In going around and giving talks on this sunshade geoengineering, I find scientists with relevant skills much more interested in doing relevant research.
A few years ago, my sense is that scientists felt this was a pariah subject, and they did not want to engage in research relevant to the topic. There is of course a sample bias in the people who come to my talks, but I sense that many more scientists feel that they have something to contribute to improving scientific understanding of the issues surrounding sunshade geoengineering. That said, I come across almost no scientists who are in favor of deployment at this time. My sense is that there is an increase in support for at least limited research (and less of an opposition to research) but very little support for active development of a deployment capability. This is how I feel so I might of course just be seeing a reflection of myself in the people that I speak with. _______________ Ken Caldeira Carnegie Institution Dept of Global Ecology 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA +1 650 704 7212 kcalde...@carnegie.stanford.edu http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab @kencaldeira *YouTube:* <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9LaYCbYCxo>Climate change and the transition from coal to low-carbon electricity<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9LaYCbYCxo> Crop yields in a geoengineered climate<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-0LCXNoIu-c> On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 3:02 PM, Michael Hayes <voglerl...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hello Ben et al., > > I'm simply an interested citizen scientist and so I do not speak > for anyone. However, the interested citizen's view also needs to be > understood. Within democratic states, it will be the "public opinion" which > will most likely swing this issue > > Ben's question of; *"Is the economic/ > > scientific community reaching a tipping point where geo-engineering is > becoming seen as plausible, desirable, and even inevitable?"* hinges upon > the question of: > > Is the Precautionary Principle the overriding guiding principle? Principle > #15 of the Rio Declaration states: *"In order to protect the environment, > the precautionary approach shall be widely applied by States according to > their capabilities. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible > damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for > postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation."* > > Will the standard of "(the)...*lack of full scientific certainty shall > not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures" *become > the rallying flag for the GE community or will a far more cautious standard > be sought. > > More to the point, Ben's question is looking at GE being "...seen as > plausible, desirable, and even inevitable". At this time, I believe the > answer is NO to all three. > > 1) *Plausible*...With the debatable exception of Cloud Brightening, there > are no fully vetted methods which can, in a short period of time, reverse a > climate/planetary emergency. There is no wide spread support for > non-emergency deployment. Also, most, if not all, existing concepts have > been largely championed by individual efforts with relatively minor > financial backing. > > I believe it is safe to state that, if given a $10-20-100B fully funded > budget and and 24 months to vet and deploy a planet saving GE method, *which > could turn back a "tipping point*", it would not be "plausible" at this > time. > > 2) *Desirable*...Any method which does gain widespread scientific > acceptance will surely have a degree of adverse effects for some percentage > of the global population. This obviously will effect geopolitical dynamics > and thus the short and long term desirability. > > I believe it is safe to state that, even with the most *benign* GE > method, no universal level of "desirability" will be found. > > 3) *Inevitable*...At this time, we have little more than broad stroke > concepts which have little possibility to be put into fully effective > operation within the near (2-3yr) future. And, two to three years may > possibly be too late. > > I believe it is safe to state that, given the need for years worth of > development and evaluation, we *may not be able* to "inevitably" fall > back upon GE in the face of a near term emergency. > > Most importantly, Ben* *points out that *"(GE*)...is gaining ever more > public exposure in the media.". Yes, and the overwhelming exposure is > negative. Few policy makers will support the needed science/engineering > efforts while this negative slant is applied by the media. > > To conclude, the overall issue of GE is approaching a critical point at a > number of different levels. Simply put, > > 1) Gaining even basic support for GE research is difficult under the > pressure of negative media. > > 2) No one knows, with a high degree of certainty, if a tipping point is > 10-100 years off; *or even if one is currently underway*. > > 3) There is no ability to stop an active tipping point and no one can rule > out that we are *not* in the beginning stages of one. > > 4) The only "inevitable" aspect about GE is that it will be contentious, > to a high degree, regardless of the weight of scientific consensus. > > Ben, I look forward to reading your article...as usual. > > Michael > > > > > On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 6:41 AM, Eugene Gordon <euggor...@comcast.net>wrote: > >> I speak only for myself. Geoengineering represents THE contingency if >> global >> warming continues for whatever reason. Any decent organization engaged in >> a >> project with uncertainty develops contingency plans. Why not countries? I >> recall my post doc work at MIT in 1957 on Project Sherwood, the first >> contingency work to develop thermonuclear fusion for producing energy. Can >> you guess how many tens of billions of dollars have been spent on that >> contingency? Can you guess how much the US has spent to develop a means to >> end cancer over 50 years; $400 billion still with no solution in sight? >> >> Geoengineering seems not to be reaching a critical mass. However it is >> long >> overdue. How much is being spent on it? >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com >> [mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Ben Martin >> Sent: Friday, March 02, 2012 6:12 AM >> To: geoengineering >> Subject: [geo] Emerging consensus on geo-engineering >> >> Dear All, >> >> I'm currently putting together an article for the Ecologist on attitudes >> towards geo-engineering in the scientific and economic communities and was >> wondering if anyone here could help. >> >> I noticed this week that a couple of environmental economists (Professors >> Alistair Ulph and Robert Hahn) from Manchester's Sustainable Consumption >> Institute have published a new book, which basically argues that >> governments >> have done so little to reduce carbon emissions that it's now essential to >> invest in geo-engineering R&D. >> >> The press release is here: >> http://www.manchester.ac.uk/aboutus/news/display/?id=8003 >> >> Basically, I'm interested in whether this book is indicative of the >> emergence of a wider consensus on geo-engineering. Is the economic/ >> scientific community reaching a tipping point where geo-engineering is >> becoming seen as plausible, desirable, and even inevitable? >> >> Of course, I'm fully aware of the huge divides in opinion that still exist >> on the subject, and I realise that there are many many risks and issues >> which must be dealt with first before geo-engineering solutions can be >> implemented. But is there a sense of gathering momentum? The issue has >> been >> discussed in Westminster and is gaining ever more public exposure in the >> media. Is geo-engineering reaching critical mass? >> >> Any thoughts much appreciated! >> >> Many thanks, >> >> Ben Martin >> b...@theecologist.org >> 0207 422 8100 >> >> -- >> 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. >> >> -- >> 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. >> >> > > > -- > *Michael Hayes* > *360-708-4976* > http://www.voglerlake.com > > > -- > 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. > -- 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.
