John, It is not at all obvious to me that decisions about geoengineering should be made at "UN level." Given your description of the failures of the UNFCCC process, treating geoengineering in the same forum does not exactly inspire confidence. Climate engineering could be taken up by many other multilateral groupings with applicable jurisdictions - Major Economies Forum, Arctic Council, etc. I think we need to be more creative about institutional and governance solutions.
Josh Horton [email protected] http://geoengineeringpolitics.blogspot.com/ On Sep 27, 1:04 pm, John Nissen <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Mike, > You wrote:"It sure seems to me that one should be much more concerned about > GHG changes going on into unchartered territory more than for GHG plus > geoengineering aiming to keep the climate within bounds of what has recently > been experienced, and so is likely much better understood." > So the moral dimension to this is to do the best thing for humanity, which > must surely be to try to keep the climate within the bounds set by recent > experience. With the Arctic, we can see the changes taking us into > unchartered territory, and opening up the possibility of massive methane > release from permafrost and massive ice discharge from the Greenland ice > sheet. These in turn are liable to lead to thermal runaway and metres of sea > level rise respectively. > As John Gorman wrote, IPCC has embarked on an unrealistic path of emissions > cuts, and dismissed geoengineering with 17 words. In their 2007 report, they > also were guilty of using a simple linear extrapolation of 20th century sea > ice data, to give a date for seasonal sea ice free Arctic beyond the end of > this century. However, positive feedback invalidates linear extrapolation, > and observations since the 90s indicate the real possibility of a > near-ice-free ocean within this decade [1]. This must surely be treated as an > emergency situation. And the only way to reduce the risk of disaster is > through solar radiation management. Thus I suggest that the greatest moral > hazard is to dismiss the possibility of deploying such geoengineering, when > it is needed to deal with an emergency in which the future of humanity is at > stake. > Cheers, > John > [1]http://climateprogress.org/2010/09/22/nsidc-serreze-arctic-sea-ice-volume-record-low-death-spiral/ > especially see Maslowski projection. > --- > John Gorman wrote:Ben > > > > The questions you raise seem to be about decision making. The ethics of > making decisions which affect large numbers of people tell you nothing about > the morality or immorality of geoengineerig --or surgery.(to take your > example) > > > > To me it is obvious that climate change and geoengineering decisions must be > taken at UN level. At the moment this means the body set up to deal with > Climate Change, the IPCC. > > Unfortunately the IPCC, despite its good analysis of the past and present > seems to have its head in the sand about the seriousness of the problem in > the future, (Arctic sea ice, methane, sea level, Greenland etc)while > simultaneously having its head in the clouds on the rate at which emissions > can be reduced. Chris Green, Professor of Economics in theGlobal Environment > and Climate Change Centre at McGill University described this side of the > IPCC recentlyin the following way: > > > > > > WG III has repeatedly stated that we have the technologies to stabilize > atmospheric concentration at almost any desired level and at modest, or even > very low, cost. What is lacking according to IPCC WG III is "political will". > The WG III statements re available technologies are unsupported by the > evidence (see papers by Hoffert et al Nature 1998, Science, 2002, papers for > which Tom Wigley was a co-author). These papers were wholly (Nature 1998) or > largely (Science, 2002) ignored by IPCC WG III.----if you are looking for > unsound analysis the main place you will find it is in IPCC WG III---an > analysis that arguably has had the biggest impact on climate policy and > advocacy of any of the IPCC WGs. --- the flawed analysis of IPCC WG III - > makes climate stabilization technologically much easier and economically less > costly than it will be. > > > > > > (The IPCC dismissedGeoengineering with 17 words in 20.000 pages in 2007.) > > > > The UN system convened to try to achieve these completely impossible rates of > emissions reduction, UNEP Copenhagen etc. was a total farce. How can 19,000 > delegates and their governments turn a blind eye to complete fudges like > "emissions intensity"?( it means in comparison with GDP in case anyone didnt > realise) and produce press releases that are out in total emissions by maybe > 40%. Lane Lee calls this behavoirOrganized Hypocrisy in hisarticle > athttp://www.aei.org/outlook/100095. I call it --- well laughable if it > werent so serious. > > > > The decisions to be made to control global warming will require a level of > cooperation and relism that has never existed in international diplomacy. > Even previous worldwide agreements like nuclear weapons reduction and the > elimination of CFCs to save the ozone layer were easy in comparison. > > > > John Gorman > > > > ps its nice that people sign with their University or organisation. It helps > to know who they are. I dont have either so I will sign with my profile on > this group which is > athttp://groups.google.com/groups/profile?enc_user=DWQ8dRQAAAAmAe2DtKtSwR1ynkksDOuxOPANdqfI6prRsqjc7uCt1A > > ----- Original Message ----- > > ... > > read more » -- 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.
