Tuesday, March 5, 2013

Geoengineering Climate: The making of a modern Shakespearean tragedy - Sins of Commission

#Geoengineering #Climate: The making of a modern Shakespearean tragedy - Sins of Commission 

Act I
Contrails warm the world more than aviation emissions
Michael Marshall 12 August 2011 (New Scientist)

Act II
Sooty ships may be geoengineering by accident
Jeff Hecht 09 February 2013 (New Scientist)

----Speaking of modern Shakespearean (scripted) tragedies:

By Jamais Cascio (2009) 
An excert.

The first two political dilemmas arising from geoengineering
efforts are heightened versions of relatively conventional
international issues: political control and distribution of costs. The
third dilemma, conversely, has few precedents.

It is possible that, should the international community refrain
from geoengineering strategies, one or more smaller, non-hegemonic, actors could undertake geoengineering projects of
their own.
This could be out of a legitimate fear that prevention
and mitigation strategies would be insufficient, out of a
disagreement with the consensus over geoengineering safety or
results, or — most troublingly — out of a desire to use
geoengineering tools to achieve a relative increase in competitive
power over adversaries.

It's entirely possible, even likely, that the hegemonic
international powers will decide, after careful study, that the
potential risks of substantive geoengineering outweigh the
potential benefits, and that no such strategies should be pursued.
However, we know that the negative impacts of global warming
are distributed unevenly, and what may be acceptable levels of
climate disruption for the major states may be utterly devastating
for poorer, smaller nations.
It is in this context that a scientificallypowerful
developing nation — India or Brazil, for example —
may decide that it is unwilling to abide by UN decisions about reterraforming, and begin to undertake such a strategy.

It may have concluded that the impacts of climate change
would hit it too quickly for carbon reductions around the world to
have an effect; it may see geoengineering as its only choice.
Conversely, it may have concluded that the scientific arguments
against geoengineering were faulty, and that such an effort could
be undertaken safely, regardless of the success of other solutions.
Would this rogue effort be backed up by a threat to use all means
necessary to defend the project? Would the UN or the hegemonic
powers be willing to use sanctions, interdiction of project-related
materials, even war to stop the rogue?

Moreover, with the geoengineering technologies on the table,
there's no guarantee that they'll only be used for environmental
purposes. Nuclear proliferation and open-source warfare (as seen
in Iraq and Afghanistan) have made successful conventional
warfare far more difficult — perhaps even functionally
impossible. Geoengineering weapons may offer a new potential to
disrupt one's enemies over a long, subtle campaign. Is this likely?
Probably not, but it’s sufficiently possible that governments will
be forced to consider it.

No nation that sees itself as a great power is going to be
willing to risk having its climate and environment completely in
the hands of another nation. Research into methodologies for
geoengineering will happen simply out of self-preservation —
after all, nobody wants to fall victim to a "terraforming gap."

Finally, we have to recognize that the "rogue actors" need not be
states. While the costs of geoengineering strategies may be
enormous, they wouldn't necessarily be out of the range of some
of the global billionaires. The movie scenario's not hard to

      In a world on the verge of destruction... while nations delay and scientists bicker... one man sees a way to save us all.

     "But the UN isn’t sure it’s safe!"

     “To hell with the UN! I just want to save the Earth!”

As the planet burns, Warren Gates-Branson III crosses the line no
nation dares cross.

      "All my money counts for nothing if the world's gone to hell!"

(OE) or...  Act III

(Pacific Ocean Hacker Speaks Out
Is Russ George a "rogue geoengineer," salmon savior or something else?
By David Biello October 24, 2012 Scientific American)

Unfortunately, the less-heroic version's not hard to imagine,
either: a cadre of scientists and engineers willing to say anything
to test out pet ideas, a multi-jillionaire who believes himself
smarter than those bureaucrats at the UN, and a planet already on
the tipping point of catastrophe, just waiting for some kind of
event to trigger an unstoppable cascade of environmental tragedy."

(OE) or...  Act IV

As the Arctic sea ice melts, be wary of 'Methane Emergency' claims
Christian Hunt 14 Aug 2012 The Carbon Brief)

... Act V Final Act

Carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels and cement production, from 1751 to 2007.
Powerful summer storm in Arctic reduces sea ice
The Arctic's Record Breaking Ice Melt
Arctic States meet to discuss fossil fuel exploration
Incresed Hunger For Billions of People
20 reasons why geoengineering may be a bad idea

Other links:

Global warming may have fueled Somali drought 

You are invited to visit my weekly:
#Geoengineering #Climate Issues

Para una corta introducción visite:

Los invito a que lean también mi semanario en español:

GEOINGENIERIA DEL CLIMA - Temas sobre la Geoingeniería Climática - Modificación del Clima 

Y en inglés con algunos articulos en español: #Geoengineering #Climate Issues
Creative Commons License
A #Geoengineering #Climate Issues blog - Geoingeniería by Oscar and Jocelyn Escobar is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.Licencia Creative Commons
A #Geoengineering #Climate Issues blog por Oscar y Jocelyn Escobar se distribuye bajo una Licencia Creative Commons Atribución-NoComercial 4.0 Internacional.