Interesting. Did anyone participate in the House of Commons session last week? Any impressions? Are any transcripts or reports available?
Josh Horton On Jan 18, 2:01 pm, RAU greg <[email protected]> wrote: > http://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2010/01/18/1/ > > SCIENCE: A search for rules before climate-changing experiments > begin(01/18/2010) > > Lauren Morello, E&E reporter > > Responding to renewed interest in geoengineering schemes to combat global > warming, scientists and policymakers are beginning several efforts that could > set new ground rules for research, including large-scale field experiments. > Last week, a committee in Britain's House of Commons began an inquiry to > determine whether developing and deploying geoengineering methods will > require new British or international regulations. The U.K. panel is > cooperating with an American counterpart, the House Science and Technology > Committee, which which is planning its own hearings this year on scientific, > engineering, ethical, economic and governance aspects of the emerging > field. > Meanwhile, a group of scientists will meet in California this spring to > attempt to set guidelines for large-scale field tests of proposed > geoengineering techniques, which range from employing artificial trees to > suck carbon dioxide from the air to spewing massive amounts of sulfate > particles into the upper atmosphere to reflect sunlight. > While scientists argue about the propriety of shooting a variety of > substances into the atmosphere to alter > the climate, nature has been doing it regularly in the form of volcanic > eruptions.Sponsored by the newly created Climate Response Fund, the > conference is being modeled on a landmark 1973 meeting, the Asilomar > Conference on Recombinant DNA, that set ground rules for biotechnology > research. > "Geoengineering keeps getting discussed as something we might do, but there's > been virtually no research on it, so it isn't clear whether it's a real > promise or an empty promise," said Michael MacCracken, chief scientist at the > Climate Institute and the organizer of the upcoming meeting's scientific > program. > "The > idea for conference is, let's get some plausible ideas and proposals out > there and think about what the implications are and how you'd be able to > evaluate them," he said. "How might they work? How would you test them? What > side effects would they have?" > MacCracken said he hopes to have up to 150 scientists from around the world > attend the March event, which will take place at the Asilomar conference > center in Monterey, Calif. > A meeting to ponder 'Plan B' for the planet > "The example we're patterning this after is the recombinant DNA meeting that > we held at Asilomar in the 1970s," he said. "That was a technology > that was identified with a lot of potential advantages that people could > see, but it also had a lot of potential downsides they worried about. The > first step in thinking about it was that scientists got together and thought > about the things they could do to make research as safe as possible." > MacCracken also addressed concerns expressed by some scientists about the > meeting's sponsor, the Climate Response Fund. The fund is run by former > National Science Foundation official Margaret Leinen, whose son, Dan Whaley, > heads Climos, a firm that was begun to sell carbon credits produced by > fertilizing the ocean with iron. Although Leinen once served as Climos' chief > science officer, she told Science magazine last fall that she no longer has > "a position, stock or a share of any intellectual property in Climos." > For his part, MacCracken said he is developing the scientific program for the > Asilomar meeting without input from the Climate Response Fund. > Many scientists say geoengineering approaches could prove a valuable "Plan B" > for the planet in case sharp cuts in greenhouse gas emissions fail to stave > off dangerous warming. But that won't be clear without more research into > geoengineering's potential benefits and drawbacks, one expert told members of > the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee last week. > "The state of knowledge about geoengineering, from the technical side, but > also the political, ethical and regulatory sides, is simply not at > a point where any sensible person could recommend we implement a > geoengineering technique at this point," said John Virgoe, an expert in > geoengineering governance. > Virgoe said scientists and policymakers should begin researching > geoengineering approaches now, so that "if we get to the point where we want > to go ahead with these sorts of acts ... we're in a position to take a > mature, measured, informed decision." > Potential for international mistrust > That's in line with positions taken by the American Meteorological Society, > the U.K. Royal Society and the American Geophysical Union, which have issued > cautious > calls for more research -- though they have warned that geoengineering > approaches shouldn't supplant efforts to cut greenhouse gas emissions. > But experts who addressed the House of Commons committee last week said how > and when to regulate geoengineering research and deployment is still an open > question. > Jason Blackstock, a research scholar at the International Institute for > Applied Systems Analysis in Laxenburg, Austria, said that one major category > of geoengineering approaches -- those that seek to deflect sunlight -- will > likely require new environmental treaties and laws. > That's because such techniques -- which include > proposals to shoot sulfate particles into the upper atmosphere, creating a > cooling haze that mimics the effects of a volcanic eruption, and a similar > plan to use thousands of special ships to spew sea salt into the sky, > encouraging the formation of clouds -- could quickly affect large geographic > areas. > "Even when you start talking about field-testing [these techniques], you > start running into the potential for transboundary impacts," he said, "or at > least the perception of transboundary impacts, and so the potential for > international mistrust ... will come up fairly quickly." > But David Keith, a climate scientist at the University of Calgary, said that > experts don't necessarily have the information right now to develop new > international > regulations that might be needed. > "It would be premature to start a full [U.N.]-scale, leading-towards-a-treaty > process," he said. "I think the crucial thing now is to start thinking about > how to do this from the bottom up, through setting up and managing a research > program in an international and transparent way."
-- 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.
