avoiding mitigation is almost certain to increase the severity of known and
much more probable causes of conflict
No question. There’s already been discussion of the Syrian civil war as being a
climate-triggered conflict (Andrew linked an article to this list early in
March), and there’s
What makes you think that geoengineering would be the trigger for nuclear
war anymore than everything else people have been squabbling over for the
last seventy years?
A
On 17 Apr 2015 21:00, Alan Robock rob...@envsci.rutgers.edu wrote:
Cloud control: Climatologist Alan Robock on the effects of
I think people are concerned about conflict from geoengineering but I don't
think they are any more concerned about nuclear war risks from
geoengineering than from any other cause of conflict and probably much less
so. I would agree that preventing new causes of conflict is a credible
reason for
This isn’t that difficult to see. A country takes desperate action taken in
order to support/protect itself, but that action has global effects, including
the potential for major system-disrupting changes to critical ocean-atmospheric
systems already under enormous stress. One nation’s
I fully agree that it should in no way deter research. I’m hopeful that said
research will help to ameliorate some of the fears of unwanted side-effects
that would be a driver of international friction. And I really really hope that
your third bullet point below holds true.
-Jamais
On Apr
I agree with the theoretical proposition that this could be a cause of
high-level state-to-state conflict, but it should also be recognized that
there are a number of factors that tend to make this an unlikely scenario
and should not deter or delay research.
* Attribution is always likely to be
