And I would like to remind you all of this paper:
Robock, Alan, Martin Bunzl, Ben Kravitz, and Georgiy Stenchikov, 2010:
A test for geoengineering? /Science/, *327*, 530-531,
doi:10.1126/science.1186237.
http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pdf/TestForGeoengineeringScience2010.pdf
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 9/6/2013 1:09 PM, Ken Caldeira wrote:
The call to prudence by Schäfer et al is welcome, although I do think
it is unclear exactly what constitutes a ."solar climate engineering
field experiment".
The phrase "field test of solar climate engineering" cannot be
unambiguously defined. (Please prove me wrong by providing an
unambiguous definition that can attain consensus.)
If I paint a one meter square with white paint on my dark asphalt
driveway and measure the reflected sunlight, is that a "solar climate
engineering field test"?
It would seem that if my intent were to develop technologies that
would ultimately modify climate at global scale, then the answer would
likely be 'yes'. If the intent were simply to test which asphalt
paints are easiest on the eyes, then the answer would likely be "no".
So, whether this is a "solar geoengineering field test" or not depends
not on my actions, but on my intent.
But what if someone else is funding this project, and they want to
develop a solar geoengineering system but I just want driveway paints
that is easier on the eyes (or vice versa)? Whose intention
counts,that of the experimental scientist or that of the funder?
It seems that if we want to have a workable regulatory system, which
governance regime an action falls under should be determinable by a
physical description of the action, and then the governance regime
should take intent of the various parties involved in a project into
account when determining whether expected benefits exceed expected
damage in any particular case.
Which governance regime applies should depend on a physical
description of a proposed action. A governance regime could then take
into consideration the intents of various parties in deciding whether
to approve a particular project.
We are asking for trouble if we require that issues of intent to be
resolved in order to determine which governance regime applies. It
seems that for a governance regime to be triggered, the risk of damage
from a project must exceed some /de minimis/ level.
However, Schäfer et al are correct in suggesting that even such/de
minimis/ experiments could provoke a negative and ultimately
counter-productive backlash, and therefore they are well-justified in
counseling scientists and engineers to proceed cautiously and
prudently even with such /de minimis /projects, abiding by an informal
set of professional norms.
_______________
Ken Caldeira
Carnegie Institution for Science
Dept of Global Ecology
260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA
+1 650 704 7212
<tel:%2B1%20650%20704%207212>[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>
http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab@kencaldeira
On Fri, Sep 6, 2013 at 3:39 AM, Andrew Lockley
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v3/n9/full/nclimate1987.html
Field tests of solar climate engineering
Stefan Schäfer, Peter J. Irvine, Anna-Maria Hubert,David
Reichwein, Sean Low, Harald Stelzer, Achim Maas & Mark G. Lawrence
Nature Climate Change 3, 766 (2013)
doi:10.1038/nclimate1987
Published online 28 August 2013
The international community has declared climate change a 'common
concern of humankind'. Therefore, the development of 'climate
engineering' (also known as geoengineering) techniques that aim to
modify the global climate requires international cooperation on
their governance. (truncated - apologies for cheesparing paywall! )
--
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]
<mailto:geoengineering%[email protected]>.
To post to this group, send email to
[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>.
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 [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.
--
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.
