How easy would it be for geoengineering experiments or operations to be stopped? I guess you could sink Stephen's boats (or just sell them for scrap), but what about the sulfur engineering techniques? Unless you were willing to actually invade a country, then I assume that it would be very hard to stop a country doing sulfur aerosol projects.
That's quite an interesting situation, because it means that nations/firms/individuals can cool the planet, and whoever has the will and the money to keep cooling last gets to choose the temperature. We're going to auction off the global temperature to the lowest bidder. This 'lowest bidder' will have to pay much less than anyone else, because the hard work will already have been done. All they're paying for is the difference between their chosen temperature and the next-lowest temperature. That's kinda like an auction where you can bid $2200 for a car, and if someone's previously bid $2000, then you only have to pay $200 to close the deal and buy the car. That's a very strange auction. Do we really want every crackpot and selfish nation to have the right to move the thermostat - but only one way? What could be done to stop it? If you look at the situation in the Russian Arctic alone, you can clearly see that there's a lot of money at stake here, so there may well be a few small wars over this. Countries have fought over much less. The one thing we can be fairly sure of is that the madcap lowest bidder won't be caring too much about anyone else's opinion of what the temperature should be. A 2009/9/12 Alvia Gaskill <agask...@nc.rr.com>: > To stop private experiment: > > a. planes- shoot them down > b. boats- sink them > c. oxcarts- I'll let you figure that one out > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Eugene I. Gordon > To: agask...@nc.rr.com ; anr...@nytimes.com ; > geoengineering@googlegroups.com > Sent: Friday, September 11, 2009 1:38 PM > Subject: [geo] Re: Will Russia resist geo-eng efforts now? > > You have to click on Comment at the top of the comments section and if your > name appears in light print it won’t work. If your contact name is dark it > will work. Terrible and frustrating situation. > > > > I think the Russians will block geo over the Arctic but I sincerely hope you > are right. I am not sure how a world body stops a private experiment not > sponsored by a nation. > > > > From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com > [mailto:geoengineer...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Alvia Gaskill > Sent: Friday, September 11, 2009 10:24 AM > To: anr...@nytimes.com; geoengineering@googlegroups.com > Subject: [geo] Re: Will Russia resist geo-eng efforts now? > > > > I submitted this one and it appears it went through. The blog doesn't tell > you if your comment has been submitted. I learned this after repeatedly > hitting the submit key until it told me I would have to wait to submit > another comment. Another gliche for the seer of computer science at NYT to > solve. BTW, at realclimate, you can review and edit your comment before > posting, so maybe adding that feature would help. > > ----- > > As I commented on a related article the other day at the geoengineering > group, http://www.adn.com/news/environment/warming/story/924593.html, the > opening up of the NW passage(s) is still only a benefit to the petroleum and > mining industries, regional trade and tourism. The opening of these > passages are of minor significance to international commerce, but of more > importance to Russia. > > > > You asked at the geo group for comments about whether Russia would object to > attempts to control or restore Arctic sea ice by geoengineering. You didn't > specify sea ice, but that's what you meant. > > > > The greater benefit to Russia from reduced sea ice is access to petroleum > and minerals below the sea floor. So there might be some resistance on > their part decades from now if these resources become important to them. > Nations will always make decisions that they believe are in their self > interest. > > > > In the case outlined above, Russia and perhaps Canada and the U.S. would > find benefits in reduced sea ice. But the risks and downsides of > unmitigated global warming will be much greater. If the food supply is > impacted by climate change that could be prevented by restoring the sea ice, > the answer is easy. You can't eat oil. Not in Russia. Not in Canada. And > definitely not in the U.S. > > > > Any geoengineering strategy will have to be approved and I believe will be > approved by international consensus and will include the support of Russia. > Climate change has the potential to destabilize nuclear armed nations on > Russia's borders and that alone represents a greater threat to them than > inconvenience in shipping or access to oil. > > > > The groups or people that keep arguing much to the delight of leftwing > bloggers and reporters that unilateral attempts at geoegineering are > possible or likely, either don't understand the complexity of the > technologies involved or do and and are simply scaremongering. The most > prominent of these early trick or treaters has been the Council on Foreign > Relations which assembled a scare panel last year for this purpose. Say, > didn't the CFR help George and Dick warn us of the dangers of WMD in Iraq? > Like the chimps and the million typewriters, I guess they will eventually > produce some Shakespeare if given enough time. And enough chimps. And > enough typewriters. > > > > Your question, though, dealt with the opposite scenario. What if all the > other countries agreed on a geoengineering strategy and the Russians > didn't. This is the argument that Alan Robock keeps making, that > geoengineering could never be used because countries could never agree on a > global temperature. I guess Alan et al. never heard of Kyoto and the 2 > degrees goal for 2050. The Russians, however, I am sure have heard of > India, Pakistan and China. > > Original Message ----- > > From: Andrew Revkin > > To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com > > Sent: Friday, September 11, 2009 8:53 AM > > Subject: [geo] Will Russia resist geo-eng efforts now? > > > > The big question remains, who gets to set the planet's (or even Arctic's) > temperature. > > > > Given this news, will Russia resist? > > > > > > http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/11/science/earth/11passage.html > > > > comments welcome here: > > http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/10/asia-europe-voyage-via-arctic-nearly-done/ > > > > -- > > Andrew C. Revkin > The New York Times / Environment > 620 Eighth Ave., NY, NY 10018 > Tel: 212-556-7326 Mob: 914-441-5556 > > Fax: 509-357-0965 > > http://www.nytimes.com/revkin > > <BR > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
