Another way to put the point in Klaus' P.S. is that SRM, while reducing *net* anthropogenic forcing, continues to increase to *gross* anthropogenic forcing. Humans intentionally deploy an additional forcing agent. CDR by contrast reduces both *gross* and *net* anthropogenic forcing. See "Framing an Ethics of Climate Management for the Anthropocene <https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-014-1182-4>" (2015)
On Sunday, February 25, 2018 at 5:24:17 PM UTC-7, klaus.lackner wrote: > > Your point that what matters “is the change to the environment as is, not > a notional baseline” summarizes the notional difficulty. Why would you > think of the environment created through careless global energy engineering > as the environment as is? It would be an insult to engineers to blame them > for changes they did cause, but the change in the climate is the direct > result of engineering decisions on energy that chose to ignore one of the > largest waste streams humans produce. > > > > Klaus > > > > PS I see a gradation, between just cleaning up after emissions, to > choosing the climate you like. Cleaning up, does not feel all that much as > geo-engineering. Note that SRM is not cleaning up, it is pushing the same > system in yet another direction, because the unintended shove we gave the > system, has created warming. > > > > > > *From: *'Oliver Morton' via geoengineering <[email protected] > <javascript:>> > *Reply-To: *"[email protected] <javascript:>" < > [email protected] <javascript:>> > *Date: *Saturday, February 24, 2018 at 06:12 > *To: *geoengineering <[email protected] <javascript:>> > *Subject: *[geo] Re: Intention matters in Climate Engineering > > > > I'm team Preston/Robock: intention matters. cf David, in 2000 -- confusing > messing something up with engineering is an insult to engineers > (paraphrased, from memory) > > > > On CDR as climate geoengineering. Modality is very different from solar > geo, but there are some clear similarities. Both decouple climate futures > from cumulative emissions. Both require an analysis and a decision > mechanism for deciding what final climate is desired (unless CDR is limited > entirely to net zero, not net negative > > > > On whether returning things to as they were means that it isn't > geoengineering (Klaus's point); I think the thing that matters is change to > the environment as is, not to a notional baseline of what it would have > been if not for a, b c etc > > > > I'm reminded of a distinction made by the satirist who used to write under > the name of Peter Simple: To be a conservative is to oppose all change -- > including change designed to return you to the conditions of the past. This > is what distinguishes a conservative from a reactionary. In political terms > that is quite weighted -- but it is a real distinction. To actively reduce > CO2 ppm would be a more radical option; to sit at where one gets once one > is at net zero is more conservative. > > > > > On Saturday, 24 February 2018 01:12:10 UTC, Leon Di Marco wrote: > > EASAC has, in its recent report on NETs , ignored the fact that NETs > are simply another form of mitigation and instead incorrectly placed > mitigation as a priority over NETs . This is a fundamental error caused > by the notion that it is better to prevent pollution at its source than > trying to clean up the whole pool of pollution itself. A similar > discussion is going on in the ocean plastic pollution space. Clearly, > as a society, we are aware that our actions add up and we can all as > individuals do something to mitigate pollution of a given type, but that > doesnt mean that we dont have to clear up the mess that we have already > created. > > And as has been posted separately, the Chinese are attempting to clean up > the particulate pollution in the air in their cities caused by coal power > plants using huge filtration towers - the mitigation approach would have > been to switch off the power plants. > > Clearly this year is of special importance for the debate as the IPCC > process is going to put these issues before policymakers