Dear Ken,
The analog I see with nuclear weapons testing is the potential damage to
the environment by the outdoor experiment. After we realized the local
effects of the radioactivity we moved testing underground, and then for
political reasons stopped testing all together.
Clearly small outdoor geoengineering experiments would not pose such
dangers, and so should be allowed, given a governance system that allows
independent evaluation, monitoring and sanctioning of proposed
experiments. That is, the definition of "small" needs to be agreed on
as producing some particular level of harm that we can live with.
So I see the analog not related to the intention of the use of the
technology (that is a separate discussion), but to the potential for
environmental damage.
Alan
Alan Robock, Distinguished Professor
Editor, Reviews of Geophysics
Director, Meteorology Undergraduate Program
Department of Environmental Sciences Phone: +1-848-932-5751
Rutgers University Fax: +1-732-932-8644
14 College Farm Road E-mail: [email protected]
New Brunswick, NJ 08901-8551 USA http://envsci.rutgers.edu/~robock
http://twitter.com/AlanRobock
Watch my 18 min TEDx talk at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qsrEk1oZ-54
On 12/21/14, 2:30 PM, Ken Caldeira wrote:
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]
<mailto:[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] <mailto:[email protected]>
On Dec 21, 2014, at 12:59 PM, Ken Caldeira
<[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
This kind of thinking is dangerous:
/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./
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 <tel:%2B1%20650%20704%207212>
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab
https://twitter.com/KenCaldeira
My assistant is Dawn Ross <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>, with access to incoming emails.
On Sun, Dec 21, 2014 at 12:30 PM, Andrew Lockley
<[email protected] <mailto:[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]
<mailto:geoengineering%[email protected]>.
To post to this group, send email to
[email protected]
<mailto:[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]
<mailto:[email protected]>.
To post to this group, send email to
[email protected]
<mailto:[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]
<mailto:[email protected]>.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
<mailto:[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.
