I don't agree with John's reasoning. Whilst a rational and all-powerful government might use such an approach, this is not likely to be the case in practice. Realpolitik suggests that people will look at only the downside of geoengineering when it affects them personally. If you're a farmer with a failed crop, the benefit of constraining methane releases won't seem a worthwhile trade off. Your government may well agree.
It's the fine detail of the handling of these matters, and proper governance surrounding them, that will prevent governments 'sinking the cloud ships', either literally or metaphorically. If these concerns aren't handled properly, I could even imagine countries deliberately worsening the greenhouse effect to counteract geoengineering schemes. Releasing HFCs/CFCs would be a very simple way to do this. A On 21 February 2010 14:50, John Nissen <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hello Peter, > > To answer your question on cost/benefit, we need to analyse the balance of > the risks of geoengineering to cool the Arctic against the risks of not > geoengineering. This balancing of risks needs to take into account the > timescale of processes in the Arctic which give rise to the risks of not > geoengineering. For example, if these processes were very unlikely to build > up significant positive climate forcing or sea level rise over the next few > decades, one could be relaxed about geoengineering. But there is data about > the Arctic sea ice retreat, shown in a single graph, that gives much cause > for concern. The graph has been reproduced in the Copenhagen diagnosis > report [1]. > > The graph is derived from one in this 2007 paper [2], by Stroeve, Serreze > et al, with additions for 2007 and 2008. Note that this paper was submitted > before the abrupt retreat of sea ice to achieve a record low September > 2007. > > In the light of such developments in the Arctic, and revised timing > estimates, we should prepare a risk analysis, but it will be in a separate > thread. > > Note that, in terms of probabilistic risk assessment (PRA) [3], we have > risk defined thus: > > *In a PRA, risk is characterized by two quantities:* > > 1. *the magnitude (severity) of the possible adverse consequence(s), > and* > 2. *the likelihood (probability) of occurrence of each consequence.* > > > Conventional cost-benefit analysis [4] is not quite what we are looking > for, because it assumes the status quo is acceptable: > > *Cost–benefit analysis is typically used by governments to evaluate the > desirability of a given intervention. It is heavily used in today's > government. It is an analysis of the cost effectiveness of different > alternatives in order to see whether the benefits outweigh the costs. The > aim is to gauge the efficiency of the intervention relative to the status > quo. The costs and benefits of the impacts of an intervention are > evaluated in terms of the public's willingness to pay for them (benefits) or > willingness to pay to avoid them (costs). > * > > However we can try to "gauge the efficiency of the intervention" *relative > to no intervention* in our analysis. We also need to take probabilities > and timescale into account, in order to compare immediate intervention with > delayed intervention. Of course, the "costs" of intervention must include > the risks of adverse consequences. > > Cheers from Chiswick, > > John > > [1] See fig 13 page 30: > http://www.ccrc.unsw.edu.au/Copenhagen/Copenhagen_Diagnosis_LOW.pdf > > [2] Published in Geophysical Research Letters and reproduced here: > http://www.smithpa.demon.co.uk/GRL%20Arctic%20Ice.pdf > > [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probabilistic_risk_assessment > > [4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost-benefit_analysis > > --- > > > p.j.irvine wrote: > > dear Gregory Benford, > > It seems that there is an assumption that cooling the arctic is > essential and trumps any potential impacts in other parts of the > world. > > I'm not sure how it would be achieved but I believe that an in-depth > cost-benefit assesment of any proposed geoengineering scheme is > essential. For example, If the suspected impact of an arctic > intervention was a cooling of the arctic but also a change in > hydrology in another part of the world; surely to justify the > intervention it would have to be proved that the overall effect was > positive? > > I can imagine their are a lot of tricky things to quantify, the > impacts of runaway climate change for tundra melt, the subjective > value of any predicted change in the climate, etc. (and a lot of > unquantifiable things besides) but I believe the principle should > remain. > > Do you agree that this principle of a calculated or expected positive > global impact should be satisfied before any geoengineering > intervention s undertaken? The alternative seems to justify regions or > countries modifying regional climate for their benefit regardless of > detrimental impacts elsewhere. > > regards, > > Pete Irvine > > > On Feb 20, 4:44 pm, [email protected] wrote: > > > All: > > Stephen, this transfer function is for tropospheric spraying, yes? The > strato cases are not nearly so predictable. I'd expect the tropo sprays > don't propagate far, anyway. > > National legislation to protect geo experiments from lawsuits is > crucial. As David says, international treaties will help, but I'd > estimate they will take far longer, and delay is our enemy. I'd be > happy with the Arctic Council defending their experiments, as they have > clout and standing. > > Gregory Benford > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: David Schnare <[email protected]> <[email protected]> > > Cc: geoengineering <[email protected]> > <[email protected]> > Sent: Sat, Feb 20, 2010 7:56 am > Subject: Re: [geo] SRM geoengineering: how to deal with the losers? > > Pete: > > My sense is that who will be a winner or loser is an unknowable > unknown. While I agree with Professor Salter that we could take a stab > at it, and indeed others on this list have made some preliminary > attempts to look at precipitation issues, the sad reality is that > models are dreadfully inadequate for regional analyses and greater > computing power will not be enough to make them much more useful. > > In the absence of quality information, humankind has used a best guess, > iterative approach, achieved through international treaty. My > suspicion is that will be what will have to happen here to address > winners and losers. I am concerned, however, that such an approach > will not work if potential "losers" demand stipulated reparations. > > Schnare > > On Sat, Feb 20, 2010 at 9:38 AM, p.j.irvine > <[email protected] <lt%[email protected]>> wrote: > 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 > [email protected]. > For more options, visit this group > athttp://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. > > -- > David W. Schnare > Center for Environmental Stewardship > > -- > 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 > [email protected]. > For more options, visit this group > athttp://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. > > > -- > 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]<geoengineering%[email protected]> > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. > -- 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.
