I see two things to keep in mind here: first, climate intervention is a deliberate attempt to improve things that have been made worse by human actions, so, it is not comparable in that regard to anthropogenic climate change or to pollution more generally, which are not deliberate attempts to achieve various objectives, but are rather side effects of other activities. Second, there are many attempts to improve environmental things, but most of them are done at regional, not global levels. The work to reduce the ozone hole, the Antarctic treaty and governance of Antarctic activities, and (insufficient) reductions of killing large ocean mammals are some that are deliberate attempts to improve environmental things at very large to global scales, thus, are somewhat comparable to climate intervention. Maybe regulation of nuclear weapons might count, but it's a pretty distinctive issue, more concerned with reduction of risk than reduction of existing damage. I don't think any of these examples involved the Global South, or issues like equity and inclusivity at all, but no doubt others know much more about them than I do and can comment on that. While there are were were some concerns about negative impacts of these activities, these concerns have mostly been about perceptions of economic disadvantages, I think, while opposition to and alarm about climate intervention is largely about perceived (mostly unknown) threats and risks to health, well being, the environment, nature, etc. in addition to the (getting tiresome) arguments about moral hazards. Notably I don't think moral hazards were an issue with any of these other attempts to reduce or prevent anthropogenic damages and harms.
On Sat, Jan 22, 2022 at 8:49 PM Gernot Wagner <ger...@gwagner.com> wrote: > To be clear, this effort goes quite a bit further. From the "extended > argument": "[…] it is *effective *and *enforceable *political control by > the Global South that would be required." > > That, of course, renders basically any global (climate) governance effort > anywhere illegitimate. > > *Gernot Wagner, **New York University (on leave at Columbia Business > School, spring 2022)* > gwagner.com > *Keep in touch: *gwagner.com/#newsletter > > > On Sat, Jan 22, 2022 at 8:40 PM Andrew Revkin <rev...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Yes, that's a solid point. How many sustainability challenges (other than >> CFC's) have been, or can be, "governed a fair, inclusive, and effective >> manner"? >> >> On Fri, Jan 21, 2022 at 11:46 PM Greg Rau <gh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> >>> “In short, solar geoengineering deployment cannot be governed globally >>> in a fair, inclusive, and effective manner.” >>> Apparently, neither can adequate emissions reduction. Considering what’s >>> at stake, how about trying harder on both fronts? Or would that be asking >>> too much of governance “experts”? Guess our only hope is CDR, or is that >>> also beyond human control? >>> Greg >>> >>> Sent from my iPhone >>> >>> On Jan 21, 2022, at 7:07 PM, 'Robert Tulip' via geoengineering < >>> geoengineering@googlegroups.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> Andrew >>> >>> >>> >>> From the content of the letter, it is obvious the authors are not >>> geoengineering experts. The signatories of the open letter >>> <https://www.solargeoeng.org/non-use-agreement/open-letter/> are listed >>> at https://www.solargeoeng.org/non-use-agreement/signatories/. They >>> are mainly governance scholars, as noted in the article >>> <https://wires.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wcc.754>, which >>> means their fields are more in social science than physical science. >>> >>> >>> >>> I doubt that people with scientific expertise in geoengineering would >>> support such an ignorant and harmful polemic. It is distressing that the >>> evidence-free attitudes in this letter have such widespread senior academic >>> support. If this viewpoint remains influential, our planetary goose is >>> cooked. >>> >>> >>> >>> Robert Tulip >>> >>> >>> >>> *From:* geoengineering@googlegroups.com <geoengineering@googlegroups.com> >>> *On Behalf Of *Andrew Lockley >>> *Sent:* Saturday, 22 January 2022 3:47 AM >>> *To:* geoengineering <geoengineering@googlegroups.com> >>> *Subject:* [geo] Senior scholars? >>> >>> >>> >>> About that recent letter on "International Non-Use Agreement on Solar >>> Geoengineering"... >>> >>> >>> >>> https://www.solargeoeng.org/ >>> >>> >>> >>> It has