Which formation of SRM is: >From a security perspective SRM is costly, ungovernable, and raises security concerns of a sufficient magnitude to make it a non-viable policy option??? Even white cool roofs ???
Le ven. 3 mai 2024, 14:37, Geoengineering News < geoengineeringne...@gmail.com> a écrit : > > https://sussex.figshare.com/articles/report/The_security_implications_of_geoengineering_blame_imposed_agreement_and_the_security_of_critical_infrastructure/23414003/1 > > *Authors* > Paul Nightingale, Rose Cairns > > *2023-06-09* > > *Abstract* > The prospect of solar geoengineering in response to climate change (on the > basis of its supposedly significantly lower cost and/or more rapid impact > on global temperature than carbon reduction strategies) raises a number of > security concerns that have traditionally been understood within a standard > Geo-political framing of security. This relates to unrealistic direct > application in inter-State warfare or to a securitization of climate > change. However, indirect security implications are potentially > significant. Current capability, security threats and international law > loopholes suggest the military, rather than scientists would undertake > geoengineering, and solar radiation management (SRM) in particular. SRM > activity would be covered by Critical National Infrastructure policies, and > as such would require a significant level of secondary security > infrastructure. Concerns about termination effects, the need to impose > international policy agreement 4 (given the ability of 'rogue States' to > disrupt SRM and existing difficulties in producing global agreement on > climate policy), and a world of extreme weather events, where weather is > engineered and hence blameworthy rather than natural, suggest these costs > would be large. Evidence on how blame is attributed suggest blame for > extreme weather events may be directed towards more technologically > advanced nations, (such as the USA) even if they are not engaged in > geoengineering. From a security perspective SRM is costly, ungovernable, > and raises security concerns of a sufficient magnitude to make it a > non-viable policy option. > > > *Source: University of Sussex* > > -- > 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/CAHJsh99nFZWKPbY9bgmXi9d4ynwYkSH_PUdJ1kb%2B8MdWdthdfA%40mail.gmail.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAHJsh99nFZWKPbY9bgmXi9d4ynwYkSH_PUdJ1kb%2B8MdWdthdfA%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/CAHodn99Uu1DT0iY8owUHTdnxEomy9HwLMcc3P79BYFjkvEBVbw%40mail.gmail.com.
