involved, writes Stavins, if the document in question was subject to government *comment*, or whether it was subject to government* approval*. He suggests the Summary *For* Policy Makers should be called the Summary *By* Policymakers from now on. He blogs that the process the IPCC followed resulted in a process that built political credibility by sacrificing scientific integrity. In the part of the SPM he was a Co-coordinating Lead Author on, *all* controversial text, i.e. 75% of what they started with was removed. The objections of one country were enough to force removal of whatever they were objecting to. It didn't matter whether the country was rich or poor: any text that was considered inconsistent with their interests and positions in multilateral negotiations was treated as unacceptable. He is publicly questioning whether the IPCC should continue to ask people such as himself to put enormous amounts of their time over multi-year periods to carry out work that will inevitably be rejected If Bolin were still around, I wonder what he would say in response to an argument such as Stavins puts forward. On Thursday, April 24, 2014 4:21:29 AM UTC-7, O Morton wrote: I kind of object to the idea that the SPM process constitutes tampering by politicians. First: it's the process, an intergovernmental process, that gives the IPCC heft. It was baked into the design by Bert Bolin in order to create a document that would fulfill politcal functions. If you don't want a consensus document with heft that's fine. But if you do want one, you have to explain how that could be achieved without having governments in the process. Second: it sort of assumes that only the politicians bring the politics. there's politics throughout the process of various sorts. The politicians' are more overt. But they also remove politics (cf the removal of preliminary matter in WGIII about ethics) best, o -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: [geo] new article by Clive Hamilton
Further scientist perspectives here: http://news.sciencemag.org/climate/2014/04/scientists-licking-wounds-after-contentious-climate-report-negotiations Stavin's comment quoted from below ... a [IPCC] process that built political credibility by sacrificing scientific integrity is revealing(?) Political credibility to whom? To the majority who will suffer the consequences of GHG effects, or to the few who will benefit (in the short term) by ignoring them? This begs the question how capable and willing is the international political process in mitigating GHG's, regardless of what scientific reports and summaries say and regardless of what is in the best long term interest of the majority of their constituents? Then there is the adaptation lobby, eagerly waiting in the wings to attempt to expensively treat/cope with GHG symptoms rather than more cost effectively removing root causes. In this regard, it would be revealing to learn what sort of politics if any went on with the SPM for WG II. Greg Greg From: David Lewis jrandomwin...@gmail.com To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com Cc: Ronal W. Larson rongretlar...@comcast.net; Alan Robock rob...@envsci.rutgers.edu; Geoengineering Geoengineering@googlegroups.com; kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu Sent: Sunday, April 27, 2014 2:20 PM Subject: Re: [geo] new article by Clive Hamilton On the other hand, Robert Stavins has published his call to the three Co-chairs of the AR5 WGIII ( cc'd to Pachauri) that the IPCC should tell all people interested in this latest IPCC effort that they need to read the entire 2,000 page plus document rather than the 33 page summary. It matters, when governments are involved, writes Stavins, if the document in questionwas subject to government comment, or whether it was subject to governmentapproval. He suggests the Summary For Policy Makers should be called the Summary By Policymakers from now on. He blogs thatthe process the IPCC followed resulted in a process that built political credibility by sacrificing scientific integrity. In the part of the SPM he was a Co-coordinating Lead Author on, all controversial text, i.e. 75% of what they started with was removed. The objections of one country were enough to force removal of whatever they were objecting to. It didn't matter whether the country was rich or poor: any text that was considered inconsistent with their interests and positions in multilateral negotiations was treated as unacceptable. He is publicly questioning whether the IPCC should continue to ask people such as himself to put enormous amounts of their time over multi-year periods to carry out work that will inevitably be rejected If Bolin were still around, I wonder what he would say in response to an argument such as Stavins puts forward. On Thursday, April 24, 2014 4:21:29 AM UTC-7, O Morton wrote: I kind of object to the idea that the SPM process constitutes tampering by politicians. First: it's the process, an intergovernmental process, that gives the IPCC heft. It was baked into the design by Bert Bolin in order to create a document that would fulfill politcal functions. If you don't want a consensus document with heft that's fine. But if you do want one, you have to explain how that could be achieved without having governments in the process. Second: it sort of assumes that only the politicians bring the politics. there's politics throughout the process of various sorts. The politicians' are more overt. But they also remove politics (cf the removal of preliminary matter in WGIII about ethics) best, o -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: [geo] new article by Clive Hamilton
