I am not a big fan of Clive but I think it is a bit much to suggest that he needs to provide attribution for each idea expressed in his Op Ed.
Most of the ideas we think are original with us were probably in somebody else's brain at some earlier point in time. (I am sure somebody else has thought this before, but I am not sure to whom it should be attributed.) Often ideas occur nearly simultaneously to several people because the preconditions for the idea are floating around. I am not concerned about borrowed ideas. My bigger concern is that some people have a tendency to make up facts when the available supply is insufficient to their needs. On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 2:10 PM, Gregory Benford <[email protected]> wrote: > 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. > > > -- 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.
