Securing the ‘great white shield’? Climate change, Arctic security and the geopolitics of solar geoengineering

[Geoengineering News]

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/00108367241269629

Authors 

Nikolaj Kornbech, Olaf Corry, and Duncan McLaren 

https://doi.org/10.1177/00108367241269629

18 August 2024

Abstract

The Arctic has been identified by scientists as a relatively promising venue for controversial ‘solar geoengineering’ – technical schemes to reflect more sunlight to counteract global warming. Yet contemporary regional security dynamics and the relative (in)significance of climate concerns among the key Arctic states suggest a different conclusion. By systematically juxtaposing recently published schemes for Arctic geoengineering with Arctic security strategies published by the littoral Arctic states and China, we reveal and detail two conflicting security imaginaries. Geoengineering schemes scientifically securitise (and seek to maintain) the Arctic’s ‘great white shield’ to protect ‘global’ humanity against climate tipping points and invoke a past era of Arctic ‘exceptionality’ to suggest greater political feasibility for research interventions here. Meanwhile, state security imaginaries understand the contemporary Arctic as an increasingly contested region of considerable geopolitical peril and economic opportunity as temperatures rise. Alongside the entangled history of science with geopolitics in the region, this suggests that geoengineering schemes in the Arctic are unlikely to follow scientific visions, and unless co-opted into competitive, extractivist state security imaginaries, may prove entirely infeasible. Moreover, if the Arctic is the ‘best-case’ for geoengineering politics, this places a huge question mark over the feasibility of other, more global prospects.

Source: Sage Journals 

[Ugo Bardi]

Dear colleagues,

you may be interested in this recent post of mine, based on a longer
paper that I updated on "ArXiv." My point is that solar radiation
management techniques, alone, are not a solution to the disturbance to
the ecosystem caused by the increasing concentration of carbon dioxide.
In my opinion, the way to go is to draw down CO2 both by "natural"
methods (e.g. reforestation) and -- in the emergency situation in which
we are -- using DAC -- direct air capture. Your comments on this paper
are welcome

https://thecarbonconundrum.substack.com/p/carbon-dioxide-as-a-pollutant

UB



--
Ugo Bardi
https://thecarbonconundrum.substack.com

[Alan Gadian]

Dear Ugo,

I am afraid CO2 reduction is not the major problem (analogous to rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic).  Reducing CO2 is crucially important.

This very brief note, attached , rejected by ArXiv, explains why.  Censorship is rife in this area and even basic laws of (high school|) Physics are ignored (the flat earth mentality).  

H20 is now the dominant problem.  History will show how stupid scientists can be.

Regards

Alan

Alan Gadian

0775 451 9009

alang...@gmail.com

[Michael MacCracken]

Hi Alan--I'm confused. How are scientists being so stupid? Surely, not by making water vapor the issue as that is treated as a feedback and not the source of the problem? It is others who have latched on to the water vapor feedback as somehow going on independent of the CO2 increase.

If you are saying that the IPCC is not adequately considering MCB, then write some papers on it as what the IPCC does is assess the literature. I don't like how the discussion of cooling interventions does not do a comparative impact of assessment of the future with and without cooling approaches being used to offset the ongoing warming from rising concentrations of GHGs due to ongoing and growing emissions of CO2, etc. In that the COP is in charge of asking for the input from IPCC that it wants, they should be asking for that comparison.

What we in HPAC are saying is that it is the COP that needs to broaden the set of policies and approaches they are considering to include the full Triad. That seems to me to be where the problem is. In that you want a fair scientific review of MCB and other approaches, calling scientists stupid does not seem to me to advance the agenda that you favor.

Best, Mike

--
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.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/255BF8AB-F489-454B-89E9-E2AD49FB7182%40gmail.com.

--
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.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/58db4cba-7445-44c7-a8eb-307955825be7%40gmail.com.

--
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.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/255BF8AB-F489-454B-89E9-E2AD49FB7182%40gmail.com.

[Alan Gadian]

Mike

Scientists have a huge responsibility which we have shirked.

1.  They refused to acknowledge the fact that (since 1978 when charney  illustrated the green house gas potential warming) and others followed.  the majority of scientists at that time refused to accept the reality.

2. The water vapour feedback ( runaway feedback ) was taught in meteorology in the 70’s . Paleo scientists have analysed this ad-finitum.  Studying other planets shows this as well. We live in a sweet spot, but not for much longer. Water vapour forcing is / soon will be stronger.

3. IPCC have either ignored the science , or refused to accept it.  David King / Stephen Salter  / I etc at COP26 were refused permission to talk. The UK science community banned funding for this science. Lovelock, 2006 predicted catastrophe. He told me that it was our fault that the science was not being acknowledged.  Rees does not think the planet can survive with present policies.   IPCC specifically excluded discussion of solar radiation management.

4. Oil production is expected to continue until 2050 at current rates and thus they have little effect.

As scientists we are therefore have a responsibility.  We are either corrupt, ineffective, have not explained the situation to the population,  or we are just plain stupid. Take your choice. (Stupid is the least offensive)

Regards

Alan 

Alan Gadian

(+44)/(0) 7754519009

On 27 Aug 2024, at 19:59, Michael MacCracken <mmac...@comcast.net> wrote:



[Michael MacCracken]

Dear Alan--Well, I don't agree with your statements, and a lot of the problem is with policymakers, not scientists.

1. On your first point, in the US, the President's Science Advisory Council put out a report on issue in 1965 that was discussed at Cabinet and Congressional level (and the report mentioned the possibility of geoengineering). The Department of Energy held an international conference in 1977, I think it was and started its' energy research program in 1979--leading to major international assessment in 1985 and work of Santer and others on detection, etc. The Charney report was put out by the US Academy of Scientists and there were then other reports in following years, including one in early 1990s with appendix looking at ways to do geoengineering.

2. I don't know any scientists in field that would disagree on water vapor feedback. Sure, there have been deniers, often supported by fossil fuel interests or just commenting from other fields of science. But look at Villach report from 1985 that was key conference leading to formation of IPCC.

3. COP-26 (and all other COPs) are run by government representatives, not by scientists. It is an intergovernmental body, not a scientific one. And the COP is who gets to set and approve the topics covered by IPCC. IPCC had a workshop on geoengineering back in 2011 and there has been a good bit of scientific study of geoengineering through GeoMIP since about the same time, with earlier research. And I had a summary paper in a major World Bank report in 2009-10 or so.

4. I certainly don't disagree that the world is in a serious situation, but I think your criticism is not aimed at where the problem really is, which is the COP that has not focused on the risks that the world is facing and instead focused on perhaps the least alarming central metric of the change in the global average temperature.

I do indeed think that the scientific community has an obligation to be more carefully investigating climate intervention and more clearly explaining possibilities. And I think this particularly the case on application of MCB, mainly its practicality as a global scale influence and its impacts. Silverlining is pushing on this, but getting just the right amount of CCN lofted in all the right locations and all the right times to have the type of influence needed it seems to me will not at all be easy. But the main problem is that the COP, so the government representatives, have yet to come to agree that they need to expand the set of policy approaches to include intervention.

Best, Mike