[geo] CIA Director Brennan Speaks at the Council on Foreign Relations on geoengineering

[Andrew Lockley]

https://www.cia.gov/news-information/speeches-testimony/2016-speeches-testimony/director-brennan-speaks-at-the-council-on-foreign-relations.html

Extract

Another example is the array of technologies—often referred to collectively
as geoengineering—that potentially could help reverse the warming effects
of global climate change. One that has gained my personal attention is
stratospheric aerosol injection, or SAI, a method of seeding the
stratosphere with particles that can help reflect the sun’s heat, in much
the same way that volcanic eruptions do.

An SAI program could limit global temperature increases, reducing some
risks associated with higher temperatures and providing the world economy
additional time to transition from fossil fuels. The process is also
relatively inexpensive—the National Research Council estimates that a fully
deployed SAI program would cost about $10 billion yearly.

As promising as it may be, moving forward on SAI would raise a number of
challenges for our government and for the international community. On the
technical side, greenhouse gas emission reductions would still have to
accompany SAI to address other climate change effects, such as ocean
acidification, because SAI alone would not remove greenhouse gases from the
atmosphere.

On the geopolitical side, the technology’s potential to alter weather
patterns and benefit certain regions at the expense of others could trigger
sharp opposition by some nations. Others might seize on SAI’s benefits and
back away from their commitment to carbon dioxide reductions. And, as with
other breakthrough technologies, global norms and standards are lacking to
guide the deployment and implementation of SAI.

[Ken Caldeira]

I think of carbon dioxide removal as a form of mitigation and of solar
geoengineering as an extreme form of adaptation.

They are not not mutually exclusive, and not substitutes except insofar as
more carbon dioxide removal reduces the motivation to deploy solar
geoengineering.

What I find interesting about this is that it had seemed to me that this community
had largely moved on to CDR & especially BECCS as the preferred mechanism,
most people accepting David Keith's view of SAI as a last-ditch option for
slowing the rate of change. Do others agree with my formulation?

Post by Andrew Lockley
https://www.cia.gov/news-information/speeches-testimony/2016-speeches-testimony/director-brennan-speaks-at-the-council-on-foreign-relations.html
Extract
Another example is the array of technologies—often referred to
collectively as geoengineering—that potentially could help reverse the
warming effects of global climate change. One that has gained my personal
attention is stratospheric aerosol injection, or SAI, a method of seeding
the stratosphere with particles that can help reflect the sun’s heat, in
much the same way that volcanic eruptions do.
An SAI program could limit global temperature increases, reducing some
risks associated with higher temperatures and providing the world economy
additional time to transition from fossil fuels. The process is also
relatively inexpensive—the National Research Council estimates that a fully
deployed SAI program would cost about $10 billion yearly.
As promising as it may be, moving forward on SAI would raise a number of
challenges for our government and for the international community. On the
technical side, greenhouse gas emission reductions would still have to
accompany SAI to address other climate change effects, such as ocean
acidification, because SAI alone would not remove greenhouse gases from the
atmosphere.
On the geopolitical side, the technology’s potential to alter weather
patterns and benefit certain regions at the expense of others could trigger
sharp opposition by some nations. Others might seize on SAI’s benefits and
back away from their commitment to carbon dioxide reductions. And, as with
other breakthrough technologies, global norms and standards are lacking to
guide the deployment and implementation of SAI.
--
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
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

ᐧ

[Ken Caldeira]

I am comforted by the fact that the CIA director has the facts basically
right.

Rumor had it that the CIA was one of the funders of the recent National
Academy reports on geoengineering. It is reassuring to see that the main
points of the solar geoengineering report have been digested reasonably
well:

An SAI program could limit global temperature increases, reducing some
risks associated with higher temperatures and providing the world economy
additional time to transition from fossil fuels. The process is also
relatively inexpensive—the National Research Council estimates that a fully
deployed SAI program would cost about $10 billion yearly.

As promising as it may be, moving forward on SAI would raise a number of
challenges for our government and for the international community. On the
technical side, greenhouse gas emission reductions would still have to
accompany SAI to address other climate change effects, such as ocean
acidification, because SAI alone would not remove greenhouse gases from the
atmosphere.

On the geopolitical side, the technology’s potential to alter weather
patterns and benefit certain regions at the expense of others could trigger
sharp opposition by some nations. Others might seize on SAI’s benefits and
back away from their commitment to carbon dioxide reductions. And, as with
other breakthrough technologies, global norms and standards are lacking to
guide the deployment and implementation of SAI.


