Well, here's a counter argument. Demolish this: 1. SRM is safer than no SRM, with any fixed, near-BAU emissions trajectory. 2a. There is no proven causal link between SRM and emissions trajectory. or 2b. There is no evidence of any emissions trajectory, other than BAU Therefore SRM should be commenced immediately.
A On 12 September 2013 15:38, Bill Stahl <bstah...@gmail.com> wrote: > I think that what Ken is proposing is less a policy than a principle > around which to organize policies. There's been much talk of metaphors and > framing and this sounds like the kernel of, well, a slogan. Which might > sound condescending, but is not; these are the building blocks to political > action. A vivid metaphor that captures both aspects of SRM strategy would > be very useful as a rallying cry. > > > On Wednesday, September 11, 2013 10:36:02 AM UTC-6, Ken Caldeira wrote: > >> We do not want to be in a situation where a solar geoengineering system >> is used to enable continued increases in CO2 emissions. >> >> Therefore, a reasonable demand is that no new smokestacks or tailpipes be >> built after a solar geoengineering system is deployed. >> >> Another way of phrasing this is to demand that new construction of all >> new CO2-emitting devices cease prior to any solar geoengineering system >> deployment. >> >> This would help address the concern that solar geoengineering could >> provide cover for continued expansion of CO2-emitting industries. >> >> Norms that would prevent simultaneous solar geoengineering deployment and >> increasing CO2 emissions would help diminish the likelihood of bad outcomes >> and could help broaden political support for solar geoengineering research. >> >> -- >> >> This would limit deployment of solar geoengineering systems to the case >> of "catastrophic" outcomes and would not permit use of solar geoengineering >> for "peak shaving" amid promises of future reductions in CO2 emissions. >> Thus, this proposal does have a substantive implications for "peak >> shaving" strategies. >> >> -- >> >> *I am floating this idea without being certain that the formulation >> presented here is the best possible formulation.* >> >> _______________ >> Ken Caldeira >> >> Carnegie Institution for Science >> Dept of Global Ecology >> 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA >> +1 650 704 7212 kcal...@**carnegiescience.edu >> http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/**caldeiralab<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. > -- 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.
