Rather than two wrongs don’t make a right, it seems to me that the appropriate metaphor for the situation that we face (i.e., fossil fuel emissions causing increasingly severe climate changes and impacts—and how should we consider whether to engineer the climate) is being HIV positive (with the prospect of AIDS being equivalent to severe, non-linear, and/or dangerous impacts) and facing the decision of taking the types of drugs that were being developed and in their early stages. Pretty clearly, in the HIV case, one needed to first stop exposing oneself to more and more exposure—this being the equivalent of mitigation. And fine to put some salves on the sores, take antibiotics to keep from getting sick, etc. --the equivalent of adaptation. But to really have a chance of surviving and avoiding imminent death, taking the anti-HIV drugs, and starting the drug regimen, even though many of the drugs were in the development stage, was widely recognized as vital to avoiding a terrible outcome. The drugs do not cure the problem—they only hold it off; not all of their implications are understood and they do not address all of the impacts (I am sure we could think up a list equivalent to Alan’s list of 25 problem areas); better drugs might be developed in the future (and the drug regimen has improved outcomes as knowledge has developed), but waiting would lead to even more severe consequences and eventually death. If a person did not have HIV with its potential consequences, of course they would not take the drugs as they do have side effects. Given the situation, however, taking the drugs, even though it was not clear how long they might hold off advances of the disease, was quite clearly the only rational option.
With this metaphor, we might want to think about having Magic Johnson be the representative for our efforts—he wasn’t able to return to being a basketball star, but he has lived on at a pretty good level, taking his medicine regularly, etc., etc. Things could still fall apart pretty quickly—but the risk of death is less in taking the drugs than for not-taking them. Now, I wholeheartedly agree that we need research to distinguish the usefulness and workability of the various approaches to potentially engineering the climate and that it is not clear how long we can wait to start, etc., but to think that we are going to have a better outcome without some pretty strong medicine in addition to mitigation and adaptation seems to me not really facing up to the seriousness of the situation that we face. One shortcoming of the metaphor is that there were many people who got HIV and then AIDS and then died, so the prognosis was widely accepted. For the climate change situation, we have only one real Earth, and waiting until we experience the terrible consequences may well be too late to reverse the situation. What we have are models, admittedly not perfect although quite good, and convincing people to view their results as sold enough to cut emissions fast enough is unfortunately proving quite difficult. Well, not as terse as “two wrongs don’t make a right.” I would hope we can find a way to indicate that the situation is considerably more nuanced than that. Mike MacCracken On 3/15/12 12:50 PM, "David Hawkins" <[email protected]> wrote: > This is pretty hilarious in quasi-translation. “Plus false false does not > equal right.” is very succinct. > > > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] > On Behalf Of Alan Robock > Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2012 12:03 PM > To: geoengineering > Subject: [geo] And I speak German perfectly > > Dear All, > > Attached is an interview with me published today in Die Zeit. Like Ken, I did > the interview in English and it was translated into German. Unfortunately, > they translated 25 into 35, and I have asked for a correction. I also post > the imperfect google translation. > > > Alan > > [On sabbatical for current academic year. The best way to contact me > is by email, [email protected], or at 732-881-1610 (cell).] > > Alan Robock, Professor II (Distinguished Professor) > Editor, Reviews of Geophysics > Director, Meteorology Undergraduate Program > Associate Director, Center for Environmental Prediction > Department of Environmental Sciences Phone: +1-732-932-9800 x6222 > Rutgers University Fax: +1-732-932-8644 > 14 College Farm Road E-mail: [email protected] > New Brunswick, NJ 08901-8551 USA http://envsci.rutgers.edu/~robock > > Two Wrongs Don't Make a Right > > To tackle climate change with more technology does not solve the problem. An > interview with the Meteorologist Alan Robock on the opportunities and risks of > geoengineering > > THE TIME: Geo-engineers want to stop global warming by engaging in the climate > system. How to succeed in the practice? > Alan Robock: One suggestion is to create artificial clouds in the > stratosphere, so in the layer above the troposphere where we live. These > clouds were reflecting some solar radiation Back into space, the earth's > surface was cooling, something. It brings to sulfur dioxide or hydrogen > sulfide into the