I agree with the theoretical proposition that this could be a cause of high-level state-to-state conflict, but it should also be recognized that there are a number of factors that tend to make this an unlikely scenario and should not deter or delay research.
* Attribution is always likely to be controversial and debatable (natural variation...) and thus a weak foundation for making threats that will be extremely unpopular in the rest of the world. * The potential harm, while severe, is not as direct, immediate, tangible, and incontrovertible as a tank division rolling across a border or a ship getting sunk. Nations have swallowed very significant insults to their interests for the last 70 years without resorting to nuclear weapons. * By the time any geoengineering scheme is actually implemented it will have been governanced and NGO'd to death. If the argument is that we should avoid research into potentially beneficial schemes that might cause high-level state conflict 30 or 50 years from now, there are a lot of other potentially beneficial areas of research that might also cause severe conflict fifty years from now and should also be banned. ᐧ On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 5:29 PM, Jamais Cascio <cas...@openthefuture.com> wrote: > * avoiding *mitigation is almost certain to increase the severity of > known and much more probable causes of conflict > > > No question. There’s already been discussion of the Syrian civil war as > being a climate-triggered conflict (Andrew linked an article to this list > early in March), and there’s every reason to believe that climate-related > crises will be catalysts for further violence around the world. > > Again, this isn’t just something I’ve pulled from nowhere. I’ve had > multiple conversations with strategic policy officials (mostly, but not > exclusively, from the US) and the ones that understand the potential value > and dangers of geoengineering (primarily SRM) also recognize that it has > some elements that could make it a very real cause of high-level > state-to-state conflict, up to and including the threatened use of nuclear > weapons. > > -Jamais > > On Apr 17, 2015, at 2:19 PM, Fred Zimmerman <geoengineerin...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > I think people are concerned about conflict from geoengineering but I > don't think they are any more concerned about nuclear war risks from > geoengineering than from any other cause of conflict and probably much less > so. I would agree that preventing new causes of conflict is a credible > reason for avoiding or delaying geoengineering but as so often the case on > this list we have to remember that* avoiding *mitigation is almost > certain to increase the severity of known and much more probable causes of > conflict. > ᐧ > > On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 5:02 PM, Jamais Cascio <cas...@openthefuture.com> > wrote: > >> This isn’t that difficult to see. A country takes desperate action taken >> in order to support/protect itself, but that action has global effects, >> including the potential for major system-disrupting changes to critical >> ocean-atmospheric systems already under enormous stress. One nation’s >> last-ditch attempt at self-preservation becomes another nation’s potential >> existential risk. >> >> Country 1: “If I don’t do this, I’ll likely die. You can’t stop me.” >> Country 2: “If you do this, we may die. We must stop you.” >> >> It’s definitely a concern among the government types and policy-makers >> I’ve spoken to/worked with. >> >> -Jamais Cascio >> >> >> >> On Apr 17, 2015, at 1:52 PM, Andrew Lockley <andrew.lock...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> What makes you think that geoengineering would be the trigger for nuclear >> war anymore than everything else people have been squabbling over for the >> last seventy years? >> >> A >> On 17 Apr 2015 21:00, "Alan Robock" <rob...@envsci.rutgers.edu> wrote: >> >>> Cloud control: Climatologist Alan Robock on the effects of >>> geoengineering and nuclear war >>> >>> Abstract >>> In this interview, Rutgers University climatologist Alan Robock talks >>> with Elisabeth Eaves from the Bulletin >>> about geoengineering and nuclear winter. He says that geoengineering is >>> not the solution to global warming >>> because of its many risks and unknowns. He notes that some of the >>> technology that would be required to >>> implement geoengineering has not been developed and that many >>> socio-political questions would have to be >>> resolved before it could be put into practice. The world would have to >>> reach agreement on a target temperature >>> and on what entity should do the implementing. Robock's biggest fear >>> with regard to geoengineering is that >>> disputes over these questions could escalate into nuclear war which in >>> turn could cause nuclear winter, >>> producing global famine among other effects. He goes on to describe his >>> meeting with former Cuban President >>> Fidel Castro and discuss the role of the arts in addressing existential >>> threats. >>> >>> Attached. >>> >>> -- >>> 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: rob...@envsci.rutgers.edu >>> 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 >>> >>> -- >>> 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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >>> To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. >>> 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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >> To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. >> 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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >> To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. >> 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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
