Harry Marks wrote:Well, let's get into the nitty gritty. You place an upper limit on removal of CO2 by emissions reduction, and then conclude that it cannot manage what is needed. At the same time, you claim that NET will remove what is needed. But of course we don't know that.
Hi Harry, many thanks for these comments. I think your points reflect widely held assumptions about climate policy that are highly questionable. When you say I am placing an upper limit on emission cuts, I am really just asking what is possible and realistic. The upper theoretical limit on emission reduction is equal to total emissions. Stopping all emissions means all combustion on earth would cease, along with other emitting processes such as rotting.
I raise this as a thought experiment, to point out that even if that impossible goal was achieved in the next decade, with net zero emissions solely through emission reduction, we would still be on track to dangerous warming due to past emissions. The CO2 and methane already in the air from past human emissions have committed further warming due to the processes known as ‘feedback amplifiers’, such as melting of the Arctic.
The only way to remove the cause of warming is to augment the practical maximum of emission reduction with carbon removal and direct cooling. So what is the practical maximum for emission reduction? The Paris Accord proposes to remove less than 10% of future emissions between now and 2030, while doing nothing about committed warming, and talking up the prospect of maybe lifting the 10% plan to 20%, even though experience suggests that achieving 10% will be a struggle. Carbon removal and direct cooling hold the potential to achieve net zero by 2030 by removing carbon equal to the remaining 90% of emissions.
The balance between emission reduction and other cooling methods is a classic economic problem of opportunity cost. Do we put our eggs in the basket of ramping up emission reduction as the UN proposes, despite the political heat, or do we come clean to agree that all options should be on the table, and agree that subsidy should go to technologies that achieve least cost abatement? Meanwhile the sixth extinction continues its remorseless progress.
Harry Marks wrote:
It may be that NET will turn out to have limits far short of your projections.
But the problem is we just don’t know the real limits, because the climate establishment has largely closed ranks against Negative Emissions. The IPCC stated in its 1.5 degree report last year only that NETs might be needed later in the century if emission reduction does not work. That is a scandalous and irresponsible policy line, condemning the world to the security peril of dangerous warming. Immediate large scale testing of NETs should be a main policy priority to establish what the real potential may be.
Harry Marks wrote: If we also pursue conversion to alternate technologies by properly pricing the external harms of carbon, we will have some contribution from emissions reduction, and some contribution from NET.
Sure, and maybe decarbonisation will remove 20% of emissions by 2030, double the Paris target. That would be great, if difficult. My view on carbon pricing is that in theory it is a great idea that would accelerate climate stability, but I just have practical doubts about the politics.
The risk is that political conflict over emission reduction could cause delay in implementing any measures other than incremental expansion of current known methods, even though that will not prevent dangerous warming. Then we get very much a second best result, with the remorseless march of extinction. Pulling back from the attitude of emission reduction alone would produce the balanced approach I am calling for.
Harry Marks wrote: From the perspective of a person who is not already committed to the "NET instead of decarbonisation" dichotomy, this looks like a much safer bet than relying on NET alone.
I am certainly not committed to that dichotomy, in the sense of saying there is anything wrong with cutting emissions. We can’t rely on NET alone. What I object to is the widespread reverse opinion, that all geoengineering research should be banned because it undermines decarbonisation. We should do all we can to cut emissions, except for excluding alternatives, which is what is happening now. The safest bet for public policy is to be technology neutral, with any available public funds allocated by the criterion of potential to deliver least cost abatement, including through research and development of new technology. The current policy is very far from that principle.
Harry Marks wrote: The chances of actually avoiding catastrophic runaway effects are much greater.
The best chance of avoiding catastrophic warming is for governments to focus on supporting research and development of new technology, escaping the ideological path dependence that renewable energy has created.
Harry Marks wrote:
I know that you think NET can be sold politically, but conversion and emissions reduction cannot.
This is a really important and complex question at the heart of climate politics. On the surface, the situation seems to be the reverse, that emission reduction is politically popular while negative emissions are completely marginal. Negative Emissions even have a stupid name that people can’t understand, and that journalists routinely mock, which is why I prefer carbon removal as a clearer title rather than negative emissions.
The ultimate political selling point for climate technology is cost. My view is that algae-based carbon removal methods can be developed that will mitigate climate change for a fraction of the unit cost of current plans for conversion to renewable energy, measured per tonne of CO2e removed. Ramping up conversion toward the scale needed to achieve net zero emissions involves escalating cost as the goal is approached.
