Alan, We are agreed that there is a need for governance when there is some expectation of substantial direct effect.
As you suggest, the physical descriptions of proposed activities should determine whether a governance regime is triggered. Best, Ken _______________ Ken Caldeira Carnegie Institution for Science Dept of Global Ecology 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA +1 650 704 7212 kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab https://twitter.com/KenCaldeira My assistant is Dawn Ross <dr...@carnegiescience.edu>, with access to incoming emails. On Sun, Dec 21, 2014 at 2:58 PM, Alan Robock <rob...@envsci.rutgers.edu> wrote: > Dear Ken, > > The analog I see with nuclear weapons testing is the potential damage to > the environment by the outdoor experiment. After we realized the local > effects of the radioactivity we moved testing underground, and then for > political reasons stopped testing all together. > > Clearly small outdoor geoengineering experiments would not pose such > dangers, and so should be allowed, given a governance system that allows > independent evaluation, monitoring and sanctioning of proposed > experiments. That is, the definition of "small" needs to be agreed on as > producing some particular level of harm that we can live with. > > So I see the analog not related to the intention of the use of the > technology (that is a separate discussion), but to the potential for > environmental damage. > > 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 12/21/14, 2:30 PM, Ken Caldeira wrote: > > As I mentioned, the position I present below is not absolute, but > there are many reasons why nuclear weapons testing is a poor analogue for > scientific experiments aimed at understand effects of a modified albedo. > > In the case of nuclear weapons testing, doing the test demonstrates the > ability to inflict great harm extremely rapidly without any obvious > possibility of preventive countermeasure. > > In the case of scientific experiments related to albedo modification, > doing the test does not give anyone the power to do great harm rapidly. > Furthermore, even if some power generated deployment capability there is no > shortage of potential countermeasures as any deployment at scale would > require a sustained substantial infrastructure and effort that could be > attacked militarily, economically, or politically before great harm could > be done. > > For these reasons and others, nuclear weapons testing is not a good > analogue for scientific investigation related to solar geoengineering > proposals. > > > > On Sun, Dec 21, 2014 at 1:27 PM, John Harte <jha...@berkeley.edu> wrote: > >> Would you apply that reasoning to deep underground nuclear weapons >> testing? >> >> Actions that lack tangible impacts still send signals. >> >> >> >> >> >> John Harte >> Professor of Ecosystem Sciences >> ERG/ESPM >> 310 Barrows Hall >> University of California >> Berkeley, CA 94720 USA >> jha...@berkeley.edu >> >> >> >> On Dec 21, 2014, at 12:59 PM, Ken Caldeira < >> kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu> wrote: >> >> This kind of thinking is dangerous: >> >> >> >> >> *Even small-scale field tests with negligible impacts on the physical >> environment warrant additional governance as they raise broader concerns >> that go beyond the immediate impacts of individual experiments.* >> >> This is not an absolute position, but we should start with a >> presumption of freedom and liberty to engage in activities that have no >> substantial direct effect on others or the environment. >> >> If there is no likelihood that my proposed activity will have any >> substantial direct effect on anybody or anything, there should be a >> presumption that I can engage in that activity with a minimum of >> encumbrance. >> >> There are all sorts of things that people do every day that I don't >> like, but if their activities don't have any substantial direct >> consequences, then I don't think I have the right to interfere in their >> activities. >> >> cf. http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v3/n11/full/nclimate2036.html >> >> *Caldeira, Ken; Ricke, Katharine L. (2013): Prudence on solar climate >> engineering. In Nature Climate change 3 (11), p. 941-941. DOI >> 10.1038/nclimate2036 * >> >> >> >> >> _______________ >> Ken Caldeira >> >> Carnegie Institution for Science >> Dept of Global Ecology >> 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA >> +1 650 704 7212 <%2B1%20650%20704%207212> kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu >> http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab >> https://twitter.com/KenCaldeira >> >> My assistant is Dawn Ross <dr...@carnegiescience.edu>, with access to >> incoming emails. >> >> >> >> On Sun, Dec 21, 2014 at 12:30 PM, Andrew Lockley < >> andrew.lock...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Poster's note : I personally feel that it's extremely dangerous to >>> "warrant additional governance" for experiments with "negligible >>> impacts". It potentially invites a situation which bears an >>> uncomfortably close parallel to the theologians refusing to look down >>> Galileo's telescope. >>> >>> http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/372/2031/20140064 >>> >>> Asilomar moments: formative framings in recombinant DNA and solar >>> climate engineering research >>> >>> Stefan Schäfer, Sean Low >>> DOI: 10.1098/rsta.2014.0064 >>> Published 17 November 2014 >>> >>> Abstract >>> >>> We examine the claim that in governance for solar climate engineering >>> research, and especially field tests, there is no need for external >>> governance beyond existing mechanisms such as peer review and >>> environmental impact assessments that aim to assess technically >>> defined risks to the physical environment. By drawing on the >>> historical debate on recombinant DNA research, we show that defining >>> risks is not a technical question but a complex process of narrative >>> formation. Governance emerges from within, and as a response to, >>> narratives of what is at stake in a debate. In applying this finding >>> to the case of climate engineering, we find that the emerging >>> narrative differs starkly from the narrative that gave meaning to rDNA >>> technology during its formative period, with important implications >>> for governance. While the narrative of rDNA technology was closed down >>> to narrowly focus on technical risks, that of climate engineering >>> continues to open up and includes social, political and ethical >>> issues. This suggests that, in order to be legitimate, governance must >>> take into account this broad perception of what constitutes the >>> relevant issues and risks of climate engineering, requiring governance >>> that goes beyond existing mechanisms that focus on technical risks. >>> Even small-scale field tests with negligible impacts on the physical >>> environment warrant additional governance as they raise broader >>> concerns that go beyond the immediate impacts of individual >>> experiments. >>> >>> -- >>> 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/d/optout. >>> >> >> >> -- >> 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/d/optout. >> <Caldeira-Ricke_NatureCC2013_prudence-on-solar-climate-engineering >> (1).pdf> >> >> >> > -- > 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/d/optout. > > > -- 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/d/optout.
