Guardian piece

So, the Guardian piece was (I think) relatively well received. I've had extremely nice emails from colleagues, mostly around the idea that it was pleasing to see something thoughtful and balanced about climate engineering, which is nice. Some of the comments on the article were a bit odd, some were critical but one stood out -  they made the observation that the term 'climate engineering' was disingenuous. What they actually wrote was:

'Nice switch from "geoengineering" to "climate engineering". Makes it sound much more soft and cuddly.'
 
I'd probably not have paid too much attention to that but for the fact that (independent of the Guardian piece) my good friend Duncan McLaren (Friends of the Earth & Lancaster University) had made the same point at a meeting yesterday. Now, when Duncan speaks, I listen. He's a pretty serious thinker on this stuff and, whilst we don't always agree, his observations certainly affect me. He pointed out that there was some evidence 'climate engineering' was a term people were more comfortable with (he did not see that as a positive, neither do I). I chose to use climate engineering as I think it most accurately reflects the thing it is trying to describe. Geoengineering, to many, is building dams and culverts. Climate engineering is exactly what it says it is - the engineering of a large scale climate (natural) system. I need to ask Duncan where the evidence for his assertion is - I'm quite sure he has some. My feeling would be that the juxtaposition of something natural like 'climate' and the clearly anthropocentric term like 'engineering' (read mastery is some circumstances) is striking. Maybe I'm wrong on this one. Time will tell.

You can't have it both ways?

So, in case you've been under a rock all week the IPCC have released their fifth report. For the first time, the summary included a paragraph on climate engineering. Josh Horton at geoengineeringpolitics provides (as always) a decent and balanced piece with context here. I agree with Josh that the paragraph is neither supportive nor overly dismissive. The paragraph's inclusion has prompted a strong negative response from those worried about legitimising 'geoengineering' (really SRM and ocean fertilization) including predictable statements from both Clive Hamilton and etc group. They are pretty consistent with their opposition to SRM, and they have a right to be. Interestingly, Jack Stilgoe has waded into this space with a piece in the Guardian. That, in of itself is not particularly unusual - Jack is a salient commentator who has been working with (sometimes on) SPICE and with others thinking about climate engineering for some time. However, his position highlights a clear tension within the social scientist fraternity. Jack, and others, have spent the last years insisting that we engage with publics and broaden the debate. I think he's right. So, then, how is the inclusion of climate engineering (especially so heavily caveated) not addressing that aim? Surely the IPCC should be talking about climate engineering? I'm minded to agree that their cursory discussion in the SPM (Summary for Policy Makers, in case like me you had to look it up) is not useful or really appropriate BUT I also think that there is a danger here that social scientists aren't practising what they preach. Suddenly, discussion is promoting legitimacy. How to engage then? Surely not by leading the public to their world view? That's clearly profoundly unethical. I'm afraid that, if it is to be discussed openly, then bodies like the IPCC will (and should) be charged with presenting it.

To put it another way, how do you discuss something this controversial with stakeholders (i.e. everyone) without bias. My personal framing (thanks in part to Phil MacNaughten and Jack for encouraging me to think this way) is agnosticism (see various different previous posts). This is not a rhetorical trick - as a scientist and in the absence of evidence I must be agnostic. It is not, however, the complete picture. My instincts are to be alarmed by large-scale intervention because of unintended consequences, attribution and selfishness (and/or greed). But, you cannot have it both ways, right? If the public are engaged and informed and, fairly and without leading, come to the conclusion that climate engineering is a legitimate course of action to consider, then I'm afraid that is an outcome that those opposed to climate engineering have to accept. It appears to me that Jack's piece counters his position that rational debate is the most desirable outcome. In a quickly released statement, etc group have condemned the inclusion and got to the nub of the debate with this sentence....'The actual sentences about geoengineering in the IPCC report matter less than the fact that they are there at all.' I'm sorry, but that is also the problem I have with both Jack's piece (whom I almost always agree with) and etc's stance. If the IPCC had been really scathing of climate engineering neither would, I suspect, have complained. Therefore it is the content of the paragraph that has perturbed them. A careful look at the paragraph suggests it is neither encouraging nor positive, rather simply capturing a (slightly outdated) conventional wisdom. I don't think you can object to discussion around climate engineering unless you are vehemently opposed to all research and deployment as an ideology. In that sense, etc group are entirely consistent. I'm not sure Jack, in this instance, can say the same. I feel similarly confused about Clive Hamilton's stance - his two most recent books 'Requiem for a Species' and 'Earthmasters' feel similarly juxtaposed.

