Tuesday, February 10, 2015

Some reactions to the NAS reports on "Climate Intervention" new rebranding of Climate Geoengineering

Most real time reactions were available trough the twitter hashtag #ClimateIntervention.
At the bottom there are also some of the reactions from printed media sources and the blogosphere.

Although I had a few questions I would had liked to ask, I thought the most important for me, at the moment, was weather or not these reports were going to be available in Spanish.

The overarching themes of the conference, and the debate in general are the scientific, ethical and security concerns part of which is the need to provide basic up to date scientific knowledge to inform not only the scientific and policy communities, but the public debate as well, which must include the global community and not only a particular State or set of States; and this global community should not be taken to be only NGOs and Civil Society groups. These groups have a very important role, but act as second or third party information re-layers, but mostly 'interpreters'. Which means that by the time the information reaches the public at large, it has been already influenced and changed by the particular views of these actors, those being political, environmental, commercial, etc. Think of that old childhood game 'telephone', where a particular set of instructions or information is given only to the first person in a long line of participants. Each person upon receiving the information is to relay it quietly to the next, 'without changing it' or 'as close as possible'. If you haven't played, the usual result is that the last person receives a message that has been substantially changed, or is often missing or has been added non related information. Even here on this blog we are not exempt from those dynamics!

For that reason making these reports available in an unadulterated form in other languages may also be important for climate justice, human rights and very importantly for the security concerns of the producing State.

So that is why I think that these two reports should be available from the producers in at least some of the other major languages, i.e. Spanish, etc.

Twitts regarding Ralph J. Cicerone's comments:

"Cicerone: message of NAS has been clear-most effective, least risky way to address climate change? reduce GHG emissions "

"But planet is not on a clear path to reduce emissions," says Cicerone "

"Cicerone: scientific community needs to have answers regarding consequences of ever deploying strategies"

"Every year of inaction requires technological demands says Prez Cicerone "

'" is no substitute for reductions in carbon dioxide emissions." '

Twitts regarding Marcia McNut K. the committee's president:

"NAS/NRC not only separating and ("albedo modification") but rebranding whole of as "

"SRM has unknown risk, and known substantial risks, but could be effective and quick. (2/2)"

" is low risk but relatively expensive today: key conclusion from report"

'".: “There is no silver bullet. We cannot continue on our current path assuming that will save us.”'

"NAS McNutt: OIF "more risky" than other sink enhancement "

"NAS recommendation #2: R&D to improve CDR at scales that matter. "

'" "albedo modification ... should not be deployed at this time"'

"NAS rec #5: US should improve capacity to detect/measure radiative forcing, and associated changes in climate. "

"NAS governance: transparent, inclusive conversations. max benefits of research, designed to minimize future risks. "

"NAS call for open, transparent governance for SRM research, involving civil society "

Twitts related to Q & A:

".: Since 2009, when UK Royal Society released similar report, 50% more research in literature"

 "Q to : Governance seems to focus only on US side. How do we get all the global stakeholders involved?"

 "Abdalati: goal is to weigh "risks of intervening vs the risks of not intervening" Former is poorly known"

"Waleed Abdalati: Mitigation and adaptation should be the goal, then to understand risks of intervening "

" must be at the table along with legal, political, ethical parties says "

"Q: legal/social issues - committee makeup primarily scientific, report recs initiating broader societal discussion "

"NAS emphasise risks of 'lock-in' of SRM because of termination effect "

"NAS: SRM can't 'dial back the climate' it can only make a 'different climate' "

"Distinct governance concerns for CDR and albedo modification, mostly bc of scale (OIF an exception). "

'"Counter-intuitive effects of mod in the ...may actually lead to warmer conditions." '

'. report release -- question -- is some kind of inevitable? yes to CDR; on albedo mod, "I hope not"'

"Gotta study in case some lone nation geoengineers so we can say "what does this mean" -"

Some print and blogosphere reactions:

Climate geoengineering schemes come under fire Influential US group lays out which planet-cooling proposals may work — and which won't. 
Alexandra Witze 10 February 2015 (nature)

Don’t Block the Sun to Cope with Global Warming 
By David Biello | February 10, 2015 (Scientific American)

Geoengineering Holds Promise; Solutions Not Ready
By Brian Kahn Published: February 10th, 2015 (Climate Central)

Reflecting Sunlight to Cool Earth: The NAS Weighs Controversial Measures in New Report
By Peter Frumhoff, director of science & policy February 10, 2015 (Union of Concerned Scientists)

Panel Urges More Research on Geoengineering as a Tool Against Climate Change
By HENRY FOUNTAIN FEB. 10, 2015 (NY Times)

Fed report: Time to examine purposely cooling planet idea
By SETH BORENSTEIN Feb. 10, 2015 (AP)

Scientists urge global 'wake-up call' to deal with climate change
Suzanne Goldenberg Feb. 10, 2015 (UK - The Guardian)

Geoengineering: Research is Prudent, But No Substitute for Carbon Pollution Cuts
Feb 10, 2015 (NRDC)

Plan B? What Happened to Plan A? by Pat Mooney (ETC via Common Dreams)

Rethinking the unthinkable by Jack Stilgoe Feb 10, 2015 (UK - The Guardian)

Advent of geoengineering may help lower temperature of debate over climate change
Feb 10, 2015 by Phys.Org


In Geoengineering Study, Science Academy Sees Merit in CO2 Removal, Risk in Reflecting Sunlight
By Andrew C. Revkin  February 10, 2015 (NY Times)


Geoengineering and the folly of playing God with the plane
By Jason Samenow February 10, 2015 (The Washington Post)

Climate Hacking Is Barking Mad
By Raymond T. Pierrehumbert Feb. 10, 2015 (Slate)

geoengineering: the bad idea we need to stop climate change
by Eric Roston February 10, 2015 (Bloomberg)

Scientists Are Pretty Terrified About These Last-Minute Fixes to Global Warming
By Tim McDonnell | Tue Feb. 10, 2015 (Mother Jones)

There’s a Good and a Bad Way to ‘Geoengineer’ the Planet
Craig Welch   Published February 10, 2015 (National Geographic)

Anti-‘Geoengineering’ National Academy Report Opposes ‘Climate-Altering Deployment’ 
By Joe Romm Posted on February 10, 2015 (Climate Progress)

Media coverage of NAS “Climate Intervention” reports 
February 10, 2015 /  dcgeoconsortium

Civil Society statements on release of NAS “Climate Intervention” reports 
February 10, 2015 /  dcgeoconsortium  

Scientists Suggest Testing Climate Engineering
A report from the National Academy of Sciences says inaction on greenhouse-gas emissions makes resorting to geoengineering more likely
By Kevin Bullis on February 10, 2015 (MIT Tech Review)

U.S. should fund climate engineering research, report concludes 
By Eli Kintisch 10 February 2015 (Science AAAS)

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.