Sam Carana
unread,Dec 23, 2008, 7:13:00 PM12/23/08Sign in to reply to author
Sign in to forward
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to geo-engineering
Here are some points on which I have evaluated a number of geo-
engineering projects. I encourage others to suggest additions and
changes.
=======
SCIENCE
=======
- EXISTING STUDIES - Are relevant studies available? Has there been
any peer-review?
- FURTHER STUDY - What further studies and modeling are required?
- EFFECTIVENESS - How effective will the proposal be in reducing
global warming?
- TIMESCALE - How long will it take to see results?
- CONCERNS - What are possible climate risks, side-effects, dangers?
===========
ENGINEERING
===========
- METHODS - How can it be done? Have specific methods been proposed?
- TECHNICAL PROBLEMS - Could the project run into technical problems?
- TECHNOLOGIES - Does the project require development of new
technologies?
- TESTING - Has any testing been done? At what scale?
==========
ECONOMICS
==========
- COST - Are there estimates as to what (each of the various stages
of) implementations would cost?
- FINANCING - How could the project be financed? Is there any backing
for the project?
- RESOURCES - Will there be access to the various resources needed to
make it work?
- IMPACT - What will be the economic impact? Who will profit from the
project?
=======
POLITICS
=======
- APPROVAL - What kind of approvals are needed to go ahead?
- SUBSIDIES - Are subsidies required for impact studies, feasibility
studies or for specific parts of the project?
- POLICY - How does the project fit in with specific policies, e.g.
offset policies, emissions trading or feebates?
- LEGAL - Does it require new laws or amendment of existing laws? Can
legal challenges be expected?
- DIPLOMACY - Would the project require international negotiations
between nations?
- ADMINISTRATION - From where will the project be administered?
===============
SOCIAL & MEDICAL
===============
- SUPPORT - Is there public support for, concern about or resistance
against the project?
- CONSULTATION - Who will benefit, who could be harmed? Has the public
been consulted?
- CONTROL - What level of policing, supervision and security is
needed? What monitoring is needed?
- MEDICAL - Would the project pose safety and health concerns?
- CULTURAL - Does the project offend some people in some way?
============
ENVIRONMENT
============
- IMPACT STUDY - Has an environmental impact assessment been done? Are
further studies required?
- MAINTENANCE - Is any monitoring, maintenance or restoration
required, to prevent environmental damage?
These points could give some indication as to how hard it will be to
implement with a proposed project. Projects could be scored on each
point by asking whether this point will raise any difficulties for the
respective project. A high score would indicate that there can be
expected to be little or no difficulty on this point for the project,
while a low score would indicate that the project can be expected to
have difficulty on this point.
Each point could be given a specific weighting, resulting in overall
score for each of the projects. The higher the overall score, the more
the project should be of interest to members of this group. A high
overall score should indicate that there is sufficient confidence that
the project is safe, effective, feasible, viable, etc, with little or
no concern, risk or danger that things could go wrong or that a
proposal could cause damage or harm in some way.
Importantly however, this should not be seen as a race where only one
winner is selected. It is prudent to encourage diversity in approach
and to continue to study multiple ideas and suggestions in parallel.
Cheers!
Sam Carana