tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post5604654573893752057..comments2023-09-28T08:13:11.489-07:00Comments on Only In It For The Gold: The Geoengineering Quandary (In Living Color)Michael Tobishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08229460438349093944noreply@blogger.comBlogger22125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-61587759255901080012009-10-22T11:00:09.025-07:002009-10-22T11:00:09.025-07:00Assuming neither business nor 'environmental&#...Assuming neither business nor 'environmental' groups nor governments are serious about limiting the problem, but are giving it lip service, that leaves only citizen action, eh? Hansen's out front on that<br /><br /><br />Now, something like the EPA Toxic Release Inventory can make enforcement of limits by citizen action possible, if they want to:<br /><br />http://rpuchalsky.blogspot.com/2009/03/2007-tri-released.html<br /><br />----excerpt----<br />Sunday, March 22, 2009<br />2007 TRI released<br />The latest version of the Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) came out on the 19th, with RTK Net's version <br />http://data.rtknet.org/tri/<br />open a day later. <br /><br />This year, RTK NET's version also supplies RSEI risk screening numbers -- for the first time, an at least partial answer to the question "How important is this particular release of pollution, anyways?"<br /><br />EPA continued its recent trend of downplaying the data release. I don't think that they announced they'd be releasing it far in advance -- I had to find out about it through the grapevine after it was already up. I didn't see much news about it, and the news there was was unspecific. For instance, the overall release trend was down, but PCB releases jumped 40%. Why? According to this story, for one example, "EPA said that the jump was probably due to disposal of old equipment or clean up at industrial sites." <br /><br />Probably? The vast majority of the increase seems to be due to one site, Chemical Waste Management in Emelle, Alabama. <br /><br />Why not call that facility and get the actual cause for the jump? That's one of the things that would change this from a contextless, uninvestigated number into a story that people could begin to understand. <br /><br />---- end quote ---<br /><br />Paragraph breaks added for readability - hrHank Robertshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07521410755553979665noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-49224065366924020282009-10-22T10:51:24.809-07:002009-10-22T10:51:24.809-07:00For those who didn't click earlier, the piece ...For those who didn't click earlier, the piece ends with:<br /><br />"As long as leaders of the climate movement continue to pretend that progress is being made, the climate policy charade will go on for a while longer, while business proceeds as usual." <br /><br />-- RP Jr., as featured by Benny Peiser's CCNet link to:<br />http://www.ostina.org/content/view/4458/1232/Hank Robertshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07521410755553979665noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-78069717238232221202009-10-20T14:43:42.913-07:002009-10-20T14:43:42.913-07:00No Michael, the point is he bitch slapped you agai...No Michael, the point is he bitch slapped you again and you took it. His take on mitigation and adaptation as with everything else, depends on what URL he finds useful to point you to. <br /><br />Reasonable Roger is well put in his 2006 Congressional Testimony which says that mitigation and adaptation in his view are linked but will have effects at different times, they are complementary, but not disjoint in time. <br /><br />You adapt to the present and mitigate for the future but adaptation without mitigation is futile and therefore they are perforce linked on any but the most infantile level. There might be some debate about the reverse, but only because the delayers and denialists have cost us expensive opportunities. A URL to some of the testimony is <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/purepedantry/2006/07/post_26.php" rel="nofollow">here </a>(Ethon ate the Colorado link)<br /><br />"Take Home Points<br />1. Human-caused climate change is real and requires attention by policy makers to both mitigation and adaptation - but there is no quick fix; the issue will be with us for decades and longer.<br /><br />2. Any conceivable emissions reductions policies, even if successful, cannot have a perceptible impact on the climate for many decades.<br /><br />3. Consequently, costs (whatever they may be) are borne in the near term and benefits related to influencing the climate system are achieved in the distant future.<br /><br />4. However, many policies that result in a reduction in emissions also provide benefits in the short term unrelated to climate change.<br /><br />5. Similarly adaptation policies can provide immediate benefits.