Which scientists have lied? Such criticism requires robust evidence. On Thu, 4 Jul 2019, 15:49 Jessica Gurevitch, < [email protected]> wrote:
> Interesting. I've been thinking about the "messing with nature" > argument--we are willing to use artificial fertilizers, electricity, etc. > (all of which mess with nature in really large ways, including our own > circadian rhythms and the global nitrogen cycle), and as we age, heart > stents and artificial knees. Only wackos complain about this kind of > medical technology messing with nature and just prefer to die or be > disabled. Not to mention cell phones (which did meet with resistance among > a minority but of course were gobbled up by the vast majority globally). So > what's up with this "messing with nature" argument? I think the "unintended > and unanticipated consequences" argument of doing things on a global scale > is more compelling, myself. The public has been misled and lied to by > scientists and technologists in the past and that has spooked people. We > have to recognize that. It has eroded trust and led to stupidity like the > anti-vaxxers. > > As for risk and unintended consequences (and cost), everything has to be > compared to what climate change is already and will be doing....I don't > think I see this in the arguments of the general public (although climate > scientists of course assume that we have to do this). > > > > On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 2:57 PM Andrew Lockley <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> >> https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/risks-of-controversial-geoengineering-approach-may-be-overstated/ >> >> Risks of Controversial Geoengineering Approach “May Be Overstated” >> >> Halving the amount of aerosols injected into the atmosphere could reduce >> global temperatures and temper side effects >> >> - By John Fialka >> <https://www.scientificamerican.com/author/john-fialka/>, E&E News >> <https://www.scientificamerican.com/author/e-e-news/> on July 3, 2019 >> >> [image: Risks of Controversial Geoengineering Approach "May Be >> Overstated"] >> Credit: NASA <https://visibleearth.nasa.gov/view.php?id=7373> >> >> Some scientists are finding fewer risks related to solar geoengineering >> than determined in earlier studies, adding emphasis to calls for a global >> body to monitor proposals that would inject substances into the upper >> atmosphere to reflect sunlight away from Earth. >> >> A few researchers have also outlined an insurance program that they say >> might help smaller nations protect themselves from potential but unintended >> consequences of artificially shading the Earth. >> >> Climate scientists David Keith of Harvard University and Kerry Emanuel of >> the Massachusetts Institute of Technology are among the authors of a paper >> that attempts to answer a growing political question: Would some nations be >> worse off if attempts to block solar radiation were combined with emissions >> cuts to limit the risks of climate change? >> ADVERTISEMENT >> >> There is concern in the scientific community that putting reflective >> aerosols in the atmosphere could worsen droughts and hurricanes in some >> regions if geoengineering isn't regulated (*Climatewire* >> <https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/stories/1060127015/>, March 12). >> Keith and Emanuel found that halving the amount of man-made aerosols that >> might be injected into the stratosphere could reduce the risk of these side >> effects, if the process is performed uniformly around the world. The >> likelihood of adverse consequences projected by earlier studies "may be >> overstated," their paper concluded. >> >> A second study by Keith and a research assistant at Harvard, Joshua >> Horton, suggests that a form of insurance originally designed to protect >> farmers against crop losses could be modified to create financial "risk >> pools" that give smaller nations some compensation for damage from uneven >> results of such tests, if they do occur. >> >> "It takes concerns of developing countries seriously," explained Horton. >> "It's reasonable for them to be concerned. They want some measure of >> assurance that if things go wrong, they wouldn't be screwed." >> >> The two studies are part of a growing effort to broaden an international >> dialogue on solar geoengineering, or solar radiation management, and to >> develop some form of global governance over research. The oversight is >> regarded as a necessary but missing piece of this emerging scientific and >> political puzzle. >> >> The idea of injecting aerosols into the stratosphere to help cool the >> Earth has been known in the United States since 1965, and it's the subject >> of at least 100 academic papers since 2000. >> ADVERTISEMENT >> >> But there has been relatively little formal research — and even less >> financial support — on the subject because it's "taboo," Keith said. He >> added that he believes the international focus should be on cleaning up the >> climate "mess" created by CO2 emissions since the industrial age. He said >> that solar engineering might be a helpful and perhaps vital supplement if >> efforts fall short of global targets on emissions. Others have argued that >> it is "messing with nature." >> >> Keith, a physicist who has worried about the problem since the 1990s, >> recently acknowledged that the insular character of geoengineering might >> pose its own problem. "At this point, research is still dominated by a >> small group of scientists. This means real danger of groupthink. We may >> simply be wrong." >> >> This has recently become more than just an academic question. Last >> winter, four small nations participating in a working group of the Montreal >> Protocol — Micronesia, Mali, Morocco and Nigeria — formally raised a >> question that remains unanswered. Could experiments using aerosols to >> shield the Earth from the heat of solar radiation harm the ozone layer ( >> *Climatewire* <https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/stories/1060614353/>, >> June 18)? >> [image: newsletter promo] >> >> Sign up for *Scientific American*’s free newsletters. >> Sign Up >> <https://www.scientificamerican.com/page/newsletter-sign-up/?origincode=2018_sciam_ArticlePromo_NewsletterSignUp> >> >> Most studies have focused on aerosols made from sulfates, which are >> spread in the atmosphere by volcanic eruptions. But early research >> indicates that calcium carbonate, a common mineral dust, might actually >> help restore the