NAS report available here:
http://www.nap.edu/catalog/18988/climate-intervention-reflecting-sunlight-to-cool-earth




[phone]
http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab

I think I overstated my formulation. I was not talking about the science
but really the level of enthusiasm and energy around various options. While
we see people full-throatedly arguing for MOAR BECCS NOW we don't really
see the same breadth of enthusiasm for immediate SAI.
ᐧ

Post by Ken Caldeira
I think of carbon dioxide removal as a form of mitigation and of solar
geoengineering as an extreme form of adaptation.
They are not not mutually exclusive, and not substitutes except insofar
as more carbon dioxide removal reduces the motivation to deploy solar
geoengineering.

What I find interesting about this is that it had seemed to me that this community
had largely moved on to CDR & especially BECCS as the preferred mechanism,
most people accepting David Keith's view of SAI as a last-ditch option for
slowing the rate of change. Do others agree with my formulation?
On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 10:06 AM, Andrew Lockley <

Post by Andrew Lockley
https://www.cia.gov/news-information/speeches-testimony/2016-speeches-testimony/director-brennan-speaks-at-the-council-on-foreign-relations.html
Extract
Another example is the array of technologies—often referred to
collectively as geoengineering—that potentially could help reverse the
warming effects of global climate change. One that has gained my personal
attention is stratospheric aerosol injection, or SAI, a method of seeding
the stratosphere with particles that can help reflect the sun’s heat, in
much the same way that volcanic eruptions do.
An SAI program could limit global temperature increases, reducing some
risks associated with higher temperatures and providing the world economy
additional time to transition from fossil fuels. The process is also
relatively inexpensive—the National Research Council estimates that a fully
deployed SAI program would cost about $10 billion yearly.
As promising as it may be, moving forward on SAI would raise a number
of challenges for our government and for the international community. On
the technical side, greenhouse gas emission reductions would still have to
accompany SAI to address other climate change effects, such as ocean
acidification, because SAI alone would not remove greenhouse gases from the
atmosphere.
On the geopolitical side, the technology’s potential to alter weather
patterns and benefit certain regions at the expense of others could trigger
sharp opposition by some nations. Others might seize on SAI’s benefits and
back away from their commitment to carbon dioxide reductions. And, as with
other breakthrough technologies, global norms and standards are lacking to
guide the deployment and implementation of SAI.
--
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
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

ᐧ

[Greg Rau]

Both the SRM and the CDR volumes of NAS's Climate Intervention report acknowledge support from the "US intelligence community".  Interestingly, the reasons for this community's interest in this topic and the implications for national security are never really discussed in the report, at least not in the CDR volume that I reviewed. Anyway, always good to have "intelligence" involved, even if without transparency? In what other aspects of Earth sustainability are they (silent) partners?Greg


From: Ken Caldeira <***@gmail.com>
To: Fred Zimmerman <***@gmail.com>
Cc: Andrew Lockley <***@gmail.com>; Greg Rau <***@sbcglobal.net>; geoengineering <***@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, July 5, 2016 9:08 AM
Subject: Re: [geo] CIA Director Brennan Speaks at the Council on Foreign Relations on geoengineering

I am comforted by the fact that the CIA director has the facts basically right. 
Rumor had it that the CIA was one of the funders of the recent National Academy reports on geoengineering.  It is reassuring to see that the main points of the solar geoengineering report have been digested reasonably well:
An SAI program could limit global temperature increases, reducing some risks associated with higher temperatures and providing the world economy additional time to transition from fossil fuels. The process is also relatively inexpensive—the National Research Council estimates that a fully deployed SAI program would cost about $10 billion yearly. As promising as it may be, moving forward on SAI would raise a number of challenges for our government and for the international community. On the technical side, greenhouse gas emission reductions would still have to accompany SAI to address other climate change effects, such as ocean acidification, because SAI alone would not remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere.On the geopolitical side, the technology’s potential to alter weather patterns and benefit certain regions at the expense of others could trigger sharp opposition by some nations. Others might seize on SAI’s benefits and back away from their commitment to carbon dioxide reductions. And, as with other breakthrough technologies, global norms and standards are lacking to guide the deployment and implementation of SAI.
NAS report available here:  http://www.nap.edu/catalog/18988/climate-intervention-reflecting-sunlight-to-cool-earth


[phone]
http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab

On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 8:29 AM, Fred Zimmerman <***@gmail.com> wrote:

I think I overstated my formulation. I was not talking about the science but really the level of enthusiasm and energy around various options. While we see people full-throatedly arguing for MOAR BECCS NOW we don't really see the same breadth of enthusiasm for immediate SAI.ᐧ
On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 11:06 AM, Ken Caldeira <***@gmail.com> wrote:

I think of carbon dioxide removal as a form of mitigation and of solar geoengineering as an extreme form of adaptation.