Conversion from coal is an important goal, but we should compare all the options to see if a slower conversion process might give better results. At the moment the rather hysterical line from decarbonisation advocates is that if we don’t shut down coal as fast as possible we are doomed to an inevitable climate apocalypse. The alternative possibility is that a focus on carbon removal could achieve faster and bigger climate results than emission reduction, with less cost and risk.
Harry Marks wrote:Yet the discussion has to separate the "is it good?" question from the "will people accept it?" question, and you are having real trouble doing that.
Sorry Harry, that comment makes no sense to me. Firstly, both carbon removal and emission reduction are public goods, so well worth supporting. Secondly, I am not at all suggesting we shift to carbon removal just because it will be acceptable. The whole point is that removing carbon could prove more effective than emission reduction as a way to reverse global warming. The comparison should be about what the scientific evidence shows. Unfortunately at the moment the problem is not scientific but political. There is a lack of broad interest in carbon removal, with ideological opposition and lack of investment driven by the political view that carbon removal would reduce pressure for emission reduction. That roadblock has to be removed to create a level playing field.
Harry Marks wrote: As a result, you actually contribute to the notion that conversion is a bad idea by conflating arguments based on the difficulty of selling it politically with actual discussion of whether it is a good idea.
Not at all, you have misunderstood the point. I am not at all saying conversion is a bad idea, just questioning the UN line that it is the only path. Current advocacy for conversion exaggerates its real cooling potential, and fails to recognise the risks of delay and conflict involved in shutting down fossil fuels. I am not conflating the technical and political points, just saying that in practical terms climate policy should focus on activities with the greatest chance of delivering results, and the political opposition to decarbonisation should be taken into account as a factor to increase investment in carbon removal.
Harry Marks wrote:
in previous statements you have characterized government-led approaches as socialist
Yes, mainly to the extent that government-led approaches see increasing tax or intervening to shut down fossil fuel industries as the key to fixing the climate. My view is that climate action will primarily require public private partnership, coordinating the roles of government and investors. Government does have a central role in fixing the climate, but it should focus on creating an enabling environment for business investment as a market oriented approach. While a carbon price can theoretically help to enable investment, the general view of government led action is that shutting down fossil fuel industries is the central climate job. I see that focus on political polarisation as akin to class war.
Harry Marks wrote:, (back when you thought the private sector would support your proposals for the sake of the climate)
I have never thought the private sector would invest for the sake of the climate, only for the sake of their enlightened self interest. I retain that view.
Harry Marks wrote: and you continue to distort the discussion to disparage emissions reduction. You say that emission reduction "cannot stabilise the climate," excluding the possibility that it might be a vital part of stabilising the climate in combination with carbon removal.
Harry, you might want to read my comments more carefully. In this thread I have clearly said that emission reduction should be supported to deliver 10% of the goal of net zero emissions, as per the ambitious target agreed at Paris. Saying that it can’t do more is an entirely realistic assessment. The distortion comes from those who say emission reduction alone is a sufficient climate strategy.
Harry Marks wrote:Every time you make such statements you erode your credibility. A rhetorical strategy is not the same thing as a fair characterization of the matter.
I am not worried about such flimsy mischaracterisations. The problem here is that climate activists wrongly think that emission reduction can deliver 100% of the change needed to stabilise the climate. They suffer from a severe case of the ‘emperor’s new clothes’ syndrome when the fact is pointed out that the Paris ambition of cutting 10% of emissions will be hard enough, let alone the necessary task of large scale carbon removal as essential for climate stability.
Harry Marks wrote:
By "elites" you mean people who understand the danger of climate change and the (probably) irreversible effects of cumulative GHG levels.
No, by elites in this context I meant people who are rich enough to regard higher fuel prices as a necessary sacrifice for the good of the cause.
Harry Marks wrote: If policymakers are willing to sell out to commercial pressures, and voters go along with this, then humanity will get the cataclysm it deserves.
Again that ‘sell out’ line can easily be misunderstood. You are right that doing nothing is a recipe for cataclysm, but painting commerce as the enemy is wrong, neglecting the urgent necessity of enlisting the resources, skills and contacts of multinational enterprises in fixing the climate as a task of enlightened self interest. That form of partnership can work with carbon removal but not with ramping up emission reduction.
Harry Marks wrote: But those of us who get the nature of the problem should not crawl into a hole, intimidated by cries of "elitism", and give up on solving the problem.
