Wow! Just wow! Ladies and gentlemen, we have a polemic. Some green-on-green! OK, it's related to GMO but clearly foreshadows the burgeoning debate on climate engineering. Most of you probably know about the punch up already: Mark Lynas (a 'neo-enviro') stood up in Oxford and admitted he had a Monbiotian conversion, had (shock) looked at some evidence and come out in favour of GMOs. This prompted a robust response from the 'trads' especially eco-feminist Vandana Shiva, who's twitter rebuttal included an ill-timed (sickening, actually) comparison to encouraging rapists. I suspect several things have pissed off the old school, not least that he was one of their own. It's a bit like those poor folks who leave the scientologists and go public; everyone hates a splitter. The point is this - I'll embolden it for emphasis - they're on the same bloody side. Lynas's credentials as an environmentalist are clear. I'm quite sure Shiva's are too.
Neo's are characterized as traitors, shallow, quick-fixers, all too willing to embrace technology often associated with globalization and power. They see themselves as realists - pragmatists with solutions. Trad's are presented as 'fire and brimstone', pious, sanctimonious anti-science idealogues - out of touch, losing the fight and bereft of realistic ideas. They seem themselves as bastions (ahem, Guardians if you will), fighting the good fight, and the only real lovers/understanders of nature. If you think this schism is deep for GMO, imagine what CE will do. Lynas has already pinned his colours to the mast here, I suspect I could predict Shiva's! The current episode will look like a minor skirmish compared to what's ahead, I guarantee it. Why does this matter? Because we (yes, I count myself as an 'enviro', sorry) are in the minority here. Don't worry, so are those that do not value the environment and put their own greed above everything (we all know where they are), it's those that either don't understand or who don't care enough who make up the vast majority. When we do this to each other, we switch people off. We allow those that are wrong about climate change to flourish.
Environmentalists are incapable of admitting or embracing uncertainty - everything is black and white. Lynas's conversion was a complete one, from passionately opposed to worryingly advocative. I'm not calling for us to all kiss and make up, that would be pointless, unhelpful and impossible. I simply believe that basic standards of decency, thoughtfulness and objectivity should be applied to an evidence-based discussion.
Friday, 11 January 2013
Saturday, 10 November 2012
Apologies for the hiatus....
It's been quite a hectic few months and I've stopped blogging due to a combination of a family holiday (OK, not all hectic), a mountain of marking in September and teaching starting in October. I'm also feeling a little weary from the efforts of managing SPICE, and being involved in several other large projects focused on geoengineering (EuTRACE) , volcanic ash clouds (VANAHEIM, CREDIBLE) and increasing resilience for those vulnerable during volcanic crises (STREVA). They are all interesting in different ways and very time consuming.
I'd like to write a little on two recent events that have happened that are of interest to me. One is obviously related to climate engineering, one less so but a salutary lesson nonetheless. The lesson comes from the recent verdict from the L'Aquila trial of seven eminent seismologists who were challenged to assess the likelihood of an earthquake happening in the near future near L'Aquila in Italy. They 'failed' to predict the earthquake and have been jailed for manslaughter. This is a lengthy overview. I am most interested in the points raised here by Prof. David Speigelhalter (whom I know from the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE) that both of us were on during the volcanic ash crisis of 2010). The question, of course, is this: if scientists are accountable for not predicting natural disasters (wholly unfairly in my opinion) that what becomes of those who sanction climate engineering. If we undertake large-scale engineering, particularly those that have trans-boundary effects (including SRM and iron fertilization), who will carry the can? More importantly, how will we disentangle 'our' signature from that of 'nature' (a quite ridiculous construct at ca. 400 ppm carbon dioxide) - how can we ever know what would have happened?
Secondly, the recent iron fertilization 'experiment' also leaves a pretty bad taste in my mouth. I agree wholeheartedly that it undermines legitimate research and I believe, as I think my actions have demonstrated, that profit, or even the perception of profiteering, have no place in research in climate engineering. I happily accept that the commercial sector is not the innermost parts of the seven circles of hell it is often compared to, but, in terms of trust I believe that those who refuse to even consider personal gain as a motive for improved understanding are those best placed to act for the greater good.
