I have been posting links to media coverage thus far at my twitter stream http://twitter.com/geoengpolicy
Here are the most relevant ones Asilomar #geoengineering: 'Climate intervention' conference winds down with solemn assessment, from Nature blog http://bit.ly/ccq9Gb Asilomar #geoengineering @elikint http://bit.ly/c37aLq who also posted the conference's press release http://bit.ly/aL0tZQ [That is Science Mag's blog] Asilomar #geoengineering : Jim Rendon @MotherJones "Geoengineering Bad Fixes for Worse Problems" http://bit.ly/cKlFMV Asilomar #geoengineering articles @CHogue in Chemical & Engineering News http://bit.ly/b5hveR Monterey Country Herald http://bit.ly/dvQcl5 I suspect we'll see longer pieces in the weeks ahead. - Jesse On Mar 28, 5:10 pm, William Fulkerson <[email protected]> wrote: > 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.
