Doesn't seem to be a logical consequence. Surely a more likely outcome is unprecedented cooperation, as each nation has much more to gain through order (predictably, compensation) than from disorder.
A On Dec 8, 2013 11:51 AM, "Jim Fleming" <[email protected]> wrote: > <snip> > > "Keith, who has grown into geoengineering’s leading advocate after > his recent book on the topic, says the technology would be “as disruptive > to the political order of the 21st century as nuclear weapons were for the > 20th." > > <snip> > > In 1955 in a prominent article titled “Can We Survive Technology?” John von > > Neumann referred to climate control as a thoroughly “abnormal” > industry.... Tinkering with the > > Earth’s heat budget or the atmosphere’s general circulation “will merge > each nation’s affairs > > with those of every other more thoroughly than the threat of a nuclear or > any other war may > > already have done.” In his opinion, climate control... could lend itself > to unprecedented > > destruction and to forms of warfare as yet unimagined. Climate > manipulation could alter the > > entire globe and shatter the existing political order. > > > von Neumann, John. “Can We Survive Technology?” *Fortune*, June 1955, > 106–108. > > > On Sat, Dec 7, 2013 at 6:49 PM, Andrew Lockley > <[email protected]>wrote: > >> >> http://mobile.theverge.com/2013/12/6/5181736/who-sets-the-planets-thermostat-the-politics-of-geoengineering >> >> Weather wars: who should be allowed to engineer our climate? >> >> By Russell Brandom 12.06.2013 >> >> “The big thing nuclear weapons did wasn't all the details,” says Harvard >> climate scientist David Keith. “The really big thing is, they changed what >> it means to be a nation-state.” It’s on his mind because as the next >> century unfolds, Keith expects it to happen again.Scientists usually shy >> away from Oppenheimer comparisons, but in the case of geoengineering, >> they’re a given. Spend enough time at geoengineering conferences, and >> you’re guaranteed to hear a reference to The Bomb. Keith, who has grown >> into geoengineering’s leading advocate after his recent book on the topic, >> says the technology would be “as disruptive to the political order of the >> 21st century as nuclear weapons were for the 20th." It’s an exciting, >> dangerous idea — and it already has its opponents. In the years that he's >> been researching geoengineering, Keith says he's received two death threats >> serious enough to warrant calls to the police. >> >> The last, best hope >> >> Keith’s work is on solar radiation management, ostensibly a matter of >> pure atmospheric chemistry — but the potential uses for the tech make it >> much more dangerous than your average research project. In a world of >> catastrophic global warming, solar radiation management might be our only >> way to cool the planet and forestall the most damaging effects of climate >> change. The theory is simple: a plane sprays sulfate aerosols into the >> atmosphere, building a reflective layer that blocks a small portion of the >> sun’s energy, thus cooling the globe. There’s plenty of support for the >> theory, including a few sulfate-spewing volcanoes which have cooled the >> globe in the past, but it’s still unclear how it would work in practice. >> It’s generally accepted that the sulfates would disappear from the >> atmosphere within a few years, but more complex effects remain unknown. >> >> GOING ROGUE >> >> Most geoengineers think the technology should be used for a kind of "soft >> landing" as we phase out fossil fuels —but what if a country wanted to go >> further? The process is cheap enough that an island country like the >> Maldives, facing dire consequences from rising sea levels, might decide to >> kick off aggressive geoengineering on their own, daring other countries to >> stop them. The response would start with diplomacy, but it could escalate >> to the US shooting down their sulfur-spewing planes.The next step is to >> test the idea in the atmosphere with small drops over the course of a few >> days, but that proposal is still extremely controversial. It’s easy to see >> why critics are nervous. In the wrong hands, solar radiation management has >> the potential to destroy the planet's ecosystem entirely. The danger of a >> sulfate-triggered global drought or an accidental ice age is very real, and >> the climate is too complex to predict on a global scale. More than that, >> it’s still unclear exactly how governments would use this technology. Like >> the nuclear bomb, geoengineering would require a kind of global governance >> that simply doesn’t exist yet, and many climate activists see the >> climate-engineering cure as worse than the disease.Keith's ideal plan is >> simple enough: a slow ramp-up in sulfate drops over decades, giving the >> human