To suggest otherwise smacks only of quasi-religious dogma. How can we ever be better off not knowing? Or maybe not, and maybe we'll sit on our hands and watch the drier parts of the planet burn in hell.Įither way, knowledge of, and evidence about, potential climate engineering solutions will be at a premium. We will have had many opportunities to avoid such hardship and not taken them: we can hardly claim that global warming is unintentional now, and someone, somewhere will try climate engineering at a global scale, whether it be for self-interest or out of genuine fear, or both. We might get lucky and change our ways before some apocalypse but, even so, the most vulnerable will suffer greatly. We're probably not going to sort ourselves out in time and it will take some pretty serious consequences for the necessary political will to be garnered. If it involves "a new energy system" or "a wholesale change in personal-to-global attitudes and geopolitics" then please tell me when this is going to happen. Suggest an alternative given the probable failure of conventional mitigation and severe climate stress. Why do you insist on wilfully confusing people who research climate engineering with those who blindly advocate deployment? Show me anywhere on the Keeling curve where the environmental movement (which I consider myself to be an ardent supporter of) has made the slightest bit of difference to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. Can you imagine no future scenario where climate engineering might be justified? Your current stance undermines your previous assertions on the severity of climate change. I have some questions and challenges for Hoare, and Gore and Hamilton: He even goes for a tabloid-esque "apocalypse rating", failing to inject some ironic humour into a subject where it is clearly inappropriate. Hoare strikes out to decide for himself how good or bad various options are for "plan B". Lastly, cultural historian Philip Hoare squared up to astronomer royal, Martin Rees, in the Guardian for daring to suggest that we might have to think about climate engineering. It is not clear how Hamilton, after having written about climate change and the end of the world, could then write a book about those who would even consider solutions that don't fit his worldview, and rationalise his position. Clive Hamilton, author of Requiem for a Species, is a vocal opponent, citing sinister vested interests and a lack of transparency in his latest book Earthmasters. Al Gore thinks those researching geoengineering" are "crazy". However, there are some high-profile and vocal objectors to even thinking about deliberate intervention. No one should be racing to deploy a particular technology now, but careful, transparent and objective research is needed, given the gravity of our situation. The critical point is that difficult decisions are made impossible without an evidence base. For example, quitting smoking is a necessary condition for a lung transplant. This last point is a current focus of debate and here we might look to other disciplines where prerequisites are common. Personally, I believe the IPCC should have gone further and stated that climate engineering deployment should only be considered under careful and robust global governance, only in time of great need, and only when it is clear that we are a long way down the path to decarbonisation. Deployment of technologies at global-scale with trans-boundary effects must be a last resort. We are better off knowing everything we can about all our options, however unpalatable, while being mindful of undermining efforts on greening our energy sector and, more than that, our own lives. Although the point is laboured, a distinction between research and deployment must be part of one's personal framing. Most serious thinkers, however, sit somewhere between the two, broadly positive about careful research without severe climatological or societal impact but instinctively against deployment. You are either to be damned for even thinking about climate engineering, and assumed to be in it for money or glory, or you are pandering to the anti-science, anti-technology eco-fascists. There often appears to be no role for cautious moderates who see the value in careful, thoughtful and transparent research in this public debate.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |