Bipartisan Policy Center’s (BPC) Task Force on Climate Remediation Research

Bipartisan Policy Center’s (BPC) Task Force on Climate Remediation Research represents many of the leading researchers in Geoengineering - David Keith and Ken Caldeira being names you may have heard of. Their report issued yesterday sums up the state of geoengineering in the US, and discusses in some depth the potential future - in particular what the government should be doing in this area.

The group of 18 leaders from the natural science, social science, science policy, foreign policy, national security, and environmental communities was convened by the BPC in early 2010. This is the first expert report to address what the federal government should do about research in this area.

The BPC Task Force report argues that managing risk is a central principle of effective climate policy, and emphasizes that climate remediation is no substitute for controlling risk through climate mitigation (i.e., reducing emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases) and climate adaptation (i.e., enhancing the resilience of man-made and natural systems to climate changes).

Furthermore, the report emphasizes that it is far too premature to contemplate deployment of any climate remediation technology. However, the Task Force report finds that it is time for the U.S. to undertake a climate remediation research program to understand the risks, costs, and feasibility of these approaches.

Two things of note:

The report recommends using the term "climate remediation", rather than "geoengineering", as geoengineering can be used to refer to other large scale engineering projects (like removing mountains), and "climate remediation" more directly says what is being done. I partly disagree with this, as the alternate usages are rare, and the name change smells somewhat of spin management - like renaming rich people "job creators". Several of the report authors are also against the term. Still, expect to see it crop up more and more. Very soon "climate remediation" will be the more common term.

Yet again, there's no active geoengineering projects, there never were, and there's no current plans. The report does say we need to research geoengineering (to see if it will ever work safely, and what ways might work best), and discusses the ways we should do it, and the problems of regulation and international issues.

See also this write-up from Marc Gunther:
www.marcgunther.com...

Geoengineering on a mini-scale or even a microscopic scale is postulated to have potentially global effects. Remediation, as a term, is even more scary because it implies a remedy which implies introducing yet again something foreign with unknown far-reaching effects.

Your statement that (and I'm paraphrasing) there's nothing going on and never has been is as much a matter of national security as climate change itself. This is not an open book because even weather control, considering military applications, becomes a secret. Gave you S&F for a thought provoking thread.

www.answers.com...

The "butterfly effect" is greatly misunderstood. Something like a hurricane is the end result of quintillions of factors. It's also a chaotic system, meaning that if any of those factors change (even as small as a butterfly flapping its wings) then the end result might also change drastically.

So yes, cloud seeding in Utah might mean a typhoon in Bangladesh kills more people. Or it might mean that it does not. But since it's a complex system there's no way of knowing, nor is there any way of distinguishing the coud seeding from the flapping of wings of any of a billion butterfly, or the stirring of the air of any of a billion cars or planes.

Consider the game of pool. At the end of the game someone pots the 8-ball in a particular pocket. The pocket that it ends up in will vary if the initial placement of the cue ball varies by a fraction of an inch. But it also will vary based on a million other factors - like the positions of all the other balls, the specks of chalk on the cue, what you had for dinner last night, the actions of spectators. Millions of billions of factors. There's no way of predicting the end results from the initial condition, and there's no way of looking back to see what caused the end result.

Cloud seeding changes the weather on the other side of the globe in the same way that tossing a rock into a river alters the patterns of ripples 100 miles downstream. It simply adds to the nearly unimaginably large number of unmeasurable variables that contribute in unmeasurable ways to the end result. It no more controls the outcome than giving your dice one more shake will control how they end up. Random plus anything is still random.

reply to post by Uncinus


The butterfly effect is not 'greatly misunderstood' - it's not understood at all. Nothing is random or chaotic if all the parameters are known. Presupposing linear time is a grave error. There are effects that science will never predict without recognizing order. Consider the following 'remedies,' all considered safe until they weren't: asbestos, lead paint, agent orange.

reply to post by luxordelphi


But there are no situations where all the parameters are perfectly known. Everything is an approximation.

When I say the butterfly affect is misunderstood, I mean in common usage. Scientists understand it very well. In a complex system with multiple variables, you can't tell what is going to happen, and you can't tell why things did happen (beyond a certain time window).

Local cloud seeding is no more geoengineering that rock concerts are.

Originally posted by Uncinus
reply to post by luxordelphi

 

But there are no situations where all the parameters are perfectly known. Everything is an approximation.

When I say the butterfly affect is misunderstood, I mean in common usage. Scientists understand it very well. In a complex system with multiple variables, you can't tell what is going to happen, and you can't tell why things did happen (beyond a certain time window).

Local cloud seeding is no more geoengineering that rock concerts are.

Exactly...geoengineering, remediation, weather modification and control all become "Let's do this and see what happens." Pretty cavalier when you're talking about billions of people.

Originally posted by luxordelphi

Exactly...geoengineering, remediation, weather modification and control all become "Let's do this and see what happens." Pretty cavalier when you're talking about billions of people.

Which is why, as stated in the report, they have not done any geoengineering yet, and they want to investigate it very carefully before they try any large scale experiments.

Thanks for the link - I notice this from the article:

Furthermore, the report emphasizes that it is far too premature to contemplate deployment of any climate remediation technology.

Do you think that is a simple enough conclusion for people worried about geoengineering er.....climate remediation to take some comfort from?

I worry that a lot of people will write it off as a cover up and will never believe anything that says there is no climate remediation going on

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


Well, some people will write off anything that does not agree with their narrative as as a cover-up. I don't expect it will change their minds. But then a lot of people just don't know what the state of government level geoengineering is - and assume that there's actually some active program. This should show them that there is not.

