I'm astonished about the legend under the 3rd figure: " S*olar radiation management techniques have greater potential for creating environmental security risks and transboundary effects than carbon dioxide removal.* " I fully agree, but just by curiosity, as the title of the article is "* ... the environment as a weapon of war*", has somebody already found that for carbon dioxide removal (CDR) there are " *environmental security risks and transboundary effects*" ???
I agree with the author statement: " *One thing is certain: the regulation of carbon dioxide removal techniques versus solar radiation management are approached very differently, the latter being perceived as a riskier, more contested form of geoengineering, and with wider implications.It therefore seems counterproductive to consider these two very different categories of GTs in proposals that merge them together –* *as the resolution did*." Le jeu. 9 avr. 2020 à 12:30, Stephen Salter <s.sal...@ed.ac.uk> a écrit : > Hi All > > If a technique which was very likely to be harmless or even beneficial was > being withheld, would that be a weapon of war? > > Stephen > Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design. School of Engineering, > University of Edinburgh, Mayfield Road, Edinburgh EH9 3DW, Scotland > s.sal...@ed.ac.uk, Tel +44 (0)131 662 1180 WWW.homepages.ed.ac.uk/shs, > YouTube Jamie Taylor Power for Change > > On 09/04/2020 08:30, Andrew Lockley wrote: > > Poster's note: a potentially relevant paper, not cited by the author, is > https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s42524-019-0008-5 > > > > https://ceobs.org/from-enmod-to-geoengineering-the-environment-as-a-weapon-of-war/ > > From ENMOD to geoengineering: the environment as a weapon of war > Category: Blog <https://ceobs.org/category/blog/>, Law and policy > <https://ceobs.org/category/blog/topic-blog/law-and-policy-topic-blog/>, > Slider <https://ceobs.org/category/slider/>, Topic > <https://ceobs.org/category/blog/topic-blog/>April 7, 2020 > <https://ceobs.org/2020/04/07/> > Without governance mechanisms, some geoengineering technologies could pose > a threat to international peace and security. > The more our climate changes, the greater the pressure will be for the > development and deployment of geoengineering technologies - we need to talk > about the implications of this for peace and security. Credit: NASA. > > With climate change accelerating, there is increasing pressure to develop > new technologies that could suck CO2 from the atmosphere or block the sun’s > heat. Some of the technologies under discussion could have unpredictable > effects that do not respect national boundaries. We also know that critical > civilian infrastructure is commonly targeted in conflicts and that state > and non-state actors have a long history of manipulating the environment > for tactical advantage. With this in mind, Gabriela Kolpak examines whether > the deployment of geoengineering technologies could create new threats to > peace and to environmental security. > > Introduction > > Collateral environmental damage has long been regarded as an inevitable > consequence of armed conflicts. But there have also been many examples of > the intentional manipulation of the environment by warring parties, in > which the environment becomes a weapon of war. This blog considers examples > of environmental warfare such as scorched earth policies and the > weaponisation of infrastructure, before examining how new technologies > capable of modifying the environment could contribute to future security > risks, or be instrumentalised in conflicts. > -- > 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 view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAJ3C-05xeRE41Z47p6G4GvkmuJ%2Be0T9U_WRN0POShk0UB7dpqA%40mail.gmail.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAJ3C-05xeRE41Z47p6G4GvkmuJ%2Be0T9U_WRN0POShk0UB7dpqA%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > > -- > 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 view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/b1bff068-7c80-80b2-13b5-5d72d901c23d%40ed.ac.uk > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/b1bff068-7c80-80b2-13b5-5d72d901c23d%40ed.ac.uk?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > 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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/b1bff068-7c80-80b2-13b5-5d72d901c23d%40ed.ac.uk > . > -- 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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAHodn9_rDHKZ9AjAmGXCs36qzE7SzLR7wT86SdYt6WKRg-7gPQ%40mail.gmail.com.