These figures should appear in the underlying chapters, which, unlike the Summary for Policy Makers, is not tampered with by politicians. The underlying chapters can be found here: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg3/ It would be interesting to do a comparison of the initial draft of the SPM and the draft as finally approved by governments, with some documentation for who objected to what and why. ___ Ken Caldeira Carnegie Institution for Science Dept of Global Ecology 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA +1 650 704 7212 kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab https://twitter.com/KenCaldeira Assistant: Dawn Ross dr...@carnegiescience.edu On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 1:18 AM, Ronal W. Larson rongretlar...@comcast.netwrote: Ken, Alan, List: Thanks for the lead on the *Science* story. I learned a little more. Apparently the week's political negotiations resulted in the deletion of five figures and considerable text. It sure would be interesting to have a separate pirate publication that only showed these deletions. Even better would be an added guide to which countries were most responsible for these changes. Anyone already done this? Ron On Apr 23, 2014, at 3:04 AM, Ken Caldeira kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu wrote: As far as I can tell, Hamilton provides no citation in this work to support the following assertion, other than his own book: *Already, conservative forces in the United States are promoting it as a substitute for emissions reductions.* I further note the incongruity of reading a section titled A world controlled by scientists the same day that Science magazine publishes an article about how the politicians ignore the recommendations of scientists when it comes to climate change: http://news.sciencemag.org/climate/2014/04/scientists-licking-wounds-after-contentious-climate-report-negotiations ___ Ken Caldeira Carnegie Institution for Science Dept of Global Ecology 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA +1 650 704 7212 kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab https://twitter.com/KenCaldeira Assistant: Dawn Ross dr...@carnegiescience.edu On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 9:47 AM, Alan Robock rob...@envsci.rutgers.eduwrote: Geoengineering and the politics of science, by Clive Hamilton Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, April 16, 2014, doi: 10.1177/0096340214531173 http://bos.sagepub.com/content/early/2014/04/15/0096340214531173.abstract.html The latest reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) include an assessment of geoengineering--methods for removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, or cooling the Earth by reflecting more of the sun's radiation back into space. The IPCC assessment signals the arrival of geoengineering into the mainstream of climate science, and may normalize climate engineering as a policy response to global warming. Already, conservative forces in the United States are promoting it as a substitute for emissions reductions. Climate scientists are sharply divided over geoengineering, in much the same way that Manhattan Project scientists were divided over nuclear weapons after World War II. Testing a geoengineering scheme, such as sulfate aerosol spraying, is inherently difficult. Deployment would make political decision makers highly dependent on a technocratic elite. In a geoengineered world, experts would control the conditions of daily life, and it is unlikely that such a regime would be a just one. A disproportionate number of scientists currently working on geoengineering have either worked at, or collaborated with, the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. The history of US nuclear weapons laboratories during the Cold War reveals a belief in humankind's right to exercise total mastery over nature. With geoengineering, this kind of thinking is staging a powerful comeback in the face of climate crisis. Hamilton correctly explains my arguments against a gradual ramp up of geoengineering as proposed by David Keith, and the lack of a rebuttal in Keith's book. But I just want to point out that even though I had a summer job at Livermore when I was a grad student 41 years ago, and have collaborated with climate scientists there since then on nuclear winter and geoengineering, I am not evil and determined to control the world with geoengineering. 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
Re: [geo] new article by Clive Hamilton
