Just to be clear about where I stand on this, because there's been some
misinterpretation in private e-mail: In my prior comment I was predicting
what we will do, not what I would prefer to see happen. I think it would
be an immense and hideously costly mistake, in the long run, to avoid
* Re: Fred's point: 1 $M is a lot when the debate is confined to a
relatively small world of researchers and advocates, but tiny once the idea
goes 'viral' in society at large. Think what a single insurance
conglomerate might spend to head off claims from sea-level rise!
Environmental
On Clive Hamilton's concern about a slippery slope: He seems fearful of so
much, especially regional tests of GE methods.
Indeed as Bill says, the Arctic is the prime place to try it, nearly ideal:
few people, short 4 month trial in summer of SRM, low cost (~$200 million
or less), easily
In Andrew's opening post, the “The International Governance of Climate
Engineering”, held by The Institute for European Studies in Brussels on
June 28, shows that it made material reference to an *ETC
If a single advocacy group with $1M can derail an idea, it's probably not
worth doing. If large-scale GE occurs, it will be because of a consensus
backed by multiple governments, international organizations, and, yes,
environmental advocacy groups. At this point it's better to just do the
research
With all due and considerable respect to the people in this discussion, I
think the motivating power of desperation is being grossly underestimated.
Assume that we follow (what I think is overwhelmingly the most likely path)
the business as usual, as long as possible scenario, essentially what
Hi Folks,
If the need for a formalized and science backed GE advocacy is left
un-answered much longer, it may simply take GE off the table completely.
ETC pulls in over $1M of donations per year on this one issue and its staff
of journalist are well aware of the value in selling hype to those
