This has been my way of thinking about this as well. And this way the options for the future continue to be a combination of mitigation, adaptation, and suffering, with the last likely to become more and more evident, given the slow pace of (and vested interest opposition to) mitigation and the limits and challenges of adaptation.
Mike MacCracken On 5/11/13 2:58 PM, "Ken Caldeira" <[email protected]> wrote: > Solar geoengineering is arguably a form of adaptation, which is defined as: > Adaptation to climate change refers to adjustment in natural or human systems > in response to actual or expected climatic stimuli or their effects, which > moderates harm or exploits beneficial opportunities. > > > Carbon dioxide removal is arguably an enhanced carbon dioxide sink and thus a > form of mitigation, which is defined as: > An anthropogenic intervention to reduce the sources or enhance the sinks of > greenhouse gases. > > These are definitions out of IPCC, 2001. > > On Saturday, May 11, 2013, wrote: >> 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 >> >> >> From: "Alan Robock" <[email protected] <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml', >> '[email protected]');> > >> To: [email protected] <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml', >> '[email protected]');> >> Cc: "geoengineering" <[email protected] <javascript:_e({}, >> 'cvml', '[email protected]');> > >> Sent: Saturday, May 11, 2013 11:19:27 AM >> Subject: Re: [geo] Why geoengineering is not Œglobal public good¹, 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 Œglobal public good¹, 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 person¹s >>> >>> consumption of the good does not inhibit another person¹s 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 -- 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.
