ETC Group on geoengineering
4 views
Skip to first unread message
Dan Whaley
Nov 4, 2009, 2:28:08 PM11/4/09
to geoengineering
Actually, the voice is fairly reasonable here.
Geoengineering: Plan B for when Copenhagen fails? eek!
Published by Joshua Kahn Russell, November 4th, 2009 Copenhagen 2009 ,
United Nations 1 Comment
Diana Bronson, ETC Group
We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we
created them. – Albert Einstein
As global climate negotiations in Barcelona enter into the last week
of talks before December’s Copenhagen summit, there continues to be
more aggravation than agreement amongst negotiators. Despite the
litany of warnings about the devastation a failure in Copenhagen will
cause – mass migrations, floods, worsening hunger and elimination of
entire small island states – the most powerful countries in the world
have failed to significantly reduce emissions, let alone commit to new
targets or adequate funds to pay for adaptation. Unwilling to muster
collective political will to dramatically reduce consumption, wealthy
countries are looking for ways to continue business as usual.
The surprising announcement that the US Congressional Committee on
Science and Technology will be holding hearings on geoengineering in
Washington later this week has some participants in Barcelona
wondering if the lack of collective political will on the part of
industrialized countries has something to do with Plan B moving a
whole lot faster than we thought. Plan B is geoengineering: the
intentional, large-scale plans to modify the climate and related
systems.
geoengineering
Geoengineering technologies include, for example, schemes to simulate
a volcanic eruption by shooting sulphur particles into the
stratosphere to reflect the sun’s rays back to outer space. Other
technologies whiten clouds to make them more reflective. Some
geoengineers propose dumping iron particles in the oceans to feed
algae that might soak up CO2. Others want to change hurricane paths
and rainfall patterns.
This is not science fiction. In just the last year, high-profile and
influential scientific bodies, including the U.S. National Academies
and the UK Royal Society, have begun evaluating the pros and cons of
different technological fixes. The UK Parliament has already held
hearings on geoengineering, new research institutes are opening and
public funds are being allocated to geoengineering research. In a
bewildering turnaround, former opponents of action on climate change
like the self-described “skeptical environmentalist” Bjørn Lomborg in
Denmark and Lee Lane of the American Enterprise Institute have now
jumped on the geoengineering spaceship, calling not only for more
research but also for experimentation and deployment of these extreme
techno-fixes.
While these developments remain below the public’s radar, we need to
pay attention. Ties are tight between the research, corporate, and
political players in geoengineering. To cite one example, Steven
Koonin – the current Under Secretary for Science in the U.S.
Department of Energy and former Chief Scientist at the world’s second
largest oil company (BP) – recently led a group of ten scientists in
thinking through the “technicalities” of shooting sulphates into the
stratosphere. Such high-risk interventions are being contemplated and
global permission is unlikely to be asked in the current regulatory
vacuum for geoengineering.
Geoengineering is not part of the ongoing negotiations at the UN
Framework Convention on Climate Change – at least, not yet – but we
must question the strategies of those refusing to make progress on a
post-Kyoto plan. Are they waiting for conditions to ripen for a
rollout of geoengineering? Was Gordon Brown disingenuous or just badly
briefed when he said there was “no plan B” on climate change? His own
Royal Society recently recommended the UK government invest £100
million for geoengineering research, assessing the possibilities
precisely as “Plan B.”
The belief that technology will save the world from climate change
runs deep amongst government delegates in Barcelona. Technology is
virtually the only negotiating topic where some progress has been
displayed, albeit with all the familiar battles over intellectual
property. And it is quite possible that the spin doctors will try to
portray some modest agreement on technology in Copenhagen as a
“success,” while the thornier issues of emission targets and money are
set aside for “later.”
We need to make sure that whatever comes out of Copenhagen strengthens
the struggle for real climate justice and a sustainable path forward.
If geoengineering becomes a silver bullet distraction, rich countries
will have not only walked away from the Kyoto Protocol, they will have
begun to abandon any semblance of a multilateral approach to the
climate crisis.
For more information, see http://etcgroup.org/en/issues/geoengineering
Geoengineering: Plan B for when Copenhagen fails? eek!
Published by Joshua Kahn Russell, November 4th, 2009 Copenhagen 2009 ,
United Nations 1 Comment
Diana Bronson, ETC Group
We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we
created them. – Albert Einstein
As global climate negotiations in Barcelona enter into the last week
of talks before December’s Copenhagen summit, there continues to be
more aggravation than agreement amongst negotiators. Despite the
litany of warnings about the devastation a failure in Copenhagen will
cause – mass migrations, floods, worsening hunger and elimination of
entire small island states – the most powerful countries in the world
have failed to significantly reduce emissions, let alone commit to new
targets or adequate funds to pay for adaptation. Unwilling to muster
collective political will to dramatically reduce consumption, wealthy
countries are looking for ways to continue business as usual.