stratosphere, where the gas reacts with water vapor to form > tiny droplets containing sulfur. The same consequences, some volcanic > eruptions. It was thus mimic volcanoes, but maintained the continuous layer of > clouds. The sky would then no longer blue but milky. > TIME: How do you transport sulfur dioxide in a 20-km-high air layer? > Robock: The cheapest and easiest way it would be good, it verspruhen with > airplanes. Military can already reach the lower stratosphere. A few tons of > sulfur was there to deposit cost several billion dollars - a small item for > the world economy. > TIME: And how much could be cooling, the earth in this way? > Robock: One could thus theoretically the global warming that caused the human > race through the Ausstos of greenhouse gases, make ruckgangig. > TIME: So is it just a matter of time before we can regulate the temperature of > the earth as the temperature in a refrigerator? > Robock: Yes. No one has shown in practice that this is about at all possible. > Function even if it was: Who should decide on what temperature we set the > earth? > TIME: We have two degrees they restrict, so go on, the average temperature > that prevailed before the industrial revolution. > Robock: Some want the state by 1880, others want the 1980, while still others > maintain the current temperature. Who should decide? > TIME: The United Nations. > Robock: The UN? And when Russia and Canada will have a couple of degrees > warmer? They were able to exploit soil treasures of the Arctic and had to > spend less money heating furs, benefit their agriculture was. What if Pacific > island countries, it will have some degree Kuhler, because they are already > threatened by the destruction? Who should decide? Even rich entrepreneurs > could alter the climate, for example, Richard Branson, who owns many aircraft. > It dangerous conflicts between nations threatens. Imagine, a country begins > with the Geo-Engineering and another schiest from the aircraft. > TIME: Should Geoengineering forever remain a taboo? > Robock, I've created a list of 35 reasons why it's a bad idea. And a list of > eight or nine reasons why it might be a good thing. A good reason timber: When > geoengineering works, this technique could Kuhlen the earth and prevent the > gronlandische ice melts. Currently the marine resspiegel increases, and he > will be at the end of the century, probably three feet high. And the half of > humanity lives on the coasts. Against geo-engineering language, that the > monsoon was another. In the end it is a question of balancing exercise, how > much it would be worth to us if we could stop the rise in sea level? Any one > could sacrifice entschadigen yes, if humanity as a whole will benefit. So I > think we should do more research on the topic, so that politicians can abwagen > better in the future, the pros and cons. > TIME: What kind of research do you mean? > Robock: I favor Trockenubungen with theoretical models. Some people have > proposed field experiments. But we have shown that the idea of stratospheric > cloud can not even try. When you create a small cloud in the stratosphere, > then let's compete impossible, what impact it has on the climate because the > climate is so variable. Imagine, we had a flood in Thailand anschliesend. If > you then make the experiment Darfur accountable? For a practical test with > useful values you had to bring in quantities of sulfur particles into the > grose stratosphere and they hold up there a couple of decades. The test > software but then no more, that would be geo-engineering. > TIME: The fact that this technique only takes into Recital theoretically could > serve as an excuse Darfur some countries, not straining to save as much CO ₂. > Robock, the real question is: How high is the risk of geoengineering in > comparison to the dangers of global warming? One of the dire consequences if > one blast of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, the ocean acidification: The pH > of the oceans decreases. Shellfish are disappear schlieslich the whole food > chain is in danger. If we shield the sun, but nothing changes in it. Plus > false false does not equal right. To address technical problems with even more > technology, the problem is not lost. The way out for vernunftige is global > warming: emit less greenhouse gases. We have the technical solutions for this. > You heisen: solar energy, wind energy and perhaps nuclear power. It is a > political problem, not a technical one. > TIME: For some states could appear interesting but geoengineering as an > emergency exit. > Robock: This is like a tourniquet, which one applies, if someone threatens to > bleed to death. You can not take it anymore. Because if you neutralize the > effect of geoengineering GHG and society loses one day the will or the means > to go on - then there would be a rapid warming, much faster than we are > accustomed today. That would be disastrous. It is the speed of Klimaanderung, > we can adapt ourselves to the difficult, so much the absolute temperature. -- 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.
