Andrew and list
I'll take the bait; see below.
On Oct 11, 2014, at 9:32 AM, Andrew Lockley <[email protected]> wrote:
> Following a twitter discussion with ETC, I thought I'd throw this question to
> the list.
>
[RWL1: Can you give a cite for this discussion? I googled and
couldn't find anything. I am interested because ETC has chosen to include
biochar in its denunciation of "geoengineering" (no distinction by them
between SRM and any form of CDR, I believe). I take every opportunity I can
to rebut ETC - and this is one such..
> "Does the precautionary principle apply to precautions" (or to damage
> limitation techniques).
>
[RWL2: I am saying "maybe".
> Personally, I don't think the risk that my smoke alarm might catch fire is an
> argument not to deploy it, or to delay doing so whilst I conduct a risk
> assessment.
>
[RWL3: I see your key word as "risk". If the chances of a specific
faulty alarm are 1%, I would be very choosy where I placed it. If one in a
billion (probably the actual odds are better for this alarm example), I would
feel comfortable using it most anywhere. It would make a difference on whether
I might be sued for negligence, even knowing the 10^9 odds. I might even use
the 1% risk alarm short term if I was the only potential victim.
I am thinking of biochar, where a failure in the char (and this has
happened) would only affect the land where I applied it. It would be stupid to
apply char anywhere without prior testing to determine the odds. If the odds
were 1% of a bad result with biochar, I would not recommend its use, even for
the land owner. But 0.1% might be acceptable risk (on my land - not someone
else's).
> Likewise, I don't think the precautionary principle applies to geoengineering.
>
[RWL4: So I am suggesting a different precautionary criterion should
apply for different types of geoengineering - mostly based on odds and who gets
hurt.
It is not clear yet with whom I may be disagreeing in your dispute
with ETC. I am pretty sure (without understanding the present dialog) I
disagree with ETC. I need to know more about your use of the term
"geoengineering", and the odds/risks you have in mind - and who is impacted.
I am talking shades of gray - not black-white.
Ron
> A
>
>
> --
> 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.
--
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.