I kind of object to the idea that the SPM process constitutes tampering by politicians. First: it's the process, an intergovernmental process, that gives the IPCC heft. It was baked into the design by Bert Bolin in order to create a document that would fulfill politcal functions. If you don't want a consensus document with heft that's fine. But if you do want one, you have to explain how that could be achieved without having governments in the process. Second: it sort of assumes that only the politicians bring the politics. there's politics throughout the process of various sorts. The politicians' are more overt. But they also remove politics (cf the removal of preliminary matter in WGIII about ethics) best, o On Thursday, 24 April 2014 07:25:10 UTC+1, kcaldeira wrote: These figures should appear in the underlying chapters, which, unlike the Summary for Policy Makers, is not tampered with by politicians. The underlying chapters can be found here: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg3/ It would be interesting to do a comparison of the initial draft of the SPM and the draft as finally approved by governments, with some documentation for who objected to what and why. ___ 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 https://twitter.com/KenCaldeira Assistant: Dawn Ross dr...@carnegiescience.edu javascript: On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 1:18 AM, Ronal W. Larson rongre...@comcast.netjavascript: wrote: Ken, Alan, List: Thanks for the lead on the “*Science”* story. I learned a little more. Apparently the week’s political negotiations resulted in the deletion of five figures and considerable text. It sure would be interesting to have a separate “pirate” publication that only showed these deletions. Even better would be an added guide to which countries were most responsible for these changes. Anyone already done this? Ron On Apr 23, 2014, at 3:04 AM, Ken Caldeira kcal...@carnegiescience.edujavascript: wrote: As far as I can tell, Hamilton provides no citation in this work to support the following assertion, other than his own book: *Already, conservative forces in the United States are promoting it as a substitute for emissions reductions.* I further note the incongruity of reading a section titled A world controlled by scientists the same day that Science magazine publishes an article about how the politicians ignore the recommendations of scientists when it comes to climate change: http://news.sciencemag.org/climate/2014/04/scientists-licking-wounds-after-contentious-climate-report-negotiations ___ 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 https://twitter.com/KenCaldeira Assistant: Dawn Ross dr...@carnegiescience.edu javascript: On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 9:47 AM, Alan Robock rob...@envsci.rutgers.edujavascript: wrote: Geoengineering and the politics of science, by Clive Hamilton Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, April 16, 2014, doi: 10.1177/0096340214531173 http://bos.sagepub.com/content/early/2014/04/15/0096340214531173.abstract.html The latest reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) include an assessment of geoengineering—methods for removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, or cooling the Earth by reflecting more of the sun’s radiation back into space. The IPCC assessment signals the arrival of geoengineering into the mainstream of climate science, and may normalize climate engineering as a policy response to global warming. Already, conservative forces in the United States are promoting it as a substitute for emissions reductions. Climate scientists are sharply divided over geoengineering, in much the same way that Manhattan Project scientists were divided over nuclear weapons after World War II. Testing a geoengineering scheme, such as sulfate aerosol spraying, is inherently difficult. Deployment would make political decision makers highly dependent on a technocratic elite. In a geoengineered world, experts would control the conditions of daily life, and it is unlikely that such a regime would be a just one. A disproportionate number of scientists currently working on geoengineering have either worked at, or collaborated with, the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. The history of US nuclear weapons laboratories during the Cold War reveals a belief in humankind’s right to exercise total mastery over nature. With geoengineering, this kind of thinking is staging a powerful comeback in the face of climate crisis. Hamilton correctly explains my arguments against a
Re: [geo] new article by Clive Hamilton
Oliver etal 1. I support everything you say below. 2. I learned a bit about Bolin at http://www.bolin.su.se/index.php/about-bert-bolin . Thanks for using his name. 3. The current issue is how much of the week of political discussions should be in Executive Session (not to be reported)? Is there a place to view the rules? I believe most corporate boards would say that the meetings need to be closed and minutes can be pretty skimpy. But most public elected or appointed boards have strict rules on closure (personnel topics can exclude reporters but not much else). I presume the latter model for the IPCC? How do we learn how the consensus discussions took place? Or should we not - so that something/anything can emerge? Ron On Apr 24, 2014, at 5:21 AM, O Morton omeconom...@gmail.com wrote: I kind of object to the idea that the SPM process constitutes tampering by politicians. First: it's the process, an intergovernmental process, that gives the IPCC heft. It was baked into the design by Bert Bolin in order to create a document that would fulfill politcal functions. If you don't want a consensus document with heft that's fine. But if you do want one, you have to explain how that could be achieved without having governments in the process. Second: it sort of assumes that only the politicians bring the politics. there's politics throughout the process of various sorts. The politicians' are more overt. But they also remove politics (cf the removal of preliminary matter in WGIII about ethics) best, o On Thursday, 24 April 2014 07:25:10 UTC+1, kcaldeira wrote: These figures should appear in the underlying chapters, which, unlike the Summary for Policy Makers, is not tampered with by politicians. The underlying chapters can be found here: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg3/ It would be interesting to do a comparison of the initial draft of the SPM and the draft as finally approved by governments, with some documentation for who objected to what and why. ___ Ken Caldeira Carnegie Institution for Science Dept of Global Ecology 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA +1 650 704 7212 kcal...