Clive seems increasingly bent on becoming the Helen Caldicott of the Climate Wars.
On Tuesday, April 30, 2013 8:54:24 AM UTC-4, andrewjlockley wrote: > > http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/show/single/en/5952 > > Clive Hamilton is professor of public ethics at Australia’s Charles Sturt > University and a prominent critic of geoengineering. Here he discusses his > latest book Earthmasters: The Dawn of the Age of Climate Engineering. > > Olivia Boyd: You describe geoengineering as a “profound dilemma” in your > book. Why? > > Clive Hamilton: The dilemma is that as long as the world responds in a > feeble way to the warnings of the scientists, we’re likely to end up in a > situation where we will be casting around for desperate solutions and I > think that’s when the world will turn seriously to geoengineering > interventions to get us out of the impossible fix.People who are deeply > concerned about the climate crisis, and naturally sceptical about major > technological interventions, are nonetheless saying this is something we’re > going to have to pursue. I’m thinking in particular of [atmospheric > chemist] Paul Crutzen who has been vital in this whole debate – someone who > with a very heavy heart has concluded that the world has been so derelict > in responding to the scientific warnings that we’re going to have to pursue > this deeply unpalatable alternative, this Plan B. > > OB: What’s the problem with Plan B? > > CH: There’s a whole string of problems with Plan B. One of the foremost is > of course that it’s likely to cause political leaders to weaken even > further their commitment to Plan A. And it was for that reason that pretty > much all climate scientists would not talk publicly about geoengineering > until Paul Crutzen broke the taboo in 2006. It was felt to be dangerous to > talk about geoengineering because of the disincentive it might have on > global negotiations to cut greenhouse-gas emissions.In a way, the problem > that makes me most anxious is the tendency among some of the more > influential geoengineering scientists to have an unwarranted faith in > technological interventions in the biggest ecosystem of them all, and the > extremely high likelihood of serious miscalculation, of something going > very badly wrong.I think in a way the greatest risk is human hubris, our > penchant for persuading ourselves that we know the answers and we have all > the necessary information, we can intervene and take control of the earth. > > OB: What sort of miscalculations are you talking about? > > CH: One nightmare scenario could be where the world or a major power > decides to engage in sulphate aerosol spraying – in other words to install > a solar shield between the earth and the sun to turn down the sunlight > reaching the earth – and to discover that it causes a massive hole in the > ozone layer which has all sorts of catastrophic effects on human and other > forms of life.Another nightmare scenario might be one where an attempt by > one major power to engineer the globe’s climate system attracts a hostile > response from another major power, who doesn’t take kindly to competing for > control over their weather and it escalates into a military confrontation. > > OB: You’ve suggested China might be one of the most likely candidates to > go it alone with something like aerosol spraying. Why China? > > CH: We already see in China a great deal of social unrest due to natural > disasters and pressures in particular provinces of making life work in an > increasingly difficult physical environment. So it doesn’t take much to > imagine a situation where some of the serious warnings of the world’s > climate scientists come to pass and China, for example, faces a massive > drought in the north of the country, caused or exacerbated by human-induced > climate change.So you have crop failures, severe water shortages, mass > migration to cities already straining under pressure, and you have to ask > yourself how the government in China would respond to that, bearing in mind > too that most of the senior leaders in China have engineering backgrounds > and, for many of them, geoengineering the climate will have a natural > appeal.Now is the time for civil society in China to get actively involved > in the debate over geoengineering because the government has not adopted a > strong position one way or another. So there’s a substantial degree of > openness which allows many voices to be heard. Once the Chinese government > takes its own stance on geoengineering it will be more difficult for civil > society to have an influence.I would hope that the nascent environmental > movement in China would take an interest in geoengineering because I think > it’s going to be a dominant political question in China in several years > time. > > OB: If China did take a leading role in geoengineering, how might this > affect its relationship with the rest of the world? > > CH: I’m sure if China did go down the geoengineering path it would try to > present its actions as motivated by the need to protect the interests of > vulnerable people across the developing world. The critical question is how > divergent would be the effects of any major geoengineering scheme on > different regions of the world. And if sulphate aerosol spraying for > example did destabilise the Indian monsoon, then I think it could lead to > serious conflict between China and India.On the other hand, China might be > able to secure the backing of the small island states. They aren’t > advocating geoengineering now, but if we see a strong surge in warming – > which we may well do at some point in the next 10 years or so – the level > of desperation in small island states may reach a point where they say some > kind of radical intervention is necessary to ensure our survival and they > might welcome China intervening.One of the nightmare scenarios would be if > China launched a geoengineering scheme and the US, for example, decided to > retaliate to counter the effects of China’s actions. That would be > disastrous. You can imagine the extraordinary risks we would be taking when > we turn the global climate system into a theatre of war, but that’s one of > the scenarios being mooted by strategic experts. > > OB: You talk about the connections between the military and geoengineering > – what are the implications? > > CH: It’s the military organisations of major powers that have the > equipment and the wherewithal to engage in a programme of, for example, > sulphate aerosol spraying. So I think with that kind of geoengineering it’s > almost inevitable that the military will be involved to some level.Or, if a > single nation decides to lime the oceans [adding lime to seawater is said > to be able to boost its capacity to absorb carbon dioxide], bearing in mind > they would be setting out to transform the chemical composition of all of > the oceans, then you’ve got ships from one nation sailing the seas, > spreading the lime. You have a major marine operation going on and you > would expect the navy to have a watching brief over that. This is all > speculative, but these are possibilities. > > OB: You cite scientist Ken Caldeira as asking: “Is it better to let the > Greenland ice sheet collapse or to spray some sulphur particles in the > stratosphere?” How do you answer that? > > CH: By posing that question, by projecting us forward 30 years and saying > there are only two choices, he leaps over all sorts of intermediate > questions that have to be tackled.It’s impossible to answer that question > now except in a way that actually provides a justification for > geoengineering. So when he asks that, you’ve got to say that sulphate > aerosol spraying might be preferable. But is he saying we do it no matter > what? Do we do it if we’ve got evidence showing there’s a huge risk > involved? Do we allow ExxonMobil to have the patent on that aerosol > spraying so that they’re the only ones who can do it? Is it done by Iran > unilaterally? Or by a UN group of countries?Until you can answer those > questions, I think it’s irresponsible to say, well, we’ve got this > situation, we’re just going to have to live with it. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
