Hi Fred--I’d just suggest that it is all relative. Given that no society has been able to vanquish human short-comings, perfection does not seem to be a realistic possibility, so then the question is what is least bad. It is interesting to hear some in the political domain seeming to long for the days of the Cold War with its relative clarity (fearful as we all were of possible obliteration) and, in their view, it seems, greater global stability.
Relating back to geoengineering connection, at what time in history and with what governance, would climate intervention be most workable and how comfortable would we be with that with respect to other aspects? Very concerned about the growing risks and impacts of climate change, it seems to me that we may well need climate intervention even with aggressive mitigation and, recognizing the challenges of going from doing nothing to the notion of global intervention, my suggestion has been that we should first be thinking about potential regional interventions aimed at addressing very specific impacts, both to be helpful and to demonstrate that we have sufficient knowledge to be doing interventions in a cautious and iterative way—and so can be thinking about how, perhaps, to shave the undesirable part of the warming that we cannot avoid by aggressive mitigation, adaptation, and CDR. Mike On 2/16/15, 10:50 AM, "Fred Zimmerman" <[email protected]> wrote: > We've already tried both bi-polar and multi-polar -- results were not > encouraging! > ᐧ > > On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 10:46 AM, Mike MacCracken <[email protected]> > wrote: >> Dear Oliver—With respect to the zero option when there is knowledge out there >> of how to build a nuclear bomb and there are facilities around that could be >> readily diverted to such efforts, the key question is what happens when some >> party then starts to build them. The zero option argument is that one would >> need to have a strong enough international cooperative effort (i.e., a world >> government with some powers) that was poised to take action rapidly to >> prevent this. The notion of having such a powerful global government that >> ensures stability for the world (plus however much security and rules) raises >> all sorts of concerns about its power across the spectrum of society, and >> whether having a bi-polar (i.e., not the mental illness definition, but two >> balancing centers of power or framings) or perhaps multi-polar (though this >> raises questions of two or more ganging up against one) world might be more >> stable and better allow for the free development of people and society. Also, >> on nuclear weapons, a reason put forth for the superpowers to retain a >> reasonable number of weapons in a bi-polar world, for example, is that it is >> very unlikely that great advantage could be accomplished with a breakout of >> an agreement for roughly equal numbers (or capabilities) of >> weapons/destructive power, etc. I would only suggest (and the points here are >> only a few of many that are raised and merit consideration) that the issue of >> what situation is optimal for society is much more complex than just the >> number of nuclear weapons—at both the regional and global levels, etc. >> >> Mike >> >> On 2/16/15, 5:55 AM, "olivermorton" <[email protected] >> <http://[email protected]> > wrote: >> >>> Jamais, Alan >>> >>> It seems to me that the best way to avoid geoengineering triggering tensions >>> which rise to the level of nuclear war is to commit oneself, as I am pretty >>> sure Alan is committed, to working towards a golbal zero option on nuclear >>> weapons. This has the added bonus of avoiding anything *other* than >>> geoengineering leading to the threat of war, too... >>> >>> ever, o >>> >>> On Sunday, 15 February 2015 19:03:15 UTC, cascio wrote: >>>> It’s not a question of whether or not it's a weapon, it’s a question of >>>> whether or not it’s perceived as a threat. >>>> >>>> At the Berlin event, I told some of you about the CIA Center for Climate >>>> Change and National Security simulation exercise I was asked to do four or >>>> five years ago. What started as a climate disruption/storms & droughts & >>>> bears scenario evolved (as the China and US teams responded) into a >>>> potential SRM scenario. By the final turn, the possible deployment of SRM >>>> on one side had been perceived as a real threat to agriculture on the >>>> other, and missiles were being put on alert. >>>> >>>> Perception trumps objective reality when it comes to national security. >>>> >>>> On that note, the CIACCCNS is no longer around, as the Republican house >>>> determined that since climate change wasn’t real, the center wasn’t needed. >>>> Seriously. >>>> >>>> -Jamais Cascio >>>> >>>> Proof: https://www.flickr.com/photos/jamais_cascio/6214330683/ >>>> >>>>> On Feb 15, 2015, at 10:27 AM, Andrew Lockley <[email protected] >>>>> <http://[email protected]> <javascript:> > wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Respectfully, I disagree. >>>>> >>>>> The status of geoengineering is perhaps more likely to be akin to trade >>>>> sanctions. >>>>> >>>>> Imagine a bipolar world which is divided up purely into a Chinese >>>>> superpower zone and an American superpower zone. There may be various >>>>> skirmishes going on at any one time, as we see in Ukraine. Simultaneously, >>>>> we may see ongoing trade, diplomacy and cooperation in other ways. (This >>>>> pattern is common among 'frenemies'.) >>>>> >>>>> Where the parties have a clearly different CE preference, the concept of >>>>> weaponisation becomes extremely blurred. Using CE becomes a bargaining >>>>> chip like all others. In extremis, such a tool may cause profound food >>>>> shortages in the counterparty's zone, or expose key infrastructure to >>>>> natural disasters. >>>>> >>>>> How could we agree whether that constituted a weapon, or not? >>>>> >>>>> A >>>>> >>>>> On 15 Feb 2015 16:38, "Ken Caldeira" <[email protected] >>>>> <http://[email protected]> <javascript:> > wrote: >>>>>> Based on the history of our intelligence agencies involvement in secret >>>>>> kidnappings and torture, killing noncombatants with drones, spying on our >>>>>> telecommunications, etc, we can take it as a given that secret US >>>>>> governmental organizations will engage in criminal behavior. >>>>>> >>>>>> However, we should be entirely clear: >>>>>> >>>>>> There is absolutely no evidence that any US intelligence agency has any >>>>>> interest in climate intervention for anything other than defense-related >>>>>> informational purposes. >>>>>> >>>>>> Furthermore, there is no plausible scenario in which climate intervention >>>>>> could be used effectively as a weapon. >>>>>> >>>>>> So, while I share Alan's contempt for the criminal behavior of our >>>>>> secretive governmental agencies, I do not think it is helpful to >>>>>> speculate that in this instance, the agencies are looking for new ways >>>>>> that they might inflict suffering on others. >>>>>> >>>>>> Best, >>>>>> Ken >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________ >>>>>> 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] <http://[email protected]> >>>>>> <javascript:> >>>>>> http://kencaldeira.com <http://kencaldeira.com/> >>>>>> https://twitter.com/KenCaldeira >>>>>> >>>>>> My assistant is Dawn Ross <[email protected] >>>>>> <http://[email protected]> <javascript:> >, with access to >>>>>> incoming emails. