I'll repeat an argument Imade to Ken:
Ken: Maybe I wasn't thinking of it the way you did. Internal organization can form a bulwark against the kind of neglect we've seen from DOE etc, and a focus point for media, who otherwise run to perceived authorities. In a new administration, I'm pretty sure John Holdren will try to suppress geoengineering. That's his style, from waaay back. (Also Obama's.) We'll get major C sequestration, maybe, but no intervention by aerosols etc. Some play with the Lackner method, though that seems to have serious energy and capital problems. Indeed, I expect as aerosols emerge as the easiest fast path, it will be treated as iron in the ocean has been: legal attacks, badmouthing, no experiments allowed. A body that challenged that in the eyes of the media would be better than our separate opinions. That's how the media folk think; otherwise we're just a bunch of individual professors. (I had plenty of experience with this in the Reagan admin.) But if we don't get the major players like you aboard, it won't work. My impatience arises from the slow motion way the field moves -- ie, hardly at all. Time's a-wastin'! Gregory -----Original Message----- From: Andrew Lockley <[email protected]> To: geoengineering <[email protected]> Sent: Mon, 12 Jan 2009 10:27 am Subject: [geo] proposed board There have been a number of members putting arguments against the proposed board: Alan Robock Ken Cald eira Dan Whaley I'd like to see agreement as far as is possible about the best way forward. May I therefore ask the people who have opposed the creation to explore how they see the subject being taken forward? My own reasons for supporting the Board is that it allows multidisciplinary scrutiny of projects and their context by a stable team of experts who can establish clear criteria and standards of review. Right now the Board doesn't have all the experts it needs, but that will change in due course if the idea wins further support. I'm completely at ease with the idea that I'm potentially on the wrong track, but at the moment I don't see a way for the geoengineering discipline to formalise and progress without some organisational centre. Whilst the googlegroup and wikipedia are very useful, they don't represent the right environment for a formal peer review process that policy makers are going to want to see if they're to move forward with projects that might seem pretty wild to a president, banker or general. Opinions please.... A PS Benford is at UC Irvine (apologies) --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
