Dear Alan et al‹Just a note that the Asilomar Conference was focused on issues relating to guidelines for research, not to issues that need investigation through research, as does the question of how much of an influence in one region it might take to have a significant effect in another region.
Mike MacCracken On 4/15/10 8:28 PM, "Alan Robock" <[email protected]> wrote: > Dear Josh, > > You forget one thing. The Arctic Council has absolutely no jurisdiction over > global climate. And you cannot confine geoengineering to the Arctic. These > were clear conclusions from the Asilomar Conference. You are jumping the gun. > > The Icelandic volcano so far has put out very little SO2, and will have no > climatic impact. Yet it shut down air traffic over Europe. > Alan > > Alan Robock, Professor II > Director, Meteorology Undergraduate Program > Associate Director, Center for Environmental Prediction > Department of Environmental Sciences Phone: +1-732-932-9800 x6222 > Rutgers University Fax: +1-732-932-8644 > 14 College Farm Road E-mail: [email protected] > New Brunswick, NJ 08901-8551 USA http://envsci.rutgers.edu/~robock > > On 4/15/2010 6:37 PM, Josh wrote: >> >> Is anyone aware of organized efforts to place geoengineering on the >> agenda of the Arctic Council? Several commentators have raised this >> possibility, but I am unaware of any systematic effort to accomplish >> this. Focusing on the Arctic Council offers a number of advantages: >> >> - The Arctic Council is much less politicized than bodies like >> UNFCCC. Indeed, the AC is unknown to the general public. The AC >> would provide a forum that is less heated, less confrontational, and >> less burdened by the weight of history. >> >> - Membership in the AC is relatively small and manageable. It is >> composed of relatively developed countries with the resources to >> pursue geoengineering. Most of those countries that have indicated >> some degree of openness to intervention belong to the AC. >> >> - Given that the Arctic is disproportionately affected by climate >> change, the AC and its member states would be more likely to consider >> climate interventions. In the Arctic, climate is changing and people >> know it. Native peoples may be supportive of geoengineering. >> >> - Arctic climate change is an urgent issue, so geoengineering in the >> Arctic is a logical place to begin. A limited geographic focus would >> diminish opposition and give the science a chance to prove itself. >> >> For these and other reasons, the AC offers a promising venue for field >> tests and possible deployment. Nature has also provided us with a >> potential public relations coup - the current Iceland volcano. If >> this eruption could be shown to result in reduced temperatures, >> thicker sea ice, more polar bear cubs, etc., the argument for >> stratospheric injections would look much more compelling. >> >> 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.