The surprising announcement that the US Congressional Committee on
Science and Technology will be holding hearings on geoengineering in
Washington later this week has some participants in Barcelona
wondering if the lack of collective political will on the part of
industrialized countries has something to do with Plan B moving a
whole lot faster than we thought. Plan B is geoengineering: the
intentional, large-scale plans to modify the climate and related
systems.
geoengineering
Geoengineering technologies include, for example, schemes to simulate
a volcanic eruption by shooting sulphur particles into the
stratosphere to reflect the sun’s rays back to outer space. Other
technologies whiten clouds to make them more reflective. Some
geoengineers propose dumping iron particles in the oceans to feed
algae that might soak up CO2. Others want to change hurricane paths
and rainfall patterns.
This is not science fiction. In just the last year, high-profile and
influential scientific bodies, including the U.S. National Academies
and the UK Royal Society, have begun evaluating the pros and cons of
different technological fixes. The UK Parliament has already held
hearings on geoengineering, new research institutes are opening and
public funds are being allocated to geoengineering research. In a
bewildering turnaround, former opponents of action on climate change
like the self-described “skeptical environmentalist” Bjørn Lomborg in
Denmark and Lee Lane of the American Enterprise Institute have now
jumped on the geoengineering spaceship, calling not only for more
research but also for experimentation and deployment of these extreme
techno-fixes.
While these developments remain below the public’s radar, we need to
pay attention. Ties are tight between the research, corporate, and
political players in geoengineering. To cite one example, Steven
Koonin – the current Under Secretary for Science in the U.S.
Department of Energy and former Chief Scientist at the world’s second
largest oil company (BP) – recently led a group of ten scientists in
thinking through the “technicalities” of shooting sulphates into the
stratosphere. Such high-risk interventions are being contemplated and
global permission is unlikely to be asked in the current regulatory
vacuum for geoengineering.
Geoengineering is not part of the ongoing negotiations at the UN
Framework Convention on Climate Change – at least, not yet – but we
must question the strategies of those refusing to make progress on a
post-Kyoto plan. Are they waiting for conditions to ripen for a
rollout of geoengineering? Was Gordon Brown disingenuous or just badly
briefed when he said there was “no plan B” on climate change? His own
Royal Society recently recommended the UK government invest £100
million for geoengineering research, assessing the possibilities
precisely as “Plan B.”
The belief that technology will save the world from climate change
runs deep amongst government delegates in Barcelona. Technology is
virtually the only negotiating topic where some progress has been
displayed, albeit with all the familiar battles over intellectual
property. And it is quite possible that the spin doctors will try to
portray some modest agreement on technology in Copenhagen as a
“success,” while the thornier issues of emission targets and money are
set aside for “later.”
We need to make sure that whatever comes out of Copenhagen strengthens
the struggle for real climate justice and a sustainable path forward.
If geoengineering becomes a silver bullet distraction, rich countries
will have not only walked away from the Kyoto Protocol, they will have
begun to abandon any semblance of a multilateral approach to the
climate crisis.
For more information, see http://etcgroup.org/en/issues/geoengineering
Greg Rau
Nov 4, 2009, 4:52:58 PM11/4/09
to dan.w...@gmail.com, di...@etcgroup.org, geoengi...@googlegroups.com
Thanks for that Dan and Diana.
So is this a warning against evaluating/using
technological solutions in general, or just those
whose effectiveness and risks are uncertain? If
the former, what then is Plan A? If the latter,
wouldn't it make sense to bring these into a
careful, multilateral evaluation of their pros
and cons in the event that they are shown to
provide a viable Plan B? Simply demonizing these
approaches now, without further analysis and
without any apparent Plan A, seems very short
sighted if not dangerous. I'm not sure what
"climate justice" is that Diana refers to, but I
would guess that there will be very little of it
without rapidly deployed, large scale methods of
stabilizing atmospheric CO2 and/or of offsetting
its effects. In this task, wouldn't it be good
to keep all of our options the table in the event
that some prove useful if not essential?
-Greg
>Actually, the voice is fairly reasonable here.
>
>
>Geoengineering: Plan B for when Copenhagen fails? eek!
>Published by Joshua Kahn Russell, November 4th, 2009 Copenhagen 2009 ,
>United Nations 1 Comment
>
>Diana Bronson, ETC Group
>
>We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we
>created them. - Albert Einstein
>entire small island states - the most powerful countries in the world
>Koonin - the current Under Secretary for Science in the U.S.