in various forms. > There is already some sign that new US policy instruments for carbon > dioxide removal will influence that discussion. > > > > > > This is from Peter in another thread. > > *One of the distinctive properties of CO2 is that it distributes itself > uniformly and so removing a CO2 molecular by flue gas capture and by Direct > Air Capture have identical impacts - and are thus both pure mitigation > approaches . The only distinction is that DAC can remove CO2 that was > previouslly emitted by flue gas so it has the additional capability to deal > with overshoot. In this frame DAC is clearly not geoengineering any more > than any human activity is geoengineering because as all know too well > small emissions by individuals when there are billions of us is > geoengineering our plant by changing its climate . * > > > > Plus an extract from an early piece from Steve Rayner who was involved in > framing the Oxford Geoengineering Princliples- > > > > > http://www3.ntu.edu.sg/rsis/nts/HTML-Newsletter/Insight/NTS-Insight-jun-1102.html > > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www3.ntu.edu.sg_rsis_nts_HTML-2DNewsletter_Insight_NTS-2DInsight-2Djun-2D1102.html&d=DwMFaQ&c=l45AxH-kUV29SRQusp9vYR0n1GycN4_2jInuKy6zbqQ&r=hFjA8A8KwwhQx5qilpfIleTL0XYVr_fckT8DnwIEWlQ&m=jJzLFRbEkM8jAA0sKxSmwfFhX9XqJ3ksFpap4dqdGkk&s=MHhJeOGm5rxvQIIMWFw7sx2wjqdvhqD6ptx6wNQAwoQ&e=> > > > > *NTS Insight June 2011* > > Click here for the PDF version.[image: > https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/proxy/ybDO6dn6xsa0F--WkNtqxuNfJQId7FAMlVQVKZTdTuPZraL9G4ACD6inhdx-xG3YxwSKoCMe7mNFwY14ydkJep5b3jugaTyenzs8YKSNd7w0=w5000-h5000] > > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www3.ntu.edu.sg_rsis_nts_HTML-2DNewsletter_Insight_pdf_NTS-5FInsight-5Fjun-5F1102.pdf&d=DwMFaQ&c=l45AxH-kUV29SRQusp9vYR0n1GycN4_2jInuKy6zbqQ&r=hFjA8A8KwwhQx5qilpfIleTL0XYVr_fckT8DnwIEWlQ&m=jJzLFRbEkM8jAA0sKxSmwfFhX9XqJ3ksFpap4dqdGkk&s=bt0wfWeE_CGUjZwwed0_m-zbSyaY1E0r4VT-MGG5G7U&e=> > > *Climate Change and Geoengineering Governance* > > > > *By Steve Rayner.* > > > How Might We Geoengineer the Climate? > > The first thing to emphasise is that geoengineering technologies do not > yet exist, although some of the components that might go into them are > already available or are under development for other purposes. For example, > carbon sequestration in geological formations, which is already being > explored for conventional carbon capture and storage (CCS) from power > stations,3 > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www3.ntu.edu.sg_rsis_nts_HTML-2DNewsletter_Insight_NTS-2DInsight-2Djun-2D1102.html-23ftn&d=DwMFaQ&c=l45AxH-kUV29SRQusp9vYR0n1GycN4_2jInuKy6zbqQ&r=hFjA8A8KwwhQx5qilpfIleTL0XYVr_fckT8DnwIEWlQ&m=jJzLFRbEkM8jAA0sKxSmwfFhX9XqJ3ksFpap4dqdGkk&s=RXiK5m2RN1GdgqjLwzuvdd-qq6Cnmk0ewXKhiFVTZ2w&e=> > would > be an integral part of a geoengineering programme to capture CO2 from > ambient air by artificial means. However the front end of the system – the > removal of CO2 from ambient air – is currently only available on a very > small scale for use in submarines, where the very high cost of the current > technology is justified. In discussing geoengineering, therefore, it is > important not to fall victim to Whitehead’s (1919) fallacy of misplaced > concreteness, and talk about the comparative merits and drawbacks of > geoengineering technologies as if they were already well developed and > known. > > Second, it is essential to recognise that the term ‘geoengineering’ > currently encompasses a wide variety of concepts exhibiting diverse > technical characteristics with very different implications for their > governance. There is a tendency in some circles to seek to exempt favoured > technological concepts from the category of geoengineering, leaving the > term to apply only to big, scary or impractical options. This paper resists > that impulse precisely because, as has just been argued, the technologies > are really just ideas at this stage, and it is important not to close in > prematurely on which technologies require specific levels