The essay Solar geoengineering: The case for an international non-use agreement by Biermann et al (link below) displays a breathtaking level of political foolishness and indifference to scientific solutions to the climate emergency. It reflects a dominant false thinking within the climate action movement, whereby political conflict with the fossil fuel industry is totally prioritised over any practical response to improve the future of the world. If our goal is a stable liveable climate, then banning geoengineering is the most stupid action imaginable.
The world reality is that the climate action movement lacks the political power to achieve anything close to the commitments under the Paris Accord. Emissions in 2030 are projected to be higher than in 2015. So instead they resort to bullying ideological argument typified by this call for a world fatwa against solar radiation management, seeking victory by intimidation rather than by reason. All the bluster of arguments like this article will do nothing to slow emission growth, let alone slow warming. Meanwhile, extreme weather events continue a rapid escalation, and warming continues to inflict irreversible damage to biodiversity. But the authors are so caught up in their class-war type of thinking that they do not care about immediate measures to mitigate weather or extinction impacts. The solution according to this article is to do precisely nothing in this decade that would have immediate material impact to mitigate extreme weather or climate-induced biodiversity loss. They flatly reject the observation that field research for a range of SRM methods could demonstrate easy, cheap, fast and safe activities. We should use scientific evidence rather than hypothetical speculation to answer serious questions about unintended consequences and optimal deployment strategies. And contrary to the argument about geoengineering promoting conflict, the real likelihood is that activities such as refreezing the North Pole would serve to strengthen international cooperation, confidence, peace, dialogue and security. The G20 is likely to be the best forum for this debate. The UN is hopelessly corrupted by the type of ideological thinking seen in this article. Climate change is the primary material threat to global stability and security. Engaging the G20 to refreeze the North Pole could directly reduce the destabilising effects of extreme weather while also providing a major program to strengthen mutual respect and political stability. These “governance scholars” express a number of opinions that are grossly ignorant of climate science. When the North Pole is melting, action to refreeze sea ice by increasing albedo could safely mitigate climate risks, returning toward previous stability. But no, that must be banned, because... Their comment about marine cloud brightening recognises its potential to stop bleaching of the Great Barrier Reef. Field trials of MCB could also show ability to mitigate the strength of hurricanes and tornadoes, significantly reducing climate damage, especially for the poor, supporting climate justice. MCB could also cool water flowing into the Arctic, slowing down Greenland ice melt, permafrost melt, methane release and sea level rise. It seems none of this has occurred to these authors in their mindless advocacy of political polarisation. Decarbonising the economy will do precisely nothing to stop the pole from melting. Instead, the argument of this paper is to delay any real mitigation of climate change until long after expected tipping points could have shifted our planet into a hothouse phase. Opposition to SRM is no solution at all. Robert Tulip From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com <geoengineering@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of Geoeng Info Sent: Wednesday, 19 January 2022 2:00 AM To: Geoengineering@googlegroups.com Subject: [geo] Solar geoengineering: The case for an international non-use agreement https://wires.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wcc.754 Solar geoengineering: The case for an international non-use agreement Frank Biermann, Jeroen Oomen, Aarti Gupta, Saleem H. Ali, Ken Conca, Maarten A. Hajer, Prakash Kashwan, Louis J. Kotzé, Melissa Leach, Dirk Messner, Chukwumerije Okereke, Åsa Persson, Janez Potočnik, David Schlosberg, Michelle Scobie, Stacy D. VanDeveer Abstract Solar geoengineering is gaining prominence in climate change debates as an issue worth studying; for some it is even a potential future policy option. We argue here against this increasing normalization of solar geoengineering as a speculative part of the climate policy portfolio. We contend, in particular, that solar geoengineering at planetary scale is not governable in a globally inclusive and just manner within the current international political system. We therefore call upon governments and the United Nations to take immediate and effective political control over the development of solar geoengineering technologies. Specifically, we advocate for an International Non-Use Agreement on Solar Geoengineering and outline the core elements of this proposal. -- 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 <mailto:geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com> . To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAKSzgpYFzMLKEUR-Eqg%2BLDdXT1jQ8fX2iBquGM08JFUB2WFy7A%40mail.gmail.com <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAKSzgpYFzMLKEUR-Eqg%2BLDdXT1jQ8fX2iBquGM08JFUB2WFy7A%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/00f001d80dc6%2495efdc40%24c1cf94c0%24%40yahoo.com.au.
