On 4/26/07, James Annan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> > I'm putting this here because I'd like to hear a reasoned discussion
> > of the merits or otherwise of the proposal. Anyone got a response?
>
> In my (probably minority) view, the general lack of interest in (or even
> mild revulsion at) the various geoengineering ideas is indicative of the
> extent to which various factions are actually hooking a general
> sustainability/conservation meme on the back of climate change. To these
> people, solving the "problem" of climate change by controlling the
> climate isn't actually their aim, it is merely the means to promote
> sustainable living. The latter is no bad thing in itself, and there is a
> rather obvious potential for overlap, but it is (IMO) a big mistake to
> be too wedded to the strategy one can be sneaked in under the pretense
> of addressing the other.
I think that is certainly a component of the skepticism; another major part
is that the law of unintended consequences would imply that trying to solve
one global unintended consequence of industrialization, the burning of
fossil fuels, with another global scale industrial project could have bad
unintended consequences of a similar scale.
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Global Change ("globalchange") newsgroup. Global Change is a public, moderated
venue for discussion of science, technology, economics and policy dimensions of
global environmental change.
Posts will be admitted to the list if and only if any moderator finds the
submission to be constructive and/or interesting, on topic, and not
gratuitously rude.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/globalchange
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
