Mr Hamilton: I don't think it's personal abuse to point out that you oppose research in what may (probably will) be desperately needed in a decade or two. As several here point out, there's a clear present danger in the Arctic. This will worsen and you will have no solution at all.
Perhaps you think the summer fires in Australia, where you live, are a passing matter. You turn apprehension about climate into fear of those who would deliberately alter climate, not against the enormous demand and the energy industry that lies at the root cause--our need of energy at low cost. I asked Sherry Rowland, the Nobel winner at my university, what the ppm count of CO2 (about 400 now) would be when we got it to slowly turn around. "Around 1000," he said. The climate engineering many of us feel will be needed needs many small scale experiments. You oppose this. When the crisis comes, many will knock at your door. I expect you'll have it locked. Gregory Benford On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 11:08 PM, Clive Hamilton <m...@clivehamilton.com>wrote: > Dear Mr Benford > > For some reason I have not been able to post responses on this Google > group. If I were able to I would post this message in response to yours ... > > It is my impression that groups like this should not descend into personal > abuse. I receive plenty of abuse and threats from fanatical climate deniers > and it is disappointing to see the angry side of the internet emerging > here. The kind of dismissive comment you have made goes a long way towards > explaining why there is a gathering tide of suspicion about those engaged > in geoengineering research. > > Sincerely > > Clive Hamilton > > > > On 4 May 2013 15:32, Gregory Benford <xbenf...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> "...to cause political leaders to weaken even further their commitment to >> Plan A..." >> >> There is little or no commitment. Hamilton shouldn't be taken seriously; >> just another frightmonger. >> >> Gregory Benford >> >> On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 8:23 AM, Lou Grinzo <lougri...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> When Hamilton says, "One of the foremost is of course that it’s likely >>> to cause political leaders to weaken even further their commitment to Plan >>> A", I think he's pointing to a danger just as great as the risk that we'll >>> screw this up, e.g. by triggering nasty, unforeseen side effects. >>> >>> The only thing that will push us to taking major action on climate >>> change, whether that action is reducing emissions, adaptation, or >>> geoengineering, is the pain, both human and financial, of impacts. >>> Anything we do to lessen those impacts will therefore reduce our collective >>> urgency to ramp up our response to CC. It's basic microeconomics (think >>> utility functions) and psychology (perceptions vs. reality). >>> >>> I'm not sure what to think of much of what Hamilton says, frankly. I >>> read his prior book and shorter pieces, and while I do feel he >>> overestimates the difficulties and dangers, I also know that we're way out >>> of our comfort/expertise zone and time is most definitely not on our side. >>> This is not simply an example of classic multivariate optimization, but one >>> involving uncomfortably large error bars on the individual variables and >>> how they interact with each other. >>> >>> Over the next few decades, CC will reveal a lot about humanity, perhaps >>> most notably our compassion for fellow human beings. Whether it's helping >>> millions (tens of millions? hundreds?) of climate refugees and those >>> suffering food and water stress, dealing with the challenges of >>> geoengineering (who pays if something does go horribly wrong?), or "simply" >>> paying for the staggering cost of SLR. I remain cautiously optimistic that >>> we'll find a way to rise to these challenges, but I'm guessing it won't >>> always be a pretty sight. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Tuesday, April 30, 2013 8:54:24 AM UTC-4, andrewjlockley wrote: >>> >>>> http://www.chinadialogue.net/**article/show/single/en/5952<http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/show/single/en/5952> >>>> >>>> Clive Hamilton is professor of public ethics at Australia’s Charles >>>> Sturt University and a prominent critic of geoengineering. Here he >>>> discusses his latest book Earthmasters: The Dawn of the Age of Climate >>>> Engineering. >>>> >>>> Olivia Boyd: You describe geoengineering as a “profound dilemma” in >>>> your book. Why? >>>> >>>> Clive Hamilton: The dilemma is that as long as the world responds in a >>>> feeble way to the warnings of the scientists, we’re likely to end up in a >>>> situation where we will be casting around for desperate solutions and I >>>> think that’s when the world will turn seriously to geoengineering >>>> interventions to get us out of the impossible fix.People who are deeply >>>> concerned about the climate crisis, and naturally sceptical about major >>>> technological interventions, are nonetheless saying this is something we’re >>>> going to have to pursue. I’m thinking in particular of [atmospheric >>>> chemist] Paul Crutzen who has been vital in this whole debate – someone who >>>> with a very heavy heart has concluded that the world has been so derelict >>>> in responding to the scientific warnings that we’re going to have to pursue >>>> this deeply unpalatable alternative, this Plan B. >>>> >>>> OB: What’s the problem with Plan B? >>>> >>>> CH: There’s a whole string of problems with Plan B. One of the foremost >>>> is of course that it’s likely to cause political leaders to weaken even >>>> further their commitment to Plan A. And it was for that reason that pretty >>>> much all climate scientists would not talk publicly about geoengineering >>>> until Paul Crutzen broke the taboo in 2006. It was felt to be dangerous to >>>> talk about geoengineering because of the disincentive it might have on >>>> global negotiations to cut greenhouse-gas emissions.In a way, the problem >>>> that makes me most anxious is the tendency among some of the more >>>> influential geoengineering scientists to have an unwarranted faith in >>>> technological interventions in the biggest ecosystem of them all, and the >>>> extremely high likelihood of serious miscalculation, of something going >>>> very badly wrong.I think in a way the greatest