@carnegiescience.edu http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab https://twitter.com/KenCaldeira Assistant: Dawn Ross dr...@carnegiescience.edu On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 1:18 AM, Ronal W. Larson rongre...@comcast.net wrote: Ken, Alan, List: Thanks for the lead on the Science story. I learned a little more. Apparently the week's political negotiations resulted in the deletion of five figures and considerable text. It sure would be interesting to have a separate pirate publication that only showed these deletions. Even better would be an added guide to which countries were most responsible for these changes. Anyone already done this? Ron On Apr 23, 2014, at 3:04 AM, Ken Caldeira kcal...@carnegiescience.edu wrote: As far as I can tell, Hamilton provides no citation in this work to support the following assertion, other than his own book: Already, conservative forces in the United States are promoting it as a substitute for emissions reductions. I further note the incongruity of reading a section titled A world controlled by scientists the same day that Science magazine publishes an article about how the politicians ignore the recommendations of scientists when it comes to climate change: http://news.sciencemag.org/climate/2014/04/scientists-licking-wounds-after-contentious-climate-report-negotiations ___ Ken Caldeira Carnegie Institution for Science Dept of Global Ecology 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA +1 650 704 7212 kcal...@carnegiescience.edu http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab https://twitter.com/KenCaldeira Assistant: Dawn Ross dr...@carnegiescience.edu On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 9:47 AM, Alan Robock rob...@envsci.rutgers.edu wrote: Geoengineering and the politics of science, by Clive Hamilton Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, April 16, 2014, doi: 10.1177/0096340214531173 http://bos.sagepub.com/content/early/2014/04/15/0096340214531173.abstract.html The latest reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) include an assessment of geoengineering--methods for removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, or cooling the Earth by reflecting more of the sun's radiation back into space. The IPCC assessment signals the arrival of geoengineering into the mainstream of climate science, and may normalize climate engineering as a policy response to global warming. Already, conservative forces in the United States are promoting it as a substitute for emissions reductions. Climate scientists are sharply divided over geoengineering, in much the same way that Manhattan Project scientists were divided over nuclear weapons after World War II. Testing a
[geo] new article by Clive Hamilton
Geoengineering and the politics of science, by Clive Hamilton Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, April 16, 2014, doi: 10.1177/0096340214531173 http://bos.sagepub.com/content/early/2014/04/15/0096340214531173.abstract.html The latest reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) include an assessment of geoengineering---methods for removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, or cooling the Earth by reflecting more of the sun's radiation back into space. The IPCC assessment signals the arrival of geoengineering into the mainstream of climate science, and may normalize climate engineering as a policy response to global warming. Already, conservative forces in the United States are promoting it as a substitute for emissions reductions. Climate scientists are sharply divided over geoengineering, in much the same way that Manhattan Project scientists were divided over nuclear weapons after World War II. Testing a geoengineering scheme, such as sulfate aerosol spraying, is inherently difficult. Deployment would make political decision makers highly dependent on a technocratic elite. In a geoengineered world, experts would control the conditions of daily life, and it is unlikely that such a regime would be a just one. A disproportionate number of scientists currently working on geoengineering have either worked at, or collaborated with, the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. The history of US nuclear weapons laboratories during the Cold War reveals a belief in humankind's right to exercise total mastery over nature. With geoengineering, this kind of thinking is staging a powerful comeback in the face of climate crisis. Hamilton correctly explains my arguments against a gradual ramp up of geoengineering as proposed by David Keith, and the lack of a rebuttal in Keith's book. But I just want to point out that even though I had a summer job at Livermore when I was a grad student 41 years ago, and have collaborated with climate scientists there since then on nuclear winter and geoengineering, I am not evil and determined to control the world with geoengineering. 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 -- 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] new article by Clive Hamilton