I'd also like to report briefly on two events that I have enjoyed significantly more than reading about the above. The first was a public meeting at the University of East Anglia to assist with the work of a PhD student garnering opinion about climate engineering - I undertook this with Jon Talyor, head of climate at WWF. On paper this might look like a adversarial set up, but far from it. It was a fascinating experience that restored some of my faith in human nature. The second was a stakeholder meeting for SPICE, with Hugh, Kirsty and Chris (from CUED) with representatives of civil societies. It was under Chatam House rules (a report is imminent from the facilitator) but suffice to say it was a challenging, difficult, fascinating, illuminating and exceptionally worthwhile effort. I'd like to praise all concerned for the spirit in which the meeting was held and for the frankness of the discussions. I hope we will continue with this process.
My current bugbear, which I was allowed to air during the meeting is the point scoring that more extreme NGO's seem to feel the need to entertain. Despite what anyone tells you, the SPICE testbed was postponed solely by the stategate panel (a group of five thinkers with backgrounds in social science, atmospheric science, engineering and environmentalism) before NGO objection and called off by SPICE. Anyone who claims to have got it 'cancelled' or 'shut down' is either deluded, or, more likely, knowingly claiming to have influence where they had none. Privately, I bet they'd be willing to admit this; publically, they feel the need to 'fight their corner'. This posturing does a huge disservice to both the stagegate panel and to me and Hugh who agonised about these decisions.
I'd like to write a little on two recent events that have happened that are of interest to me. One is obviously related to climate engineering, one less so but a salutary lesson nonetheless. The lesson comes from the recent verdict from the L'Aquila trial of seven eminent seismologists who were challenged to assess the likelihood of an earthquake happening in the near future near L'Aquila in Italy. They 'failed' to predict the earthquake and have been jailed for manslaughter. This is a lengthy overview. I am most interested in the points raised here by Prof. David Speigelhalter (whom I know from the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE) that both of us were on during the volcanic ash crisis of 2010). The question, of course, is this: if scientists are accountable for not predicting natural disasters (wholly unfairly in my opinion) that what becomes of those who sanction climate engineering. If we undertake large-scale engineering, particularly those that have trans-boundary effects (including SRM and iron fertilization), who will carry the can? More importantly, how will we disentangle 'our' signature from that of 'nature' (a quite ridiculous construct at ca. 400 ppm carbon dioxide) - how can we ever know what would have happened?
Secondly, the recent iron fertilization 'experiment' also leaves a pretty bad taste in my mouth. I agree wholeheartedly that it undermines legitimate research and I believe, as I think my actions have demonstrated, that profit, or even the perception of profiteering, have no place in research in climate engineering. I happily accept that the commercial sector is not the innermost parts of the seven circles of hell it is often compared to, but, in terms of trust I believe that those who refuse to even consider personal gain as a motive for improved understanding are those best placed to act for the greater good.
I'd also like to report briefly on two events that I have enjoyed significantly more than reading about the above. The first was a public meeting at the University of East Anglia to assist with the work of a PhD student garnering opinion about climate engineering - I undertook this with Jon Talyor, head of climate at WWF. On paper this might look like a adversarial set up, but far from it. It was a fascinating experience that restored some of my faith in human nature. The second was a stakeholder meeting for SPICE, with Hugh, Kirsty and Chris (from CUED) with representatives of civil societies. It was under Chatam House rules (a report is imminent from the facilitator) but suffice to say it was a challenging, difficult, fascinating, illuminating and exceptionally worthwhile effort. I'd like to praise all concerned for the spirit in which the meeting was held and for the frankness of the discussions. I hope we will continue with this process.
My current bugbear, which I was allowed to air during the meeting is the point scoring that more extreme NGO's seem to feel the need to entertain. Despite what anyone tells you, the SPICE testbed was postponed solely by the stategate panel (a group of five thinkers with backgrounds in social science, atmospheric science, engineering and environmentalism) before NGO objection and called off by SPICE. Anyone who claims to have got it 'cancelled' or 'shut down' is either deluded, or, more likely, knowingly claiming to have influence where they had none. Privately, I bet they'd be willing to admit this; publically, they feel the need to 'fight their corner'. This posturing does a huge disservice to both the stagegate panel and to me and Hugh who agonised about these decisions.
