I agree, this is an excellent paper. I would draw your attention to its conclusion:
"the Arctic Eight must be prepared to respond to the consequences of failure in the mitigation strategy. It is therefore time that the Arctic Council placed all facets of geoengineering high on its research agenda. Only through comprehensive, candid and rigorous research can we close the knowledge gaps and reduce the uncertainty surrounding geoengineering, which is a significant source of current skepticism." Josh On Apr 16, 4:33 pm, Alan Robock <[email protected]> wrote: > This is an excellent paper. And it says, "It makes little sense that > only eight countries—even if they include both the largest country on > the planet, and the most powerful one—should dictate the climate of our > planet. Quite the contrary: we argue that these countries have a > fundamental responsibility to address the biophysical foundations of > climate change through mitigation." and "If there are benefits to > placing aerosol injection in an Arctic country, the Council has good > reason to become involved. But atmospheric particles know no bounds: > they habitually and indiscriminately violate other countries’ airspace, > so geoengineering anywhere in the northern hemisphere will have a direct > bearing on the Arctic." > > 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 4/16/2010 3:31 PM, Bjornar Egede-Nissen wrote: > > > > > > > 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 > 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.
