There is, in fact, a preliminary paper about issues surrounding geoengineering and the Arctic Council, published by IISD, available at http://www.iisd.org/publications/pub.aspx?pno=1162
Cheers, Bjornar On Apr 15, 9:56 pm, Joshua Horton <[email protected]> wrote: > Alan, > > Let me address a few of your statements: > > "The Arctic Council has absolutely no jurisdiction over global climate." - > No one says it does, but a strong case can be made that it has jurisdiction > over Arctic climate. Two Arctic Council Working Groups, Arctic Monitoring > and Assessment Program (AMAP) and Emergency Prevention, Preparedness and > Response (EPPR) are focused explicitly on the regional environment. Climate > change is a "priority" issue for AMAP. > > "you cannot confine geoengineering to the Arctic." - I am not a scientist, > but my understanding is that this is far from settled, as Mike indicates. > > "You are jumping the gun." - It seems to me that dismissing this strategy > out of hand reflects "jumping the gun" more than suggesting one possible way > forward. > > Josh > > On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 8:56 PM, Alan Robock <[email protected]>wrote: > > > > > Dear Mike, > > > Yes, but it was clear at the conference that there is a void in global > > governance on this issue, and that new institutions need to be created to > > deal with this issue. > > > Certainly the issue of Arctic influence needs to be investigated with > > climate models, but the size of in situ experimentation that could be deemed > > safe and not needing consultation with others, was also not decided. People > > discussed various parameters in time and space, but there was no consensus. > > So until the governance of the research is in hand, it is certainly > > premature for a group of gung-ho engineers to ask the Arctic Council about > > anything. > > > 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 8:47 PM, Mike MacCracken wrote: > > > 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<http://envsci.rutgers.edu/%7Erobock> > > > 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 > 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]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