of governance. > > However, the very variety of technologies suggests the need for a > preliminary taxonomy of technology concepts that identifies salient > characteristics for both research and governance considerations. > Developing a taxonomy of technology concepts > > *Solar radiation management (SRM) and carbon dioxide removal (CDR)* > > The Royal Society (2009) identifies two principal mechanisms for > moderating the climate by geoengineering. One involves reflecting some of > the sun’s energy back into space to reduce the warming effect of increasing > levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. This is described as solar > radiation management (SRM). The other approach is to find ways to remove > some of the CO2 from the atmosphere and sequester it in the ground or in > the oceans. This is called carbon dioxide removal (CDR). > > *Ecosystems enhancement and black-box engineering* > > The Royal Society (2009) also recognises, but gives less prominence to, > another way of discriminating between geoengineering technologies, one > which cuts across the distinction between the two *goals*, SRM and CDR. > Both goals can be achieved by one of two different *means*, described > below. > > *Table 1: Geoengineering for climate change: taxonomy of technology > concepts.* > > > > *Carbon dioxide removal (CDR)* > > *Solar radiation management (SRM)* > > *Ecosystems Enhancement* > > Ocean iron fertilisation > > Stratospheric tools > > *Black-box Engineering* > > Air capture (artificial trees) > > Space reflectors > > One is to put something into the air or water or on the land’s surface to > stimulate or enhance natural processes. For example, injecting sulphate > aerosols into the upper atmosphere imitates the action of volcanoes, which > is known to be quite effective at reducing the amount of the sun’s energy > reaching the earth’s surface; this is one candidate SRM technique. > Similarly, we know that lack of iron constrains plankton growth in some > parts of the ocean. Thus, adding iron to these waters would enhance > plankton growth, taking up atmospheric CO2 in the process. This would be > a potential CDR technique. > > The other approach to both SRM and CDR is through more traditional > black-box engineering. Mirrors in space (either large ones, or more likely, > myriad small ones), either in orbit or at the so-called Lagrange point > between the earth and the sun, would reflect sunlight (SRM), while a > potential CDR technique would be to build machines to remove CO2 from > ambient air and inject it into old oil and gas wells and saline aquifers in > the same way that is currently proposed for CCS technology. > > Combining these two means (ecosystems enhancement and black-box > engineering) with the two goals described above (SRM and CDR) creates a > serviceable typology for discussing the range of options being considered > under the general rubric of geoengineering (Table 1). > > ^ To the top > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www3.ntu.edu.sg_rsis_nts_HTML-2DNewsletter_Insight_NTS-2DInsight-2Djun-2D1102.html-23TOP&d=DwMFaQ&c=l45AxH-kUV29SRQusp9vYR0n1GycN4_2jInuKy6zbqQ&r=hFjA8A8KwwhQx5qilpfIleTL0XYVr_fckT8DnwIEWlQ&m=jJzLFRbEkM8jAA0sKxSmwfFhX9XqJ3ksFpap4dqdGkk&s=sp6x2buTmKf3fPDxSC9fnQEHJOcB3k_ztX0isCzQIvw&e=> > Opportunities and Limitations of Different Approaches > > At first sight, it might seem that the different goals and means > represented in Table 1 are alternatives. Some commentators have suggested > that geoengineering is itself an alternative to conventional mitigation > (e.g., Barrett, 2008; the Royal Society (2009) report has however > emphatically rejected this idea). However, closer scrutiny suggests that > different techniques may be suited to very different tasks and time > perspectives. > > Currently, there is much interest in SRM using sulphate aerosols. > Observations of volcanic eruptions have shown that the presence of these > tiny particles in the atmosphere can effectively cool the earth. The > technique is also relatively straightforward, the financial costs involved > appear to be relatively modest and such a programme could be implemented > quickly. Hence, many commentators see aerosols as a Band-Aid, to stop the > earth from getting too hot and triggering a runaway greenhouse effect or > other possible climatic emergencies (so-called tipping points). > > At the other extreme, air capture of CO2 using ‘artificial trees’ > followed by sequestration in spent oil and gas wells or saline aquifers > seems a relatively distant and costly prospect compared to aerosols. In any > case, as with conventional emissions mitigation, the climate benefits of > removing CO2 from the air will take longer to realise because changes in > the global average temperature lag behind changes in greenhouse gas > concentrations by many years. However, in principle, all the CO2 that > came out of the ground could be put back there. Thus, in theory at least, > air capture holds the prospect of restoring atmospheric CO2 concentrations > to pre-industrial levels over the very long term. > > Sulphate aerosols have at least two well-recognised drawbacks. One is that > the effects on the earth’s climate may be uneven, possibly causing > disruption of the Asian monsoon upon which billions rely for agriculture. > Another is that stopping a sulphate aerosol programme in the event of > unforeseen negative outcomes would result in a sudden temperature spike, > unless drastic compensating emissions reductions have been simultaneously > achieved. In other words, the full environmental and social costs of > aerosols may be very much higher than the programme implementation costs > and there is likely to be a high level of technological lock-in. These > drawbacks strongly suggest that SRM using aerosols would be controversial. > Public opinion is also likely to be less than favourable towards > ‘tinkering’ with earth systems, especially through what could be described > as deliberate air pollution. Furthermore, the transborder implications of > any deployment of the technology suggest that international agreement would > be required; and international agreement on climate actions has proven to > be highly elusive. > > On the other hand, except where the geological formations used for storage > cut across national boundaries, regulation of air-capture technology would > seem to be almost entirely a matter for the governments of the countries in > which it is implemented.4 > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www3.ntu.edu.sg_rsis_nts_HTML-2DNewsletter_Insight_NTS-2DInsight-2Djun-2D1102.html-23ftn&d=DwMFaQ&c=l45AxH-kUV29SRQusp9vYR0n1GycN4_2jInuKy6zbqQ&r=hFjA8A8KwwhQx5qilpfIleTL0XYVr_fckT8DnwIEWlQ&m=jJzLFRbEkM8jAA0sKxSmwfFhX9XqJ3ksFpap4dqdGkk&s=RXiK5m2RN1GdgqjLwzuvdd-qq6Cnmk0ewXKhiFVTZ2w&e=> > Furthermore, > in the event that the technology did have unforeseen negative consequences, > there would be no technical barrier to switching the black-box machines > off, although it could be argued that vested commercial interests might > push to keep them running due to the sunk costs involved. > > [image: > https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/proxy/ae7SU9DrOvcxC4TD7hvPhZss7AB_jqL11QyURe4Ohnmdv5TURBSBA-hUag6DCSpQjk3zHsSCx-DwfArr18HZsQpBGzfu5GtyeRr1_qkKCCSvGlkRTWJSLy75XImAtcRGnGEERpCg4wc=w5000-h5000] > > Geoengineering techniques such as the injection of sulphate aerosols into > the stratosphere may mimic the cooling effect caused by large volcanic > eruptions. > > *Credit*: Game McGimsey / U.S. Geological Survey. > > This is the geoengineering paradox (Rayner, 2010). The technology that > seems to be nearest to maturity technically and could be used to shave a > few degrees off a future peak in anthropogenic temperature – that is, > sulphate aerosols – is likely to be the most difficult to implement from a > social and political standpoint, while the technology that might be easiest > to implement from a social perspective and has the potential to deliver a > durable solution to the problem of atmospheric CO2 concentrations – that > is, air-capture technology – is the most distant from being technically > realised. The two technologies appear to be the bounding cases and other > geoengineering technologies fall somewhere in between. > > The above brief example of the specificity of geoengineering applications > helps to emphasise the Royal Society (2009:47) findings that geoengineering > cannot be considered as an alternative to conventional mitigation nor can > its merits be evaluated sui generis because the technologies involved ‘vary > greatly in their technical aspects, scope in space and time, potential > environmental impacts timescales of operation, and the governance and legal > issues that they pose’. > > Furthermore, the Royal Society (2009:ix) concluded that the ‘acceptability > of geoengineering will be determined as much by social, legal, and > political issues as by scientific and technical factors. There are serious > and complex governance issues that need to be resolved.’ > > ^ To the top > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www3.ntu.edu.sg_rsis_nts_HTML-2DNewsletter_Insight_NTS-2DInsight-2Djun-2D1102.html-23TOP&d=DwMFaQ&c=l45AxH-kUV29SRQusp9vYR0n1GycN4_2jInuKy6zbqQ&r=hFjA8A8KwwhQx5qilpfIleTL0XYVr_fckT8DnwIEWlQ&m=jJzLFRbEkM8jAA0sKxSmwfFhX9XqJ3ksFpap4dqdGkk&s=sp6x2buTmKf3fPDxSC9fnQEHJOcB3k_ztX0isCzQIvw&e=> > The Challenges of Geoengineering Governance > > The key challenge of geoengineering governance is that articulated in 1980 > by the British sociologist, David Collingridge, as the ‘technology control > dilemma’. Briefly, the dilemma consists of the fact that it would be ideal > to be able to put appropriate governance arrangements in place upstream of > the development of a technology, to ensure that all the stages from > research and development through to demonstration and full deployment are > appropriately organised and adequately regulated to safeguard against > unwanted health, environmental and social consequences. However, experience > repeatedly teaches us that it is all but impossible in the early stages of > the development of a technology to know how it will turn out in its final > form. Mature technologies rarely, if ever, bear close resemblance to the > initial ideas of their originators. By the time certain technologies are > widely deployed, it is often too late to build in desirable characteristics > without major disruptions. The control dilemma has led to calls for a > moratorium on certain emerging technologies and, in some cases, on field > experiments with geoengineering.5 > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www3.ntu.edu.sg_rsis_nts_HTML-2DNewsletter_Insight_NTS-2DInsight-2Djun-2D1102.html-23ftn&d=DwMFaQ&c=l45AxH-kUV29SRQusp9vYR0n1GycN4_2jInuKy6zbqQ&r=hFjA8A8KwwhQx5qilpfIleTL0XYVr_fckT8DnwIEWlQ&m=jJzLFRbEkM8jAA0sKxSmwfFhX9XqJ3ksFpap4dqdGkk&s=RXiK5m2RN1GdgqjLwzuvdd-qq6Cnmk0ewXKhiFVTZ2w&e=> > A > moratorium would make it almost impossible to accumulate the information > necessary to make informed judgements about the feasibility or desirability > of the proposed technology. > > However, Collingridge did not intend identification of the control dilemma > to be a counsel of despair. He and his successors in the field identify > various characteristics of technologies that contribute to inflexibility > and irreversibility and which are therefore to be avoided where more > flexible alternatives are available. These undesirable characteristics > include high levels of capital intensity, hubristic claims about > performance, and long lead times from conception to realisation, to which > the UK Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution (RCEP, 2008) recently > added, in the context of nanoparticles, ‘uncontrolled release into the > environment’. Consideration of the control dilemma suggests that it would > be sensible to favour technologies that are encapsulated over those > involving dispersal of materials into the environment; and those that are > easily reversible over those that imply a high level of economic or > technological lock-in. > > The other key challenge for geoengineering governance lies in the varying > degrees of international agreement