Thanks for this: it's the best summary of arguments for and against solar geoengineering that I've found. Here's a comparison of risks vs. benefits by the leading researcher in the field: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NZ8TZqfwzdU .
(Disclosure: I'm the cofounder of Make Sunsets, and I believe we have a moral imperative to deploy solar geoengineering yesterday.)
Ironic that you cite David Keith, Luke. In a series of tweets he roundly condemns your project, including this comment: "Motivated by silly commercial stuff that bubbled up this year, this thread provides a few reasons why commercializing solar geoengineering is a terrible idea." He also has roundly condemned your company for propagating junk science and failing even to meet elemental notions of scientific transparency. And he's right.
Oh bravo Ted. I doubt I would have read this post from anyone but you. Geoengineering isn't something I'd seriously considered, so I was pretty uninformed. You won me over with this piece. It seems so logical. We need to get you on the chat shows and i will be reposting this article in hopes of doing just that. Keep em coming. CHeers
There were a number of excellent arguments in this piece, Ted, including the challenges of traditional mitigation responses and the issue of whether CDR can scale up quickly enough. Having said that, this piece was (alarmingly) blithe about the potential negative ramifications of SRM, including termination shock, regional precipitation impacts and threats to the ozone layer. You don't address any of these issues, but easily conclude that potential negative impacts are de minimis, i.e. "we should expect some minor changes." And, sure, there's the obligatory nod to "research" that SRM fanboys revert to when they want to appear reasonable, but in the end, you've clearly concluded that SRM should be deployed.
The conclusion that developing countries would also have the capability to deploy SRM also ignores substantial resistance in the developing world to consideration of SRM, including an extremely pointed Op Ed in the New York Times last week by an African scholar portraying SRM as yet another form of colonialism. While your piece appears to portray such voices as extreme, those of us who have worked in this field for a long time (15 years and counting for me) don't believe that comports with reality, and this has serious implications in the realms of ethics/justice, geostrategic tension, and potentially upending cooperation on other climate responses in key institutions e.g. Paris.
The reason that many of us have such trepidation about SRM is encapsulated in this piece's flippancy.
Hi Wil, thank you for the comments. Certainly, there are risks and downsides to SRM, and you are right that I barely touched on them here. I may write more analyzing those risks, if there is sufficient interest.
By no means did I want to appear flippant, but I would argue that, given the risks outlined in my piece, to say nothing of the costs involved , SRM should be considered at the highest levels, alongside CDR and transition to alternative energies.
I think "be considered" is a reasonable proposition, but your piece went further than that. Without having "considered" SRM in terms of even a reasonably large-scale field trial, you asserted that its impacts would be pretty minimal, and I don't think that claim can be credibly made at this point, nor do even full-throated supporters of research in the SRM science community, e.g. Doug MacMartin or David Keith. Moreover, the argument that if one believes climate change is an existential threat (which I concur), then one should be supportive of SRM doesn't scan. As I tell my students, the world may be burning, but that doesn't justify an approach that may constitute kerosene. Termination shock could, for example, result in temperature increases 6-20x greater than a business as usual scenario over the course of the first decades of cessation of use of one of these technologies. Marine cloud brightening could fundamentally restructure ocean ecosystems in a way that could devastate fisheries. It's fine to counsel research; it's another to conclude, as you did in advance of research, that: 1. The impacts would be minimal; or 2. The impacts would be less than unchecked climate change. Neither proposition has been anywhere near proven at this point.
Thanks for this: it's the best summary of arguments for and against solar geoengineering that I've found. Here's a comparison of risks vs. benefits by the leading researcher in the field: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NZ8TZqfwzdU .
(Disclosure: I'm the cofounder of Make Sunsets, and I believe we have a moral imperative to deploy solar geoengineering yesterday.)
Hey Luke, thank you! I am very impressed by what you guys are doing, and, honestly, your bravery.
Thanks for passing that along, I’ll take a look!
Ironic that you cite David Keith, Luke. In a series of tweets he roundly condemns your project, including this comment: "Motivated by silly commercial stuff that bubbled up this year, this thread provides a few reasons why commercializing solar geoengineering is a terrible idea." He also has roundly condemned your company for propagating junk science and failing even to meet elemental notions of scientific transparency. And he's right.
Oh bravo Ted. I doubt I would have read this post from anyone but you. Geoengineering isn't something I'd seriously considered, so I was pretty uninformed. You won me over with this piece. It seems so logical. We need to get you on the chat shows and i will be reposting this article in hopes of doing just that. Keep em coming. CHeers
Thanks for the kind words Dave. It really is something that we need to get the word out about.
There were a number of excellent arguments in this piece, Ted, including the challenges of traditional mitigation responses and the issue of whether CDR can scale up quickly enough. Having said that, this piece was (alarmingly) blithe about the potential negative ramifications of SRM, including termination shock, regional precipitation impacts and threats to the ozone layer. You don't address any of these issues, but easily conclude that potential negative impacts are de minimis, i.e. "we should expect some minor changes." And, sure, there's the obligatory nod to "research" that SRM fanboys revert to when they want to appear reasonable, but in the end, you've clearly concluded that SRM should be deployed.
The conclusion that developing countries would also have the capability to deploy SRM also ignores substantial resistance in the developing world to consideration of SRM, including an extremely pointed Op Ed in the New York Times last week by an African scholar portraying SRM as yet another form of colonialism. While your piece appears to portray such voices as extreme, those of us who have worked in this field for a long time (15 years and counting for me) don't believe that comports with reality, and this has serious implications in the realms of ethics/justice, geostrategic tension, and potentially upending cooperation on other climate responses in key institutions e.g. Paris.
The reason that many of us have such trepidation about SRM is encapsulated in this piece's flippancy.
Hi Wil, thank you for the comments. Certainly, there are risks and downsides to SRM, and you are right that I barely touched on them here. I may write more analyzing those risks, if there is sufficient interest.
By no means did I want to appear flippant, but I would argue that, given the risks outlined in my piece, to say nothing of the costs involved , SRM should be considered at the highest levels, alongside CDR and transition to alternative energies.
I think "be considered" is a reasonable proposition, but your piece went further than that. Without having "considered" SRM in terms of even a reasonably large-scale field trial, you asserted that its impacts would be pretty minimal, and I don't think that claim can be credibly made at this point, nor do even full-throated supporters of research in the SRM science community, e.g. Doug MacMartin or David Keith. Moreover, the argument that if one believes climate change is an existential threat (which I concur), then one should be supportive of SRM doesn't scan. As I tell my students, the world may be burning, but that doesn't justify an approach that may constitute kerosene. Termination shock could, for example, result in temperature increases 6-20x greater than a business as usual scenario over the course of the first decades of cessation of use of one of these technologies. Marine cloud brightening could fundamentally restructure ocean ecosystems in a way that could devastate fisheries. It's fine to counsel research; it's another to conclude, as you did in advance of research, that: 1. The impacts would be minimal; or 2. The impacts would be less than unchecked climate change. Neither proposition has been anywhere near proven at this point.