>
So is this a warning against evaluating/using
technological solutions in general, or just those
whose effectiveness and risks are uncertain? If
the former, what then is Plan A? If the latter,
wouldn't it make sense to bring these into a
careful, multilateral evaluation of their pros
and cons in the event that they are shown to
provide a viable Plan B? Simply demonizing these
approaches now, without further analysis and
without any apparent Plan A, seems very short
sighted if not dangerous. I'm not sure what
"climate justice" is that Diana refers to, but I
would guess that there will be very little of it
without rapidly deployed, large scale methods of
stabilizing atmospheric CO2 and/or of offsetting
its effects. In this task, wouldn't it be good
to keep all of our options the table in the event
that some prove useful if not essential?
-Greg
>Actually, the voice is fairly reasonable here.
>
>
>Geoengineering: Plan B for when Copenhagen fails? eek!
>Published by Joshua Kahn Russell, November 4th, 2009 Copenhagen 2009 ,
>United Nations 1 Comment
>
>Diana Bronson, ETC Group
>
>We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we
>
>As global climate negotiations in Barcelona enter into the last week
>of talks before December's Copenhagen summit, there continues to be
>more aggravation than agreement amongst negotiators. Despite the
>litany of warnings about the devastation a failure in Copenhagen will
>cause - mass migrations, floods, worsening hunger and elimination of
>As global climate negotiations in Barcelona enter into the last week
>of talks before December's Copenhagen summit, there continues to be
>more aggravation than agreement amongst negotiators. Despite the
>litany of warnings about the devastation a failure in Copenhagen will
>entire small island states - the most powerful countries in the world
>Department of Energy and former Chief Scientist at the world's second
>largest oil company (BP) - recently led a group of ten scientists in
>thinking through the "technicalities" of shooting sulphates into the
>stratosphere. Such high-risk interventions are being contemplated and
>global permission is unlikely to be asked in the current regulatory
>vacuum for geoengineering.
>
>Geoengineering is not part of the ongoing negotiations at the UN
>Framework Convention on Climate Change - at least, not yet - but we
>stratosphere. Such high-risk interventions are being contemplated and
>global permission is unlikely to be asked in the current regulatory
>vacuum for geoengineering.
>
>Geoengineering is not part of the ongoing negotiations at the UN
>must question the strategies of those refusing to make progress on a
>post-Kyoto plan. Are they waiting for conditions to ripen for a
>rollout of geoengineering? Was Gordon Brown disingenuous or just badly
>briefed when he said there was "no plan B" on climate change? His own
>Royal Society recently recommended the UK government invest £100
>million for geoengineering research, assessing the possibilities
>precisely as "Plan B."
>
>The belief that technology will save the world from climate change
>runs deep amongst government delegates in Barcelona. Technology is
>virtually the only negotiating topic where some progress has been
>displayed, albeit with all the familiar battles over intellectual
>property. And it is quite possible that the spin doctors will try to
>portray some modest agreement on technology in Copenhagen as a
>"success," while the thornier issues of emission targets and money are
>set aside for "later."
>
>We need to make sure that whatever comes out of Copenhagen strengthens
>the struggle for real climate justice and a sustainable path forward.
>If geoengineering becomes a silver bullet distraction, rich countries
>will have not only walked away from the Kyoto Protocol, they will have
>begun to abandon any semblance of a multilateral approach to the
>climate crisis.
>
>For more information, see http://*etcgroup.org/en/issues/geoengineering
>post-Kyoto plan. Are they waiting for conditions to ripen for a
>rollout of geoengineering? Was Gordon Brown disingenuous or just badly
>briefed when he said there was "no plan B" on climate change? His own
>Royal Society recently recommended the UK government invest £100
>million for geoengineering research, assessing the possibilities
>precisely as "Plan B."
>
>The belief that technology will save the world from climate change
>runs deep amongst government delegates in Barcelona. Technology is
>virtually the only negotiating topic where some progress has been
>displayed, albeit with all the familiar battles over intellectual
>property. And it is quite possible that the spin doctors will try to
>portray some modest agreement on technology in Copenhagen as a
>"success," while the thornier issues of emission targets and money are
>set aside for "later."
>
>We need to make sure that whatever comes out of Copenhagen strengthens
>the struggle for real climate justice and a sustainable path forward.
>If geoengineering becomes a silver bullet distraction, rich countries
>will have not only walked away from the Kyoto Protocol, they will have
>begun to abandon any semblance of a multilateral approach to the
>climate crisis.
>
>
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages