Re: Ken's comments below; I don't find it a compelling argument for several reasons:
1. The fact that the West didn't attack militarily doesn't deny that retaliation did occur for Russia's act of aggression, and very serious retaliation, including economic sanctions that may prove to have substantial bite in the next few years. In fact, many believe that Russia's reticence in terms of the movement in Eastern Ukraine by separatists to take more land is directly related to these sanctions, and the threat of even more stringent ones should Russia not stand down, so I think the article's point about potential responses is not wholly without merit; 2. While other countries MAY not act, that seems to be a frightening and frail reed to lean upon. What if we're wrong and it leads to a massive conflagration? In every case, the proclivity of a State to retaliate is based on a calculus of both capabilities and the magnitude of the threat posed by the other parties' original action. Yes, perhaps the West didn't deem it judicious to retaliate militarily when Russia seized a chunk of Ukraine that was historically recognized as part of Russia, but what would India, for example, do if deployment of an SRM option shut down the monsoon and threatened the lives of millions or tens of millions? I'd hate to be "wrong" in this case. Dr. Wil Burns Co-Director, Washington Climate Geoengineering Consortium 2650 Haste Street Berkeley, CA 94720 650.281.9126 (Mobile) http://www.dcgeoconsortium.org Skype ID: Wil.Burns Blog: Teaching Climate/Energy Law & Policy, http://www.teachingclimatelaw.org Ken Caldeira <[email protected]> Jun 25 12:03PM -0700 This paper says that "geoengineering cannot be used to preserve today's climate", but does not mention that if the models are right, geoengineering could offset most anthropogenic climate change for the vast majority of people. Also, claims such as "countries that expect to be harmed by geoengineering would surely act to prevent it from being used" are undermined by recent experiences with Russia in Crimea. When powerful countries act in their own self-interest, even if ways that harm others, other countries may not act because the costs of action can be substantial. If Russia had injected aerosols in the stratosphere instead of annexing Crimea, would the political and military response really have been much greater? On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 3:15 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: > Today's topic summary > > Group: http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering/topics > > - Geoengineering Technology & Governance Assessments of Climate > Engineering <#146d7acbbe97ddd3_group_thread_0> [1 Update] > - Anyone want to help write a "clarification" on climate engineering > me for online journal Contributeria? <#146d7acbbe97ddd3_group_thread_1> > [1 Update] > - Climate engineering reconsidered : Nature Climate Change > <#146d7acbbe97ddd3_group_thread_2> [4 Updates] > > Geoengineering Technology & Governance Assessments of Climate > Engineering > <http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering/t/ddbc989c570fb230> > > Pak-Hang Wong <[email protected]> Jun 16 03:31AM -0700 > > FWIW, there are questions about the (academic) credential of Nova > Science, > see: > > > http://scholarlyoa.com/2014/04/08/a-list-of-print-on-demand-publishers-self-publishingvanity-presses-and-other-non-traditional-publishers-for-librarians-and-authors/ > > On Monday, 16 June 2014 09:31:36 UTC+1, Stephen Salter wrote: > > > > Anyone want to help write a "clarification" on climate engineering me > for online journal Contributeria? > <http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering/t/61988901d0a42e2a> > > Dr D <[email protected]> Jun 16 06:27PM -0700 > > Contributeria is an online news journal where anyone (including > non-climatologist like me) can propose an article. If there are > sufficient > votes, the article will be published and, probably, widely distributed. > > My motivation is that I am tired of reading criticism of climate > engineering that > > a. proposes conspiracy theories (e.g. funding comes from the CIA or > Bill > Gates or Lord Voldemot) > b. lumps all climate engineering projects as the same in terms of > risks, > effectiveness, and costs > c. depicts all climate engineering researchers as gung-ho reckless > unaccountable mad scientists. > > Does anyone want to help me? Or does anyone have anything to add to > the > above list regarding recent efforts to demonize research in climate > engineering? > > Thanks! > > Eric Durbrow > > > > Climate engineering reconsidered : Nature Climate Change > <http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering/t/c8a3d96915a4612> > > Andrew Lockley <[email protected]> Jun 25 07:47PM +0100 > > > > http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v4/n7/full/nclimate2278.html?utm_content=buffere8815&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer > > Climate engineering reconsidered > > Scott Barrett, et al > > Nature Climate Change 4, 527–529 (2014) 25 June 2014 > > Stratospheric injection of sulphate aerosols has been advocated as an > emergency geoengineering measure to tackle dangerous climate change, > or as > a stop-gap until atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are reduced. But it > may > not prove to be the game-changer that some imagine. > > > > > Ken Caldeira <[email protected]> Jun 25 12:03PM -0700 > > This paper says that "geoengineering cannot be used to preserve today's > climate", but does not mention that if the models are right, > geoengineering > could offset most anthropogenic climate change for the vast majority of > people. > > Also, claims such as "countries that expect to be harmed by > geoengineering > would surely act to prevent it from being used" are undermined by > recent > experiences with Russia in Crimea. When powerful countries act in > their own > self-interest, even if ways that harm others, other countries may not > act > because the costs of action can be substantial. If Russia had injected > aerosols in the stratosphere instead of annexing Crimea, would the > political and military response really have been much greater? > > > _______________ > 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 > https://twitter.com/KenCaldeira > > Assistant: Dawn Ross <[email protected]> > > > > On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 11:47 AM, Andrew Lockley < > [email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > > Keith Henson <[email protected]> Jun 25 06:44PM -0700 > > "If Russia had injected aerosols in the stratosphere instead of > annexing Crimea, would the political and military response really have > been much greater?" > > Excellent observation, Ken. > > There is a way to power transportation from LEO to GEO using low > threat microwaves, but I have made the same argument that if one > country built GW scale propulsion lasers (which are weapons) to solve > the energy problems, there is little the rest of the world could do > about it. > > Of course the country that released the aerosols would bitch about > others freeloading at their expense, but it's not likely they could > get the others who benefit to pay their share. It's also not likely > that people who claimed they were harmed would be able to collect > either. > > Keith > > On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 12:03 PM, Ken Caldeira > > > > > Bill Stahl <[email protected]> Jun 25 02:01PM -0700 > > And if Putin made the announcement flanked by a few leaders of Pacific > island countries? Kiribati or Nauru have zero military and economic > power, > but clout comes in many forms. Their presence would make opposition > more > complicated. As for deterrence, what threatened sanctions outweigh the > threat of losing the ground under your feet? Or, in Russia's case, > watching > your northern cities, pipelines and roads sink into melting permafrost. > > On Wednesday, June 25, 2014 1:04:13 PM UTC-6, kcaldeira wrote: > > > > -- Dr. Wil Burns, Associate Director Master of Science - Energy Policy & Climate Program Johns Hopkins University 1717 Massachusetts Avenue, NW Room 104J Washington, DC 20036 202.663.5976 (Office phone) 650.281.9126 (Mobile) [email protected] http://advanced.jhu.edu/academic/environmental/master-of-science-in-energy-policy-and-climate/index.html SSRN site (selected publications): http://ssrn.com/author=240348 Skype ID: Wil.Burns Teaching Climate/Energy Law & Policy Blog: http://www.teachingclimatelaw.org -- 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/d/optout.