screams from no-mans-land

This will probably be a fairly short post as, unlike most entries, I don't really have a specific point to make. The title is me musing on the polemic that surrounds climate engineering, and the fact that it is amplifying all the time. The headline is, of course, a note to Michael Mann's book, titled 'The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars: Dispatches from the Front Line'. I can honestly say I am not surprised by the lengths some will go to to discredit scientists, the following being one of a number of extreme examples from a distant scientific field.

http://www.environmentalhealthnews.org/ehs/news/2013/atrazine

Without trying to belittle those who have been on a real front line (OK, I admit the choice of analogy does make me squirm a bit Prof. Mann), I suspect this is how it feels to be vilified by one end of the spectrum in the AGW 'debate'. That got me thinking about climate engineering and those who research it. The point about the 'trenches' argument is that it is conventional, two adversarial groups squaring off (maybe the house of commons is a better analogy). Michael Mann no doubt has his compadres and must (I hope) take solace in their support. Climate engineering researchers however, you could argue, have it even worse. We are stuck, screaming, in no-mans-land (to push the analogy to breaking point) and taking fire from both sides. In fact, those with whom we typically identify are often more hostile that those with whom we normally vehemently disagree.

So, what now? Crawl back to the trenches and hope never to visit no-mans-land again, or stay there and face the flak.

Climate fatalism discussion

Fun discussion on Huffington Post Live channel yesterday, with three interesting and quite different climate activists. http://t.co/2bDiLBwyiC

Comments below amusing/flattering...!

Yet another profoundly depressing report form the IEA

Words fail me - just read it...

http://www.worldenergyoutlook.org/media/weowebsite/2013/energyclimatemap/RedrawingEnergyClimateMap.pdf

Another polemic from the deep greens...

Worryingly inaccurate article from ecowatch. Problems as follows:

1. The 'Nature' framing is really misleading, ignore Keeling at your peril.

2. Ken Caldeira is very opposed to AMEG (they must know this)...

3. Their dissonance is alarming - climate change is profoundly serious and man-made BUT don't even think about potentially unpalatable solutions?

That said, I don't disagree with their alarm on a rush towards deployment! Interestingly, in a meeting with Peter Wadhams this week all he was calling for was urgent upscaling of the research effort. I wholly agree... 

http://ecowatch.com/2013/the-war-on-nature-geoengineering-and-the-climate-crisis/

By Rachel Smolker and Almuth Ernsting

Will declaring a “climate emergency” help to finally prompt radical action to address climate change? A growing number of campaigners as well as scientists think so and hope that a major wake up call about unfolding climate disasters will spur governments and people into action.

Whether a lack of scary-enough facts about climate change has been holding back real action is questionable. After all, it requires a fair amount of psychological denial to not be alarmed by the escalating heat waves, droughts, floods and destructive megastorms.

Studies about psychological responses to climate change suggest that messages built on fear can cause people to feel disempowered and less likely to take action at all. Still, constantly playing down the scale of the unfolding destruction of climate and other planetary life support systems so as not to be “alarmist” seems somewhat disempowering to me. Personally, we much prefer to hear climate scientist James Hansen speak of a “planetary emergency” (in view of last year’s record low Arctic sea ice cover) than to read excessively cautious comments about uncertainties and the need for more research before concluding what seems obvious, for example that Arctic sea ice is in rapid meltdown and that extreme weather events are already far worse and more frequent than scientists had predicted.

Photo courtesy of Shutterstock

Yet, while the language of “climate emergency” may or may not spur more people to action, the crucial question is exactly what type of action is being advocated. James Hansen’s conclusion: “If we burn all the fossil fuels, we create certain disaster” should be beyond dispute. Action on climate change will be futile unless fossil fuels are left underground.

Unlike James Hansen, some academics and campaigners are calling for a very different type of “radical action” in response to the climate emergency. Amongst them is the small but vociferous Arctic Methane Emergency Group (AMEG). AMEG does not mince words about the seriousness of the crisis:

Abrupt climate change is upon us. Farmers are in despair. Food prices will go through the roof. The government’s climate change policy is in tatters. The government should have acted years ago. Now it may be too late.

The abrupt climate change scenario put forward by AMEG is, briefly, as follows:

The rate of warming is greatest in the Arctic and the rate at which Arctic sea ice has been melting is accelerating. The loss of sea ice triggers different impacts which in turn make Arctic meltdown, global warming and extreme weather across the Northern Hemisphere even worse. One of those effects is the release of methane trapped in permafrost, Arctic peat and under the Arctic Ocean. This could release so much methane at once that it would greatly increase the rate of global warming and lead to “unstoppable runaway warming.”