<br /><br />6. But climate policy, particularly international climate policy under the Framework Convention on Climate Change, has been structured to keep policy related to long-term climate change distinct from policies related to shorter-term issues of energy policy and adaptation.<br /><br />7. Following the political organization of international climate change policy, research agendas have emphasized the long-term, meaning that relatively very little attention is paid to developing specific policy options or near-term technologies that might be put into place with both short-term and long-term benefits.<br /><br />8. The climate debate may have begun to slowly reflect these realities, but the research and development community has not yet focused much attention on developing policy and technological options that might be politically viable, cost effective, and practically feasible."<br /><br />On the economist's other hand Roger and friends have always showcased adaptation (see the Breakthrough Institute and CO2 capture among other enthusiasms) and mumbled about mitigation (at best). <br /><br />We are going to pay procrastination penalties and you should be more judgemental about the procrastinators. Remember the whole point about the Breakdown thing is we only have to do research now (hmm, maybe Roger does think that mitigation is disjoint, if not delayable, but, then again, But then again, Roger vs. Roger is a game anybunny can playEliRabetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07957002964638398767noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-71681022916233475422009-10-20T07:39:35.268-07:002009-10-20T07:39:35.268-07:00Eli, I don't think any of us matter that much ...Eli, I don't think any of us matter that much as individuals. Reputation is secondary to getting the policy right. <br /><br />If Pielke Jr. is on record saying that adaptation and mitigation are complementary rather than competitive, that is a true statement well formulated, and I think it best to emphasize that and give credit where it is due.<br /><br />If he said something contrary in the past, I really don't care that much. Those of us (including you and me as well as Roger) who write a lot on these matters cannot be expected to achieve perfect coherence across all time and all contexts. I think it's fair just to let more recent statements guide the conversation without nitpicking. Without conceptual white-out there is no progress.<br /><br />This is not to say that Pielke has or hasn't said contrary things. My memory of the matter may be faulty in any case.<br /><br />It's only to say that the most recent thing he has said on the subject is correct, well-spoken, and entirely constructive. I feel content to leave it at that, and don't see the point of trying to dredge up controversy ad hominem unless it is current.Michael Tobishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08229460438349093944noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-8975767615870626522009-10-20T07:19:45.201-07:002009-10-20T07:19:45.201-07:00Instead of BTRO, how about the TRUE way? Throw Rat...Instead of BTRO, how about the TRUE way? Throw Rat Up, Efficiently.<br /><br />Or does that pander to the AGW-as-religion strawmen?skankyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14584908320777937193noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-38471966044256801192009-10-19T19:03:28.960-07:002009-10-19T19:03:28.960-07:00Never apologize. You messed up again. What Roger...Never apologize. You messed up again. What Roger meant is that when it suits his current argument...EliRabetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07957002964638398767noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-90099822573940241622009-10-19T18:37:43.244-07:002009-10-19T18:37:43.244-07:00Here is a way to remove lots of CO2 from the atmos...Here is a way to remove lots of CO2 from the atmosphere:<br /><a href="http://www.springerlink.com/content/55436u2122u77525/" rel="nofollow">Irrigated afforestation of the Sahara and Australian Outback to end global warming</a><br />(The pdf is open access; just click on the link.)David B. Bensonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02917182411282836875noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-6974205684773945642009-10-19T18:25:13.335-07:002009-10-19T18:25:13.335-07:00Thank you Michael.Thank you Michael.Roger Pielke, Jr.https://www.blogger.com/profile/04711007512915460627noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-66289877467762821182009-10-19T08:18:45.859-07:002009-10-19T08:18:45.859-07:00As featured by Benny Peiser's CCNet:
