Any information of the public in order to address crucial ethical,
social, environmental, political and economic concerns and questions of
the different Climate Engineering (CE) methods discussed in the
scientific communities on the basis of social values and democratic
process by scientific institutions should be as complete as possible.
Such information has to include even any established, probable and
possible advantages, disadvantages, risks, efficiencies and economy of
the methods. According to said requirements the posted "Science Dialogue
Climate Engineering" and "White Paper" is an example of incompleteness:
Neither the CE methods mentioned are complete nor relevant informations
about the discussed methods have been presented.
Any democratic public decision processes pro or contra CE, respctively
pro or contra a definite CE method, needs precise information as a basis
of decision. In this sense said "Science Dialogue Climate Engineering"
seems to me as an example of desinformation. And I am sure, such kind of
information is not helpful and may push the public opinion in the
opposition to CE.
Franz D. Oeste
------ Originalnachricht ------
Von: "Matthias Honegger" <honegger.matth...@gmail.com>
An: "geoengineering" <geoengineering@googlegroups.com>
Gesendet: 06.05.2017 11:45:49
Betreff: [geo] Re: Science Dialogue Climate Engineering
Thanks for posting, Andrew.
I'd like to provide a bit more background on the white paper for the
readers of the geoengineering list:
The attached white paper, which was drafted by the participants in a
workshop series held in Zurich, Switzerland, makes the case for public
deliberation on the societal dimensions of possible measures toward
climate change mitigation, negative emissions, and solar radiation
management. We make a call onto public servants to support deliberation
in the public realm in order to address crucial ethical, social,
environmental, political and economic concerns and questions in order
to improve the long-term quality of future decisions on the
inextricably linked issues of cutting GHG emissions, utilising negative
emissions technologies and addressing solar radiation management on the
basis of social values and democratic process. While we felt that the
need for such public deliberation is universal, we situate the white
paper in Switzerland reflecting for the countries' specific
circumstances. The key messages are as follows:
To limit climate risk, 197 nations agreed at the Paris conference in
2015 to cap warming well below 2 °C or even at 1.5 °C. There is growing
evidence that both goals may not be achievable by cutting greenhouse
gas emissions alone, given that without other measures full
decarbonisation would be needed before 2050. This is not reflected in
current policy plans. Mitigation remains key: Decisive cuts of
greenhouse gas emissions with a global decline starting no later than
2020 are essential for limiting climate risks. A rapid and systematic
reduction of CO2 emissions is the most important requirement, and
delays would significantly increase the risk of dangerous climate
change. An open societal conversation needs to address the emerging
topic of climate engineering. The possibility of novel approaches to
limit climate risk is increasingly discussed among researchers and
carries important social, environmental, and ethical implications and
risks. Tough questions on governance, protection against misuse, costs,
benefits and risks of both climate change and climate engineering
demand an open conversation in order to build a robust basis for
reasoned and democratic decisions in Switzerland and indeed the whole
world. Negative emissions: Capturing CO2 from ambient air and storing
it underground is sometimes termed as a type of climate engineering,
which will likely be needed at large scale later this century.
Switzerland alone might need to remove 280 million tons of CO2 before
2100. Besides raising important social, environmental and ethical
questions, it is unclear whether CO2 removal can actually be funded and
implemented at such scales. Relying on CO2 removal now could be
detrimental later, if it turns out to be infeasible. Solar radiation
management e.g. by redirecting sunlight through reflective particles in
the atmosphere is a fundamentally different type of climate
engineering. While it could help prevent some severe consequences of
climate change, it introduces significant novel risks and it could be
misused to justify delays in mitigation or negative emissions. Again,
many scientific, political, social, and ethical questions are to be
addressed and explored transparently in order to judge its merits.
Switzerland can take an active role in reaching the goals of Paris and
establishing a frank conversation – by promoting research to better
understand the urgency and challenges of CO2 emissions reductions, by
working to address the governance challenge posed by climate
engineering, and by pioneering a proactive approach to public
deliberation on these difficult but important questions.
Am Freitag, 5. Mai 2017 16:32:13 UTC+2 schrieb Andrew Lockley:
Science Dialogue Climate Engineering
<http://www.risiko-dialog.ch/themen/naturgefahren-und-klima/publikationen/696-whitepaper>
Created: May 03, 2017
At the end of 2016 until the beginning of 2017, the Risk Dialogue
Foundation conducted a scientific dialogue on climate engineering with
renowned Swiss and international climate researchers and experts with
financial support from the FOEN. The aim of the dialogue was to
exchange information on the state of research and the importance of
the topic and to assess risks better.
The results were summarized in a white paper, which can be obtained
here from 5 May 2017:
www.risiko-dialog.ch/whitepaper
<http://www.risiko-dialog.ch/images/RD-Media/PDF/Publikationen/Medienmitteilungen/Risk_Dialogue_Foundation_-CE-Dialogue_White_Paper_17_05_05.pdf>
For an introduction to the topic, please follow this link:
http://www.risiko-dialog.ch/themen/naturgefahren-und-klima/publikationen/631-climate-engineering-das-tabuthema-in-der-klimadebatte
<http://www.risiko-dialog.ch/themen/naturgefahren-und-klima/publikationen/631-climate-engineering-das-tabuthema-in-der-klimadebatte>
--
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 https://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 https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
