Alan cc list and Emily 

Shucks. I agree with you about the SRM form of "geo" not being mitigation. 

But I was hoping that this list might agree that the mitigation term "reducing" 
could/should be interpreted broadly enough to include "removing". 

The reason to not do so is what? 

Ron 

----- Original Message -----
From: "Alan Robock" <[email protected]> 
To: [email protected] 
Cc: "geoengineering" <[email protected]> 
Sent: Saturday, May 11, 2013 11:19:27 AM 
Subject: Re: [geo] Why geoengineering is not ‘global public good’, and why it's 
ethically misleading to frame it as one 


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] > 
wrote: 

<blockquote>


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] . 
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 . 



</blockquote>



-- 
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.


Reply via email to