It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Deafseeingeyedog
Why test anything? Why not just sit back and let things happen?
I guess that's one possibility.
It’s important to stress that geoengineering options can never reverse all of the consequences of greenhouse gas emissions. For example, it doesn’t reverse ocean acidification. And it obviously has associated risk. So geoengineering is not an alternative to greenhouse gas emissions reductions.” said Ban-Weiss.
" You cannot understand the modern world unless you understand the importance of religious faith. Faith motivates, galvanises, organises and integrates millions upon millions of people."
"In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself."
It is called "Holy Land Declaration on Climate Change" and looks specifically at the International Climate Conference which is to be held in Durban, South Africa, next November. This is a continuation of the meetings held in Copenhagen in 2009 and Cancun in 2010, both of which terminated without an agreement being reached regarding the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the group commissioned by the UN to monitor the phenomenon, really believes is essential for combating global warming. vaticaninsider.lastampa.it...
That of religious leaders in the Holy Land is a real endorsement of the IPCC program: “We recognize - the statement reads - the scientific evidence of climate change caused by man and the threat it poses to human societies and the planet, as explained by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and we also recognize the spiritual roots of this crisis and the importance of providing a religious response.”vaticaninsider.lastampa.it...
new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like
Hence the invitation to proceed with a "major rethink of their spiritual and physical relationship with this God-given planet and how we consume and use of its blessed resources.” But religious leaders - very concretely – ask believers “to reduce their personal greenhouse gas emissions and urge their political leaders to adopt strong, binding and scientifically motivated targets to reduce greenhouse gases, in order to avoid even worst dangers of a climate crisis.”vaticaninsider.lastampa.it...
Deliberate alteration of the Earth’s environment by humans on a large scale to counter the effects of climate change and in some cases to avoid having to reduce carbon emissions, could be called ‘moral corruption’ according to a leading Australian ethicist.
Professor Clive Hamilton from the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics (CAPPE) raised questions about the justification of geoengineering in a public lecture at The Australian National University.
“The geoengineering debate is poised to move to centre-stage when the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change for the first time considers geoengineering solutions in its Fifth Assessment Report, due out in stages in 2013 and 2014,” he said. “But many questions still remain about its moral reasoning.
“As an example of geoengineering in action, plans are being developed to reduce the amount of sunlight reaching Earth by injecting sulphate aerosols into the upper atmosphere.
“Since the Earth formed 4.5 billion years ago, the amount of solar radiation reaching it has been determined by the Sun, mediated by the Earth’s atmosphere. It seems we are no longer happy with the arrangement and want to assume control ourselves. Is this the final push by humans for total mastery of the planet?
“We have used many excuses for our failure to reduce carbon emissions. When we look for reasons to avoid doing what we know we should do it can be called ‘moral corruption’, so geoengineering research may be a form of moral corruption.”
Professor Hamilton said there were also some concerns that the knowledge generated by geoengineering research would be misused in foreseeable ways.
“Big energy companies have used their power to slow or prevent action on climate change. Any realistic assessment must conclude that geoengineering research represents a ‘moral hazard’, that is, it is virtually certain to reduce incentives to cut carbon emissions.”
CAAPE is an Australian Research Council Special Research Centre spanning ANU, Charles Sturt University and the University of Melbourne.
Filed under: Media Release,
Contacts: For interviews: Professor Clive Hamilton, (02) 6272 6206 or 0413 993 223; For media assistance: Leanne O’Rourkes, ANU Media (02) 6125 4171 or 0418 307 213
Originally posted by burntheships
reply to post by JibbyJedi
Well, believe me when I say they have spent billions on this. Just the U.S. budget alone
is in the billions!
U.S. Global Change Research Program.
With its 2 billion dollar a year budget for 2011, its sure to be a game changer.
How you come to that conclusion is beyond me.
Its funny to learn your an advocate of Geoengineering then?
Personally I don't think SRM is a good idea either. I've also thought the balloon idea was just wacky. Sort of Wiley Coyoteish. (Acme balloons!)
One area of doubt over injecting aerosols into the stratosphere is whether it will change the behaviour of high-altitude clouds. That could in turn affect the climate in ways beyond what was intended - and for now, we don't know how, or how much. Aerosols could also deplete the ozone layer, contribute to air pollution and may alter visibility in the same way as large volcanic eruptions can.
The SPICE test won't answer any of these questions, says David Keith of Harvard University. "I think it's a little reckless." The most interesting result will be how the public reacts, he says.
What's more, Keith adds, in the long run delivering sulphates to the stratosphere with a hose would be a bad idea. Spraying aerosols locally allows the particles to clump together, making them less effective at reflecting sunlight and more likely to be swept down by rain
Keith's own studies suggest that if we were ever forced to try to screen out some of the sun's rays globally, it would be more effective to spray sulphuric acid from aircraft
Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by burntheships
I don't really care if it's sulphates or any of the other suggestions.
There is the possibility (or probability) of unintended consequences. Once you start putting stuff up there it's going to be up there for years, you can't just turn it off.