"How intrinsically risky is geoengineering? The risk is proportional to the planetary scale upon which it would operate and, like nuclear war, its effects are not reversible or predictable. *Scientists agree that the outcome of geoengineering cannot be certain, therefore, the risk is commensurate with that of nuclear war.*"
Commensurate with nuclear war? This statement is simply ridiculous. ETC Group is trying to equate geoengineering technologies with WMDs, but here we see this argument taken to its logical, patently absurd conclusion. This is embarrassing. Josh Horton joshuahorton...@gmail.com http://geoengineeringpolitics.blogspot.com/ On Nov 8, 2:28 pm, Mike MacCracken <mmacc...@comcast.net> wrote: > Dear Gregory B‹On the reduced solar, it all depends what one measures. > > An important side effect of a layer intended to reflect back out into space > about 1% of the incoming solar radiation would be to reduce the downward > direct radiation by roughly 10% and shift that into forward-scattered > diffuse radiation that is not useful at all in mirror-based solar > concentrating technologies. So, there can certainly be a noticeable > impact‹whether from volcanic eruptions (where it has been measured) or from > human injection (which has not yet been measured). Indeed, it is this > scattering that gives such beautiful orange sunrises and sunsets while > whitening the sky somewhat when the Sun is overhead. > > Mike > > On 11/8/11 1:25 PM, "Gregory Benford" <xbenf...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > We're all aware that the moral hazard argument has no real evidence for it > > and > > plenty of ambiguity. > > > As for "There are also direct impacts on other mitigation responses, such as > > less effective solar power in the presence of solar radiation management > > techniques." -- this is a tiny effect, about 1%, not worth worrying about. > > > Gregory Benford > > > On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 10:06 AM, Ben Hale <bh...@colorado.edu> wrote: > >> Hey Nils: > > >> I'm working on a paper on the moral hazard argument against geoengineering > >> at this very moment, essentially arguing that the moral hazard objection is > >> beset with complications of ambiguity, vagueness, and accuracy. Would you > >> mind passing along this paper to me? > > >> Thanks! > > >> Best, > >> Ben > > >> Benjamin Hale > >> Assistant Professor > >> Philosophy and Environmental Studies > >> University of Colorado, Boulder > >> Tel: 303 735-3624 <tel:303%20735-3624> ; Fax: 303 735-1576 > >> <tel:303%20735-1576> > >>http://www.practicalreason.com > >>http://cruelmistress.wordpress.com > >> Ethics, Policy & Environment > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com > >> [mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Motoko M. > >> Sent: Tuesday, November 08, 2011 7:14 AM > >> To: geoengineering > >> Subject: [geo] Re: More anti-science from ETC > > >> Has anyone evidence for this ETC-statement? If yes, then this would be > >> the moral hazard working. But I do not know any actual proof. > > >> "Could geoengineering's development/deployment negatively impact other > >> responses > >> to climate change? - All parties recognize that the prospect of even > >> temporary > >> technological fixes to climate change encourages some governments and > >> industries to > >> lower their (already weak) commitment to mitigation and adaptation. > >> Further, if > >> technological alternatives are thought to be "cheaper", other options > >> and funds will attract > >> less support. There are also direct impacts on other mitigation > >> responses, such as less > >> effective solar power in the presence of solar radiation management > >> techniques." [ETC proposal Nov 4. 2011, p. 12] > > >> Best > >> Nils > > >> -- > >> 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 > >> <mailto:geoengineering%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com> . > >> For more options, visit this group at > >>http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. > > >> -- > >> 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 > >> <mailto:geoengineering%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com> . > >> For more options, visit this group at > >>http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - -- 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.
