You write,

1) “…In addition, GHGs affect the climate system in ways that create risks for things that people value. In such a situation we should seek to reduce those risks whenever possible.”

“2) Five years? I doubt it. Short of economic collapse a la former Soviet Union I don’t see any policy that can have such an effect. Nonetheless, I think that the greatest postential for successful reduction of GHG emissions lies in “no regrets” options.”

But just how much emissions reduction are you expecting from the “no regrets” options that you advocate.

I’ve pointed out that a (whopping) 20% reduction in U.S. emissions, done immediately, and continued for an entire decade, produces only an approximately 2 ppm reduction in atmospheric concentration in a decade. (The reasoning behind that calculation is as follows: it takes approximately 1.8 gigatons as carbon–or 6.6 gigatons of CO2–to produce 1 ppm of change in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration.)

Let’s (generously) say your “no regrets” policies result in an immediate 5% drop in U.S. emissions, relative to what they are now, and that 5% drop relative to “business as usual” is carried on throughout an entire decade. We’re talking about only approximately a 0.5 ppm of CO2, relative to where we would be with “business as usual.”

(Feel free to disagree with my calculations…I’m too lazy to rigorously check them.)

If there is indeed such a small difference between the atmospheric concentration that would occur if the U.S. followed a “no regrets” policy, and the atmospheric concentration that would occur under “business as usual,” as a PRACTICAL matter, your “no regrets” “reductions” are not really meaningful reductions.

“3) You have mischaracterized my perspective on air capture. I simply argued that it should be studied far more intensively than it is currently. I am pretty dubious of iron fertilization from the standpoint of unintended consequences.”

I think the reason air capture is not studied more than it is currently is that everyone can pretty much see that it will be fantastically expensive. Suppose we want to reduce tropospheric ozone (smog) concentrations in Los Angeles, or Boulder, or any other city. Does it make more sense capture the pollutants in the smokestacks (e.g., with fabric filters and scrubbers) or exhaust pipes (e.g., with catalytic converters), or does it make more sense to suck all the air in the city through giant air cleaning devices? The answer is the former, obviously.

Regarding ocean iron fertilization, I definitely agree that unintended consequences are certainly possible (starting with the fact that more CO2 in the atmosphere may be a net BENEFIT, not a net problem). But it definitely has the low-cost potential that buidling large CO2 capture towers will never have.

4″) On hurricane modification, there are two issues worth raising here. One is the impracticality of actually modulating storm intensities. The second is that hurricanes bring benefits (e.g., rainfall, part of ecosystem functioning) as well as costs. You can speculate all you want about costs/benefits of hurricane modification, but recognize that there is no consensus that it is possible or even desirable.”

In 1925, what would you say would have been the scientific consensus regarding the possibility of a single bomb destroying an entire major city (e.g. Hiroshima and Nagasaki)? Do you think that in 1925, such an idea would be considered anything but completely impractical…a mere fantasy/nightmare?

Similarly, in 1949…what would you say would have been the scientific consensus regarding the possibility of sending humans to the moon and back within 20 years? That probably seemed pretty impractical in 1949, don’t you think?

Regarding the benefits of hurricanes…I totally agree that the benefits should be considered extensively. (In fact, my proposal is definitely NOT to eliminate hurricanes entirely…merely to make sure they are almost all Category 1 or 2…with only an occasional Category 3, and no Category 4 or 5 storms.)

How about this for a public policy recommendation…do you agreee with me that the study funds you propose for land-based CO2 capture would be better spent on researching hurricane reduction methods (most definitely including exhaustive study of the possible unwanted side effects of such systems)?

I think that if you look at the economic costs and benefits of reducing all landfalling hurricanes by 2 Saffir-Simpson categories, versus the economic costs and benefits of sucking say, 50 ppm of CO2 out of the atmosphere with CO2 air capture, the benefit/cost ratio is clearly in favor of the hurricane reduction concept, versus land-based CO2 capture.

Some replies:

1) There are many policies than make sense for other reasons that have the effect of reducing GHG emissions, see discussion of “no regrets.” In addition, GHGs affect the climate system in ways that create risks for things that people value. In such a situation we should seek to reduce those risks whenever possible.

2) Five years? I doubt it. Short of economic collapse a la former Soviet Union I don’t see any policy that can have such an effect. Nonetheless, I think that the greatest postential for successful reduction of GHG emissions lies in “no regrets” options.

3) You have mischaracterized my perspective on air capture. I simply argued that it should be studied far more intensively than it is currently. I am pretty dubious of iron fertilization from the standpoint of unintended consequences.

4) On hurricane modification, there are two issues worth raising here. One is the impracticality of actually modulating storm intensities. The second is that hurricanes bring benefits (e.g., rainfall, part of ecosystem functioning) as well as costs. You can speculate all you want about costs/benefits of hurricane modification, but recognize that there is no consensus that it is possible or even desirable.

Thanks!

“No regrets” was a phrase invoked by Bush I, see, e.g.,

Reilly, W.K., 1990. What we can do. EPA Journal 32.

