The idea that everyone will try to optimize local climate is a bit preposterous.
We see from the recent subprime mortgage crisis, a disruption in one sector of one country (home mortgages in the US) led to a 5% loss in global GDP. We are all linked economically. Here in Silicon Valley, I do not believe that most people would want to optimize climate to maintain our beautiful weather. People would want to optimize climate to produce the most productive global economy possible (consistent with long-term environmental preservation) so there can be greater production of goods and services. I believe we all share strong interests in a productive global economy; if climate engineering is ever deployed, minimizing environmental damage to the global economy will be a primary objective. On Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at 2:43 PM, Joshua Horton <[email protected]>wrote: > Hi Ken, > > If I frame this a bit better, I think we're on the same page (although my > claim is probably too strong). My overall argument is that the threat of > unilateral deployment is largely unfounded, and that there are in fact > numerous structural incentives that favor cooperation and multilateralism > when it comes to SRM. One constraint relates to potential interactions and > reduced effectivess resulting from uncoordinated injections. The > coagulation example is meant to illustrate this point, i.e., because SRM is > relatively simple, affordable, and widely available, a country considering > implementation faces strong incentives to work with other members of the > international community that share its inclination if it wants to maximize > the likelihood of successful deployment. > > I discuss several other constraints as well, including countermeasures as > you mention. I think the specter of unilateral deployment crumbles > under scrutiny, and amounts to little more than a boogeyman that inhibits > constructive engagement. > > Josh > > > > > On Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at 2:29 PM, Ken Caldeira < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> Multiple, independent injections would *decrease *the likelihood of >> coagulation relative to injecting it all in one place. >> >> Of course, there is potential for coordinated injections to decrease >> coagulation (aggregation) relative to uncoordinated injections. >> >> There is no evidence that I know of that one injection could "cancel out" >> the effects of another injection. It seems that the main case is that the >> climate effect of A+B would be less than the climate effects of A plus the >> climate effects of B. >> >> It is an interesting research question to understand whether there are >> countermeasures that would decrease the effectiveness of injection by >> injecting something upwind from an injection site that would promote >> aggregation of the injected material. >> >> ___________________________________________________ >> 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 Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at 10:43 AM, Josh Horton >> <[email protected]>wrote: >> >>> Hi everyone, >>> >>> I am finalizing a chapter on geoengineering policy for publication and >>> would greatly appreciate informed feedback on the following paragraph: >>> >>> "The aerosol most commonly suggested for stratospheric injection is >>> sulfuric acid. Plans call for delivering sulfate aerosols by >>> dispersing gas-phase precursor materials. Precursor oxidation and >>> aerosol formation involve complex processes with the potential to >>> reduce the effectiveness of stratospheric insertion. For instance, >>> coagulation could lead to excessively large sulfuric acid particles >>> that sediment out of the stratosphere, neutralizing the effect of the >>> initial dispersion. Multiple, independent injections would increase >>> the likelihood of such unintended consequences. Unsynchronized >>> staging, scheduling, and delivery of sulfate aerosol injections would >>> magnify the potential for perverse particulate interactions, and might >>> jeopardize the success of geoengineering deployment. Lack of policy >>> coordination may result in separate injection schemes that effectively >>> cancel each other out." >>> >>> For those with scientific/technical backgrounds, is this a sound >>> argument? Is the basic science correct? I am outside my comfort zone >>> with this and want to be sure I don't miss the mark. Thanks to anyone >>> who can offer insight. >>> >>> Josh Horton >>> [email protected] >>> http://geoengineeringpolitics.blogspot.com/ >>> >>> -- >>> 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.
