It is an established practise to nurture new technologies but allowing them larger than usual margins of failure and effect. The idea of space tourism is not based on allowing private spacecraft take people into borders of space as safely as air lines or state venues. It has been accepted that in order to nurture the development of the industry the safety thresholds are lowered to facilitate a rapid growth and easy entries to the emerging space tourism technology.
The same principle would apply for geoengineering, and would be widely called after if it were a private project, but only because it is going to be a public government project rather than a fun venture for the most conspicuous and wealthy consumers with noisy PR machine. (Please note that each space tourist flies to the International Space Station on throw-away spacecraft plus each Soyuz departure produces hundreds of tonnes of CO2 pollution from kerosene). All those people in the governments, politics and economy who support the UK being developed into a prime centre of space tourism should certainly embrace the lowered standards for errors and failings for the emerging geoengineering companies that will, hopefully, supply their services to the public purse and the government regulators of the earth climate. It is ethically totally unacceptable, given the general circumstances expect geoengineering industries to be intensely regulated before any ground actions have been even taken. The governments can move very swiftly to stamp out undesirable activities of this nature which requires large scale capital equipment and is in no way comparable to the illegal drug trade (unless someone invents a new 'anti-CFC perspirant' that is actually designed to change our climate). As per the principle of nurturing nascent industries and early stage developments of new technologies, no constraint must be made prior to their commencement (although the governments must be prepared to act swiftly if "waste dumping" is put as 'geoengineering'). The purpose is for the geoengineering to become a fulfilling excercise, and not a concept car for academic debaters. There is a greater damage being done by inhibiting the growth and development of nascent technologies when the emission load increases the heat caption each year. May be, the climatic forcing of geoengineering could be initially capped to amount of GHG forcing, and then claw-back introduced. The responsibility should remain with the undertaking government with some insurance schemes to cover the possible risks so that any possible risk from geoengineering effort is reasonably covered to the governments and their tax payers. The ethical - economic dimension for geoengineering to nurture nascent technologies and provision for insurance protection for failures to deliver or side effects are vital before the industry takes off. The increasing annual GHG load forms the basis for the ethical case for the antidote SRM and CDR which should have a licence equivalent to the opposite forcing from GHG pollutants. With kind regards, Veli Albert Kallio > Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2010 17:59:01 +0100 > From: [email protected] > To: [email protected] > CC: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [geo] condition proposed on CE > > > Hi Emily, > > Well said! If we need geoengineering for what is not covered by > emissions reductions, like saving the Arctic sea ice, then having > emissions reductions as a condition for such geoengineering is absurd. > > Cheers, > > John > > --- > > Emily wrote: > > hi, > > > > as a very keen advocate of serious and swift efforts to reduce ghg > > emissions, I am also keen for the development of some regulation and > > international agreement on some GE. Despite this, I would be worried > > about conditionality applied to all technologies / methodologies which > > might be considered by some to fall into the GE bracket as proposed, > > due to, for eg: > > > > a. GE. Some parts of the changes in the Earth system are too > > progressed for emissions reductions to have adequate effect soon > > enough - eg Arctic sea ice may not be stabilised by emissions > > reductions now - it will take more than this to prevent the feedbacks > > from the Arctic from further accelerating cc, with seriously damaging > > implications globally. > > > > b. some GE can be initiated now, which offer emissions reductions, > > adaptation and active mitigation (draw down of CO2), for eg. biochar, > > which can also help us deliver on our food production needs and our > > need for diverse, local, cheap and reliable energy supplies. There is > > no reason to prevent this, and perhpaps a small selection of other > > technologies, from being utilised now (I think it already is). I > > suspect that imposing the conditionality would be impossible to police > > for some technologies. > > > > The proposal of conditionality can relate to the discussion on the > > perception or not of 'moral hazard' or whichever phrase is used to > > describe a perceived concern that deploying GE could detract focus and > > funds away from emission reduction strategies. I am so relieved to > > hear that the NERC study found this argument not to be as prevalent as > > assumed. > > > > It can be viewed like this : I need both food and water to live. > > Drinking water doesn't mean I don't need to eat. > > > > I hope this perspective helps, > > very best wishes, > > > > Emily. > > > > On 18/09/2010 15:34, [email protected] wrote: > >> Dear Josh, > >> > >> Because GE can at best only delay global warming, I suggested at > >> Asilomar that a condition for the implementation of GE be that > >> satisfactory mitigation steps must have already been achieved. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> > >> Oliver Wingenter > >> > >> On 9/17/2010 3:56 PM, Josh Horton wrote: > >>> One of the more interesting findings pertains to the "moral hazard" > >>> argument against geoengineering, that is, people will embrace > >>> geoengineering as an excuse to avoid emissions reductions, and current > >>> levels of fossil fuel consumption will persist if not increase. Moral > >>> hazard has emerged as one of the principal arguments against climate > >>> engineering, despite the fact that geoengineering advocates generally > >>> support aggressive mitigation as the preferred option, and are quick > >>> to note the limitations of specific strategies, such as continued > >>> ocean acidification and the so-called "termination problem" in the > >>> case of stratospheric aerosol injections. > >>> > >>> Evidence from the public dialogue summarized in the NERC report > >>> indicates that participants viewed mitigation and geoengineering as > >>> complementary policies, not as mutually exclusive alternatives. > >>> Stakeholders saw a link between geoengineering and emissions controls, > >>> and preferred a suite of mitigation and geoengineering measures to > >>> reliance on any single approach. "This evidence is contrary to the > >>> 'moral hazard' argument that geoengineering would undermine popular > >>> support for mitigation or adaptation," notes the report. While this > >>> study represents only one set of empirical data gathered in one > >>> particular sociocultural context, it is to my knowledge the first time > >>> the moral hazard argument has been tested, and demonstrates little > >>> support for this proposition. > >>> > >>> Josh Horton > >>> [email protected] > >>> http://geoengineeringpolitics.blogspot.com/ > >>> > >>> > >>> On Sep 9, 10:45 am, Emily<[email protected]> wrote: > >>>> best wishes, > >>>> Emily. > >>>> > >>>> Dear Colleague, > >>>> > >>>> NERC has published the final report of Experiment Earth? , our public > >>>> dialogue on geoengineering. It can be found > >>>> at:http://www.nerc.ac.uk/about/consult/geoengineering.asptogether > >>>> with a > >>>> short leaflet summarising the findings and recommendations from the > >>>> report. > >>>> > >>>> The latest issue of NERC's Planet Earth magazine also contains an > >>>> article about the public dialogue, which can be found > >>>> here:http://planetearth.nerc.ac.uk/features/story.aspx?id=744 > >>>> > >>>> Regards, > >>>> > >>>> Peter > >>>> > >>>> Peter Hurrell > >>>> > >>>> Stakeholder Liaison Officer | Policy and Partnerships Team > >>>> > >>>> Natural Environment Research Council (NERC) > >>>> > >>>> Putting NERC science to use: find out more through NERC s Science > >>>> Impacts Database<http://sid.nerc.ac.uk/> > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> This message (and any attachments) is for the recipient only. NERC > >>>> is subject to the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and the contents > >>>> of this email and any reply you make may be disclosed by NERC unless > >>>> it is exempt from release under the Act. Any material supplied to > >>>> NERC may be stored in an electronic records management system. > >> > > > > -- > 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.