Alan and list: 1. This is to ask for a clarification on your sentence from below: Hamilton correctly explains my arguments against a gradual ramp up of geoengineering as proposed by David Keith, and the lack of a rebuttal in Keith's book. Do you support the ramp up of at least some forms of CDR - as I think urged by the authors of the WG3 report? 2. I haven't the foggiest idea how Prof. Hamilton would respond - as (at least from the abstract), he doesn't seem to recognize that the CDR portion of geoengineering was considered part of mitigation. Anyone read the whole BOS article to know if he makes any CDR distinction there? That is - what is his view of the latest AR5 report? My belief is that his book sees CDR as benign. 3. This is another example of a need for new nomenclature for the topics being discussed on this list. Ron On Apr 23, 2014, at 1:47 AM, Alan Robock rob...@envsci.rutgers.edu wrote: Geoengineering and the politics of science, by Clive Hamilton Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, April 16, 2014, doi: 10.1177/0096340214531173 http://bos.sagepub.com/content/early/2014/04/15/0096340214531173.abstract.html The latest reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) include an assessment of geoengineering--methods for removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, or cooling the Earth by reflecting more of the sun's radiation back into space. The IPCC assessment signals the arrival of geoengineering into the mainstream of climate science, and may normalize climate engineering as a policy response to global warming. Already, conservative forces in the United States are promoting it as a substitute for emissions reductions. Climate scientists are sharply divided over geoengineering, in much the same way that Manhattan Project scientists were divided over nuclear weapons after World War II. Testing a geoengineering scheme, such as sulfate aerosol spraying, is inherently difficult. Deployment would make political decision makers highly dependent on a technocratic elite. In a geoengineered world, experts would control the conditions of daily life, and it is unlikely that such a regime would be a just one. A disproportionate number of scientists currently working on geoengineering have either worked at, or collaborated with, the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. The history of US nuclear weapons laboratories during the Cold War reveals a belief in humankind's right to exercise total mastery over nature. With geoengineering, this kind of thinking is staging a powerful comeback in the face of climate crisis. Hamilton correctly explains my arguments against a gradual ramp up of geoengineering as proposed by David Keith, and the lack of a rebuttal in Keith's book. But I just want to point out that even though I had a summer job at Livermore when I was a grad student 41 years ago, and have collaborated with climate scientists there since then on nuclear winter and geoengineering, I am not evil and determined to control the world with geoengineering. 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 -- 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] new article by Clive Hamilton
Dear Ron, All the discussion was about SRM geoengineering. I support CDR if it can be done safely. 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 4/23/14, 10:59 PM, Ronal W. Larson wrote: Alan and list: 1. This is to ask for a clarification on your sentence from below: Hamilton correctly explains my arguments against a gradual ramp up of geoengineering as proposed by David Keith, and the lack of a rebuttal in Keith's book. Do you support the ramp up of at least some forms of CDR - as I think urged by the authors of the WG3 report? 2. I haven't the foggiest idea how Prof. Hamilton would respond - as (at least from the abstract), he doesn't seem to recognize that the CDR portion of geoengineering was considered part of mitigation. Anyone read the whole BOS article to know if he makes any CDR distinction there? That is - what is his view of the latest AR5 report? My belief is that his book sees CDR as benign. 3. This is another example of a need for new nomenclature for the topics being discussed on this list. Ron On Apr 23, 2014, at 1:47 AM, Alan Robock rob...@envsci.rutgers.edu mailto:rob...@envsci.rutgers.edu wrote: Geoengineering and the politics of science, by Clive Hamilton Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, April 16, 2014, doi: 10.1177/0096340214531173 http://bos.sagepub.com/content/early/2014/04/15/0096340214531173.abstract.html The latest reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) include an assessment of geoengineering--methods for removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, or cooling the Earth by reflecting more of the sun's radiation back into space. The IPCC assessment signals the arrival of geoengineering into the mainstream of climate science, and may normalize climate engineering as a policy response to global warming. Already, conservative forces in the United States are promoting it as a substitute for emissions reductions. Climate scientists are sharply divided over geoengineering, in