ALAN: Hamilton's shoplifting your ideas without credit gives insight into his qualifications as an ethicist...
Gregory On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 12:39 PM, Fred Zimmerman <[email protected] > wrote: > An excellent point. This is why I have been arguing for a holistic view > of anthopocene climate management that includes the full 15,000-year? span > of anthopocene modifications beginning with animal & plant domestication > (never underestimate the land use / land cover modification ability of > sheep ...). This is also consistent with my suggestion that GE information > management needs will eventually far exceed our current assumptions (or > capabilities). Imagine a society 1000 years in the future trying to > recreate the history of what climate modification interventions were > actually carried out in the 21st century. We have enough trouble reading > 8-track tapes, imagine trying to figure out when exactly ocean iron > fertilization began and how much it affected the natural history of ocean > primary productivity. > >> *Geoengineering in response to global warming may be only the forerunner >> of the many times future society will be forced to contemplate >> geoengineering. * >> >> Bill >> >> ** ** >> >> *William B. Gail, PhD *| *Chief Technology Officer* | *Global Weather >> Corporation* >> >> 3309 Airport Rd, Boulder, CO 80301 USA | 303.513.5474 mobile | >> [email protected]** >> >> ** ** >> >> *President-Elect* | *American Meteorological Society* | www.ametsoc.org** >> ** >> >> ** ** >> >> *From:* Alan Robock [mailto:[email protected]] >> *Sent:* Monday, May 27, 2013 10:26 AM >> *To:* Geoengineering >> *Subject:* [geo] Clive Hamilton's op-ed in the New York Times today**** >> >> ** ** >> >> Dear all, >> >> I agree with virtually everything in Clive's op-ed in the New York Times >> today. That is because I wrote it several years ago, first in my 20 >> reasons why geoengineering might be a bad idea, and then in several >> articles since then. But he gives no indication that these are not his >> original ideas. >> >> You can see all my papers at >> http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/robock/robock_geopapers.html >> >> Here is the op-ed: >> >> >> http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/27/opinion/geoengineering-our-last-hope-or-a-false-promise.html?hp&pagewanted=print >> **** >> Geoengineering: Our Last Hope, or a False Promise?****By CLIVE HAMILTON** >> ** >> >> CANBERRA, Australia — THE concentration of carbon dioxide in the earth’s >> atmosphere recently >> surpassed<http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/11/science/earth/carbon-dioxide-level-passes-long-feared-milestone.html>400 >> parts per million for the first time in three million years. If you are >> not frightened by this fact, then you are ignoring or denying science. ** >> ** >> >> Relentlessly rising greenhouse-gas emissions, and the fear that the earth >> might enter a climate emergency from which there would be no return, have >> prompted many climate scientists to conclude that we urgently need a Plan >> B: geoengineering. **** >> >> Geoengineering — the deliberate, large-scale intervention in the climate >> system to counter global >> warming<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/science/topics/globalwarming/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier>or >> offset some of its effects — may enable humanity to mobilize its >> technological power to seize control of the planet’s climate system, and >> regulate it in perpetuity. **** >> >> But is it wise to try to play God with the climate? For all its allure, a >> geoengineered Plan B may lead us into an impossible morass. **** >> >> While some proposals, like launching a cloud of mirrors into space to >> deflect some of the sun’s heat, sound like science fiction, the more >> serious schemes require no insurmountable technical feats. Two or three >> leading ones rely on technology that is readily available and could be >> quickly deployed. **** >> >> Some approaches, like turning biomass into biochar, a charcoal whose >> carbon resists breakdown, and painting roofs white to increase their >> reflectivity and reduce air-conditioning demand, are relatively benign, but >> would have minimal effect on a global scale. Another prominent scheme, >> extracting carbon dioxide directly from the air, is harmless in itself, as >> long as we can find somewhere safe to bury enormous volumes of it for >> centuries. **** >> >> But to capture from the air the amount of carbon dioxide emitted by, say, >> a 1,000-megawatt coal power plant, it would require air-sucking machinery >> about 30 feet in height and 18 miles in length, according to a study by >> the American Physical >> Society<http://www.aps.org/policy/reports/assessments/upload/dac2011.pdf>, >> as well as huge collection facilities and a network of equipment to >> transport and store the waste underground. **** >> >> The idea of building a vast industrial infrastructure to offset the >> effects of another vast industrial infrastructure (instead of shifting to >> renewable energy) only highlights our unwillingness to confront the deeper >> causes of global warming — the power of the fossil-fuel lobby and the >> reluctance of wealthy consumers to make even small sacrifices. **** >> >> Even so, greater anxieties arise from those geoengineering technologies >> designed to intervene in the functioning of the earth system as a whole. >> They include ocean iron fertilization and sulfate aerosol spraying, each of >> which now has a scientific-commercial constituency. **** >> >> How confident can we be, even after research and testing, that the chosen >> technology will