The first part of this analysis should be beyond dispute. However, the prediction of an imminent abrupt and catastrophic methane release from the Arctic is much less widely accepted amongst climate scientists, many of whom predict a slower release, over thousands of years—one which will worsen climate change in the long run but (importantly) not surpass the impacts of our own carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions.  

One of the scientists challenging AMEG’s predictions is methane expert, Dr. David Archer who stresses:

The worst case scenario is “what CO2 will do, under business-as-usual, not in a wild blow-the-doors-off unpleasant surprise, but just in the absence of any pleasant surprises (like emission controls).”

Is he right? We have no idea how much of the methane in the Arctic will end up the atmosphere by when. Some recent climate change impacts and findings have turned out to be much worse than what scientists had previously predicted. For example, a recent New Scientist article observed:

We knew global warming was going to make the weather more extreme. But it’s becoming even more extreme than anyone predicted.

But the argument regarding AMEG’s claims is not just a speculative argument about what might happen in future. It is also—and primarily—an argument about how we think about climate change and what we want to do about it. In this respect, we unequivocally agree with Archer’s view: Business-as-usual will guarantee the worst possible climate disaster. Arguing about just how bad that worst-case scenario might be seems futile when we should be doing whatever we can to stop greenhouse gas emissions, including fossil fuel burning and ecosystem destruction. This, however, is very different from how AMEG views the climate disaster.

What AMEG most fears is not what humans are doing—it’s the (methane) monsters lurking in nature. Preserving most life on Earth, in their view, thus requires nature to be better controlled and its monsters to be tamed. As AMEG’s Strategic Plan puts it, the “common enemy” that’s to be fought, the underlying cause of abrupt climate change isn’t us, it isn’t the fossil fuel economy—it’s the “vicious cycle of Arctic Warming and sea ice retreat.”

Photo courtesy of Shutterstock

They demand “something akin to a war room” and the war they want governments to fight is a war against nature—and specifically a war against the way in which nature responds when humans drastically alter the planet’s atmosphere by increasing its greenhouse gases. The tools for fighting this war that they suggest we use are a range of geoengineering strategies: Large amounts of sulphur aerosols which they want pumped into the lower stratosphere starting as soon as March/April 2014, the development of new reflective particles to be pumped into the stratosphere in future, marine cloud brightening, chemicals to destroy cirrus clouds, marine geoengineering, weather modification and more.  

Changing our own society and economy is ancillary to this quest. Here are the changes which AMEG’s demands in relation to our energy and transport sectors: Postpone drilling in the Arctic, reintroduce a ban on polar flights, relax requirements to clean up “bunker fuels” burnt in ships (because sulphur aerosols have a short-term cooling effect), scrub black carbon but not sulphur dioxide from coal power stations—and that’s it. Burning more coal and diesel is fine, in their view, as long as we emit lots of sulphur dioxide with it. Never mind the illnesses and acid rain caused by sulphur dioxide. Indeed, AMEG members are even, bizarrely, promoting Arctic methane hydrate mining for energy. One of the most widely cited AMEG members, British oceanographer Peter Wadhams, has been criticized by Greenpeace after praising Shell’s credentials for “safely” drilling in the Arctic in front of a Parliamentary Committee.

Not all AMEG members appear this unconcerned about ongoing fossil fuel emissions and some clearly do want to see real emissions reductions—in addition to geoengineering. AMEG is a very mixed group: Some supporters clearly have no financial interests in geoengineering and have joined AMEG purely out of the conviction that AMEG has the most credible answer to climate change. Some are academics who have gained a much greater public profile thanks to AMEG’s campaign—such as Peter Wadhams. And some have major financial interests in geoengineering—including Ken Caldeira. Caldeira, together with David Keith (not listed on AMEG’s website) has received more than $4.6 million from Bill Gates’ personal funds, around half of it for personal research on geoengineering, the other half to fund “research” by other geoengineering advocates. He is also listed as an inventor on a patent for a geoengineering device called StratoShield, held by Intellectual Ventures, a company linked to Gates.

All of them, however, are united in their faith that geoengineering can work and that humans can avert an even greater climate disaster by manipulating the planet’s atmosphere and biosphere. They do not appear concerned about what unilateral action taken by a government to deliberately manipulate planetary systems might mean for democracy and the rights of most of the world’s population. This is perhaps because they are convinced that geoengineering is the only way of keeping the planet habitable (at least for most humans). But this conviction is not derived from scientific knowledge—it is based on unwavering faith in human ability to master and control nature through engineering and technology.