The elitism problem with taxing carbon is the assumption that making emissions more expensive is the key to fixing the climate, as Macron is finding to his political cost in France. Higher energy prices are sand in the gears of the economy. The transition to a low price renewable energy market will be more difficult than its advocates assert.
Harry Marks wrote:Macron made several serious mistakes in pitching his program. First, he alienated common people politically before he started by passing a tax cut for the rich before addressing climate change.
https://www.ft.com/content/3d907582-b89 ... 9c83ffa852 Then when he designed the program he treated it as a sop to environmentalist special interests rather than a desperately needed policy to sell to the general public. Specifically, rather than tailor a revenue-neutral program which would ease the cost to those hardest hit by the taxes, he instead dedicated much of the added revenue to softening the budget impact of his prior tax cuts, and much of the rest to spending on climate adjustment. The EU has taken a similar approach, announcing grand plans which are made without efforts to sell the public on them, then having to back off under pressure. The charge of elitism is therefore deserved, but not because doing something about climate change is inherently elitist.
Yes, you set out the elitism problem very well, illustrating the lack of trust that ordinary people have for emission reduction proposals and their advocates.
Harry Marks wrote: you persistently oppose a rational approach of charging for the true costs of fossil fuel burning, as though rationality were beside your point.
Well yes, alleged “rationality” can be beside the point of achieving climate results when it’s claims serve as a rhetorical cloak for other motives. If carbon removal could be a superior way to restore the climate that does not require the world to double down on decarbonisation, it should be explored, not peremptorily dismissed. Taxing carbon at a level needed to affect incentives will only ever be a marginal contribution to climate stability, unless linked to exemptions for R&D into carbon removal.
I am not criticising renewable energy, only pointing out that its practical effect on temperature is small and slow. There is a long history of economists attempting to design a rational society, and these efforts have failed due to inability to understand and engage with the complexity of human motives and beliefs.
Harry Marks wrote: Looks to me like you are just one more special interest, pleading for your priority.
Who is indulging in rhetorical distortion now? Carbon removal is not a special interest, it is the essential primary requirement for climate stability and restoration.
Harry Marks wrote:You, on the other hand, introduce sleight-of-hand phrases like "only one possible path" as though there were not a multitude of possible paths involving varying mixes of carbon removal and emissions reduction, thus torching your own credibility and contributing to the smokescreen being laid by the fossil fuel industry.
That is another distortion. The only one possible path to climate stability is to remove more carbon from the air than we add to it. Of course that could result from varying mixes of emission reduction and carbon removal. But it does not include the UN path of delaying attention to carbon removal for decades.
Harry Marks wrote:
The IPCC is probably biased, and will be getting over more and more of that bias as political leadership flushes more and more of the climate down the toilet, but in the meantime there is no reason your rhetoric should take an equally intransigent approach.
I am hardly the intransigent one in this debate! The blatant intransigence is from climate activists who say, in a
statement just supported by hundreds of environmental NGOs and fellow travellers, that “we will vigorously oppose market-based mechanisms and technology options such as carbon and emissions trading and offsets, carbon capture and storage, nuclear power, waste-to-energy and biomass energy.” I am happy to support emission reduction, I simply ask that people be realistic about what it can achieve, and not engage in trashing of potential alternatives.
Harry Marks wrote: if rationality prevailed, and algae production for biochar and whatnot else was also earning income from carbon credits, then the chances of getting to the needed degree of carbon removal before Apocalypse is unleashed would be considerably increased.
That seems plausible at first glance, except that getting industry to invest in carbon removal could emerge as an alternative to a carbon credit system.
Harry Marks wrote:
everyone including agribusiness is happy to let others bear the cost of projects like removing harmful nutrients from rivers.
You did not get my point Harry. Using algae to remove nutrient from rivers should be a profitable enterprise, so the cost of doing so is an R&D investment.
Harry Marks wrote: I suspect what you had in mind here was something more like the requirements that coal mines clean up their tailings and replace the mountainsides, but applied to agribusiness. The problem with that approach is that the farmers buy the stuff and apply it. As far as I know there are no legal doctrines to make the sellers of the chemicals responsible for the use to which the chemicals are put, much less making them responsible for cleaning up the cumulative effects of their output. The closest case might be the Superfund programs for cleaning up toxic chemical dumps, which I believe do assess some of the cost against the chemical producers.
Run-of-river algae farms could become a profitable way to produce biomass which could then be used as farm fertilizer and stock feed, with cleaning dead zones in coastal regions and proving up algae technology as side benefits. The mentality needs to shift from punishing industry to finding innovative ways to cooperate for the sake of the climate.