much the same way that Manhattan Project scientists were divided over nuclear weapons after World War II. Testing a geoengineering scheme, such as sulfate aerosol spraying, is inherently difficult. Deployment would make political decision makers highly dependent on a technocratic elite. In a geoengineered world, experts would control the conditions of daily life, and it is unlikely that such a regime would be a just one. A disproportionate number of scientists currently working on geoengineering have either worked at, or collaborated with, the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. The history of US nuclear weapons laboratories during the Cold War reveals a belief in humankind's right to exercise total mastery over nature. With geoengineering, this kind of thinking is staging a powerful comeback in the face of climate crisis. Hamilton correctly explains my arguments against a gradual ramp up of geoengineering as proposed by David Keith, and the lack of a rebuttal in Keith's book. But I just want to point out that even though I had a summer job at Livermore when I was a grad student 41 years ago, and have collaborated with climate scientists there since then on nuclear winter and geoengineering, I am not evil and determined to control the world with geoengineering. 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 USAhttp://envsci.rutgers.edu/~robock http://twitter.com/AlanRobock Watch my 18 min TEDx talk athttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qsrEk1oZ-54 -- 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+unsubscr...@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
Re: [geo] new article by Clive Hamilton
Ken, Alan, List: Thanks for the lead on the Science story. I learned a little more. Apparently the week's political negotiations resulted in the deletion of five figures and considerable text. It sure would be interesting to have a separate pirate publication that only showed these deletions. Even better would be an added guide to which countries were most responsible for these changes. Anyone already done this? Ron On Apr 23, 2014, at 3:04 AM, Ken Caldeira kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu wrote: As far as I can tell, Hamilton provides no citation in this work to support the following assertion, other than his own book: Already, conservative forces in the United States are promoting it as a substitute for emissions reductions. I further note the incongruity of reading a section titled A world controlled by scientists the same day that Science magazine publishes an article about how the politicians ignore the recommendations of scientists when it comes to climate change: http://news.sciencemag.org/climate/2014/04/scientists-licking-wounds-after-contentious-climate-report-negotiations ___ Ken Caldeira Carnegie Institution for Science Dept of Global Ecology 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA +1 650 704 7212 kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab https://twitter.com/KenCaldeira Assistant: Dawn Ross dr...@carnegiescience.edu On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 9:47 AM, Alan Robock rob...@envsci.rutgers.edu wrote: Geoengineering and the politics of science, by Clive Hamilton Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, April 16, 2014, doi: 10.1177/0096340214531173 http://bos.sagepub.com/content/early/2014/04/15/0096340214531173.abstract.html The latest reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) include an assessment of geoengineering--methods for removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, or cooling the Earth by reflecting more of the sun's radiation back into space. The IPCC assessment signals the arrival of geoengineering into the mainstream of climate science, and may normalize climate engineering as a policy response to global warming. Already, conservative forces in the United States are promoting it as a substitute for emissions reductions. Climate scientists are sharply divided over geoengineering, in much the same way that Manhattan Project scientists were divided over nuclear weapons after World War II. Testing a geoengineering scheme, such as sulfate aerosol spraying, is inherently difficult. Deployment would make political decision makers highly dependent on a technocratic elite. In a geoengineered world, experts would control the conditions of daily life, and it is unlikely that such a regime would be a just one. A disproportionate number of scientists currently working on geoengineering have either worked at, or collaborated with, the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. The history of US nuclear weapons laboratories during the Cold War reveals a belief in humankind's right to exercise total mastery over nature. With geoengineering, this kind of thinking is staging a powerful comeback in the face of climate crisis. Hamilton correctly explains my arguments against a gradual ramp up of geoengineering as proposed by David Keith, and the lack of a rebuttal in Keith's book. But I just want to point out that even though I had a summer job at Livermore when I was a grad student 41 years ago, and have collaborated with climate scientists there since then on nuclear winter and geoengineering, I am not evil and determined to control the world with geoengineering. 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 -- 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,