The possibility that their proposals could possibly backfire and end up making climate change even worse, even faster has, it seems, not occurred to AMEG. Yet what the science confirms is that the full impacts of geoengineering on planetary and climate systems are by their nature unpredictable and that they might well render the climate yet more unstable. In a recent joint briefing by Biofuelwatch and EcoNexus, we summarized some of the highest risks of the types of geoengineering promoted by AMEG: Destruction of the ozone layer, acid rain, possible virtually instant and massive disruption of rainfall patterns, especially in the tropics and subtropics (which could mean a failure of the African and Asian monsoon), vegetation die-back which would release yet more carbon—and those are just some of the known risks.

If we want to have any hope of avoiding the worst impacts of climate change, we clearly need radical action—but that radical action must be aimed at stopping the burning fossil fuels and reversing the destruction of ecosystems (including soils). The very last thing we and the planet need is yet another “war room” and a new battle-front in the war against nature.

An attempt at balance...

OK - so, hopefully a calmer reflection on ETC's blog (as promised 'tomorrow' (hah) in the last piece)...

So, ignoring the nonsense (see last post if interested) there are some interesting ideas here.

Firstly, I'm not sure I completely buy the 'plowshares into swords' argument. Weren't the ambitions of Lyndon Johnson somewhat noble and altruistic? I'm sure we can all agree what followed was abhorrent but there are two separate issues here. By this logic, you could also argue ENMOD was a function of the first effort, which is a good thing, right? I worry that the inevitability of bad usage is too readily accepted. Or it could be that any intervention is perceived as bad, even with good intentions (I suppose the argument here is economic - how much more aid could have been given without attempts at weather modification?). I still think this is harder to argue for - as a member of Friends of the Earth once said, 'doing nothing is an ethical position'. To protect 'naturalness' to that extent (i.e. not intervening when you could) is perverse, and on a par with refusing your child a blood transfusion on religious grounds. It's simply disgusting. BUT, and it is a big but indeed, why should we trust people in power to do the right thing with climate engineering when they are failing so spectacularly on climate change? (a point raised by Peter Irving at a meeting in 2010). This is harder to knock down - you can point at the conspiracy theorists who claim geoengineering is already happening on a massive scale but, ignoring those loonies (as ETC now do I think) this question still alarms me. Peter, and others, are right - (1) governments regularly do appalling things in our name and (2) even well meaning efforts at SRM could worsen the situation, at least for some. It's also clear to most that nuclear power [paragraph 8] must play a role (at least in the short term) in reducing carbon dioxide emissions - swords into plowshares again ?

Secondly, of course, Jim is right. Plan A all the way. But, and it's a big but again, would it really work? Can you really plant your way out of food poverty in Northern Africa? I seriously doubt it, not with the amount of water stress and the increase in populations predicted over the next fifty years. If it were that easy, why hasn't it been done? Don't wheel out the old 'global powers' conspiracy theory nonsense again, please. Billions of dollars of aid have been pumped into the most needing parts of the world with very limited effect. If there was a solution as simple as ETC propose why wouldn't people just have done it? Answer, it's not that simple and it's an idealistic and unrealistic solution. A victory for idealism for pragmatism. By the way, I am all for idealism - if carbon dioxide levels start coming down, temperatures stabilise and global poverty is reduced/eliminated, those proposing climate engineering schemes look immensely stupid. Let me know when that happens....

Thirdly, thanks for the credit... Morton and the geoengineers might spare a little artificial intelligence to figure out what to do if a real or second “inevitable” volcanic eruption overlaps the manufactured kind. How would a triple-whammy of sulphates (a north injection, a south injection and then an unexpected volcanic addition) shift the climate. Would you need to double the artificial injection? How can you then scale back afterwards?'.  That's pretty much exactly what I've been working on. As a ball park estimate the odds of another Pinatubo-scale eruption over the next 50 years are (roughly) 1 in 3 (not quite inevitable). Those aren't good odds. As I've said in *many* meetings, including those attended by ETC, volcanoes may teach us much about climate engineering but may well turn out to be the greatest single uncertainty when considering such schemes.

Lastly, the normalisation of geoengineering and public acceptance is not something 'we' should covet. Make no mistake, if SRM is undertaken it will be the clearest indictation yet of our failure as a species. That should not be 'normal'...