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Sun, Feb 15, 2015 at 8:08 AM, Alan Robock <[email protected] >>>>>> <http://[email protected]> <javascript:> > wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Dear Mick, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The Daily Mail article is true. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> But you might also be interested in the more informative BBC interview: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-31475761 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Alan >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Alan Robock, Distinguished Professor >>>>>>> Editor, Reviews of Geophysics >>>>>>> Director, Meteorology Undergraduate Program >>>>>>> Department of Environmental Sciences Phone: +1-848-932-5751 >>>>>>> <tel:%2B1-848-932-5751> >>>>>>> Rutgers University Fax: +1-732-932-8644 >>>>>>> <tel:%2B1-732-932-8644> >>>>>>> 14 College Farm Road E-mail: [email protected] >>>>>>> <http://[email protected]> <javascript:> >>>>>>> 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 2/14/15, 10:30 PM, Mick West wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The Daily Mail story about CIA inquiries concerning covert geoengineering is interesting because I actually posed a very similar question to the Geoengineering list three years ago, to which both of you (Alan and Andrew) responded directly. https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/geoengineering/UzNzNyJIZ2g/Qvs7XFNK5do J <https://groups.google.com/forum/#%21msg/geoengineering/UzNzNyJIZ2g/Qvs7XFNK 5doJ> So I was wondering Alan, if is this the Daily Mail's dramatic retelling of this exchange, or were there actually "CIA" men calling you asking similar questions? Mick On Sat, Feb 14, 2015 at 6:56 PM, Andrew Lockley <[email protected] <http://[email protected]> <javascript:> > wrote: Poster's note : Robock tweeted this, so it's probably not entirely inaccurate. (Members outside the UK may not be aware that the Daily Mail is widely derided.) http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/pa/article-2954051/Chill-factor-CIA-weather -query.html Chill factor at 'CIA' weather query By Press Association 00:43 15 Feb 2015, A leading American climate scientist has said he felt "scared" when a shadowy organisation claiming to represent the CIA asked him about the possibility of weaponised weather. Professor Alan Robock received a call three years ago from two men wanting to know if experts would be able to spot a hostile force's attempts to upset the US climate. But he suspected the real intention was to find out how feasible it might be to secretly interfere with the climate of another country. The professor, from the Department of Environmental Sciences at Rutgers University, New Jersey, has investigated the potential risks and benefits of using stratospheric particles to simulate the climate-changing effects of volcanic eruptions. Speaking at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in San Jose, California, where he took part in a debate on geoengineering to combat climate change, Prof Robock said: " I got a phone call from two men who said we work as consultants for the CIA and we'd like to know if some other country was controlling our climate, would we know about it?"I told them, after thinking a little bit, that we probably would because if you put enough material in the atmosphere to reflect sunlight we would be able to detect it and see the equipment that was putting it up there."At the same time I thought they were probably also interested in if we could control somebody else's climate, could they detect it?" Asked how he felt when the approach was made, he said: "Scared. I'd learned of lots of other things the CIA had done that haven't followed the rules and I thought that wasn't how I wanted my tax money spent. I think this research has to be in the open and international so there isn't any question of it being used for hostile purposes." Geoengineering to offset the effects of global warming could include scattering sulphur particles in the upper atmosphere to re-direct sunlight back into space, seeding the oceans with iron to encourage the spread of carbon-hungry algae, and creating reflective areas on the Earth's surface. But the long-term effects of such strategies are largely unknown and many experts fear they may pose grave risks. A further twist in Prof Robock's story concerns the CIA's alleged co-funding of a major report on geoengineering published this week by the prestigious US National Academy of Sciences.The report mentions the "US intelligence community" in its list of sponsors, which also includes the American space agency Nasa, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the US Department of Energy. Prof Robock said the CIA had told one of his colleagues it wanted to fund the report, but apparently did not want this fact to be too obvious. "The CIA is a major funder of the National Academies report so that makes me really worried who is going to be in control," he added. He pointed out that the US had a history of using the weather in a hostile way. During the Vietnam War clouds were seeded over the Ho Chi Minh trail - a footpath-based supply route used by the North Vietnamese - to make the track muddy in an attempt to cut it off. The CIA had also seeded clouds over Cuba "to make it rain and ruin the sugar harvest".During a press conference on the potential risks of geoengineering, Prof Robock was asked what its greatest hazard might be. He replied: "The answer is global nuclear war because if one country wants to control the climate in one way, and another doesn't want it or if they try to shoot down the planes ... if there is no agreement, it could result in terrible consequences." -- 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] <http://[email protected]> <javascript:> . To post to this group, send email to [email protected] <http://[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.