They are not not mutually exclusive, and not substitutes except insofar as more carbon dioxide removal reduces the motivation to deploy solar geoengineering.
On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 07:52 Fred Zimmerman <***@gmail.com> wrote:

What I find interesting about this is that it had seemed to me that this community had largely moved on to CDR & especially BECCS as the preferred mechanism, most people accepting David Keith's view of SAI as a last-ditch option for slowing the rate of change.  Do others agree with my formulation?

On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 10:06 AM, Andrew Lockley <***@gmail.com> wrote:


https://www.cia.gov/news-information/speeches-testimony/2016-speeches-testimony/director-brennan-speaks-at-the-council-on-foreign-relations.htmlExtract Another example is the array of technologies—often referred to collectively as geoengineering—that potentially could help reverse the warming effects of global climate change. One that has gained my personal attention is stratospheric aerosol injection, or SAI, a method of seeding the stratosphere with particles that can help reflect the sun’s heat, in much the same way that volcanic eruptions do.An SAI program could limit global temperature increases, reducing some risks associated with higher temperatures and providing the world economy additional time to transition from fossil fuels. The process is also relatively inexpensive—the National Research Council estimates that a fully deployed SAI program would cost about $10 billion yearly. As promising as it may be, moving forward on SAI would raise a number of challenges for our government and for the international community. On the technical side, greenhouse gas emission reductions would still have to accompany SAI to address other climate change effects, such as ocean acidification, because SAI alone would not remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere.On the geopolitical side, the technology’s potential to alter weather patterns and benefit certain regions at the expense of others could trigger sharp opposition by some nations. Others might seize on SAI’s benefits and back away from their commitment to carbon dioxide reductions. And, as with other breakthrough technologies, global norms and standards are lacking to guide the deployment and implementation of SAI.--
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+***@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to ***@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


ᐧ
--
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+***@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to ***@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Ronal W. Larson]

List: Fred, Ken, and other ccs

1. There is a much longer version of the Brennan talk, including numerous Q/A (none re geo), at:
http://www.cfr.org/intelligence/john-brennan-transnational-threats-global-security/p38082 <http://www.cfr.org/intelligence/john-brennan-transnational-threats-global-security/p38082>

2. Because I officially visited a CIA library in the mid-70s re solar, representing a Congressional entity, I’d be very surprised if there were not a lot of CIA staff looking at all the Geo approaches. Alan Robock has mentioned being interviewed once. Anyone know more that relates the CIA to "Geo”?

3. See inserts below.

I think of carbon dioxide removal as a form of mitigation and of solar geoengineering as an extreme form of adaptation.
They are not not mutually exclusive, and not substitutes except insofar as more carbon dioxide removal reduces the motivation to deploy solar geoengineering.

RWL: The (above, highlighted) double negative looks like a typo. I agree that more CDR means less SRM. But also believe that more SRM means more CDR. So no symmetry.

one more below

What I find interesting about this is that it had seemed to me that this community had largely moved on to CDR & especially BECCS as the preferred mechanism, most people accepting David Keith's view of SAI as a last-ditch option for slowing the rate of change. Do others agree with my formulation?

[RWL: Not me - on both counts. It seems to me that BECCS has fallen from that #1 position given the many problems today facing CCS. The Mississippi CCS plant is now projected to cost 3X the promised value. And the value is supposed to lie in EOR, not real sequestration.

Ron

https://www.cia.gov/news-information/speeches-testimony/2016-speeches-testimony/director-brennan-speaks-at-the-council-on-foreign-relations.html <https://www.cia.gov/news-information/speeches-testimony/2016-speeches-testimony/director-brennan-speaks-at-the-council-on-foreign-relations.html>
Extract
Another example is the array of technologies—often referred to collectively as geoengineering—that potentially could help reverse the warming effects of global climate change. One that has gained my personal attention is stratospheric aerosol injection, or SAI, a method of seeding the stratosphere with particles that can help reflect the sun’s heat, in much the same way that volcanic eruptions do.
An SAI program could limit global temperature increases, reducing some risks associated with higher temperatures and providing the world economy additional time to transition from fossil fuels. The process is also relatively inexpensive—the National Research Council estimates that a fully deployed SAI program would cost about $10 billion yearly.
As promising as it may be, moving forward on SAI would raise a number of challenges for our government and for the international community. On the technical side, greenhouse gas emission reductions would still have to accompany SAI to address other climate change effects, such as ocean acidification, because SAI alone would not remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere.
On the geopolitical side, the technology’s potential to alter weather patterns and benefit certain regions at the expense of others could trigger sharp opposition by some nations. Others might seize on SAI’s benefits and back away from their commitment to carbon dioxide reductions. And, as with other breakthrough technologies, global norms and standards are lacking to guide the deployment and implementation of SAI.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering <https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering>.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout <https://groups.google.com/d/optout>.
ᐧ
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering <https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering>.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout <https://groups.google.com/d/optout>.