As I mentioned, the position I present below is not absolute, but there are many reasons why nuclear weapons testing is a poor analogue for scientific experiments aimed at understand effects of a modified albedo.
In the case of nuclear weapons testing, doing the test demonstrates the ability to inflict great harm extremely rapidly without any obvious possibility of preventive countermeasure. In the case of scientific experiments related to albedo modification, doing the test does not give anyone the power to do great harm rapidly. Furthermore, even if some power generated deployment capability there is no shortage of potential countermeasures as any deployment at scale would require a sustained substantial infrastructure and effort that could be attacked militarily, economically, or politically before great harm could be done. For these reasons and others, nuclear weapons testing is not a good analogue for scientific investigation related to solar geoengineering proposals. On Sun, Dec 21, 2014 at 1:27 PM, John Harte <[email protected]> wrote: > Would you apply that reasoning to deep underground nuclear weapons testing? > > Actions that lack tangible impacts still send signals. > > > > > > John Harte > Professor of Ecosystem Sciences > ERG/ESPM > 310 Barrows Hall > University of California > Berkeley, CA 94720 USA > [email protected] > > > > On Dec 21, 2014, at 12:59 PM, Ken Caldeira <[email protected]> > wrote: > > This kind of thinking is dangerous: > > > > > *Even small-scale field tests with negligible impacts on the > physicalenvironment warrant additional governance as they raise > broaderconcerns that go beyond the immediate impacts of > individualexperiments.* > > This is not an absolute position, but we should start with a presumption > of freedom and liberty to engage in activities that have no substantial > direct effect on others or the environment. > > If there is no likelihood that my proposed activity will have any > substantial direct effect on anybody or anything, there should be a > presumption that I can engage in that activity with a minimum of > encumbrance. > > There are all sorts of things that people do every day that I don't like, > but if their activities don't have any substantial direct consequences, > then I don't think I have the right to interfere in their activities. > > cf. http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v3/n11/full/nclimate2036.html > > *Caldeira, Ken; Ricke, Katharine L. (2013): Prudence on solar climate > engineering. In Nature Climate change 3 (11), p. 941-941. DOI > 10.1038/nclimate2036 * > > > > > _______________ > 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 > > My assistant is Dawn Ross <[email protected]>, with access to > incoming emails. > > > > On Sun, Dec 21, 2014 at 12:30 PM, Andrew Lockley <[email protected] > > wrote: > >> Poster's note : I personally feel that it's extremely dangerous to >> "warrant additional governance" for experiments with "negligible >> impacts". It potentially invites a situation which bears an >> uncomfortably close parallel to the theologians refusing to look down >> Galileo's telescope. >> >> http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/372/2031/20140064 >> >> Asilomar moments: formative framings in recombinant DNA and solar >> climate engineering research >> >> Stefan Schäfer, Sean Low >> DOI: 10.1098/rsta.2014.0064 >> Published 17 November 2014 >> >> Abstract >> >> We examine the claim that in governance for solar climate engineering >> research, and especially field tests, there is no need for external >> governance beyond existing mechanisms such as peer review and >> environmental impact assessments that aim to assess technically >> defined risks to the physical environment. By drawing on the >> historical debate on recombinant DNA research, we show that defining >> risks is not a technical question but a complex process of narrative >> formation. Governance emerges from within, and as a response to, >> narratives of what is at stake in a debate. In applying this finding >> to the case of climate engineering, we find that the emerging >> narrative differs starkly from the narrative that gave meaning to rDNA >> technology during its formative period, with important implications >> for governance. While the narrative of rDNA technology was closed down >> to narrowly focus on technical risks, that of climate engineering >> continues to open up and includes social, political and ethical >> issues. This suggests that, in order to be legitimate, governance must >> take into account this broad perception of what constitutes the >> relevant issues and risks of climate engineering, requiring governance >> that goes beyond existing mechanisms that focus on technical risks. >> Even small-scale field tests with negligible impacts on the physical >> environment warrant additional governance as they raise broader >> concerns that go beyond the immediate impacts of individual >> experiments. >> >> -- >> 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. > <Caldeira-Ricke_NatureCC2013_prudence-on-solar-climate-engineering (1).pdf> > > > -- 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.
