Jim, You cite Alan Robock's piece as though it were a definitive list of 20 excellent reasons that geoengineering is a bad idea, but perhaps you missed that the Bulletin's coverage of it included a roundtable debate on this list with Ken, Margaret, Myself and Tom Wigley. I do think that the list is a great collection of many of the strawman arguments that are often thrown out-- namely that
I'll quote Margaret and my first response. I think it gets to the heart of our point of view on this. D http://www.thebulletin.org/web-edition/roundtables/has-the-time-come-geoengineering Although Alan Robock's "20 Reasons Why Geoengineering May Be a Bad Idea" raises legitimate questions, it seems to argue against implementation rather than against studying the underlying science. Few people are actively advocating for immediate, full-scale implementation of geoengineering techniques as a means of addressing climate change. But many people are suggesting that we learn more about the efficacy of such techniques--including Alan, who was recently awarded a National Science Foundation grant to study the effectiveness and possible consequences of injecting aerosol particles into the stratosphere to reduce incoming solar radiation. In terms of geoengineering concerns, it's helpful to group them into three categories: *Efficacy.* Clearly, any geoengineering technique first needs to achieve the intended effect for a reasonable cost--whether the goal is buying time for more sustainable solutions by reducing incoming solar radiation or addressing the root cause of warming by removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. It's critical that scientists be allowed to study efficacy through experimentation and modeling without being stigmatized by the assumption that their work will cause a rush to full implementation. *Impact.* The environmental impacts of the technique must either be minimal or acceptable relative to the benefits of action *and the consequences of inaction*. Martin Bunzl makes this point clearly in "An Ethical Assessment of Geoengineering," an accompanying essay on p. 18 of Alan's article. In the case of ocean iron fertilization, 12 small, open-ocean experiments have already been conducted by oceanographers to improve understanding of both efficacy and impacts. (See "Mesoscale Iron Enrichment Experiments 1993-2005: Synthesis and Future Directions"<http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/315/5812/612>.) >From the start, it was clear that these experiments weren't a danger to the environment and that their effects wouldn't last long. Scientists should be encouraged to study impacts through experimentation and modeling as long as it can be reasonably presumed that their impacts are short-lived. *Implementation.* If a technique is both effective and sensitive to the environment, the following implementation questions become important: Who implements it? Who regulates it? And how do we incorporate these activities into existing regulatory and legal frameworks and treaties? These questions are difficult but not intractable, as many carefully negotiated international agreements already demonstrate, including the International Maritime Organization's London Convention<http://www.imo.org/Conventions/contents.asp?topic_id=258&doc_id=681>on ocean dumping (signed by 80 countries in 1972, including most of the developed world) and the U.N. Law of the Sea<http://www.un.org/Depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/closindx.htm>treaty (signed and ratified by most countries except the United States). More broadly, the provocative title of Alan's article and the quick treatment of individual concerns obscure the complexity behind these subject areas--as Martin and Ken Caldeira have addressed. We expected a summary of research results suggesting *a priori* that geoengineering is a bad idea, but didn't find one. Also, we found it distracting that many of Alan's concerns (i.e., ozone depletion, acid deposition, effects on cirrus clouds and plants) are specific to one technique--aerosol seeding--but offered as reasons why geoengineering in general is a bad idea. Another of Alan's examples presumes that "humans [adopt] geoengineering as a solution to global warming, with no restriction on continued carbon emissions." *No one*is suggesting that geoengineering replace emissions reduction. Most surprising is Alan's conclusion that global warming is a not a difficult technical--but rather purely a political--problem, and therefore, geoengineering isn't required to solve it. We disagree. The road ahead is paved with difficult technical challenges in addition to the considerable political ones. Many new, clean technologies that promise incremental improvements in efficiency also require substantial scientific achievements--such as genetic modification of organisms to make novel substances (i.e., enzymes that process various feedstocks for cellulosic ethanol) or revolutionary advances in materials and process sciences (i.e., new thin-film technologies for solar power). Emission reductions don't simply follow from mandates; we must innovate alternatives to fossil fuels. That we need to contemplate geoengineering to buy us time for that innovation is unfortunate. That we have the scientific, technical, and human potential to do so responsibly is not. On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 11:55 AM, James R. Fleming <[email protected]>wrote: > Ken, > > Thank your for expressing your views. > > You wrote about:* distinguishing between advocates of geoengineering and > advocates of geoengineering research. > * > If I refer to you by name (which I didn’t in the Slate piece) I will be > sure to mention that you are a