Dear Emily,
IPCC has used standard definitions of these terms for decades. They are
jargon, but the community accepts these definitions, rather than a
broader dictionary definition. Mitigation means reducing emissions that
cause global warming.
Alan Robock
Alan Robock, Distinguished Professor
Editor, Reviews of Geophysics
Director, Meteorology Undergraduate Program
Associate Director, Center for Environmental Prediction
Department of Environmental Sciences Phone: +1-848-932-5751
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
http://twitter.com/AlanRobock
On 5/11/2013 11:54 AM, Emily L-B wrote:
Hi
I would call SRM 'mitigation' (ie it reduces the Earth's temp from ghg
pollution) like double glazing mitigates noise pollution from a
motorway. Neither address the source of the problem, but they mitigate
one of the problems. It could be called Symptom mitigation.
CDR is also mitigation - reducing the pollution directly once emitted.
Reducing emissions (what NGOs call mitigation) is mitigating the cause
of the pollution.
Mitigating climate impacts, indirect impacts and transboundary impacts
on fauna and flora are a legal duty for any country with legislation
like NEPA in the USA and the EIA directive in the EU. Analogous
legislation exists elsewhere too.
Should we be litigating any company with big projects covered by
theses and countries not complying?
Any lawyers on the list?
Best wishes,
Emily.
Sent from my BlackBerry
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From: * Ken Caldeira <[email protected]>
*Sender: * [email protected]
*Date: *Sat, 11 May 2013 08:26:37 -0700
*To: *<[email protected]>
*ReplyTo: * [email protected]
*Cc: *geoengineering<[email protected]>
*Subject: *Re: [geo] Why geoengineering is not ‘global public good’,
and why it's ethically misleading to frame it as one
The definition of a pure public good in this paper is:
First, a pure public good is a good that satisfies two conditions. It
is nonrival: one person’s
consumption of the good does not inhibit another person’s consumption.
It is also
nonexcludable: once it is available to some, others cannot be
prevented from consuming it.
Gardiner argues that we already know that everyone cannot benefit from
solar geoengineering. This seems to be an empirical claim that is
possibly true but not well-supported by quantitative analysis. It is
often said that there will be winners and losers but that is a claim
that has not been established. In most analyses based on commonly-used
metrics of "cost", everyone benefits by some level of solar
geoengineering [cf. RIcke et al, attached].
Gardiner also imagines scenarios of coercion which, while possible are
merely speculation.
It may be premature to assert that we solar geoengineering is a public
good, but it also seems premature to assert that it is not.
On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 12:55 AM, Andrew Lockley
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Why geoengineering is not ‘global public good’, and why it's
ethically misleading to frame it as one
http://t.co/istDiUqRoA
Abstract
In early policy work, climate engineering is often described as a
global public good. This paper argues that the paradigm example of
geoengineering—stratospheric sulfate injection (hereafter
‘SSI’)—does not fit the canonical technical definition of a global
public good, and that more relaxed versions are unhelpful. More
importantly, it claims that, regardless of the technicalities, the
public good framing is seriously misleading, in part because it
arbitrarily marginalizes ethical concerns. Both points suggest
that more clarity is needed about the aims of geoengineering
policy—and especially governance—and that this requires special
attention to ethics.
--
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]
<mailto:geoengineering%[email protected]>.
To post to this group, send email to
[email protected]
<mailto:[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.
--
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.
