Ken, You make a clear point on the* intent issue. *Large scale mariculture operations, such as OMEGA concept (and even the Salter Wave Sink array), highlight the importance of this issue. When does a large surface installation go from a 'fish farm' to that of a GE installation? If the operators position the instillation in an area which affects the skin effect region within the ENSO, would they need to be governed as a GE operation? Or, elect, by themselves, to declare non-GE intent? As you know, the Salter Wave Sink patent has secondary mariculture claims as does the OMEGA project. So, this mariculture specific scenario may be worth further discussion, possibly on the followings issues. 1) Should large scale mariculture operations be classified as a form of SRM due to the vast scale which they can potentially achieve? That scale can potentially affect systems as large as the ENSO or lesser systems such as the 'Pineapple Express'. 2) Would such an operation *have the right* to declare a non-GE intent? 3) The profit potential of large scale mariculture operations are significant (>$100B per/yr). Thus, they may be, probably will be, fielded without GE governance. Here is a UN report on; *The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2010 *<http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&ved=0CDgQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.fao.org%2Fdocrep%2F013%2Fi1820e%2Fi1820e.pdf&ei=CpMrUouEAuK5igLcrYCIDA&usg=AFQjCNHfZciIgbvLfglzzj3-P12P_REpPw&sig2=5KJNLhFSMC5Otp-MOcGsiA&bvm=bv.51773540,d.cGE>
"Global capture fisheries production in 2008 was about 90 million tonnes, with an estimated first-sale value of US$93.9 billion" This rate of fish capture *is not sustainable* and there is a rapidly growing global interest in mariculture. Thus, here is a situation which can possibly be guided by GE science/ethics or ignored. My recommendation would be that large scale mariculture be recognized, by the GE community, as a priority concept and be guided. Best, Michael Best, Michael On Friday, September 6, 2013 10:09:59 AM UTC-7, Ken Caldeira wrote: > The call to prudence by Schäfer et al is welcome, although I do think it > is unclear exactly what constitutes a ."solar climate engineering field > experiment". > > The phrase "field test of solar climate engineering" cannot be > unambiguously defined. (Please prove me wrong by providing an unambiguous > definition that can attain consensus.) > > If I paint a one meter square with white paint on my dark asphalt driveway > and measure the reflected sunlight, is that a "solar climate engineering > field test"? > > It would seem that if my intent were to develop technologies that would > ultimately modify climate at global scale, then the answer would likely be > 'yes'. If the intent were simply to test which asphalt paints are easiest > on the eyes, then the answer would likely be "no". > > So, whether this is a "solar geoengineering field test" or not depends not > on my actions, but on my intent. > > But what if someone else is funding this project, and they want to develop > a solar geoengineering system but I just want driveway paints that is > easier on the eyes (or vice versa)? Whose intention counts,that of the > experimental scientist or that of the funder? > > It seems that if we want to have a workable regulatory system, which > governance regime an action falls under should be determinable by a > physical description of the action, and then the governance regime should > take intent of the various parties involved in a project into account when > determining whether expected benefits exceed expected damage in any > particular case. > > Which governance regime applies should depend on a physical description of > a proposed action. A governance regime could then take into consideration > the intents of various parties in deciding whether to approve a particular > project. > > We are asking for trouble if we require that issues of intent to be > resolved in order to determine which governance regime applies. It seems > that for a governance regime to be triggered, the risk of damage from a > project must exceed some *de minimis* level. > > However, Schäfer et al are correct in suggesting that even such* de > minimis* experiments could provoke a negative and ultimately > counter-productive backlash, and therefore they are well-justified in > counseling scientists and engineers to proceed cautiously and prudently > even with such *de minimis *projects, abiding by an informal set of > professional norms. > > > > _______________ > Ken Caldeira > > Carnegie Institution for Science > Dept of Global Ecology > 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA > +1 650 704 7212 kcal...@carnegiescience.edu <javascript:> > http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab @kencaldeira > > > > > On Fri, Sep 6, 2013 at 3:39 AM, Andrew Lockley > <andrew....@gmail.com<javascript:> > > wrote: > >> http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v3/n9/full/nclimate1987.html >> >> Field tests of solar climate engineering >> >> Stefan Schäfer, Peter J. Irvine, Anna-Maria Hubert,David Reichwein, Sean >> Low, Harald Stelzer, Achim Maas & Mark G. Lawrence >> >> Nature Climate Change 3, 766 (2013) >> doi:10.1038/nclimate1987 >> Published online 28 August 2013 >> >> The international community has declared climate change a 'common concern >> of humankind'. Therefore, the development of 'climate engineering' (also >> known as geoengineering) techniques that aim to modify the global climate >> requires international cooperation on their governance. (truncated - >> apologies for cheesparing paywall! ) >> >> -- >> 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 geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>. >> To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com<javascript:> >> . >> 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.
