Caldeira
Sent: Friday, May 13, 2011 8:49 AM
To: voglerl...@gmail.com
Cc: geoengineering@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [geo] Re: New law review symposium issue on geoengineering
This may be a distinction without a difference, but there is no
long-term commitment to SRM once begun. Within a few years
Message-
From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [
mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com geoengineering@googlegroups.com] On
Behalf Of Ken Caldeira
Sent: Friday, May 13, 2011 8:49 AM
To: voglerl...@gmail.com
Cc: geoengineering@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [geo] Re: New law review symposium
There are too many interesting issues in this thread for me to respond
to so I'll just focus on intergenerational justice.
Adjusting our behaviour to account for the interests of future
generations raises a number of challenging problems. The endeavour
assumes several things: a) that we have the
Hi Michael,
Thanks for responding again. A few more thoughts above.
On May 11, 10:47 am, Michael Hayes voglerl...@gmail.com wrote:
Thank you for the response.
As to 1); The principal aspects of SRM, in that they are
both technologically simple and cheap, makes the assumption of failure
seem
williamcgbu...@gmail.com
To: geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.com
Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2011 1:47
Subject: [geo] Re: New law review symposium issue on geoengineering
Hi Michael,
Thanks for responding again. A few more thoughts above.
On May 11, 10:47 am, Michael Hayes voglerl
Will,
You can be persuasive..are you a lawyer?:)
If it may please the court..?
* Somehow I think we know a lot more about the brake systems of cars,
borne out by 100 years of experience, than the effectiveness of SRM
technologies. Beyond the fact that a number of experts have
have defined the choices.
- Original Message -
From: Wil Burns williamcgbu...@gmail.com
To: geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.com
Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2011 1:47
Subject: [geo] Re: New law review symposium issue on geoengineering
Hi Michael,
Thanks for responding again
Thanks, Michael; we obviously don't view this the same way, but I
appreciate the colloquy. And we're not that far apart in many ways
(which is why I don't think ETC Group would ever embrace me as one of
their own). I could accept SRM as part of a legally binding agreement
with stepwise reductions
Ok Will,
I also enjoyed the the challenge of our exchange. I learned much from it.
Locking reduction with deployment would be ideal and logical; a rare
combination. You have faith in policy and I have faith in our ability to
solve technical problems. Those that come after us may look back on
One last thought, Wil.
Don't bet on rare combinations! Casinos make Lots of money of those.for
a reason!
Michael
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
geoengineering group.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
To
Hi Michael,
Several responses here:
1. A future generation might have no choice in terminating an SRM
approach should it technologically fail; this is certainly not beyond
the pale. For example, various climatic feedback processes might
ultimately denude the effectiveness of cloud brightening or
Hi Michael and Wil--It is, of course, not one or the other. If the Earth's
temperature is to be limited to less than some value (2 C per the Copenhagen
Accord, and given what is happening at 0.8 C there is good reason to think
the ceiling should be lower), no one strategy will do--we need all that
Unfortunately, I think accepting that emissions reductions won't
happen makes this a self-fulfilling prophecy. The agreements at
Copenhagen and Cancun, at least in the maximum implementation
scenarios, get us to about 70% of what we need to avoid the 2C
guardrail; that's dramatically better than
It is my understanding that Normative Jurisprudence Law, such as treaties
and conventions, is an exercise in political philosophy. As a layperson, I
am very concerned with any political philosophy which calls for a
non emergency response to an emergency situation.
1) The Esppo Convention model
Thanks for posting this link. This was a very interesting read.
I read your contribution concerning intergenerational equity and have a
question on one concept. I quote:
Unfortunately, while a commitment to SRM geoengineering approaches in lieu
of
effective mitigation responses might prove
15 matches
Mail list logo
