On Clive Hamilton's concern about a slippery slope: He seems fearful of so much, especially regional tests of GE methods.
Indeed as Bill says, the Arctic is the prime place to try it, nearly ideal: few people, short 4 month trial in summer of SRM, low cost (~$200 million or less), easily measurable effect on sea ice, etc. Should be done first. Gregory Benford On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 10:07 AM, Bill Stahl <bstah...@gmail.com> wrote: > > * Re: Fred's point: 1 $M is a lot when the debate is confined to a >> relatively small world of researchers and advocates, but tiny once the idea >> goes 'viral' in society at large. Think what a single insurance >> conglomerate might spend to head off claims from sea-level rise! >> Environmental advocates will soon have to adjust to losing 'ownership' of >> the debate- as will researchers (and yes, there is plenty of overlap). NGO >> advocacy contra ETC will be handled by existing environmental groups, along >> the same lines as existing differences between, say, The Nature Conservancy >> vs. Sea Shepherd Society. That seems hard to credit at the moment. But many >> greens have noticed that our existing 'Plan A' of emission-reductions now >> requires the environmentalist's equivalent of the protestant evangelical >> Rapture: a sound of trumpets, a flash of (green) light in the sky, and lo! >> It's not a sustainable position, and alternatives will be sought. (Which >> highlights the importance of Ken's appearance on KPFA, speaking to an >> audience that both cares about the issue and is extremely resistant to the >> news he carries). > > > * Re: Lou's scenario: grimly plausible. What would be the role an > intermediate step such as high-latitude SRM in the Arctic? I'm not in a > position to evaluate its plausibility (perhaps someone could privately > point me to useful reading?) but if plausible enough to attempt it would > meet a lower threshold of resistance than a global project. If > approximately successful it would be a model, and a temptation, for a > broader effort. > Which speaks to Clive Hamilton's concern about a slippery slope, obviously. > > -- > 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. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > > -- 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
