I think discussion on-list will help everyone formulate their comments.

My initial thoughts are that the document is ok, but is insufficiently
robust. Calling for more research is glib and easy.

I suggest that there's a need for language like the following to be
inserted:

Dangerous climate change cannot now be averted without geoengineering
Deployment will be needed in 30 years or less, if dangerous climate change
is to be averted
Rapid cuts in emissions will paradoxically result in geoengineering needing
to be deployed sooner, due to a reduction in atmospheric haze.
SRM using stratospheric sulfur aerosols closely mimics natural processes,
and the latest research shows that it is very likely to be far safer than
climate change change (although regional differences are likely).
Failure to deploy geoengineering early risks catastrophic, irreversible
changes in the Earth system - notably sea level rise, which will inundate a
large proportion of the world's major cities (New York, London, Mumbai,
etc.) causing the largest mass migration in human history (in absolute
numbers).
Current levels of research are grossly inadequate. Outdoor research has
been all but absent, despite serious academic interest in the field for
over a decade. The scale of funding available needs to be increased - not
incrementally, but by many orders of magnitude.
Inadequate funding risks delayed or ineffective deployment, which is
enormously more dangerous than the research needed to properly inform the
process. Accordingly, outdoor research should be permitted with light touch
regulation.
Conspiracy theories abound in the field, and scientists have been subject
to a range of harassment and threats. Recognition of the need to provide
personal security to scientists working in this field should be given
urgently; funding must be provided to provide guarding and other physical
protection to scientists' experiments, labs, faculties, homes, families and
staff.


On 25 Aug 2017 01:07, "Alan Robock" <[email protected]> wrote:

> The draft statement is https://sciencepolicy.agu.org/
> files/2017/08/Draft-Geoengineering-Statement-for-Web-Comment.pdf
>
> Our committee is David Victor (Chair), Ken Caldeira, Piers Forster, Ben
> Kravitz, Marcia McNutt, Joyce Penner, Alan Robock, Naomi Vaughan, and
> Jennifer Wilcox.
>
> There is a month-long period now seeking comments, with link at
> https://eos.org/agu-news/position-statement-on-geoengineerin
> g-call-for-comments
>
> --
> Alan
> _________________________________________________________________________
> Alan Robock, Distinguished Professor
>   Editor, Reviews of Geophysics
> 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
>
> --
> 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 https://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 https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Reply via email to