Originally posted by luxordelphi
[Exactly...geoengineering, remediation, weather modification and control all become "Let's do this and see what happens." Pretty cavalier when you're talking about billions of people.

That is a completely untrue characterisation of it!

The report states that it should not happen because there is not enough known - and ther is a great deal of investigation and at least some proposed experimentation precisely to figure out what happens BEFORE actually doing it.

Originally posted by Uncinus

Originally posted by luxordelphi

Exactly...geoengineering, remediation, weather modification and control all become "Let's do this and see what happens." Pretty cavalier when you're talking about billions of people.

Which is why, as stated in the report, they have not done any geoengineering yet, and they want to investigate it very carefully before they try any large scale experiments.

You just had to say that which necessitated my having to read and dissect the entire position paper. Just a couple of points: the Bipartisan Policy Center Task Force on Climate Remediation Research (BPC) is a private, non-profit organization. It was founded by former politicians and there are its' only connections with government.

This paper is asking for money, funding. It is not speaking for the government nor is it necessarily privy or not privy to information on what is or is not taking place, from a government information cache point of view.

In their solicitation and position paper, they coin a number of terms including 'climate remediation' and 'CDR' (carbon dioxide removal) and 'SRM' (solar radiation management) and others. Buzz words are always popular and we like to know the latest so that we are not caught out.

They are proposing a bottleneck for information that funnels through the White House and specifically through the Office of Science & Technology Policy. They are proposing funding with what they call 'new money' rather than being included in any current federal research agency budgets which they call 'overburdened.'

There is more but my attention span is already pretty stretched so I'll leave you to envision the future here.

reply to post by luxordelphi



I envision a future along the lines they havecalled for:

Leading experts on climate change science and technology comprising the Bipartisan Policy Center’s (BPC) Task Force on Climate Remediation Research today released a report calling for a coordinated federal research program to explore the potential effectiveness, feasibility, and consequences of climate remediation technologies.

I think research into the "potential effectiveness, feasibility, and consequences of climate remediation technologies" is a damned good idea!

Originally posted by luxordelphi
You just had to say that which necessitated my having to read and dissect the entire position paper. Just a couple of points: the Bipartisan Policy Center Task Force on Climate Remediation Research (BPC) is a private, non-profit organization. It was founded by former politicians and there are its' only connections with government.

Yeah, it's not the government. It's a think tank - an advocacy group. But the writers of the report include many of the people most heavily involved in geoengineering research.

This paper is asking for money, funding. It is not speaking for the government nor is it necessarily privy or not privy to information on what is or is not taking place, from a government information cache point of view.

Well, it's saying there needs to be a research program, so obviously that includes funding. The report talk more about how funding decisions should be made (i.e. what are the priorities) than just "asking for money"

In their solicitation and position paper, they coin a number of terms including 'climate remediation' and 'CDR' (carbon dioxide removal) and 'SRM' (solar radiation management) and others. Buzz words are always popular and we like to know the latest so that we are not caught out.

CDR and SRM are not new, those terms have been commonly used for several years. "Climate remediation" is new though.

They are proposing a bottleneck for information that funnels through the White House and specifically through the Office of Science & Technology Policy. They are proposing funding with what they call 'new money' rather than being included in any current federal research agency budgets which they call 'overburdened.'

Bottleneck, or coordination. Who do you think should coordinate the research? They seem aware of the type of concerns you might be implying though, and say:

The Task Force suggests that some research into climate remediation, not to mention climate remediation efforts themselves, could pose risks and raise new ethical, legal and social issues of broad public concern. For these reasons, the Task Force notes that some kinds of research will require more robust forms of oversight than usual, involving more diverse kinds of experts and more public involvement. Given these unique characteristics, the group recommends that OSTP should be guided by a diverse advisory commission.

The Commission should report to the Director of OSTP, and be responsible for: (1) advising the government on how to set up an effective and adequately funded scientific program commensurate with the scale of the problem, and identify dimensions of the problem that are being overlooked; (2) identifying and recommending policies and practices that ensure effective scientific research is conducted in a manner consistent with the principles articulated in this report; (3) recommending criteria for federal agencies to use in deciding whether to approve field research based on the level of risk posed by the proposed activity. Such criteria could also become the basis for international norms; and (4) conducting public communication and engagement activities.

reply to post by Uncinus


I'm going to go ahead and take the chemtrailer side, I hereby believe everything in the article related to that scary buzzword (geo-engineering)...except for the part where the paper states it isn't happening. Obviously this is a government coverup. I don't believe anything the government says, unless it supports my conclusions, anyhow.

reply to post by Uncinus


I guess that SRM (solar radiation management) and CDR (carbon dioxide removal) as buzz words had previously excaped my attention. Thanks for the correction - mistakes keep me humble for which I am grateful.

BPC (Bipartisan Policy Center) is the same organization that brought us 'Obamacare.' This, if you are unfamiliar with it, is the mandatory health system, requiring every American to engage in commerce or experience legal penalties, and which is now being debated in the courts as unconstitutional. While the current practice of outsourcing policy creation is in vogue, I am not in agreement with it.

The 'habits of liberty' (Newt Gingrich in 'A Nation Like No Other') which made America great need to be re-inforced. Our elected legislators need to make policy, not private contractors and out of office senators.

Pretty words are and always have been part of a sale's pitch and that's not going to change. Transparency is inherent when the three branches of government do their job and take on the responsibilities granted them. The constitution does not all for an old boy's network of out of office politicians to practice government.