ozone layer while reflecting some sunlight back into space. >> >> In March, a multinational effort seeking a formal assessment on plans for >> global geoengineering, led by Switzerland, was withdrawn after 10 days of >> opposition from the United States, Saudi Arabia and Brazil during a U.N. >> Environment Assembly conference in Nairobi, Kenya (*Climatewire* >> <https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/stories/1060127413/>, March 15). >> ADVERTISEMENT >> >> Keith is not happy with the outcome. "The big issue is whether there is a >> serious, international, open-access and well-funded research project to >> understand the risks and efficacy of solar engineering," he said. >> >> So far there isn't. >> >> The closest thing to it is a Harvard project called the "Stratospheric >> Controlled Perturbation Experiment" (SCoPEx). It proposes a small-scale >> experiment using a propeller-driven balloon. It would ascend to a height of >> 12 miles over New Mexico and then release less than 2.2 pounds of calcium >> carbonate (*Climatewire* >> <https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/stories/1060056007/>, June 14, 2017). >> >> The idea is to create a tubular area in the sky, about six-tenths of a >> mile long and 109 yards in diameter, through which the sensor-packed >> balloon could slowly move back and forth, mixing the air and monitoring the >> solar-reflecting abilities of the scattered materials. It would also track >> the impact of the treated area on the surrounding atmosphere. >> >> Whether SCoPEx will happen remains unknown. Harvard, sensitive to the >> question of how to govern such experiments, is in the process of appointing >> an outside advisory committee to help it oversee and evaluate the >> experiment. According to Keith, who is involved in the project, the outside >> committee will help determine if and when the experiment should move >> forward. >> ADVERTISEMENT >> >> Funding for the experiment will come from Harvard research funds and a >> list of outside contributors to a fund controlled by Harvard's Solar >> Geoengineering Research Program. Compared with U.S. space, defense and >> climate-related experiments, the cost of the effort will be minuscule. >> >> But in the sparsely populated geoengineering community, SCoPEx is a big >> deal. According to Harvard analysts, the United States, the United Kingdom >> and Germany have all supported research since 2012. Last year, the programs >> consumed a total of $8 million. There are similar efforts in China and >> Japan. >> >> Janos Pasztor, once the senior climate adviser to the former >> secretary-general of the United Nations, Ban Ki-moon, is now executive >> director of the Switzerland-based Carnegie Climate Governance Initiative. >> He had hoped that the March meeting in Nairobi would lead to an organized >> approach toward the international governance problem, but that didn't >> happen. >> >> "But the fact that it was such a big debate on this subject was a good >> thing," Pasztor said in an interview. More awareness is needed, and he >> expects a report being written by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate >> Change — another U.N. body — to outline the importance of the issue. >> >> "We will continue to work on this over the next two or three years," he >> explained, noting that the issue is likely to come up at regional meetings >> in the Arctic, the Himalayas and Pacific Ocean nations. "There are a lot of >> things cooking in the pot. >> ADVERTISEMENT >> >> "This will take some time," he added, "but it will have to come before >> some global body, such as the U.N. General Assembly," where Pasztor thinks >> that a large number of nations will support more research. "We're not an >> advocacy organization. We're just proposing it to governments. They need to >> do this seriously." >> >> Last September, at a workshop on geoengineering at Harvard's Kennedy >> School of Government, the luncheon speaker was John Holdren, a professor >> there and the former science adviser to President Obama. The theme of his >> talk was that the remaining time for academics and politicians to sort out >> the issues related to solar geoengineering "is shorter than you think." >> >> The public's sense of urgency about climate change, Holdren said, is >> growing rapidly as climate-related weather events multiply. Demographics >> show that young voters "are particularly alarmed and are shifting political >> reality in a way elected officials can't long ignore." >> >> What he called the "gross inadequacy" of CO2 reduction efforts will >> trigger what he predicted is a "frantic reach for additional measures." >> >> "When some reach for geoengineering, as they almost certainly will," he >> predicted, "we'd better be ready with insights." >> >> *Reprinted from Climatewire with permission from E&E News. E&E provides >> daily coverage of essential energy and environmental news at www.eenews.net >> <http://www.eenews.net/>.* >> ABOUT THE AUTHOR(S) >> John Fialka >> >> >> Recent Articles >> >> - Mystery Solved: Warming Superpollutant Tracked to China >> >> <https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/mystery-solved-warming-superpollutant-tracked-to-china/> >> - Exxon and Energy Department Team Up on Biofuels, Plastics Research >> >> <https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-and-energy-department-team-up-on-biofuels-plastics-research/> >> - Heat Pumps Gain Traction as Renewable Energy Grows >> >> <https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/heat-pumps-gain-traction-as-renewable-energy-grows/> >> >> -- >> 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. >> To view this discussion on the web visit >> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAJ3C-05VM8RU6LNeuquw5tCTSedELM0KywguL4Mw0YO7%2BLot9A%40mail.gmail.com >> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAJ3C-05VM8RU6LNeuquw5tCTSedELM0KywguL4Mw0YO7%2BLot9A%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >> . >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >> > > > -- > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > Jessica Gurevitch > Distinguished Professor > Department of Ecology and Evolution > Stony Brook University > Stony Brook, NY 11794-5245 USA > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > -- 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. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAJ3C-06KBxWvSX_7bjXs0k-gf3n6rYAO4EjaqSaVwvw5QppKYQ%40mail.gmail.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
