Just to be clear about where I stand on this, because there's been some misinterpretation in private e-mail: In my prior comment I was predicting what we will do, not what I would prefer to see happen. I think it would be an immense and hideously costly mistake, in the long run, to avoid developing and testing GE technologies now. But the economic and political hurdles are considerable, providing yet more evidence, as if any were needed, that CC is indeed the ultimate example of a "super wicked problem".
We have to get a lot more political support behind the idea of GE than exists now. The average voter in the US has surely never heard of it or any of the technologies we routinely discuss. Given the utter lack of leadership in the US above the level of your local small town mayor, that ignorance is one heck of a road block. On Friday, July 12, 2013 1:28:39 PM UTC-4, Gregory Benford wrote: > > On Clive Hamilton's concern about a slippery slope: He seems fearful of so > much, especially regional tests of GE methods. > > Indeed as Bill says, the Arctic is the prime place to try it, nearly > ideal: few people, short 4 month trial in summer of SRM, low cost (~$200 > million or less), easily measurable effect on sea ice, etc. Should be done > first. > > Gregory Benford > > On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 10:07 AM, Bill Stahl <bsta...@gmail.com<javascript:> > > wrote: > >> >> * Re: Fred's point: 1 $M is a lot when the debate is confined to a >>> relatively small world of researchers and advocates, but tiny once the idea >>> goes 'viral' in society at large. Think what a single insurance >>> conglomerate might spend to head off claims from sea-level rise! >>> Environmental advocates will soon have to adjust to losing 'ownership' of >>> the debate- as will researchers (and yes, there is plenty of overlap). NGO >>> advocacy contra ETC will be handled by existing environmental groups, along >>> the same lines as existing differences between, say, The Nature Conservancy >>> vs. Sea Shepherd Society. That seems hard to credit at the moment. But many >>> greens have noticed that our existing 'Plan A' of emission-reductions now >>> requires the environmentalist's equivalent of the protestant evangelical >>> Rapture: a sound of trumpets, a flash of (green) light in the sky, and lo! >>> It's not a sustainable position, and alternatives will be sought. (Which >>> highlights the importance of Ken's appearance on KPFA, speaking to an >>> audience that both cares about the issue and is extremely resistant to the >>> news he carries). >> >> >> * Re: Lou's scenario: grimly plausible. What would be the role an >> intermediate step such as high-latitude SRM in the Arctic? I'm not in a >> position to evaluate its plausibility (perhaps someone could privately >> point me to useful reading?) but if plausible enough to attempt it would >> meet a lower threshold of resistance than a global project. If >> approximately successful it would be a model, and a temptation, for a >> broader effort. >> Which speaks to Clive Hamilton's concern about a slippery slope, >> obviously. >> >> -- >> 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 geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>. >> To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com<javascript:> >> . >> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. >> 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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
