Gene‹The problem is that how much can be done by geoengineering is limited‹geoengineering is not an option in itself, it can only be effective over time if there is also mitigation and adaptation (and still some suffering).
Mike On 9/13/13 4:45 PM, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote: > Mike: > > As scientists you need to continue to develop technology for reducing global > temperature. Let us hope you are extremely successful. Let others deal with > emission reduction, which is not part of geoengineering although it is an > important part of global warming mitigation. Emission reduction is partly > technical, not part of geoengineering but political and what happens will be > determined by politicians. Don't make geoengineering hostage to the > politicians. As scientists you have a lot on your plate. It seems unwise to > put yourselves in the position of fighting the politicians and energy > companies. > > -gene > > > From: "Mike MacCracken" <[email protected]> > To: "Ken Caldeira" <[email protected]>, "Geoengineering" > <[email protected]> > Sent: Friday, September 13, 2013 4:14:43 PM > Subject: Re: [geo] Linking solar geoengineering and emissions reduction > > Re: [geo] Linking solar geoengineering and emissions reduction Belatedly, just > to note I agree with Ken that what we need is action or real commitment to > strong mitigation before consider global engineering, at least, or it will be > excuse to delay or do less. This way climate engineering is used to shave the > peak warming after mitigation (of both short and long-lived species) rather > than a substitute. > > Mike > > > On 9/11/13 12:36 PM, "Ken Caldeira" <[email protected] > <about:blank> > wrote: > >> We do not want to be in a situation where a solar geoengineering system is >> used to enable continued increases in CO2 emissions. >> >> Therefore, a reasonable demand is that no new smokestacks or tailpipes be >> built after a solar geoengineering system is deployed. >> >> Another way of phrasing this is to demand that new construction of all new >> CO2-emitting devices cease prior to any solar geoengineering system >> deployment. >> >> This would help address the concern that solar geoengineering could provide >> cover for continued expansion of CO2-emitting industries. >> >> Norms that would prevent simultaneous solar geoengineering deployment and >> increasing CO2 emissions would help diminish the likelihood of bad outcomes >> and could help broaden political support for solar geoengineering research. >> >> -- >> >> This would limit deployment of solar geoengineering systems to the case of >> "catastrophic" outcomes and would not permit use of solar geoengineering for >> "peak shaving" amid promises of future reductions in CO2 emissions. Thus, >> this proposal does have a substantive implications for "peak shaving" >> strategies. >> >> -- >> >> I am floating this idea without being certain that the formulation presented >> here is the best possible formulation. >> >> _______________ >> Ken Caldeira >> >> Carnegie Institution for Science >> Dept of Global Ecology >> 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA >> +1 650 704 7212 [email protected] <about:blank> >> http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab @kencaldeira >> >> -- 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.
