Hi All
I would prefer NOT do geoengineering because the mitigation people were
doing a such a great job that it was not needed. Check out Keeling to
see how they have been getting on.
However a more likely outcome is that we cannot do geoengineering
because the funding for hardware development was blocked by all the
papers on ethics and governance.
The sensible thing would be to mitigate all you can and leave the
geoengineers to clean up the bits you miss.
Stephen
On 06/09/2015 16:52, Douglas MacMartin wrote:
Didn’t read quite as carefully as I could, but two quick comments:
i)the assumption in extending the argument to research is that more
research increases the likelihood of SRM being used as an excuse not
to mitigate; I suspect that is unfounded. That is, more research may
make it harder for uninformed decision-makers to have a naively
optimistic view of SRM.
ii)Even if I knew with absolute certainty that research on SRM would
necessarily reduce mitigation, that does not mean that said research
is a bad idea, for two reasons. Even with a single-rational-actor
view of the world, given uncertainty about impacts of climate change,
less mitigation plus option for SRM might yield better outcomes. But
more importantly, I choose to wear my seat belt and would demand that
my children (if I had any) did too, despite the fact that the “morally
correct” path is for everyone to drive more carefully. That is, I
might want to have SRM available as an option because I don’t trust
someone else to be doing the mitigating.
That is, I don’t think the last line below (cautioning against
research) follows from any of the arguments made in the paper.
doug
*From:*[email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Andrew Lockley
*Sent:* Saturday, September 05, 2015 3:25 PM
*To:* geoengineering <[email protected]>
*Subject:* [geo] Can we have it both ways? On potential trade-offs
between Mitigation and Solar Radiation Management | Baatz
https://www.academia.edu/14643021/Can_we_have_it_both_ways_On_potential_trade-offs_between_Mitigation_and_Solar_Radiation_Management
Draft – Please cite the shortened version forthcoming in Environmental
Values (25,1)
Can we have it both ways? On potential trade-offs between mitigation
and Solar Radiation Management
Christian Baatz, Kiel University
Abstract
Many in the discourse on climate engineering agree that if deployment
of Solar Radiation Management (SRM) technologies is ever permissible,
then it must be accompanied by far-reaching mitigation of greenhouse
gas (GHG) emissions. This raises the question of if and how both
strategies interact. Although raised in many publications, there are
surprisingly few detailed investigations of this important issue. The
paper aims at contributing to closing this research gap by
(i) reconstructing moral hazard claims to clarify their aim,
(ii) offering one specific normative justification for far-reaching
mitigation and
(iii) investigating in greater detail different mechanisms potentially
causing a trade-off between mitigation and SRM.
I conclude that the empirical evidence questioning the trade-off
hypothesis is inconclusive. Moreover, theoretical reflections as well
as economic model studies point to a trade-off. In our current
epistemic situation these findings must be taken seriously. They
caution against researching and developing SRM technologies before
measures to avoid or minimize a trade-off are implemented.
Keywords:
Solar Radiation Management, Mitigation, Moral Hazard, Climate
Engineering, Trade-Off
--
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]
<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.
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
--
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.
