I agree with the basic idea that the politics of this will be likely to be very tricky (although - and partly for that reason - I remain unconvinced by the other premise of the article that SPI has been overwhelmingly shown to have net life-saving potential).
Andrew, why the incredulity at a conflict scenario? The thing about international relations is that outcomes do not always reflect intentions or desired collective outcomes. History is full of consensus processes breaking down and collectively sub-optimal (to put it mildly) outcomes. Presumably everybody had an incentive to avoid the chaos of WW1 and stick to a consensus process... So the authors are right in my opinion to raise this problem regarding SRM. I would add that by complicating/souring the international diplomatic situation SRM could easily affect the ability to agree and cooperate internationally on mitigation and adaptation too, which we agree would still need to happen as fast as possible. If we are consistently outcome-ethical about it we probably shouldn't put the politics in one compartment and the evaluation of the technology in another one. Best regards Olaf Corry On Friday, 30 January 2015 09:18:54 UTC, andrewjlockley wrote: > > I disagree fundamentally with the premise of this article. > > A decision on climate has to be made. Everyone knows it. Everyone has an > incentive to avoid chaos. Therefore, people have a very large incentive to > stick to a consensus process, because anyone who doesn't stick will > instantly break that consensus and cause chaos - which is a guaranteed > loser for all. > > Same reason villagers don't burgle their neighbours when police are busy > elsewhere dealing with a major incident. > > A > On 30 Jan 2015 08:54, "Andy Parker" <[email protected] <javascript:>> > wrote: > >> Hey folks, the Washington Post just published an op ed on the messy >> politics of solar geoengineering, written by David Keith and me: >> http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/whats-the-right-temperature-for-the-earth/2015/01/29/b2dda53a-7c05-11e4-84d4-7c896b90abdc_story.html >> >> -- >> 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] <javascript:>. >> To post to this group, send email to [email protected] >> <javascript:>. >> 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.
