“It [the report*] recommends that policymakers consider geoengineering as a third strategy, "to use only if clearly needed." Likewise, governments should not fund geoengineering research at the expense of research and development of energy efficiency measures, carbon-free energy sources, climate science research or adaptation efforts, the report says.” *http://www.wilsoncenter.org/event/report-release-geoengineering-for-decision-makers
Given that energy efficiency, carbon-free energy sources, and climate research (as a mitigation strategy?) have clearly failed to stabilize CO2 (despite many $B’s in investment in these technologies, emission rate up a record 6% last year http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/nov/04/greenhouse-gases-rise-record-levels) and will likely continue to fail ( http://www.iea.org/Textbase/npsum/weo2011sum.pdf), how about hedging our bet and fund CDR and SRM R&D equally with the preceding approaches? Otherwise, might it be a wee bit risky to wait on R&D until GE becomes “clearly needed”? And who is going to decide this? If “... decisionmakers later in the century could find themselves in a situation where geoengineering is the only recourse to truly dangerous climate change", then why should we now deliberately throttle GE research if it might ultimately prove essential in preserving earth habitability? -Greg Rau TECHNOLOGY: Geoengineering may now be required as a 'Plan B' for climate change -- study Lauren Morello, E&E reporter Published: Thursday, November 10, 2011 Faced with the risk that efforts to cut greenhouse gas emissions may not succeed in staving off dangerous climate change, governments should begin research now to determine whether geoengineering approaches are a viable "Plan B," argues a new report from the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. "Several of the best climate studies suggest that stabilizing the amount of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases below the level that risk dangerous climate change will require a social mobilization and technological transformation at a speed and scale that has few if any peacetime precedents," says the analysis, released today. "If correct ... decisionmakers later in the century could find themselves in a situation where geoengineering is the only recourse to truly dangerous climate change." The report echoes similar recommendations from the Bipartisan Policy Center, the Government Accountability Office, the U.K. Royal Society, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the American Geophysical Union and the House Science, Space and Technology Committee. But it places a sharper emphasis on the idea that geoengineering should not be considered a substitute for emissions reductions or a primary strategy to fight climate change. "Always consider geoengineering issues in a broader contact of climate change management, which includes emissions reduction as the primary strategy and adaptation strategy as the secondary strategy," the Wilson Center report says. It recommends that policymakers consider geoengineering as a third strategy, "to use only if clearly needed." Likewise, governments should not fund geoengineering research at the expense of research and development of energy efficiency measures, carbon-free energy sources, climate science research or adaptation efforts, the report says. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