and coordination that would seem to be > required for the different technologies involved. At least upon first > examination, carbon air capture with geological sequestration would not > seem to require much in the way of international agreement, except where > the geological formations chosen for storage cross national boundaries and > possibly where facilities are located close to national borders, or where > sequestration is to occur offshore.6 > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www3.ntu.edu.sg_rsis_nts_HTML-2DNewsletter_Insight_NTS-2DInsight-2Djun-2D1102.html-23ftn&d=DwMFaQ&c=l45AxH-kUV29SRQusp9vYR0n1GycN4_2jInuKy6zbqQ&r=hFjA8A8KwwhQx5qilpfIleTL0XYVr_fckT8DnwIEWlQ&m=jJzLFRbEkM8jAA0sKxSmwfFhX9XqJ3ksFpap4dqdGkk&s=RXiK5m2RN1GdgqjLwzuvdd-qq6Cnmk0ewXKhiFVTZ2w&e=> > National > planning regulations, rules governing environmental impact assessment, and > health and safety laws, would seem to provide, at least in principle, an > adequate framework for ensuring the responsible management of the > technology where there is little prospect of transborder damage occurring > to people or the environment. Existing national legislation for the > governance of CCS from fixed-point sources (e.g., coal-fired power plants) > without an overarching global governance framework underscores this point. > > However, the situation seems to be very different with CDR involving iron > fertilisation because it involves modification of natural processes that > cannot be territorially contained. Similarly, any kind of SRM, whether > involving space mirrors (black-box engineering), or cloud whitening or > sulphate aerosols (modification of natural processes), would seem to > require international agreement even for field trials, let alone deployment. > > The Royal Society (2009) suggests that many issues of international > coordination and control could be resolved through the application, > modification and extension of existing treaties and institutions governing > the atmosphere, the ocean, space and national territories, rather than by > the creation of specific new international institutions. All geoengineering > methods fall under provisions of the 1992 UN Framework Convention on > Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the 1997 Kyoto Protocol which impose a general > obligation to ‘employ appropriate methods, for example impact assessments, > … with a view to minimizing adverse effects … on the quality of the > environment, of projects or measures undertaken to mitigate or adapt to > climate change’ (UN, 1992). Additionally, there are several customary laws > and general principles that would apply to such activities. For instance, > the duty not to cause significant transboundary harm is recognised in many > treaty instruments7 > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www3.ntu.edu.sg_rsis_nts_HTML-2DNewsletter_Insight_NTS-2DInsight-2Djun-2D1102.html-23ftn&d=DwMFaQ&c=l45AxH-kUV29SRQusp9vYR0n1GycN4_2jInuKy6zbqQ&r=hFjA8A8KwwhQx5qilpfIleTL0XYVr_fckT8DnwIEWlQ&m=jJzLFRbEkM8jAA0sKxSmwfFhX9XqJ3ksFpap4dqdGkk&s=RXiK5m2RN1GdgqjLwzuvdd-qq6Cnmk0ewXKhiFVTZ2w&e=> > and > by customary international law. As the Royal Society (2009:40) observes, > ‘[s]tates are not permitted to conduct or permit activities within their > territory, or in common spaces such as the high seas or outer space, > without regard to the interests of other states or for the protection of > the global environment’. > > The use of sulphate aerosols for SRM may fall under the jurisdiction of > the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer as they > may have ozone-depleting properties. Ocean fertilisation has already caught > the attention of the 1972 Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution > by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter and its 1996 Protocol (known as the > London Convention and Protocol), which has adopted a cautious approach to > permitting carefully controlled scientific research through a 2008 > resolution agreeing that the technology is governed by the treaty but > exempting legitimate