On Monday, September 17, 2012 10:15:11 AM UTC-7, andrewjlockley wrote: > > Dr. Michaelson's foundational work and this follow up are welcomed >> contribution to the subject. The principal difference between his prior and >> latter works is that, within that time frame, it has been confermed that we >> are all ready in the process of changing our climate in a 'reasonably >> knowable' way! We only lack the topical (legaly meaningless) declaration >> of 'intent'.It is no longer a question of; if GE/CM/etc should be used, but >> how can we make it better (or even controlable).The horse left the barn at >> the beginning of the industrial revolution. Deciding to close the barn door >> or not, at this time, is useless in corralling the pony. Dr. Michaelson's >> statement of "geoengineeering becomes inevitable" may possibly be modified >> to state 'became'. >> > Thanks, Michael
> Geoengineering and Climate Management: From Marginality to Inevitablity > > Jay Michaelson > > Hebrew University of Jerusalem > > December 14, 2010 > Tulsa Law Review, Vol. 14, p. 221, Winter 2010 > > Abstract: > In 1998, when I wrote the first law review article advocating > Geoengineering as a climate change mitigation strategy, Geoengineering was > both unknown and unpopular. Twelve years later, the political economy of > Geoengineering – or as I prefer to call it, Climate Management (CM) – has > shifted, precisely because the conditions I outlined in 1998 have stayed so > strikingly the same. Then, I argued that the lack of political will, > absence, complexity, and sheer expense of climate change mitigation made > meaningful preventive measures, i.e. cutting greenhouse gas (GHG) > emissions, extremely difficult to undertake. After a decade of obfuscation > and misinformation by powerful political actors, the case seems stronger > than ever.Today, while CM remains at the margins of our popular political > discourse, there has been an explosion of scientific and policy analyses. > Solar Radiation Management (SRM: increasing the concentration of sulfur > dioxide in the upper atmosphere) and Ocean Iron Fertilization (OIF: seeding > gigantic phytoplankton carbon sinks in the oceans by fertilizing them with > iron) have both been explored and advanced by credible scientists, > scholars, and even entrepreneurs. Additionally, CM has been tentatively > explored by conservative think-tanks and pundits – to the horror of > environmentalists.Yet the mere fact that conservatives support > Geoengineering should not, in itself, cause liberals and greens to oppose > it. Supporting CM should give any environmentalist pause, both because of > its riskiness and because so many of our political foes support it. But CM > is a climate change strategy that, unlike regulation, might actually stand > a chance of becoming reality. It is the only approach to climate change > that can act as a compromise between liberals and libertarians, greens and > browns. As climate change becomes ineluctable, geoengineeering becomes > inevitable. > > Number of Pages in PDF File: 39 > > Keywords: climate change, greenhouse effect, geoengineering, Newt > Gingrich, Paul Crutzen, climate management, international law, > environmental law > > JEL Classification: K32, K33 > Accepted Paper Series > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/geoengineering/-/H-n881M_7X4J. 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.
