On 24 Aug 2012, at 22:50, Jonathan Ward wrote:
>
> Changing the focus of this topic slightly, I always find it interesting to examine what we mean by statements such as "saving the XXXX". In this case, saving an arbitrarily defined area, distinguished by physical characteristics and human imposed boundary classification. Or are we saving species? Maintaining processes? and for what end? Saving ourselves? Saving a way of life? Preventing large scale change?
I, too, find recourse to the role of Saviour "interesting." I have indicated my displeasure in the past, so there is no need to repeat myself here. In the context of geo-engineering (not climate change) , which is the "elephant in this room," claims for saving can only be tied to consequences of intervention. I find Alan Robock's writings to be thoughtful and based on "peer-reviewed science" (which seems to have a fond niche in some discussions, justifiably so). I have provided links to his work in the past, but the gung-ho claims and counter-claims seem to ignore specific cases of possible unwelcome consequences that studies have thrown up -- such as reduction in monsoon rainfall in China and India, potential devastation in the Amazon -- even apart from the use of such technology as a geopolitical weapon. Anyway, here are a couple of recent links that some of you might find of interest:
Will Geoengineering With Solar Radiation Management Ever Be Used? (http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pdf/WillGeoBeUsed.pdf)
Is Geoengineering Research Ethical? (http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pdf/ShouldGeoBeResearched.pdf)
Cheers,
Srinandan
Srinandan Dasmahapatra
Faculty of Physical and Applied Science
University of Southampton
Southampton SO17 1BJ
Phone: +44(0)2380594503
[log in to unmask]
|