http://ww...As featured by Benny Peiser's CCNet:<br />http://www.ostina.org/content/view/4458/1232/<br /><br />Adaptation seems to write off the oceans. Articles like the one linked above seem to write off mitigation as useless and adaptation as the best use of the money.<br /><br />I'd like to see Dr. Peiser go spend a week hands-on with the scientists who are studying ocean pH change, and then say whether the experience changes his perspective about what's needed.<br /><br />Go to sea. Go to the labs. <br /><br />Ecology is sometimes understood by policymakers who go and actually spend time with ecologists rather than just reading papers.Hank Robertshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07521410755553979665noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-77828489686141555212009-10-19T06:19:12.320-07:002009-10-19T06:19:12.320-07:00OK, so here's what I hear:
Keith Kloor thinks...OK, so here's what I hear:<br /><br />Keith Kloor thinks adaptation and mitigation are in conflict and therefore we should pay less attention to mitigation<br /><br />Pielke Jr. thinks adaptation and mitigation are <i>not</i> in conflict and therefore ... we should pay less attention to mitigation. Or something.<br /><br />Aaron thinks that we just need to pray to God^H^H^HMother Nature to magically solve all our problems. And therefore we should pay less attention to mitigation.<br /><br />* * *<br /><br />Oh well. In a way, I guess it's true that, just as carbon sequestration and cloud whitening require investment into infrastructure and research and stuff, so wind power and solar power and nuclear power also require investment into infrastructure and research and stuff.<br /><br />For what it's worth, my opinion is that we should just view <i>all</i> of them as potential solutions, each with its benefits and risks. Is it more worthwhile to wait until carbon sequestration is viable enough to? Or is it more worthwhile to try to get wind power to generate half as much energy as coal and oil can at the moment? Tradeoffs, tradeoffs...<br /><br />-- <a href="http://frankbi.wordpress.com/" rel="nofollow">bi</a>bi -- International Journal of Inactivismhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03030282249404084578noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-10149854298086672582009-10-19T02:00:17.441-07:002009-10-19T02:00:17.441-07:00I find the following schematic a useful distinctio...I find the following schematic a useful distinction between the different approaches:<br /><br />process / problem -> measure / "solution"<br /><br /><br />Emissions -> Emission reduction / mitigation<br /><br />Atmospheric concentration -> Air capture and storage<br /><br />Global warming -> Artificial cooling / geoengineering<br /><br />Dangerous interference -> Adaptation<br /><br />(from (<a href="http://www.klimaatonderzoeknederland.nl/nl/25222938-%5Blinkpage%5D.html?opage_id=25223048&location=1555774813405415,10314164" rel="nofollow">State of the art of mitigation & relation mitigation/adaptation, chapter 6</a>)<br /><br />BartAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-31301328296278070792009-10-18T19:16:28.839-07:002009-10-18T19:16:28.839-07:00Michael- why do you feel it necessary to periodic...Michael- why do you feel it necessary to periodically completely misrepresent my views?<br /><br />Here is what I have said recently (for example) on adaptation vs. mitigation:<br /><br />"I think that mitigation policies should be completely decoupled from adaptation policies and they should proceed on separate tracks. They are not trade-offs but complements."<br />http://www.robertbryce.com/node/267<br /><br />Are you incapable of reading what I actually write?<br /><br />I said as much in a 1998 peer-reviewed paper on the importance of adaptation as a complement to mitigation:<br /><br />http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/admin/publication_files/resource-161-1998.13.pdf<br /><br />Is it too much to ask for accuracy in your representation of my views?Roger Pielke, Jr.https://www.blogger.com/profile/04711007512915460627noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-13347753287729619112009-10-18T15:10:04.361-07:002009-10-18T15:10:04.361-07:00There is also a clear difference in terms of how e...There is also a clear difference in terms of how easily the proposals can fit into a 'carbon trading' scheme. Biochar is a straightforward extension of growing or preserving trees, and thus could be easily slotted into a carbon-trading system. However any solar-related technology cannot be directly accommodated within a carbon trading system.William Thttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13285679538054366979noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-3466770261680123492009-10-18T14:51:36.165-07:002009-10-18T14:51:36.165-07:00Well, SACTCAR stands for Swallow A Cat To Catch A ...Well, SACTCAR stands for Swallow A Cat To Catch A Rat ... and BTRO stands for Barf The Rat Out.GRLCowanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03894036301406557803noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-50075304290085007342009-10-18T14:09:58.928-07:002009-10-18T14:09:58.928-07:00Board of Towing and Recovery Operation?
