It is likely that any SRM geoengineering intervention will create winners and losers and some nations may always be against any intervention whatsoever.
Gregory Benford raised the issue of reaching agreement on the global scale and how problematic it would be. If for example the arctic council of nations agreed to initiate a decade-long field trial to cool the arctic by 1 C, how could they deal with complaints from nations who felt that this experiment had induced a negative change in their climate? In any given year there are floods, droughts, heatwaves, etc. but during this field trial a fraction of these events would be attributed (rightly or wrongly, partially or fully) to the intervention. Two questions arise: Could it be determined if any changes in the climate (outside of the target area) had occurred as a result of the intervention during a 10 year trial? How would aggrieved nations or peoples seek reparations for perceived negative impacts (scientifically proven or otherwise)? best regards, Pete Irvine PhD student School of Geographical Sciences University of Bristol -- 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.
