Prof. Fleming believes the social implications of geoengineering pose a great risk and we must first understand the social dimensions of actual deployment. Thank God the US did not waste time on such moralizing before starting the Manhattan Project. If we had, we would have lost an estimated million people in ultimately defeating Japan. Indeed the social cost to Japan of use of the bomb was great but far less than it would have been if it had not been developed and deployed. Moreover, a small delay in defeating Germany might have been catastrophic since they were also developing one.
Nothing wrong with studying the historical, ethical, legal, and social implications of geoengineering but when it gets real hot and dry as it will in time because nature with some help from mankind is on that trajectory, rending the social fabric takes on a different meaning. -gene From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of James R. Fleming Sent: Monday, April 18, 2011 6:05 PM To: [email protected]; geoengineering Subject: Re: [geo] How would you allocate US$10 million per year to most reduce climate risk? Ken, First of all, send the list of who in Washington has $10 M and wants to spend it on geoengineering. Second, recall the line in the AMS AGU Policy statement calling for "study of historical, ethical, legal, and social implications of geoengineering" Since the greatest risks seem to include rending the social fabric if someone actually deploys geoengineering, I think research on the social dimensions is paramount. I would be happy to convene some social science meetings for $ 0.1-1 M Jim James Rodger Fleming Professor and Director STS Program, Colby College 5881 Mayflower Hill Waterville, ME 04901 Ph: 207-859-5881 Fax: 207-859-5846 http://www.colby.edu/profile/jfleming http://web.colby.edu/jfleming From: Ken Caldeira <[email protected]> Reply-To: <[email protected]> Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2011 08:08:25 -0700 To: geoengineering <[email protected]> Subject: [geo] How would you allocate US$10 million per year to most reduce climate risk? Folks, There is some discussion in DC about making some small amount of public funds available to support SRM and CDR research. In today's funding climate, it is much more likely that someone might be given authority to re-allocate existing budgets than that they would actually be given significantly more money for this effort. Thus, the modest scale. If you were doing strategic planning for a US federal agency, and you were told that you had a budget of $10 million per year and that you should maximize the amount of climate risk reduction obtainable with that $10 million, what would you allocate it to and why? Best, Ken ___________________________________________________ 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 -- 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. -- 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.