Tuesday, 17 July 2012
Trouble ahead
Horribly inaccurate/leading Guardian article -
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/jul/17/us-geoengineers-spray-sun-balloon
SPICE was not cancelled - the testbed was called off.
Thousands of tonnes (in the intro) turns out to be 10's-100's kg in the body of the article
Still captures some interesting issues (I will post on after consideration).
Governance?????
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/jul/17/us-geoengineers-spray-sun-balloon
SPICE was not cancelled - the testbed was called off.
Thousands of tonnes (in the intro) turns out to be 10's-100's kg in the body of the article
Still captures some interesting issues (I will post on after consideration).
Governance?????
Monday, 16 July 2012
Another 'wired' article I quite like...
Not a bad effort all in all by Joel Winston. Slightly making news out of an article that really only adds further confirmation to the 'not a free lunch' argument about climate engineering. Misses the point a bit (and he's not the first) that the key comparison is between engineering and unmitigated climate change. Yes, rainfall will change under CE for sure, but how does that compare to BAU??? especially in areas of higher vulnerability...
Interestingly, I suspect Steve Raynor, Hauke Schmidt and I all feel pretty similarly...
http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2012-07/16/geoengineering-study
Full article:
Deploying giant space mirrors and spraying particles from stadium-sized balloons may sound like an engineer's wild fantasy, but climate models suggest that the potential of geoengineering to offset rising atmospheric carbon dioxide may be significantly overstated.
Through a variety of computer simulations used for reporting to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the team investigated a scenario where an increase in the world's atmospheric carbon dioxide levels was balanced by a "dimming" of the sun.
Across all four models tested, the researchers showed that geoengineering could lead to adverse effects on the Earth's climate, including a reduction in global rainfall. They therefore concluded that geoengineering could not be a substitute for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.
However, in a field with divided opinion on geoengineering's potential role in addressing climate change, some doubt the significance of this conclusion. "From a policy standpoint, this doesn't provide very helpful guidance to decision-makers," said Steve Rayner of the Oxford Geoengineering Programme. "No serious player in this field suggests that [geoengineering] could ever be a substitute for mitigation and adaptation."
The leader of the research, Hauke Schmidt of the Max Planck Institute, Germany, believes their experiment still contributes important details on how the Earth's systems might respond to geoengineering. "The first thing we realised was that we had to 'dim' the sun 25 percent more than expected, in order for the Earth's systems to show a response, which translates to needing more geoengineering than previously thought," says Schmidt.
A reduction in global rainfall is not necessarily an equal one. "It becomes interesting when you look into the regional responses," continues Schmidt. "If you have just a carbon dioxide increase, most models predict a global rainfall increase, but a strong decrease in the Mediterranean and subtropics. But if you try to balance this with geoengineering, these zones shift to Northern Europe, Northern Asia and North America."
There's also the question of how effective these simulations are in recreating real-world deployment of geoengineering. One particular concern is the study's assumption of a quadrupling of carbon dioxide levels. "If it ever gets to that stage, then we have probably passed the point where geoengineering can be useful anyway," says Rayner.
The researchers recognise this level is at the upper end. "But one of the simulations we're running for the next IPCC has more than a quadrupling of CO2," explains Schmidt. "That's called the 'business as usual' scenario, and it's not completely outside what's conceivable."
The team have also run simulations with smaller (and perhaps more realistic) CO2 increases and will publish results in the upcoming months. But they say the extreme CO2 increase in this first scenario helps to identify signals and understand how the system responds. "From the point of view of a climate researcher it is the most interesting scenario," continues Schmidt. "While those who are interested in geoengineering applications may find it unrealistic."
