Climate engineering reconsidered : Nature Climate Change

[Andrew Lockley]

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v4/n7/full/nclimate2278.html?utm_content=buffere8815&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

Climate engineering reconsidered

Scott Barrett, et al

Nature Climate Change 4, 527–529 (2014) 25 June 2014

Stratospheric injection of sulphate aerosols has been advocated as an emergency geoengineering measure to tackle dangerous climate change, or as a stop-gap until atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are reduced. But it may not prove to be the game-changer that some imagine.

[Ken Caldeira]

This paper says that "geoengineering cannot be used to preserve today's climate", but does not mention that if the models are right, geoengineering could offset most anthropogenic climate change for the vast majority of people.

Also, claims such as "countries that expect to be harmed by geoengineering would surely act to prevent it from being used" are undermined by recent experiences with Russia in Crimea. When powerful countries act in their own self-interest, even if ways that harm others, other countries may not act because the costs of action can be substantial. If Russia had injected aerosols in the stratosphere instead of annexing Crimea, would the political and military response really have been much greater?

_______________
Ken Caldeira

Carnegie Institution for Science 

Dept of Global Ecology

260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA

+1 650 704 7212 kcal...@carnegiescience.edu

http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab  

https://twitter.com/KenCaldeira

Assistant:  Dawn Ross <dr...@carnegiescience.edu>

--
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 post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Bill Stahl]

And if Putin made the announcement flanked by a few leaders of Pacific island countries?  Kiribati or Nauru have zero military and economic power, but clout comes in many forms. Their presence would make opposition more complicated. As for deterrence, what threatened sanctions outweigh the threat of losing the ground under your feet? Or, in Russia's case, watching your northern cities, pipelines and roads sink into melting permafrost.

[Keith Henson]

"If Russia had injected aerosols in the stratosphere instead of
annexing Crimea, would the political and military response really have
been much greater?"

Excellent observation, Ken.

There is a way to power transportation from LEO to GEO using low
threat microwaves, but I have made the same argument that if one
country built GW scale propulsion lasers (which are weapons) to solve
the energy problems, there is little the rest of the world could do
about it.

Of course the country that released the aerosols would bitch about
others freeloading at their expense, but it's not likely they could
get the others who benefit to pay their share. It's also not likely
that people who claimed they were harmed would be able to collect
either.

Keith