been signed by "senior scholars", we're told: >>> >>> >>> >>> "...over 45 senior scholars from around the world who are the First >>> Signatories of our Open Letter..." >>> >>> >>> >>> But is this description correct, insofar as the signatories' publication >>> record on this specific subject? >>> >>> >>> >>> I've been asked to share the attached data, by an anon source. It's >>> based on WOS searches, (with a couple of manual amendments for missing >>> pubs). >>> >>> >>> >>> 'Web of science search, topic: "solar geoengineering" OR "solar >>> radiation management" OR "climate engineering" OR "geoengineering" OR >>> "stratospheric aerosol geoengineering" OR "marine cloud brightening" OR >>> "cirrus cloud thinning"' >>> >>> >>> >>> While this search is doubtless neither perfect nor exhaustive, it does >>> not appear obviously biased to me. (I had no role in its generation.) >>> >>> >>> >>> I've added only mean/max/mode info - pasting data to a new file to >>> protect my source. >>> >>> >>> >>> You will note the following key points of information >>> >>> 1) Mode number of topic papers detected among sigs is zero - Only ~1/3 >>> have ever published on the topic. Any "senior" status has therefore >>> generally been acquired in other fields, or not at all. >>> >>> 2) Max pubs is 8 among signatories (FYI same as me - and am an unwaged >>> RA with no PhD, and not by any sensible objective definition a "senior >>> scholar"). >>> >>> 3) Of the top ~400 authors on solar geo, only 7 have signed their >>> letter. (<2%) >>> >>> 4) Mean publications of signatories <1 >>> >>> 5) Max pubs of non-signatories is over 10x that of signatories >>> >>> >>> >>> As always, I express no opinion. You can form your own view, based on >>> the facts, as to whether these signatories are accurately described as >>> "senior scholars", wrt to this specific letter. >>> >>> >>> >>> Andrew >>> >>> -- >>> 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 view this discussion on the web visit >>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAJ3C-04ZMTp75MmSfji6PajrK_ujRe208kqxk_sx1MZ9AL8AuQ%40mail.gmail.com >>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAJ3C-04ZMTp75MmSfji6PajrK_ujRe208kqxk_sx1MZ9AL8AuQ%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >>> . >>> >>> -- >>> 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 view this discussion on the web visit >>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/033601d80f3d%241ef64f70%245ce2ee50%24%40yahoo.com.au >>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/033601d80f3d%241ef64f70%245ce2ee50%24%40yahoo.com.au?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >>> . >>> >>> -- >>> 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 view this discussion on the web visit >>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/6E6F2258-A936-41AD-841E-CFAE3A03C2D7%40sbcglobal.net >>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/6E6F2258-A936-41AD-841E-CFAE3A03C2D7%40sbcglobal.net?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >>> . >>> >> >> >> -- >> *ANDREW REVKIN* >> *Founding Director, Initiative on Communication & Sustainability* >> *Columbia University Climate School* >> *Sustain What newsletter <http://revkin.bulletin.com>* >> *Sustain What webcast* <http://j.mp/sustainwhatlive> >> *+1 914.441.5556 phone, @revkin Twitter* >> *@revkin <http://twitter.com/revkin>, Facebook >> <https://www.facebook.com/andrew.revkin.5>, Music >> <http://j.mp/revkinmusic>, Books >> <https://www.amazon.com/Andrew-Revkin/e/B001IXNSRK/ref=sr_tc_2_0?qid=1390325965&sr=1-2-ent>* >> >> -- >> 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 view this discussion on the web visit >> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CA%2Bakwtb8K9G1OfyVMvABhDqMxQWC31kcqd0iKaidpxF84Gm4Yg%40mail.gmail.com >> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CA%2Bakwtb8K9G1OfyVMvABhDqMxQWC31kcqd0iKaidpxF84Gm4Yg%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >> . >> > -- > 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 view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAJK3vz3KNkb3e0a1ZCy7jjX0R2dmMrsJxPjCvS%2BGJUA43UdrNg%40mail.gmail.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAJK3vz3KNkb3e0a1ZCy7jjX0R2dmMrsJxPjCvS%2BGJUA43UdrNg%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > -- 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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CA%2BPtSANiDE-uFW5hQpVsgFRi-9%3DvaewT-s9X2p5B8sM-cYUxGg%40mail.gmail.com.
