Yeah, right. The reason we talk so much about ocean acidification around here is that we're part of a nefarious plot to make it worse. What a doofus. (Of course, I was more polite than that in my comment on the blog.)
On Jan 23, 10:26 am, "John Nissen" <[email protected]> wrote: > I have just posted this to bristlingbadger > blogspot:http://bristlingbadger.blogspot.com/2009/01/geoengineering-ethically-... > > --- > > David Schnare is absolutely right - we already have a dangerous level of CO2 > in the atmosphere and it is necessary to use carbon-removal geoengineering to > reduce CO2 levels as a stop-gap measure. But we have a more immediate hazard > - the Arctic sea ice - whose end summer extent has been declining and could > be near zero in a few years. This is causing accelerated warming of the > whole Arctic region, risking massive methane release from permafrost which > would cause runaway global warming. To cool the Arctic and save the Arctic > sea ice, we need albedo geoengineering, for example with the cloud > brightening techniques of John Latham et al., described in this blog. It is > claimed the cost would be under $1 billion for the boats, and well under $1 > billion per year for the running cost, to cool the sea sufficiently for sea > ice to recover. > > Reducing carbon emissions cannot save the Arctic sea ice - but albedo > geoengineering has a good chance, if we act now. The moral hazard is to > ignore this opportunity and condemn us all to catastrophe from that methane > release. > > Cheers from Chiswick, > > John Nissen > > --- > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: David Schnare > To: [email protected] > Sent: Friday, January 23, 2009 1:45 PM > Subject: [geo] Re: Badgering Geoengineering > > Here is the response I posted to the blogspot: > > The failure in your argument is that we have already pass 450 ppm CO2eq, > and, using the logics of the IPCC, it is too late to prevent devestating > climate change unless we use geoengineering as a stop-gap measure. Further, > those doing serious work on geoengineering are the first to explain that > efforts to reduce carbon emissions should not be slowed by the need for a > stop-gap measure. > > The great moral hazard we face is not geoengineering but the hubris to > think we as a human civilization have the will and the organization to reduce > carbon emissions to levels necessary to prevent catastrophic climate change. > It is too late to do so, and to think that is a realistic approach is the > moral hazard that will condemn us to catastrophe. > > David Schnare, Esq. Ph.D. > Director > Center for Environmental Stewardship > Thomas Jefferson Institute for Public Policy > > [snip] --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