One scientist particularly interested in geoengineering applications is Matthew Watson, leader of the volcano-inspired Stratospheric Particle Injection for Climate Engineering (Spice) project. The government-funded project was investigating the potential effects of spraying solar-reflective sulphates into the stratosphere from a 20 kilometre-high, stadium-sized balloon. However, a scaled-down field test of a smaller balloon spraying water droplets was cancelled due to governance and patent issues.
Now Watson is concerned by the report's conclusions, which he says could be used to suggest that geoengineering research is a waste of time. "Only through combined modelling and field research can we generate the evidence-base for a salient answer on whether climate engineering is a good or bad idea," says Watson. "It's vitally important that scientists are given the space within which to ask and try to answer difficult questions."
To understand different components of the Earth's systems, Schmidt agrees that a few experiments are necessary. "I'm not generally against small-scale field experiments if they help us understand processes in nature," says Schmidt. "But they should obviously be benign, and we should be very careful." However, small-scale field tests are also limited, Schmidt believes, with climate simulations possibly being the only way to fully grasp the long-term and large-scale climate effects of geoengineering.
Both options may have their individual limitations, according to Watson. "That small-scale experiments are, by their nature, incomplete is often used as an argument against climate engineering, but that can also be said of models, which are, by definition, imperfect." In addition to large-scale simulations, Watson accepts the need for small, benign and well-governed field experiments in the interim.
Despite the controversy on the best course of action to take, there is agreement between all parties on the need to determine the effects of geoengineering with confidence. But this confidence may perhaps only be found by both peering through simulations to see long-term global effects, and engaging in detailed examination of field tests to assess the practical potential of specific interventions.
Watson says time is short: "Unfortunately, we don't have hundreds of years before climate change really takes hold. So researching climate engineering now is much better than undertaking that effort only when it becomes clear it is necessary."
Interestingly, I suspect Steve Raynor, Hauke Schmidt and I all feel pretty similarly...
http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2012-07/16/geoengineering-study
Full article:
Deploying giant space mirrors and spraying particles from stadium-sized balloons may sound like an engineer's wild fantasy, but climate models suggest that the potential of geoengineering to offset rising atmospheric carbon dioxide may be significantly overstated.
Through a variety of computer simulations used for reporting to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the team investigated a scenario where an increase in the world's atmospheric carbon dioxide levels was balanced by a "dimming" of the sun.
Across all four models tested, the researchers showed that geoengineering could lead to adverse effects on the Earth's climate, including a reduction in global rainfall. They therefore concluded that geoengineering could not be a substitute for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.
However, in a field with divided opinion on geoengineering's potential role in addressing climate change, some doubt the significance of this conclusion. "From a policy standpoint, this doesn't provide very helpful guidance to decision-makers," said Steve Rayner of the Oxford Geoengineering Programme. "No serious player in this field suggests that [geoengineering] could ever be a substitute for mitigation and adaptation."
The leader of the research, Hauke Schmidt of the Max Planck Institute, Germany, believes their experiment still contributes important details on how the Earth's systems might respond to geoengineering. "The first thing we realised was that we had to 'dim' the sun 25 percent more than expected, in order for the Earth's systems to show a response, which translates to needing more geoengineering than previously thought," says Schmidt.
A reduction in global rainfall is not necessarily an equal one. "It becomes interesting when you look into the regional responses," continues Schmidt. "If you have just a carbon dioxide increase, most models predict a global rainfall increase, but a strong decrease in the Mediterranean and subtropics. But if you try to balance this with geoengineering, these zones shift to Northern Europe, Northern Asia and North America."
There's also the question of how effective these simulations are in recreating real-world deployment of geoengineering. One particular concern is the study's assumption of a quadrupling of carbon dioxide levels. "If it ever gets to that stage, then we have probably passed the point where geoengineering can be useful anyway," says Rayner.
The researchers recognise this level is at the upper end. "But one of the simulations we're running for the next IPCC has more than a quadrupling of CO2," explains Schmidt. "That's called the 'business as usual' scenario, and it's not completely outside what's conceivable."
The team have also run simulations with smaller (and perhaps more realistic) CO2 increases and will publish results in the upcoming months. But they say the extreme CO2 increase in this first scenario helps to identify signals and understand how the system responds. "From the point of view of a climate researcher it is the most interesting scenario," continues Schmidt. "While those who are interested in geoengineering applications may find it unrealistic."