Bristol C...Board of Towing and Recovery Operation?<br /><br />Bristol County Republican Organization?<br /><br />Blacksburg Transit Runsheets Online?Michael Tobishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08229460438349093944noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-13742341658440221172009-10-18T13:00:51.244-07:002009-10-18T13:00:51.244-07:00"Removing the carbon from the atmosphere solv..."<em>Removing the carbon from the atmosphere solves the carbon problem. The climate disruption goes away. The direct ecosystem disruption goes away. The ocean acidification goes away. The cost is pulling out the carbon. The effect is that there is no extra carbon!</em>"<br /><br />I often say similar things. I like to call CO2 removal strategies BTRO strategies, and the scary sun-blocking ones SACTCAR, after the nursery rhyme about the old lady who swallowed the horse. ("She died. Of course.")<br /><br />(<em><a href="http://www.eagle.ca/~gcowan/" rel="nofollow">How fire can be domesticated</a></em>)GRLCowanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03894036301406557803noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-16382097581899662952009-10-18T10:12:45.145-07:002009-10-18T10:12:45.145-07:00Duplicate comment removed.Duplicate comment removed.Michael Tobishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08229460438349093944noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-12858179883951790942009-10-18T08:17:14.844-07:002009-10-18T08:17:14.844-07:00Climate effects are coming at us 10 to 100 times f...Climate effects are coming at us 10 to 100 times faster than predicted by the climate model. This basically puts reengineering solutions out of the realm of possibility. These days it takes 20 years to bring any kind of a public infrastructure project into existence. We still have major opposition to such projects, so there are political barriers. Who has the capital at this time? How much carbon would the building and operation of a technical/mechanical solution require? Carbon restraints rather limit us to reforestation/ revegetation type projects – that require large land area (or sea area). Who is going to give up their land/sea rights? What are you going to do (feed, house) with the people that move off their land?<br /><br />Mother Nature has solutions that she can implement (full scale) faster than a UN delegate can pick up a pen. Mother Nature’s solutions involve biomass blooms in polar seas followed by settling biomass into polar basins. She just needs to move some ice out of the way to get on with the job. She has done that before and can do it with dispatch. I do not see any way for people to do the job before Mother Nature gets around to clearing the ice. (Which will rather mess up our infrastructure.)Aaronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05150805906414546377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-74778285106032614472009-10-18T07:10:39.265-07:002009-10-18T07:10:39.265-07:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05818642659325983463noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-47370558401296281162009-10-18T07:06:57.320-07:002009-10-18T07:06:57.320-07:00Michael,
My response to your charge is here:
htt...Michael,<br /><br />My response to your charge is here:<br /><br />http://www.collide-a-scape.com/2009/10/18/tob/<br /><br />In sum, I agree with Brian in this thread, who asserts that "there is conflict between adaptation and mitigation...and the two approaches are competing..."<br /><br />I believe you ignore the obvious: climate activists loathe discussing adaptation because they believe it's a misdirection. That's the point I tried making in both of my posts related to this.<br /><br />KeithUnknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05818642659325983463noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-62163656425993808492009-10-18T03:23:46.734-07:002009-10-18T03:23:46.734-07:00My take on this is that the term 'geo-engineer...My take on this is that the term 'geo-engineering' for most people really does mean the shiny technologies to 'cool' the planet. Absorbing CO2, especially by means such as biochar is just too much like - well, like growing things - to be thought of as 'engineering'. <br /><br />In fact I think it is different - as you point out - it is 'carbon cycle management' and because it directly affects the net emissions it is really just like any other CO2 reduction attempt. At the end of the day it doesn't matter whether there is CO2 being pumped into the air in one place and pumped out somewhere else - it is the global net change in the atmosphere over the next few decades that matters.<br /><br />In my mind whenever 'geo-engineering' is mentioned I really only think of the 'shiny technology' kinds of proposals. CO2 management is a fundamental part of mitigation.William Thttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13285679538054366979noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-32084035552198512812009-10-17T22:46:35.660-07:002009-10-17T22:46:35.660-07:00Very nice post. I think people put biochar and ot...Very nice post. I think people put biochar and other geoengineering in the adaptation category because the dichotomy they look at is whether we act to change our GHG-emitting behavior versus acting to change the effect of our GHG-emitting behavior. I probably prefer your approach though.<br /><br />I would say there is a conflict between adaptation and mitigation in that there's a limit to the political will to devote resources to this problem, and the two approaches are competing with those resources.<br /><br />Some years ago I suggested to RP Jr. that emitters should pay a carbon tax to pay for adaptation costs, which would both increase the resources available and decrease emissions, but he didn't seem too interested. Don't know where he'd stand on that now.Brianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09301230860904555513noreply@blogger.com