scientific research from its definition of dumping. > The Convention on Biological Diversity has also sought to intervene to > prevent ocean fertilisation experiments except for small-scale experiments > in coastal waters.8 > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www3.ntu.edu.sg_rsis_nts_HTML-2DNewsletter_Insight_NTS-2DInsight-2Djun-2D1102.html-23ftn&d=DwMFaQ&c=l45AxH-kUV29SRQusp9vYR0n1GycN4_2jInuKy6zbqQ&r=hFjA8A8KwwhQx5qilpfIleTL0XYVr_fckT8DnwIEWlQ&m=jJzLFRbEkM8jAA0sKxSmwfFhX9XqJ3ksFpap4dqdGkk&s=RXiK5m2RN1GdgqjLwzuvdd-qq6Cnmk0ewXKhiFVTZ2w&e=> > > Potentially lengthy negotiations would be necessary before sulphate > aerosols could be deployed by any country or other agent within an agreed > international governance framework.9 > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www3.ntu.edu.sg_rsis_nts_HTML-2DNewsletter_Insight_NTS-2DInsight-2Djun-2D1102.html-23ftn&d=DwMFaQ&c=l45AxH-kUV29SRQusp9vYR0n1GycN4_2jInuKy6zbqQ&r=hFjA8A8KwwhQx5qilpfIleTL0XYVr_fckT8DnwIEWlQ&m=jJzLFRbEkM8jAA0sKxSmwfFhX9XqJ3ksFpap4dqdGkk&s=RXiK5m2RN1GdgqjLwzuvdd-qq6Cnmk0ewXKhiFVTZ2w&e=> > Without > such a framework, such activities would likely attract the condemnation of > the international community. > > Overall, the international legal framework within which geoengineering > will be conducted remains as under-specified as the technologies > themselves. Furthermore, the control dilemma means that it is almost > impossible to determine governance requirements until the shape of any of > the technologies under consideration is better known. This dilemma led the > Royal Society (2009:61) to recommend establishing an international > scientific collaboration to ‘develop a code of practice for geoengineering > research and provide recommendations to the international scientific > community for a voluntary research governance framework’. > > > > > > On Wednesday, February 21, 2018 at 3:52:53 AM UTC, Christopher Preston > wrote: > > An introductory blog piece about why intention makes a difference in > climate forcing. > > > > > https://plastocene.com/2018/02/20/philosopher-meets-meteorologist-to-talk-about-climate-engineering/ > > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__plastocene.com_2018_02_20_philosopher-2Dmeets-2Dmeteorologist-2Dto-2Dtalk-2Dabout-2Dclimate-2Dengineering_&d=DwMFaQ&c=l45AxH-kUV29SRQusp9vYR0n1GycN4_2jInuKy6zbqQ&r=hFjA8A8KwwhQx5qilpfIleTL0XYVr_fckT8DnwIEWlQ&m=jJzLFRbEkM8jAA0sKxSmwfFhX9XqJ3ksFpap4dqdGkk&s=yN-dYxqFd53_0Rtkokf4TYI-k3nAQuU91JlpxepZ0ZA&e=> > > > > *This e-mail may contain confidential material. If you are not an intended > recipient, please notify the sender and delete all copies. It may also > contain personal views which are not the views of The Economist Group. We > may monitor e-mail to and from our network.* > > > > *Sent by a member of The Economist Group. The Group's parent company is > The Economist Newspaper Limited, registered in England with company number > 236383 and registered office at The Adelphi, 1-11 John Adam Street, London, > WC2N 6HT. For Group company registration details go to * > *http://legal.economistgroup.com* > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__legal.economistgroup.com&d=DwMFaQ&c=l45AxH-kUV29SRQusp9vYR0n1GycN4_2jInuKy6zbqQ&r=hFjA8A8KwwhQx5qilpfIleTL0XYVr_fckT8DnwIEWlQ&m=jJzLFRbEkM8jAA0sKxSmwfFhX9XqJ3ksFpap4dqdGkk&s=82XxI7_mRydNWuSMOVx_LvP_RB901y4ecDJJasZCxvY&e=> > > > -- > 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 https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__groups.google.com_group_geoengineering&d=DwMFaQ&c=l45AxH-kUV29SRQusp9vYR0n1GycN4_2jInuKy6zbqQ&r=hFjA8A8KwwhQx5qilpfIleTL0XYVr_fckT8DnwIEWlQ&m=jJzLFRbEkM8jAA0sKxSmwfFhX9XqJ3ksFpap4dqdGkk&s=jW8zo3Js0vMpnfFGclSRiT46d7IVil5yWF1495s1mgs&e=> > . > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__groups.google.com_d_optout&d=DwMFaQ&c=l45AxH-kUV29SRQusp9vYR0n1GycN4_2jInuKy6zbqQ&r=hFjA8A8KwwhQx5qilpfIleTL0XYVr_fckT8DnwIEWlQ&m=jJzLFRbEkM8jAA0sKxSmwfFhX9XqJ3ksFpap4dqdGkk&s=4GF66BZkHw4VbyEyVN0SWE_FPc7pYKNlIdxcMO5TZ5A&e=> > . > > -- 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.
