I think these would be good criteria for geonurturing compared to radical geoengineering
Ray On May 6, 3:22 pm, jim woolridge <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
