Nobody is intending that any of gthe processes be done slam bang but rather on a careful experimental basis to evaluate the potential. I don't understand why novel processes are excluded. Of course we don't want pollution but how do we find out? It is not likely that any one would not be stoppable. That's a silly one.
_____ From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Andrew Lockley Sent: Wednesday, May 06, 2009 11:51 AM To: [email protected] Cc: geoengineering Subject: [geo] Re: some eco criteria for geoengineering? so2 is not novel, it comes from volcanoes. neither is iron, which comes from rocks. space mirrors are not likely to be feasible anyway the whole point of co2 sequestration is that it's not reversible, just like coal formation wasn't (until we dug it up and burned it) A 2009/5/6 jim woolridge <[email protected]> Perhaps the primary objection to any and all of the geoengineering proposals that have so far been put forward is the 'unforeseen and unintended consequences' one. This is, of course, a powerful objection, as Australian rabbits, Aral Sea fish and many other instances testify. The unforeseen consequences argument itself goes back at least as far as Plato (somewhere in the 'Republic', if memory serves.) Our knowledge of earth systems and database of unintended environmental consequences is by now rich enough to hold out some chance of getting things right in the future--indeed exploring the possible downside consequences of geoengineering ideas seems to be a large part, quite rightly, of what happens on this site. Bearing the foregoing in mind I have tried to come up with some ecological criteria for geoengineering/earth systems adjustments--the reversibility one has already been floated in an earlier post. The aim of the criteria is to keep adjustments to earth systems inside existing biosphere processes so that the tweaking of those processes does not violate the homeostasis of the biosphere. The criteria are that: Whatever is done: (1) Should not be a novel process but should either amplify or dampen an already existing biosphere process. (2) Should not itself be polluting. (3) Should be reversible/stoppable. To briefly give examples re each criterion in turn: Putting reflective mirrors between the earth and the sun is a novel process, hence violates the first criterion; Putting clouds of sulphur dioxide into the atmosphere is itself polluting and hence violates the second criterion; Putting iron filings into the ocean is not reversible (how can you get the damn things out?) and hence violates the third criterion. Obviously in the above examples each instance may well violate more than one criterion. (For connoisseurs of synchronicity: just after writing the above I came across Goethe's Maxim 85: 'Nature doesn't worry about mistakes. She repairs them herself and doesn't ask herself what the upshot of it all may be.') There seem to be some options that hold out a prospect of non- polluting, reversible and 'natural' ways of adjusting earth systems. The most obvious ones are the Latham/Salter yachts; white roofs; Kithil/Lovelock/Rapley ocean pipes. Indeed the yachts and pipes gave me the idea for the criteria. The above will no doubt go down like the proverbial lead balloon with many, if not all, subscribers to the group--sorry about that folks but unintended consequences are likely to be less severe with the three criteria in place. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
