Scientists Call for 'Climate Intervention' (geoengineering) Research With 'Humility'

[OKIsItJustMe]

http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2010/03/scientists-call-for-climate-inte.html

Scientists Call for 'Climate Intervention' Research With 'Humility'

by Eli Kintisch on March 26, 2010 4:18 PM

PACIFIC GROVE, CALIFORNIA—An international group of scientists, ethicists, and governance experts meeting here this week has agreed that research into large-scale modification of the planet is "indispensable" given the "threats" posed by climate change.

"It is thus important to initiate further research in the natural and social sciences to better understand and communicate whether alternative strategies to moderate future climate change are, or are not, viable, appropriate, and ethical," declares a statement by the organizing committee released today at the close of the conference. "Further discussions must involve government and civil society."

The statement capped a 5-day meeting on geoengineering, the idea of deliberate tinkering with the climate to reduce global warming. More than 175 scientists from 15 countries spanning the geosciences, ethics, business, and political science, convened on the leafy grounds of the Asilomar Conference Center along the Pacific Ocean in Northern California. Molecular biologist met here 35 years ago to hash out initial ethical and safety rules on recombinant DNA. So researchers dubbed this meeting "Asilomar 2."

Scientists emphasized that they are not saying whether large-scale geoengineering to combat climate change is needed—or if it is morally acceptable. Indeed, the statement urged that any discussion of the topic should be undertaken with "humility." But virtually all agreed that research into even the most radical methods should expand in case governments decide to act at some point. As Daniel Rosenfeld of Hebrew University in Jerusalem told ScienceInsider, "We are very late in the game. We have to do everything we can, and it still may not be enough."

...

[ananda]

1. This is important.

Big kick.

[RC]

2. How about if we instead stop cutting down whole forests and destroying

what's left of the life that depends on them? Think that might help?
And maybe work instead to get our own number in check. That is the real problem, the root cause - Way too many humans for this planet to support. Anything else is just diddling with the symptoms.

[OKIsItJustMe]

3. Those are real concerns

By all means, let's manage our forests and our populations better. (We're making some progress on these.)

But, take the example of population. Let's say (as an absurd example) that everyone stops having children. If we already have "way too many humans for this planet to support." How long will it take before the population is low enough "for this planet to support?"

Naturally, the 0 children per family program will not be instituted. Fertility rates are falling, but we'll probably have at least a few Billion more people before population growth levels off.

Studies suggest it takes a newly planted forest about 10 years to become carbon negative. We have large swathes of forest dying to beetles and other pests, how long do you suppose it will be before forests have a much larger impact?

[OKIsItJustMe]

4. Full Text of 'Asilomar 2' Statement

http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2010/03/full-text-of-asilomar-2-statemen.html

This document was crafted by the approximately 175 scientists attending the Asilomar meeting, but approved only by the Scientific Organizing Committee of the conference:

PRESS RELEASE - ASILOMAR INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON CLIMATE INTERVENTION TECHNOLOGIES
More than 175 experts from 15 countries with a wide diversity of backgrounds (natural science, engineering, social science, humanities, law) met for five days (March 22-26, 2010) in the Asilomar conference center in Pacific Grove California. The participants explored a range of issues that need to be addressed to ensure that research into the risks, impacts and efficacy of climate intervention methods is responsibly further discussions must involve government and civil society. Such discussion should be undertaken with humility and recognition of the threat posed by the rapid increase in atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations.

Participants reaffirmed that the risks posed by climate change require a strong commitment to mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions, adaptation to unavoidable climate change and development of low-carbon energy sources independent of whether climate intervention methods ultimately prove to be safe and feasible.

The fact that humanity’s efforts to reduce global emissions of greenhouse gases (mitigation) have been limited today is the cause of deep concern. It is thus important to initiate further research in the natural and social sciences to better understand and communicate whether alternative strategies to moderate future climate change are, or are not, viable, appropriate and ethical. Such strategies, which could be employed in addition to the primary strategy of mitigation, include climate intervention methods (solar radiation management) and carbon remediation methods (carbon dioxide removal).

We do not yet have sufficient knowledge of the risks associated with using climate intervention methods, their intended and unintended impacts, or their efficacy in reducing the rate of climatic change to assess whether they should or should not be implemented. Thus, further research is indispensable.

Recognizing that governments collectively have ultimate responsibility for decisions concerning climate intervention research impossible and possible implementation, this conference represents a step in facilitating a process involving broader public participation that insures research on this issue to progress in a timely safe ethical and transparent manner that addresses social, humanitarian and environmental issues.

The Asilomar International Conference on Climate Intervention Technologies was developed by the Climate Response Fund in partnership with Guttman Initiative and organized by the Scientific Organizing Committee for the Climate Institute. For further information contact the Climate Institute at [e-mail] or visit www.climateresponsefund.org .

[tom_paine]

5. Tool-using monkeys don't do humility.

On with Climate Intervention!

:rofl:

[OKIsItJustMe]

6. Would you say that R-DNA research has run wild, with no constraint whatsoever?

... Molecular biologist met here 35 years ago to hash out initial ethical and safety rules on recombinant DNA. So researchers dubbed this meeting "Asilomar 2."

...

[tom_paine]

8. Not my MB field of specialty, but yes, from what I know Corporatism has eaten away ethical restraint

in my field like in pretty much every other field in our Inverted Totalitarianism.

We got to make some MONEY, so we spend less time on considering possible repercussions and even less on any ethical safeguards.

[GliderGuider]

9. That's a bit of a straw man, isn't it?

"with no constraint whatsoever?"

It doesn't take a complete lack of restraint to fuck things up. Take a look at what's happening to the global financial system -- plenty of constraints there. Or the crisis in benthic species -- lot of laws and constraints.

To my mind the situation with R-DNA constitutes as least a big a crisis as either of those. Look at what Venter wants to do with Synthia. Look at the patenting of life by Monsanto et al, for god's sake. World-altering technologies don't need a complete lack of constraints to be too dangerous for us to be fucking around with casually.

Given that, I'm really, really glad to see the word "humility" appear in the article. But I'm still utterly opposed to geoengineering because of the unknown unknowns.

[OKIsItJustMe]

10. No, I don't believe it's a "straw man"

The statement was "Tool-using monkeys don't do humility."

I took this to be a complete lack of restraint.

[daleanime]

7. Maybe the fact that we have to talk about this...

will wake people up to how 'late in the game' we are in facing and trying to deal with this crisis.:hurts:

[hatrack]

11. This just in . . . We're already doing geoengineering

All this amounts to is a call to do geoengineering with (we hope) effects opposite to those of V 1.0.

Let us not lose sight of the fact that "research into even the most radical methods" can create a momentum of its own in favor of "radical" methods.

[Nihil]

12. That's true ... and it certainly doesn't involve anything like "humility" ...

... or planning or forethought or most other desirable traits for that matter ...
just a desire to maximise short-term profit.


> Let us not lose sight of the fact that "research into even the most radical
> methods" can create a momentum of its own in favor of "radical" methods.

Ding! That man has just hit the bullseye!