Dear Mike: I think that John Nissen makes a very good point. We do not know the real risks of doing nothing. These risks need to be exposed through careful research and analysis, and that is as important as the R&D to understand the risks associated with doing climate intervention technologies. With best regards, Bill Bill Fulkerson, Senior Fellow and LERDWG Chair Institute for a Secure and Sustainable Environment University of Tennessee 311 Conference Center Bldg. Knoxville, TN 37996-4138 [email protected] 865-974-9221, -1838 FAX Home 865-988-8084; 865-680-0937 CELL 2781 Wheat Road, Lenoir City, TN 37771
On 3/28/10 6:08 PM, "John Nissen" <[email protected]> wrote: > > Thanks Mike. > > The Asilomar organising committee statement refers to geoengineering > techniques as "climate intervention methods (solar radiation management) and > climate remediation methods (carbon dioxide removal)." In the statement it > says: > > We do not yet have sufficient knowledge of the risks associated with using > methods for climate intervention and remediation, their intended and > unintended impacts, and their efficacy in reducing the rate of climatic change > to assess whether they should or should not be implemented. Thus, further > research is essential. > > What's missing is that we also need to have sufficient knowledge of the risks > associated with NOT geoengineering (i.e. the risks that geoengineering would > be guarding against), particularly in the Arctic, to be sure that > geoengineering is not needed urgently as a precaution. > > I am sorry I was not at the Asilomar meeting, but I was trying to make a > similar point to some influential people at a Royal Society meeting last week > [1]. One of the topics of discussion was whether the government should take > precautionary actions in order to reduce the possibility of extreme events. > An example was the urgent action taken to reduce the probability of a serious > pandemic from swine flu, for which action the UK government was to be > commended, Peter Webster said. (He strongly espouses the precautionary > principle.) > > Why isn't a similar precautionary approach urged by responsible scientists, in > order to save the Arctic sea ice? We do not have sufficient knowledge of the > risks of letting the sea ice disappear, to be sure it would not be > catastrophic, do we? > > Beggars can't be choosers. > > Cheers, > > John > > [1] http://royalsociety.org/Handling-uncertainty-in-science/ > > --- > > Mike MacCracken wrote: >> >> Here is the Conference statement that was issued to the media. There was >> considerable discussion and revision based on discussions on Friday morning, >> so this is said at the moment to be only from the Scientific Organizing >> Committee, but in going over the next to last draft, there were only a few >> suggestions for fixes and the SOC tried to incorporate them. This statement >> is now being circulated to attendees (some of whom had left before the final >> session and most before it was completed) offering the opportunity to >> indicate their support of the statement. That process will be going on for a >> week. >> >> Other materials from the conference are presently in draft form and there >> will be some review cycles on them to get them into better shape. >> >> In that there were a considerable number of media there, there should be >> stories appearing about the meeting this coming week. >> >> Best, Mike MacCracken >> >> On 3/28/10 10:34 AM, "Josh" <[email protected]> >> <mailto:[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> >>> >>> Anyone have news from Asilomar for those of us who weren't able to >>> attend? >>> >>> Josh Horton >>> >>> >> >> >> -- 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.
