Although you're right that 'most' people in the world have enough to eat, a significant proportion don't. Over 20% of Africans are undernourished (Table 1 here <http://www.fao.org/docrep/016/i3027e/i3027e02.pdf>). Sure, 'most' of them have enough to eat, but is this situation really 'OK'? I suggest being careful about the wording here.
On Wednesday, 21 August 2013 22:31:42 UTC+1, andrewjlockley wrote: > > This is a draft article I wrote for the African Academy of Sciences. I'd > really appreciate any comments on it - before I irrecoverably embarrass > myself! > > Thanks > > A > > ----------- > > Governance of Geoengineering – A personal view > > Climate change is here to stay. That much is certain. Due to the heat > capacity of the oceans, we always feel the effect of emissions past. > Meanwhile, not only do emissions continue, but there’s still a breakneck > rush to build carbon-spewing plant and vehicles. This is true not only in > the developing world, but also in affluent countries that are switching > back to fossil – such as Germany, which has turned against nuclear. So not > only are we bracing ourselves for the climate change that’s already in the > mail, we’re also wilfully accelerating the process. > But it gets worse. As emissions are cleaned up in the developing world, > the aerosol haze which mutes global warming will fade away – exposing us to > the full glare of a changing climate. Furthermore, we are potentially > exposed to major tipping points in the Earth’s climate system, such as the > postulated release of methane in the Arctic. Even in the unlikely event > that we manage to rapidly decarbonise the economy, we may still find find > that any intervention is too little, too late. > As a technology, geoengineering – and specifically solar radiation > management - is also here to stay. We know we can do it. We know we can > do it fairly cheaply - certainly much more cheaply than rapid, large-scale > mitigation. We also know that it will work, albeit imperfectly, in > reducing the impacts of climate change. So what to do with this > terrifyingly powerful technology? We must bear in mind two facts. > Firstly, we are still emitting. Secondly, even if we stop emitting there > is at least a chance the climate is already in a dangerously unstable > state. Faced with a position like that, it’s hard to argue that we > shouldn’t at least explore geoengineering technology. And we’d be > exploring for a very good reason: committing to NOT geoengineering is > rapidly beginning to look like a very dangerous idea indeed. > Beyond exploring, what could deployment actually look like? Well here’s > the problem: the real world is a messy, dirty place. We live in a world > which tolerates reckless emissions, and much more besides. Protectionism, > warfare, human rights abuses, genocide. These are all ugly things that go > on and the world tolerates them, to a greater or lesser extent. We don’t > have an effective global governance policy for such things, although we do > try sometimes. We have treaties, which are optional. We have resolutions, > which are ignored. We have sanctions, which are ineffective. And we have > bombs, which yield highly unpredictable outcomes, and are more effective as > a threat than as an intervention. None of the above is terribly efficient > at getting people or countries to behave themselves. So why do we pretend > geoengineering will really be ‘governed’ by anything, or anyone? > My argument is that it won’t be governed at all. Or at least, there isn’t > any reason to assume that there will be a single, overall framework of > governance that delivers an effective policy – regardless of whom that > single, effective policy favours. > Could we not image a world where a chaotic muddle of overlapping and > competing geoengineering schemes exists? Take for example, a situation > where a power bloc determines a policy of minimal intervention, but is > overruled by a private carbon offset firm who offer to ‘top up’ the > intervention. This seems superficially possible, if not necessarily > plausible. Or perhaps a top up scheme could be provided by a nation state > looking to preserve its glaciers? This top up could be provided in > defiance of a state looking for a ‘light touch’ geoengineering scheme, > which allows it to open up formerly ice-bound oil fields. That scenario > certainly seems viable. > Could we imagine a world where ‘smart’ geoengineering interventions > straddle the line between weather modification and climate control? A > world where city mayors try to control heatwaves, or steer hurricanes away > from their shores? We could surely imagine that agricultural states would > seek to manipulate rainstorms – as many already do. This technology > doesn’t even have to work to be deployed. Like a modern-day raindance, > anyone with a chequebook and a jet can try to control the weather. What > hope, therefore, for governance? And should anyone care about the > resulting mess? > There seems to be an implicit assumption in many places that effective > governance is ‘A Good Thing’. But most human activity is self-organising > chaos. Broadly speaking, despite our collective inability to govern very > much on an international level, the world still muddles through. Most > people have enough food, they enjoy at least some access to international > trade, and they usually don’t get killed in their beds at night by foreign > armies. It’s for these reasons that the opposite attracts much > hand-wringing and column inches. War, death and famine make the news > precisely because they’re not the norm. Even in the poorer parts of the > world, people get by. Things are, in many ways, just about OK. > Is it not therefore possible, that we can have ‘OK’ geoengineering, > without an effective governance regime? That the broadly headless system > that puts food on our table and allows us to raise families without too > much interference could also be relied upon to keep our climate stable? > This isn’t a utopian vision. It’s not some avant-garde political > nirvana. It’s just OK, just adequate. Just enough to function. And it’s > basically what we have. Through all the messes we have, when human > civilisation is considered in the round we are reasonably effective at > managing things, without much of a system to do so. There is always a > degree of pressure towards a broadly sensible norm in most fields, and the > same is true of geoengineering. The truly rogue geoengineers will get shot > down – perhaps literally, perhaps figuratively. The dithering laggards > will be overtaken by the braver consensus. The rich and powerful will get > their way a little too much, but not so much that the poor will start > flinging nuclear bombs at them. > We’ll geoengineer. And we won’t govern it very effectively. And it will > basically be OK. > -- 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