race more time to quit fossil fuels and the planet's ecosystem time >> to adapt to higher temperatures. Once carbon emissions stopped around 2070, >> the sulfate drops would phase out, ending completely by 2120. Warming would >> still be a problem, of course, but geoengineering would let it come on >> slowly, giving ecosystems time to evolve and avoiding the destructive >> climate shocks that some studies predict. And by phasing out the action, >> Keith would avoid the dangers of an open-ended program in which warming >> worsens over centuries as geoengineering efforts face diminishing >> returns.The century-long respite, in contrast, seems like a potentially >> useful weapon in the fight against a warming climate. Still, it rests on >> dozens of potentially dicey decisions. Will the world actually be ready to >> quit fossil fuels by 2070? When the moment comes to start reducing the >> sulfate drops, warming an already sweltering globe, will world leaders lose >> their nerve? Will the new politics of weather force governments into rash >> decisions such as drying out the climate after storms or nixing the project >> entirely in response to a single dry season? Behind all of those questions >> is an even bigger one: who will make the choice? When charting a course for >> the entire planet, who can we trust to take the wheel? >> >> "The desperation argument" >> >> For many, the nuclear parallel is exactly the problem. The ETC Group, a >> Montreal-based environmental organization, has led the charge against >> geoengineering, arguing that modern governance simply isn’t ready for that >> kind of power. "I fully appreciate scientists saying that governments >> aren't doing anything, but giving them more power doesn't fix that," says >> ETC executive director Pat Mooney. "And I don't know any situation in human >> history where they've behaved well in a situation like that." As soon as >> the technology is developed, Mooney anticipates, it will be handed off to >> bureaucrats with little regard for the public good. "Governments just don't >> respond with social responsibility on a global scale. They always look to >> their own interest." >> >> THE BATTLE OF THE MONSOONS >> >> China's seasonal monsoon is crucial to the nation's economy and >> ecosystem, but solar radiation management could leave it dangerously weak. >> Keith's A Case for Climate Engineering envisions a scheme to strengthen the >> Chinese monsoon through cloud seeding, which would in turn disrupt the >> equally crucial Indian monsoon. India might respond with their own local >> radiative methods, spurring a geoengineering arms race, or take direct >> military action to stop China's program. Either way, the results could be >> dire.At the same time, Keith’s process isn’t a perfect fix, and there are a >> number of asymmetries that any would-be climate engineer will have to >> grapple with. The new sulfate layer only works during daylight hours, while >> CO2 affects temperatures around the clock, so his geoengineered world would >> have cooler days and warmer nights. Global warming means a warmer and >> wetter world, but geoengineering the climate back to its pre-carbon >> temperature might result in a dangerously dry planet. Keith prefers to hold >> precipitation constant, resulting in a slight temperature increase, but >> that's just one approach. Whoever handles the process will have to balance >> global temperature, precipitation levels, and storm power with no clear >> answers to guide them through.For the most part, geoengineering is a >> question world leaders have yet to consider. Keith would like to do it >> carefully and slowly, but he's the first to admit that there's always the >> danger someone will do it the wrong way. And there are plenty of >> candidates. Sulfate drops are exceedingly cheap on a global scale, costing >> hundreds of millions of dollars rather than the tens of trillions it would >> take to recapture atmospheric carbon. At that scale, a single country could >> take on the project unilaterally. Russia has already advocated for the >> technology, led by Putin adviser Yuri Izrael, even though the oil-rich >> regime still doesn't blame carbon for warming. It's a small enough sum that >> it could even fall to the private sector, led by environmentally minded >> billionaires like Bill Gates, George Soros, and Ted Turner. (Gates is >> already partially funding Keith's research.) Larger countries would see it >> as a rogue action, but that doesn’t mean they’d stop it outright.More >> likely, some experts anticipate, is a push from one of the small southern >> nations hit hardest by climate change. In a recent piece titled "The >> Desperation Argument for Geoengineering," ethicist Stephen Gardiner >> envisions a unilateral break by a country like the Maldives, which