strong advocate for geoengineering * > research*. My sense is, however, that a big R&D push with field deployment > by geoengineering research advocates might result in attempts to engineer > the climate. Recall that some panelists were floating a “Plan B” for > climate to Congress, which was no “plan” at all. > > You wrote: *I am an advocate of improving our information base, our state > of knowledge. > * > Me too. > > But what counts as knowledge? In my written response to the Congress, I > said: > > A comprehensive research program in geoengineering cannot be merely a > scientific and technically-based effort. It must be led by > historically-informed humanistic and social science efforts to understand > the precedents and contextualize human desires (and hubris) involved in > intervening in natural systems. Such discussions should seek to avoid being > dominated by Western technocratic influences, and would need to be fully > international, interdisciplinary, and intergenerational in nature so that a > *global* conversation emerges. > > Also: > > Geoengineering research is currently not ready, and may never be ready for > any field testing, large scale or otherwise. It is best done indoors using > computer simulations and in other controlled conditions, such as > laboratories and wind tunnels. For decades, verification of weather > modification experiments has been stymied by natural variability in cloud > and weather conditions. The same is true many times over for experiments on > the global climate. > > What is most needed in atmospheric science today is more focused and basic > research on atmospheric dynamics and chaotic forcings. If, as Edward Lorenz > maintained, the climate system exhibits modes that are extremely sensitive > to perturbations, what unknown effect might [attempted geoengineering] have > on the global or regional climate? Also needed, especially now, is a > concerted effort to restore scientific and public confidence in the > atmospheric sciences, their peer review practices, Earth’s instrumental and > proxy temperature records, and the authority and behavior of computer models > and their results. > > > I did not mention Mt. Pinatubo in my *Slate *piece, so I don’t know why > you asked about it, but I do recall Mike MacCracken telling me about direct > beam vs. diffuse sky radiation issues following volcanic eruptions. Also, > in 2008 Alan Robock listed “Whitening of the sky, with no more blue skies, > but nice sunsets,” “The end of terrestrial optical astronomy,” and “Greatly > reduced direct beam solar power,” in his list of twenty reasons > (subsequently pared down to seventeen) why geoengineering may be a bad idea. > > Robock, Alan. “20 Reasons Why Geoengineering May Be a Bad Idea.” *Bulletin > of the Atomic Scientists* 64 (2008): 14–18, 59. > > Alan might have change his mind about optical astronomy since, but a recent > article by astronomers Christian Luginbuhl, Constance Walker, and Richard > Wainscoat [in *Physics Today* 62 (2009): 32–37] discusses the rapid growth > of light pollution from ground-based sources, suggesting to me that any > added aerosols in the atmosphere could also be an unwanted burden on seeing > conditions, not from any past volcanic eruption, but from geoengineering and > other sources. > > Remember that geoengineering has been attempted before (in operations Argus > and Starfish Prime in near space) and that history matters when it comes to > policy decisions, since everything seems to be unprecedented when you don’t > read history. > > Jim > > > > On 9/24/10 12:10 PM, "Ken Caldeira" <[email protected]> > wrote: > > James, > > I am afraid that you appear to have trouble distinguishing between > advocates of geoengineering and advocates of geoengineering research. You > write: > > *In November 2009 the U.S. House Committee on Science and Technology held > hearings on the implications of large-scale climate intervention. I was the > only historian on a panel of five, which included three strong advocates for > geoengineering and a climate modeler who warned of unintended consequences. > * > I believe you are characterizing me as a "strong advocate for > geoengineering." I do not consider myself an advocate of geoengineering. > > I have repeatedly stated that I am uncertain whether geoengineering (solar > radiation management) techniques could in fact reduce overall risk, but that > there is potential that it may do so and that therefore we should conduct > relevant research. > > Please do not inappropriately represent my views in your published > materials. > > Hyperbolic, sloppy, and misleading statements do not serve to advance a > well-informed discussion. > > Best, > > Ken > > PS. Furthermore, you make a number of scientific statements that appear to > be wrong. For example, perhaps as a historian you can tell me whether the > sky was milky white after Mt. Pinatubo. While you are at it, perhaps you can > tell me what happened to Earth-based astronomical observations after this > eruption. > > > > > ___________________________________________________ > Ken Caldeira > > Carnegie Institution Dept of Global Ecology > 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA > +1 650 704 7212 [email protected] > http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab @kencaldeira > > > On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 8:18 AM, James R. Fleming <[email protected]> > wrote: > > James Rodger Fleming, “Weather as a Weapon: The troubling history of > geoengineering so far,” *Slate Magazine*, > > *http://www.slate.com/id/2268232/* > > -- > 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]<geoengineering%[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.
