Dear Ken,
In general I agree with you. Outdoor research needs to be governed by
an independent body under a global system. But I disagree with this
assertion by Parsons and Keith:
"Research is needed to develop capabilities and assess effectiveness and
risks (field research as well as model and laboratory studies)."
It remains to be proven that outdoor research is needed. To answer what
scientific questions? Just to assert something, with no concrete
examples, does not make it true. Unless a specific question can only be
answered by outdoor research, and unless it can be proven that the
environmental harm from the experiment is negligible, it is unethical.
Some experiments are too dangerous to be done outdoors. As an example,
the world has agreed that there should be no more testing of nuclear
weapons outdoors. Nevertheless, if it can be shown that outdoor
experiments will be valuable for testing geoengineering and that they
would not be harmful, I have no objections.
As I said in my recent article (Robock, Alan, 2012: Is geoengineering
research ethical? /Peace and Security/, *4*, 226-229.
http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pdf/GeoResearchEthics.pdf ):
Outdoor research, where gases and particles are emitted into the
atmosphere to test technology or examine the effects on marine clouds or
on ozone depletion and radiative transfer in the stratosphere, could
have negative environmental impacts. Is it ethical to create additional
pollution just for scientific experimentation?
While testing SRM in the stratosphere would require large emissions
to see how particles would grow in the presence of an existing sulfuric
acid cloud or to see if there were a climate response (Robock et al.,
2010), "small" experiments to test balloon-hose systems (the cancelled
SPICE experiment in the UK) or the potential of stratospheric particles
to deplete ozone (David Keith and James Anderson, personal
communication, June, 2012) have been proposed. In 2011, the Eastern
Pacific Emitted Aerosol Cloud Experiment led by Lynn Russell off the
coast of California emitted smoke from a ship to see its effect on
marine clouds, funded by the U.S. National Science Foundation. Thus
unregulated outdoor experimentation has already begun.
As Robock (2011) asks, in discussing a proposal to use bubbles to
brighten the ocean, how much environmental impact should be allowed in
the name of science? "...when scientists propose small-scale in situ
field experiments, they will be confronted with unsolved ethical and
governance issues. What if the field trials prove dangerous to marine
life or the regional climate? Up to what temporal and spatial scales,
and what amount of emissions or disturbance should be allowed? And how
will this decision be made? By ethical panels associated with funding
agencies? By international conventions, such as the London Convention?
And what criteria will be used for the allowed impact? Less than the
disturbance of current ocean waves, or of a tanker traversing an ocean?
But does intention matter? Is additional disturbance OK, even if it
adds on to current disturbance? Do two wrongs make a right?" And what
if an experiment gives noisy results that are hard to interpret? The
tendency will be to expand the experiment to get more data, by emitting
more material, or extending the experiment over a larger area or for a
longer time. Rules and enforcement mechanisms would need to be in place
to deal with this.
...
Indoor geoengineering research is ethical and is needed to provide
information to policymakers and society so that we can make informed
decisions in the future to deal with climate change. This research needs
to be not just on the technical aspects, such as climate change and
impacts on agriculture and water resources, but also on historical
precedents, governance, and equity issues. Outdoor geoengineering
research, however, is not ethical unless subject to governance that
protects society from potential environmental dangers.
Alan
Alan Robock, Distinguished Professor
Editor, Reviews of Geophysics
Director, Meteorology Undergraduate Program
Department of Environmental Sciences Phone: +1-848-932-5751
Rutgers University Fax: +1-732-932-8644
14 College Farm Road E-mail: rob...@envsci.rutgers.edu
New Brunswick, NJ 08901-8551 USA http://envsci.rutgers.edu/~robock
http://twitter.com/AlanRobock
Watch my 18 min TEDx talk at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qsrEk1oZ-54
On 9/8/2013 3:09 PM, Ken Caldeira wrote:
In case it wasn't clear, the position I am supporting is similar to
that presented by Parsons and Keith (attached).
Scientists should consider small scale (i.e., with de minimis direct
physical effect) field experiments carefully and cautiously, being
mindful of potential political backlash, but these activities should
be governed primarily by a system of informal norms.
If a new system of formal governance is required for larger scale
experiments, then the actions that trigger this governance mechanism
should be defined in physical terms, not in terms of intent. Because
the very definition of "geoengineering" includes the concept of
intent, we should be thinking about the more general case of how to
govern scientific or technical experiments conducted outside of
national territories that pose a harm to a global commons (i.e., the
oceans or atmosphere) or harm that would extend across international
borders. The intent of the experiment should be taken into account
when weighing potential benefit and harm, but not in the determination
of which governance apparatus applies (for reasons explained earlier
in this thread).
In other words, I don't think we need new governance specifically for
"geoengineering field tests" but we may need new governance for risky
experiments conducted in international waters (or airspace) where
there is prima facie evidence for the potential for greater than de
minimis harm to a global commons or across international boundaries.
I disagree with Parsons and Keith (2013) when they assert, in
reference to "geoengineering" experiments with de minimis harm: "Even
this research must accept some additional regulatory scrutiny...".
Informal norms should encourage the behavior that Parsons and Keith
hope to engender with their proposed "regulatory scrutiny".
I stand by my earlier assertion that there is no consensus definition
of "field test of solar climate engineering" that can be
operationalized. (If you disagree, please prove me wrong by providing
such a definition.) If we cannot define, from an operational
perspective, what needs to be subject to "additional regulatory
scrutiny" then perhaps we should satisfy ourselves with informal norms.
(Just to be clear, I do think that prudence does dictate refraining
from most small scale experimentation because the risk of political
backlash is large and such experiments could thus be
counterproductive, but history has shown that well-planned
scientifically-useful and climate-engineering-relevant experiments can
be conducted with minimal political backlash, e.g.,
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/BAMS-D-12-00015.1 )
How would Schaeffer et al propose to determine whether E-PEACE was or
was not a "field test of solar climate engineering"? Were Russell et
al wrong to proceed with their experiment just because somebody might
claim that it constituted a "field test of solar climate engineering"?
The Eastern Pacific Emitted Aerosol Cloud Experiment (E-PEACE) 2011
was a targeted aircraft campaign with embedded modeling studies, using
the Center for Interdisciplinary Remotely-Piloted Aircraft Studies
(CIRPAS) Twin Otter aircraft and the research vessel/Point Sur/ in
July and August 2011 off the central coast of California, with a full
payload of instruments to measure particle and cloud number, mass,
composition, and water uptake distributions. EPEACE used three emitted
particle sources to separate particle-induced feedbacks from dynamical
variability, namely 1) shipboard smoke-generated particles with
0.05--1-/?/m diameters (which produced tracks measured by satellite
and had drop composition characteristic of organic smoke), 2)
combustion particles from container ships with 0.05--0.2-/?/m
diameters (which were measured in a variety of conditions with
droplets containing both organic and sulfate components), and 3)
aircraft-based milled salt particles with 3--5-/?/m diameters (which
showed enhanced drizzle rates in some clouds).
_______________
Ken Caldeira
Carnegie Institution for Science
Dept of Global Ecology
260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA
+1 650 704 7212kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu
<mailto:kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu>
http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab@kencaldeira
--
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.