could be >> completely obliterated by stronger storms and rising sea levels. If the >> Maldives decided to act early on geoengineering, maybe through >> the Coalition of Small Island States, who would stop them? Would Western >> leaders be willing to shoot down their sulfate-spewing planes in the name >> of global governance? Gardiner calls the case "morally complex in ways >> unappreciated by simple appeals to desperation," but the realpolitik of the >> issue is even more fraught. >> >> The problem of power >> >> The most respected international body, and the favorite of skeptics like >> Mooney, is the United Nations. The UN currently oversees environmentalism's >> biggest international success story, the 1989 Montreal Protocol to protect >> the ozone layer, which could make it a natural fit for striking the balance >> on geoengineering. But reducing carbon emissions is much trickier than >> reducing ozone gases, and the UN has had real problems bringing countries >> in line. For many, that’s hobbled the organization’s credibility for >> geoengineering. Keith in particular sees the General Assembly's >> one-country-one-vote policy as essentially unworkable for managing the >> global climate. "If Exxon had hired me and 20 of my friends to design a >> system that looked like it was doing something, but would actually just >> suck all the air out of climate action, it would be pretty close to the >> framework-convention system," Keith says. >> >> NORTH VS. SOUTH >> >> The most likely path forward for geoengineering is a trilateral >> commission between China, Russia, and the United States. One thing all >> those countries have in common: they're comfortably north of the 20th >> parallel. Critics like ETC's Pat Mooney worry geoengineering will set the >> stage for global conflict between temperate and tropical countries as rich >> northern countries set the world's temperature and poorer tropical zones >> are left to sweat out the consequences.What's more likely is a series of >> uglier and less democratic treaties. Experts expect any plausible deal >> would be based on a trilateral framework, balancing the interests of >> Russia, China, and the United States as the most important moving parts in >> a global consensus. China will want to protect its monsoon, while Russia >> may hold out to protect its oil reserves, but it's easy to imagine the >> three countries ending up on the same page, especially if the global crisis >> predicted by climatologists is raging in the background. In the end, all >> three countries want a stable climate that's capable of producing enough >> food to feed its inhabitants. If geoengineering can deliver it, the >> politics will follow suit.But if that seems like a happy ending to climate >> fears, it's just what environmentalists like Mooney are worried about. >> What's best for the US, Russia, and China isn't what's best for the world, >> and Mooney sees trilateralism as a way to put a happy face on a kind of >> globally engineered oppression. What will the trilateral climate engineers >> think of droughts in Africa, wildfires in Australia or increasingly deadly >> storms in the South Pacific, when weighed against their own crop yields? >> Like most powerful countries, the trilateral nations rest comfortably north >> of the 20th parallel. What happens to those that sit below, struggling with >> more powerful storms without the political clout to influence their own >> climates? The result could be a global climate designed by and for the >> wealthy northern countries. "The last global conflict was between east and >> west," Mooney says. "This is between rich and poor, north and south."Still, >> for the scientists of geoengineering, there’s no choice but to plow ahead. >> "A lot of us working on this technology lose sleep over it," Keith says. >> "But through a long line of technologies, from nuclear weapons to DDT and >> on and on, humanity has managed to, if not find the best way, find some >> reasonable way through." We don’t know if humanity will chart the same >> course with geoengineering. Like most technology, there’s no telling how >> the world will use it in a century’s time. But even if this new power could >> become monstrous, can we turn away? On a warming planet, can we afford to >> throw away the tools that might save us? "The ultimate use for these things >> is unfathomable," Keith says. "If people could have sat around at a >> conference and decided whether they wanted to invent agriculture or not, >> what would they say?" >> >> -- >> 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. >> > > > > -- > James Fleming > On Sabbatical > STS Program > Colby College > > Web: http://www.colby.edu/profile/jfleming <http://web.colby.edu/jfleming> > > > -- 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.
