All:
Which should come first, governance mechanisms or research?
It seems clear that this utterly new form of research must emerge, with
governance, in an evolving manner. The assumption at Asilomar of a
one-size-fits-all governance rule system, which we work out well in
advance, is naive. This entire field will evolve in the dance between
policy, science/engineering, and nation-state needs.
Part of that is spotting opportune areas that demand attention, and
from which we can learn. The Arctic is plainly a critical case, which
promises some degree of isolation from global issues -- and the degree
of isolation, as Mike says, needs thought.
But surely it is foolish to avoid talking to the Arctic Council while
all else goes forward. They are well aware of the problems, have worked
out mechanisms of governance, and the most at risk.
Gregory Benford
-----Original Message-----
From: Alan Robock <[email protected]>
To: Mike MacCracken <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]; Geoengineering
<[email protected]>
Sent: Thu, Apr 15, 2010 5:56 pm
Subject: Re: [geo] Arctic Council Strategy
Dear Mike,
Yes, but it was clear at the conference that there is a void in
globalgovernance on this issue, and that new institutions need to be
createdto deal with this issue.
Certainly the issue of Arctic influence needs to be investigated
withclimate models, but the size of in situ experimentation that could
bedeemed safe and not needing consultation with others, was also
notdecided. People discussed various parameters in time and space,
butthere was no consensus. So until the governance of the research is
inhand, it is certainly premature for a group of gung-ho engineers to
askthe Arctic Council about anything.
AlanAlan Robock, Professor II Director, Meteorology Undergraduate
Program Associate Director, Center for Environmental
PredictionDepartment of Environmental Sciences Phone:
+1-732-932-9800 x6222Rutgers University
Fax: +1-732-932-864414 College Farm Road E-mail:
[email protected] Brunswick, NJ 08901-8551 USA
http://envsci.rutgers.edu/~robock
On 4/15/2010 8:47 PM, Mike MacCracken wrote: Dear Alanet al—Just a
note that the Asilomar Conference was focused on issuesrelating to
guidelines for research, not to issues that needinvestigation through
research, as does the question of how much of aninfluence in one region
it might take to have a significant effect inanother 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 nojurisdiction
over global climate. And you cannot confinegeoengineering to the
Arctic. These were clear conclusions from theAsilomar Conference. You
are jumping the gun.
The Icelandic volcano so far has put out very little SO2, and will
haveno 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.
--
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.