work as planned? After all, ocean fertilization — spreading >> iron slurry across the seas to persuade them to soak up more carbon dioxide >> — means changing the chemical composition and biological functioning of the >> oceans. In the process it will interfere with marine ecosystems and affect >> cloud formation in ways we barely understand. **** >> >> Enveloping the earth with a layer of sulfate particles would cool the >> planet by regulating the amount of solar radiation reaching the earth’s >> surface. One group of scientists is urging its deployment over the melting >> Arctic now. **** >> >> Plant life, already trying to adapt to a changing climate, would have to >> deal with reduced sunlight, the basis of photosynthesis. A solar filter >> made of sulfate particles may be effective at cooling the globe, but its >> impact on weather systems, including the Indian monsoon on which a billion >> people depend for their sustenance, is unclear. **** >> >> Some of these uncertainties can be reduced by research. Yet if there is >> one lesson we have learned from ecology, it is that the more closely we >> look at an ecosystem the more complex it becomes. Now we are contemplating >> technologies that would attempt to manipulate the grandest and most complex >> ecosystem of them all — the planet itself. Sulfate aerosol spraying would >> change not just the temperature but the ozone layer, global rainfall >> patterns and the biosphere, too. **** >> >> Spraying sulfate particles, the method most likely to be implemented, is >> classified as a form of “solar radiation management,” an Orwellian term >> that some of its advocates have sought to reframe as “climate remediation.” >> **** >> >> Yet if the “remedy” were fully deployed to reduce the earth’s >> temperature, then at least 10 years of global climate observations would be >> needed to separate out the effects of the solar filter from other causes of >> climatic variability, according to some scientists. **** >> >> If after five years of filtered sunlight a disaster occurred — a drought >> in India and Pakistan, for example, a possible effect in one of the >> modeling studies — we would not know whether it was caused by global >> warming, the solar filter or natural variability. And if India suffered >> from the effects of global dimming while the United States enjoyed more >> clement weather, it would matter a great deal which country had its hand on >> the global thermostat. **** >> >> So who would be turning the dial on the earth’s climate? Research is >> concentrated in the United States, Britain and Germany, though China >> recently added geoengineering to its research priorities. **** >> >> Some geoengineering schemes are sufficiently cheap and uncomplicated to >> be deployed by any midsize nation, or even a billionaire with a messiah >> complex. **** >> >> We can imagine a situation 30 years hence in which the Chinese Communist >> Party’s grip on power is threatened by chaotic protests ignited by a >> devastating drought and famine. If the alternative to losing power were >> attempting a rapid cooling of the planet through a sulfate aerosol shield, >> how would it play out? A United States president might publicly condemn the >> Chinese but privately commit to not shooting down their planes, or to >> engage in “counter-geoengineering.” **** >> >> Little wonder that military strategists are taking a close interest in >> geoengineering. Anxious about Western geopolitical hubris, developing >> nations have begun to argue for a moratorium on experiments until there is >> agreement on some kind of global governance system. **** >> >> Engineering the climate is intuitively appealing to a powerful strand of >> Western technological thought that sees no ethical or other obstacle to >> total domination of nature. And that is why some conservative think tanks >> that have for years denied or downplayed the science of climate change >> suddenly support geoengineering, the solution to a problem they once said >> did not exist. **** >> >> All of which points to perhaps the greatest risk of research into >> geoengineering — it will erode the incentive to curb emissions. Think about >> it: no need to take on powerful fossil-fuel companies, no need to tax >> gasoline or electricity, no need to change our lifestyles. **** >> >> In the end, how we think about geoengineering depends on how we >> understand climate disruption. If our failure to cut emissions is a result >> of the power of corporate interests, the fetish for economic growth and the >> comfortable conservatism of a consumer society, then resorting to climate >> engineering allows us to avoid facing up to social dysfunction, at least >> for as long as it works. **** >> >> So the battle lines are being drawn over the future of the planet. While >> the Pentagon “weaponeer” and geoengineering enthusiast Lowell Wood, an >> astrophysicist, has proclaimed, “We’ve engineered every other environment >> we live in — why not the planet?” a more humble climate scientist, Ronald >> G. Prinn <http://web.mit.edu/rprinn/> of the Massachusetts Institute of >> Technology, has asked, “How can you engineer a system you don’t >> understand?” **** >> >> Clive Hamilton <http://www.cappe.edu.au/staff/clive-hamilton.htm>, a >> professor of public ethics at Charles Sturt University, is the >> author<http://yalepress.yale.edu/book.asp?isbn=9780300186673>, >> most recently, of “Earthmasters: The Dawn of the Age of Climate >> Engineering.” **** >> >> >> >> **** >> >> -- **** >> >> 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**** >> >> -- >> 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. > > > -- 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.
