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.