But was really implemented to some positive effect under Clinton/Gore, see, e.g.,

http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/about_us/meet_us/bklein/pdf/1999.17.pdf

The reality is that actual progress has been made on “no regrets” policies, see this discussion of the work of Michele Betsill:

http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/climate_change/000437more_cart_and_horse.html

“no regrets” policies are often called “win-win” and have a long and successful history in the environmental movement. CFC policy history is a case study in the success of no regrets policy options.

Thanks!

I appreciate your answers. Unfortunately…

1) Could you answer directly my question of why it makes “good policy sense” to reduce CO2 emissions? In your opinion, what significant problem or problems does CO2 cause?

2) Regarding “no regrets”…do you really think that there are sufficient “no regrets” policies to reduce U.S. emissions of CO2 emissions by approximately 20 percent in the next 5 years or so? If so, what are they?

3) Regarding your post on air capture…I remember you like air capture using CO2 removal towers. (Despite the fact that it will be tremendously expensive, and the warning of the researchers that the towers might damage vegetation downwind of the towers.) Do you like CO2 removal using ocean iron fertilization just as well?

4) I presume your reference to “been there done that” regarding hurricane reduction is in reference to Project Stormfury? If so, do you know whether Project Stormfury was preceeded by a year or more of multiple conferences (hopefully even international) that looked at dozens or even hundreds of different methods of hurricane reduction?

Regarding the cure being definitely worse than the disease, do you have an estimate of what is the difference between the net present value cost for all hurricanes for the next 40 years, versus the NPV cost for all hurricanes, if they’re reduced by 2 Saffir-Simpson categories?

Or, to look at it another way, can you estimate the savings that would have occurred over the past 40 years, if all hurricanes that struck the U.S. had been reduced by 2 Saffir-Simpson categories?

My guess is that the “disease” involves a pretty hefty chunk of change. (Not to mention the 1000+ lives that would have been saved by reducing hurricane Katrina alone by 2 Saffir-Simpson categories.) I suspect that most of the residents of New Orleans and Homestead FL would probably disagree that the cure would be worse than the disease.

Best wishes,
Mark

The idea seems to have been around earlier, but without the catchy phrase.

In any case, “no regrets” policy is a construct of the Bush I administration:

http://ncseonline.org/NLE/CRSreports/climate/clim-17.cfm#_1_7

and used to be invoked by many conservative think-tanks, viz:

http://www.rff.org/Documents/RFF-Resources-130-climate.pdf
http://www.hooverpress.org/productdetails.cfm?PC=895

Best,

D

If there is a policy, there is always some group that will regret it. Perhaps a “no regrets policy” is simply one that gives no regrets to the people proposing it.

In any case, “no regrets policy” seems like an oxymoron, like a “harmless knife”.

1. The most effective ways to reduce GHG emissions in my view are through so-called no-regrets options. No-regrets options are not justified as you have framed the question.

2. See my post on Air Capture.

3. Weather modification of hurricanes? Been there, tried that. Not a good idea for legal, ethical, scientific reasons. Cure worse than disease for sure.

Thanks!

You write, “If you don’t find answers to your questions there, it is simply because I think they are the wrong questions.”

In this blog post, you wrote, “2. Greenhouse gas reductions make good policy sense.”

I asked you–specifically ignoring methane, and dealing only with CO2–WHY CO2 reductions make “good policy sense.” You’ve never answered. (And I can’t see the answer in your writings…as I mentioned, your writing even clearly describes how people in India are trying to use MORE energy…they don’t care about limiting CO2 emissions. Your writing also mentions how the Russians–quite logically!–think a warmer, CO2-enriched world would be BETTER for them.)

You also write, “Your questions are leading questions of the “are you still beating your spouse” variety. I’m not answering them because I completely reject the premises on which they are based…”

I don’t see how my questions can be regarded as being of the “are you still beating your spouse” variety…I’m certainly not calling into question your honor. If you “reject the premises” why not simply tell me which premises you reject?

For example, I estimate the cost of the U.S. reducing its CO2 emissions by 20% at $70-100 billion per year. If you think that’s way too high (or way too low), why not simply respond that you think my estimate is too high (or too low)?

I further estimated the costs of removing an equivalent amount of CO2 from the atmosphere using iron fertilization at about 1/10th that amount. If you think that’s way too low (or too high), why not simply respond that you think my estimate is too high or too low? (Or if you think that action would or could create some massive new problem, why not just say so?)

Finally, I asked IF a hurricane reduction system could be designed that would reduce the strength of hurricanes reaching landfall by 2 Saffir-Simpson categories at a cost of $70-100 billion, would that make good policy sense? If you think the actual cost would be 10 times or 100 times higher, why not just say so? Or if you think the “cure would probably be worse than the disease,” why not simply say so?

Best wishes,
Mark

You are of course free to speculate as you wish about my motivations etc. Alternatively you could just read my views on the issues. Your questions are leading questions of the “are you still beating your spouse” variety. I’m not answering them because I completely reject the premises on which they are based and how you’ve framed the issue.

If you want to understand my views on GHG policies, then have a look at my collaborations with Dan Sarewitz in The Atlantic Monthly, Issues in Science and Technology, and The New Republic. If you don’t find answers to your questions there, it is simply because I think they are the wrong questions.

Thanks!