One scientist particularly interested in geoengineering applications is Matthew Watson, leader of the volcano-inspired Stratospheric Particle Injection for Climate Engineering (Spice) project. The government-funded project was investigating the potential effects of spraying solar-reflective sulphates into the stratosphere from a 20 kilometre-high, stadium-sized balloon. However, a scaled-down field test of a smaller balloon spraying water droplets was cancelled due to governance and patent issues.
Now Watson is concerned by the report's conclusions, which he says could be used to suggest that geoengineering research is a waste of time. "Only through combined modelling and field research can we generate the evidence-base for a salient answer on whether climate engineering is a good or bad idea," says Watson. "It's vitally important that scientists are given the space within which to ask and try to answer difficult questions."
To understand different components of the Earth's systems, Schmidt agrees that a few experiments are necessary. "I'm not generally against small-scale field experiments if they help us understand processes in nature," says Schmidt. "But they should obviously be benign, and we should be very careful." However, small-scale field tests are also limited, Schmidt believes, with climate simulations possibly being the only way to fully grasp the long-term and large-scale climate effects of geoengineering.
Both options may have their individual limitations, according to Watson. "That small-scale experiments are, by their nature, incomplete is often used as an argument against climate engineering, but that can also be said of models, which are, by definition, imperfect." In addition to large-scale simulations, Watson accepts the need for small, benign and well-governed field experiments in the interim.
Despite the controversy on the best course of action to take, there is agreement between all parties on the need to determine the effects of geoengineering with confidence. But this confidence may perhaps only be found by both peering through simulations to see long-term global effects, and engaging in detailed examination of field tests to assess the practical potential of specific interventions.
Watson says time is short: "Unfortunately, we don't have hundreds of years before climate change really takes hold. So researching climate engineering now is much better than undertaking that effort only when it becomes clear it is necessary."
Wednesday, 4 July 2012
The importance of continuing climate engineering research
One of the leitmotifs of the recent discussions around the
SPICE project technology test cancellation was the support for the remainder
(90%) of the project to continue. Objectors’ responses to allowing researchers to
explore climate engineering are entirely predictable. First, we were accused of
being ‘in it for the research money’, an obnoxious slur borrowed from climate
sceptics when describing climate scientists. Now, we are ‘sweet and naive’:
well meaning, bumbling boffins, trying to help but providing ammunition to the
Machiavellian aims of politicians too lazy to do anything but retain the status
quo. Next, I predict, we’ll be encouraged to turn on each other and our
research will be used to try to ‘divide and conquer’. Differences of opinion
are our modus operandi.
It’s already
beginning to happen. Stock responses to papers suggesting climate engineering
might work/have positive impacts (no matter how buried in caveats) include
demonising the researchers involved. On the other hand, research, including several
recently published papers, is already being used to
suggest that climate engineering (and ergo researching climate engineering) is
a waste of time. Just think about that paradox for a moment – ‘research into
climate engineering shows research into climate engineering is worthless’.
What these papers demonstrate is that it is surely
better to know than not. After all three large eruptions of the
latter half of the 20th century rainfall patterns were impacted by
increased aerosol. Does this mean that this form of climate engineering should
be discarded? No, it doesn’t. Make no mistake, no form of climate engineering
is a free ride and we cannot get back to where we were. There will be winners
and losers if we deploy stratospheric aerosols or not, unless we change, as a
species, very quickly. The questions have to be ‘what are the impacts of both
scenarios and which is preferable?’ I am often asked, ‘is climate engineering a
good idea’. My response is ‘I’ve no idea, but it would be a good idea to know
if it’s a bad idea’. Only through research can we generate the evidence base
for a salient answer. It is vitally important that scientists are given the
space within which to ask and try to answer difficult questions.
Tuesday, 19 June 2012
Monday, 18 June 2012
I saw this Hugh, and thought of you
I was crying with laughter when I came across this... from https://www.facebook.com/scienceisawesome
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)