Greg and list
Thanks for forwarding this older (4-week) comment by Strauss. I think I am
mostly in agreement with Strauss, but would have been much more pleased if he
(Hamilton does a little) had separated the SRM and CDR parts of Geoengineering.
I think most analysts are willing to concede that some CDR forms now need
encouragement rather than controls. But with most using the term
geoengineering to mean only SRM, it is way too confusing to even read the
material carefully, which might be helpful otherwise.
Apologies for bringing back this continuing complaint.
Ron
On May 7, 2013, at 10:36 AM, Gregory Benford <[email protected]> wrote:
> A good comment on Hamilton's Nature opinion piece:
>
> Report this comment | #57262
>
> Johannes Strauss said:
> Although geoengineering raises challenges and sometimes novel questions,
> Prof. Hamilton's argument for inaction is undermined by three logical
> shortcomings.
>
> First, he proposes that geoengineering research be held up to standards much
> higher than any other research. As Prof. Litvinyuk states, if these standards
> were applied to other domains, they would all be (implicitly) prohibited. For
> example, the author wonders whether poor countries should have a say in
> research "potentially world-saving technologies," yet every day research
> which would address diseases in the developing world are research in the
> industrialized countries. To the extent that it is desirable to have such
> voices integrated, there are means to do so.
> Second, although the author's long series of questions raise all sorts of
> sinister implications, in reality most of these questions have already been
> answered (e.g., the consensus is for transparency and no patents), could be
> answered (e.g., national governments are in the best position to impose
> regulations on research), can't yet be answered due to the very nature of
> research, are built on misleading premises (e.g., rogues like Russ George are
> outliers who are condemned by the geoengineering research community, and
> there is no get-rich potential in solar radiation geoengineering), or are
> built on demonstrably false premises (e.g. there is no "slew" of private
> patents on geoengineering, and oil companies are not "talking up" or
> investing in real geoengineering to any significant degree). In fact, much of
> the misleading rhetoric in this essary is based on an excessively broad
> definition of geoengineering: oil companies are interested in carbon capture
> and storage, and do have patents. But if one includes that in
> "geoengineering," then one can state that oil companies are investing in and
> patenting geoengineering methods, implicitly including stratospheric aerosol
> injection for solar radiation management.
> Third, and perhaps most importantly, the author ignores what geoengineer is
> intended to address: the risks of climate change to humans and the
> environment. I, like essentially all those who advocate for geoengineering
> research, desire that emissions abatement could prevent dangerous climate
> change. Yet optimal emissions abatement (and adaptation funding) are unlikely
> to occur, and even if they were to, then climate change may still be
> dangerous. In such circumstances, we need all options at our disposal.
> At its core, the author's argument is for ignorance and fewer options in the
> face of potentially catastrophic risks of climate change. I reject this.
>
>
> --
> 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 [email protected].
> To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
> 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 [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
