While it is certainly true that many people residing in the far north are accustomed to colder weather and would prefer to have it remain unchanged by human behavior, and it is certainly true that resource extraction companies will benefit from warmer northern temperatures, the story is a bit more complex than that.
* The far north is a big place with lots of people living in it. Many of them might prefer a warmer future with greater wealth. For example, I am virtually certain that there are a great many people living in Alaska who would gladly accept this bargain. * When I was in college (a long time ago ...) I was a research assistant for a graduate student who did research on why so-called "indigenous" peoples wound up in extreme climatic regions. I looked at hundreds of groups using the microfilmed Human Research Area Files in the 8th floor of the University of Michigan Graduate Library. His research concluded that it was because they had lost conflicts with neighboring groups and been pushed to the margins of the habitable zone. This calls into question the whole premise that indigenous peoples are living "where they want to be." * Studies have repeatedly shown that cold has a stronger effect on mortality than heat. * Far northern regions are part of larger nation-states that set policy for the nation as a whole, so petitions have no force of law and are not going to settle anything. As for the species living there ... yes, I support the concept of preserving large areas of untouched habitat. As you are probably aware, the research by Jackson et al. on novel climates http://nctc.fws.gov/EC/Resources/climate_change/lcc/nov_10/williams_and_jackson%20_2007_frontiers.pdf suggests that absent reductions in radiative forcings, we are going to see a lot of disappearing habitats. --- Fred Zimmerman Geoengineering IT! Bringing together the worlds of geoengineering and information technology GE NewsFilter: http://geoengineeringIT.net:8080 On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 10:20 PM, Mike MacCracken <mmacc...@comcast.net>wrote: > Sorry Gene—While some resource extraction companies are interested in a > warmer Arctic, the people of the north have petitioned for their right to > be cold, and the species that are there depend on it being cold. > > Mike > > > > On 4/15/13 11:59 AM, "esubscript...@montgomerycountymd.gov" < > euggor...@comcast.net> wrote: > > This ignores the possibility that some northern regions of the world > prefer warming and may not want overall CO2 emissions reduction, but rather > localized control of cooling.and this is a tough issue to deal with since > I doubt they can be forced to stop emitting CO2. However, it may not make a > huge difference if they don't Focusing on localized cooling might be a > more successful approach to achieving cooling as desired. Nordhaus may be > right. Moreover countries like the US are nearing the ability to be self > sufficient on fossil fuels requirements, the best is yet to come, and the > economic advantages are immense so CO2 emission reduction might not be > economically popular in the US. This is a tough political arena. > > ------------------------------ > *From: *"Ken Caldeira" <kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu> > *To: *"andrew lockley" <andrew.lock...@gmail.com> > *Cc: *"geoengineering" <geoengineering@googlegroups.com> > *Sent: *Monday, April 15, 2013 11:04:35 AM > *Subject: *Re: [geo] FEEM - Geoengineering and Abatement: A ’flat’ > Relationship under Uncertainty > > Also, these sorts of analyses assume that *Homo economicus* is an > adequate model of human social behavior. > > Nordhaus pointed out in the early 1990's that if solar geoengineering > works as advertised, basic economic modeling indicates this would reduce > incentive to mitigate emissions. > > However, if we do get ourselves in a situation where the broad public > comes to believe that climate change poses a major threat, then I can > conceive of a situation in which society "decides" to do everything > feasible to reduce this threat, including both emissions reduction and > solar geoengineering. > > In public events, I have seen people who doubted the reality of climate > science accept the possibility of catastrophic outcomes when presented with > a potential "quick fix". > > So, solar geoengineering can help get people to accept the potential for > bad outcomes, and then once they accept that, then the next step is to see > that the "quick fix" isn't all that much of a fix after all. > > In other words, I think that consideration of solar geoengineering may > lead more people to want to work harder on emissions reduction, and thus > lead to greater, not lesser, emissions reductions. > > --- > > I note also that this paper makes the assumption that it will be uncertain > for some time whether solar geoengineering will "work". As Andrew points > out, early tests, etc, that lead to more information could change the > results. > > > > > > On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 3:55 AM, Andrew Lockley <andrew.lock...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > Poster's note : will be interesting to see how their analysis is > constrained as the error bars on SRM are reduced over time. > > http://www.feem.it/getpage.aspx?id=5456&sez=Publications&padre=73 > > 2013.031 NOTE DI LAVORO > > Geoengineering and Abatement: A ’flat’ Relationship under Uncertainty > > Authors: Johannes Emmerling, Massimo Tavoni > > Series: Climate Change and Sustainable Development > > Keywords: Geoengineering, Mitigation, Climate Policy, Uncertainty > JEL n.: Q54, C63, D81 > > Abstract > > The potential of geoengineering as an alternative or complementary option > to mitigation and adaptation has received increased interest in recent > years. The scientific assessment of geoengineering is driven to a large > extent by assumptions about its effectiveness, costs, and impacts, all of > which are highly uncertain. This has led to a polarizing debate. This paper > evaluates the role of Solar Radiation Management (SRM) on the optimal > abatement path, focusing on the uncertainty about the effectiveness of SRM > and the interaction with uncertain climate change response. Using standard > economic models of dynamic decision theory under uncertainty, we show that > abatement is decreasing in the probability of success of SRM, but that this > relation is concave and thus that significant abatement reductions are > optimal only if SRM is very likely to be effective. The results are > confirmed even when considering positive correlation structures between the > effectiveness of geoengineering and the magnitude of climate change. Using > a stochastic version of an Integrated Assessment Model, the results are > found to be robust for a wide range of parameters specification. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "geoengineering" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