risk is human hubris, our >>>> penchant for persuading ourselves that we know the answers and we have all >>>> the necessary information, we can intervene and take control of the earth. >>>> >>>> OB: What sort of miscalculations are you talking about? >>>> >>>> CH: One nightmare scenario could be where the world or a major power >>>> decides to engage in sulphate aerosol spraying – in other words to install >>>> a solar shield between the earth and the sun to turn down the sunlight >>>> reaching the earth – and to discover that it causes a massive hole in the >>>> ozone layer which has all sorts of catastrophic effects on human and other >>>> forms of life.Another nightmare scenario might be one where an attempt by >>>> one major power to engineer the globe’s climate system attracts a hostile >>>> response from another major power, who doesn’t take kindly to competing for >>>> control over their weather and it escalates into a military confrontation. >>>> >>>> OB: You’ve suggested China might be one of the most likely candidates >>>> to go it alone with something like aerosol spraying. Why China? >>>> >>>> CH: We already see in China a great deal of social unrest due to >>>> natural disasters and pressures in particular provinces of making life work >>>> in an increasingly difficult physical environment. So it doesn’t take much >>>> to imagine a situation where some of the serious warnings of the world’s >>>> climate scientists come to pass and China, for example, faces a massive >>>> drought in the north of the country, caused or exacerbated by human-induced >>>> climate change.So you have crop failures, severe water shortages, mass >>>> migration to cities already straining under pressure, and you have to ask >>>> yourself how the government in China would respond to that, bearing in mind >>>> too that most of the senior leaders in China have engineering backgrounds >>>> and, for many of them, geoengineering the climate will have a natural >>>> appeal.Now is the time for civil society in China to get actively involved >>>> in the debate over geoengineering because the government has not adopted a >>>> strong position one way or another. So there’s a substantial degree of >>>> openness which allows many voices to be heard. Once the Chinese government >>>> takes its own stance on geoengineering it will be more difficult for civil >>>> society to have an influence.I would hope that the nascent environmental >>>> movement in China would take an interest in geoengineering because I think >>>> it’s going to be a dominant political question in China in several years >>>> time. >>>> >>>> OB: If China did take a leading role in geoengineering, how might this >>>> affect its relationship with the rest of the world? >>>> >>>> CH: I’m sure if China did go down the geoengineering path it would try >>>> to present its actions as motivated by the need to protect the interests of >>>> vulnerable people across the developing world. The critical question is how >>>> divergent would be the effects of any major geoengineering scheme on >>>> different regions of the world. And if sulphate aerosol spraying for >>>> example did destabilise the Indian monsoon, then I think it could lead to >>>> serious conflict between China and India.On the other hand, China might be >>>> able to secure the backing of the small island states. They aren’t >>>> advocating geoengineering now, but if we see a strong surge in warming – >>>> which we may well do at some point in the next 10 years or so – the level >>>> of desperation in small island states may reach a point where they say some >>>> kind of radical intervention is necessary to ensure our survival and they >>>> might welcome China intervening.One of the nightmare scenarios would be if >>>> China launched a geoengineering scheme and the US, for example, decided to >>>> retaliate to counter the effects of China’s actions. That would be >>>> disastrous. You can imagine the extraordinary risks we would be taking when >>>> we turn the global climate system into a theatre of war, but that’s one of >>>> the scenarios being mooted by strategic experts. >>>> >>>> OB: You talk about the connections between the military and >>>> geoengineering – what are the implications? >>>> >>>> CH: It’s the military organisations of major powers that have the >>>> equipment and the wherewithal to engage in a programme of, for example, >>>> sulphate aerosol spraying. So I think with that kind of geoengineering it’s >>>> almost inevitable that the military will be involved to some level.Or, if a >>>> single nation decides to lime the oceans [adding lime to seawater is said >>>> to be able to boost its capacity to absorb carbon dioxide], bearing in mind >>>> they would be setting out to transform the chemical composition of all of >>>> the oceans, then you’ve got ships from one nation sailing the seas, >>>> spreading the lime. You have a major marine operation going on and you >>>> would expect the navy to have a watching brief over that. This is all >>>> speculative, but these are possibilities. >>>> >>>> OB: You cite scientist Ken Caldeira as asking: “Is it better to let the >>>> Greenland ice sheet collapse or to spray some sulphur particles in the >>>> stratosphere?” How do you answer that? >>>> >>>> CH: By posing that question, by projecting us forward 30 years and >>>> saying there are only two choices, he leaps over all sorts of intermediate >>>> questions that have to be tackled.It’s impossible to answer that question >>>> now except in a way that actually provides a justification for >>>> geoengineering. So when he asks that, you’ve got to say that sulphate >>>> aerosol spraying might be preferable. But is he saying we do it no matter >>>> what? Do we do it if we’ve got evidence showing there’s a huge risk >>>> involved? Do we allow ExxonMobil to have the patent on that aerosol >>>> spraying so that they’re the only ones who can do it? Is it done by Iran >>>> unilaterally? Or by a UN group of countries?Until you can answer those >>>> questions, I think it’s irresponsible to say, well, we’ve got this >>>> situation, we’re just going to have to live with it. >>>> >>> -- >>> 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. >> >> >> > > > > -- > Clive Hamilton > Professor of Public Ethics > Charles Sturt University > www.clivehamilton.com > -- 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.
