While the general direction of the Schaeffer et al piece is laudable, the specific conclusions of Schaeffer et al are way too blunt. They write:
*For these reasons, it is responsible and* *prudent that scientists voluntarily refrain* *from conducting field tests of solar climate* *engineering until their need is clearly* *established, and until an international* *code of conduct or similar cooperation* *between governments is in place.* Is it voluntarily refraining from painting one square meter of my driveway white, if I think it would produce valuable information, be "responsible and prudent"? It would be irresponsible and imprudent to for me to allow misplaced fears to prevent me from conducting valuable scientific research. Scientists should take into consideration the potential for public relations problems and political backlash, but it is giving too much power to naysayers to flatly state that this experimental science should cease. This is the kind of logic that would have counseled Galileo against dropping balls off the leaning tower of Pisa, for fear of generating a political backlash against such physical investigations. Would it have been "responsible and prudent" for Galileo to have suspended his investigations? So, proceed responsibly and prudently, yes. Be mindful that political backlash can nullify the long-term benefit from a short-term gain. But be aware that sometimes responsibility and prudence means ignoring vocal naysayers and getting on with your scientific investigations. There are costs associated with delaying the advance of science; this cost must be weighed into the calculation. Acting responsibly and prudently means also weighing the cost of not doing something. -------------------- Compare this with the situation with Golden Rice. Should these experiments stop (and children continue suffering from malnutrition) until the vocal naysayers can be appeased? http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2013/03/07/173611461/in-a-grain-of-golden-rice-a-world-of-controversy-over-gmo-foods http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_rice http://www.goldenrice.org/ Given the logic of Schaeffer et al, can we assume that this author group would oppose further experimentation on Golden Rice? If not, then what is the difference between this and the solar climate engineering case? If Schaeffer et al are also against the development of Golden Rice, are they so sure of their ability to discern right from wrong that they are willing to allow children to suffer malnutrition as a result? -------------------- (My other main issue with Schaeffer et al is that they provide no operational definition of "field tests of solar climate engineering". I maintain that there is no consensus definition of this term and that it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to produce a definition that would be both operational (i.e., determinable by some specified procedure) and reflect a consensus view.) _______________ Ken Caldeira Carnegie Institution for Science Dept of Global Ecology 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA +1 650 704 7212 [email protected] http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab @kencaldeira On Sun, Sep 8, 2013 at 1:32 AM, Russell Seitz <[email protected]>wrote: > Ken, the LBL the conversion metric suggests you can offset a tonne of CO2 > for roughly every 20 square meters of black driveway you paint white. > > If this is so, in terms of carbin footprints, the color of driveways > longer than a few hundred meters may in some cases be as important as the > fuel economy of the vehicles at the end of them. > > > On Friday, September 6, 2013 1:09:59 PM UTC-4, 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 kcal...@**carnegiescience.edu >> http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/**caldeiralab<http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab> >> @kencaldeira >> >> >> >> >> On Fri, Sep 6, 2013 at 3:39 AM, Andrew Lockley <[email protected]>wrote: >> >>> >>> http://www.nature.com/**nclimate/journal/v3/n9/full/**nclimate1987.html<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 geoengineerin...@**googlegroups.com. >>> To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.**com. >>> >>> Visit this group at >>> http://groups.google.com/**group/geoengineering<http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering> >>> . >>> For more options, visit >>> https://groups.google.com/**groups/opt_out<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.
