SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Study: 'Get-Out-of-Jail-Free Card' Doesn't Exist for Climate Peril
Unintended consequences of geoengineering would harm world's most vulnerable
Apr 01, 2013
Unproven and large-scale geoengineering schemes designed to offset the global warming impacts of greenhouse gas emissions should not be allowed without global consensus, say researchers in the UK.
And due to the profound dynamics of nature, say scientists at the Met Office Hadley Centre, efforts to manufacture planetary cooling--by spraying sulphate particles into the atmosphere, for example--could go "spectacularly wrong."
The researchers who modeled some of the scenarios of geoengineering found that though there is some hope that they could impact the atmosphere enough to drive down warming, the unintended consequences of such experiments could greatly harm other systems, especially in vulnerable or developing areas.
As The Guardian reports:
The dangers arose in projects that cooled the planet unevenly. In some cases these caused devastating droughts across Africa; in others they increased rainfall in the region but left huge areas of Brazil parched.
"The massive complexities associated with geoengineering, and the potential for winners and losers, means that some form of global governance is essential," said Jim Haywood at the Met Office's Hadley Centre in Exeter.
There is 'Get-out-of-jail-free card' when it comes to climate change.
Speaking to The Guardian, Matthew Watson, who leads the Spice project at Bristol University, said the team's study exposes the "dramatic consequences" of uninformed geoengineering. He continued:
"This paper tells us there are consequences for our actions whatever we do. There is no get-out-of-jail-free card[...]"
"Whatever we do is a compromise, and that compromise means there will be winners and losers. That opens massive ethical questions: who gets to decide how we even determine what is a good outcome for different people?
"How do you get a consensus with seven billion-plus stakeholders? If there was a decision to do geoengineering tomorrow, it would be done by white western men, and that isn't good."
_____________________
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Unproven and large-scale geoengineering schemes designed to offset the global warming impacts of greenhouse gas emissions should not be allowed without global consensus, say researchers in the UK.
And due to the profound dynamics of nature, say scientists at the Met Office Hadley Centre, efforts to manufacture planetary cooling--by spraying sulphate particles into the atmosphere, for example--could go "spectacularly wrong."
The researchers who modeled some of the scenarios of geoengineering found that though there is some hope that they could impact the atmosphere enough to drive down warming, the unintended consequences of such experiments could greatly harm other systems, especially in vulnerable or developing areas.
As The Guardian reports:
The dangers arose in projects that cooled the planet unevenly. In some cases these caused devastating droughts across Africa; in others they increased rainfall in the region but left huge areas of Brazil parched.
"The massive complexities associated with geoengineering, and the potential for winners and losers, means that some form of global governance is essential," said Jim Haywood at the Met Office's Hadley Centre in Exeter.
There is 'Get-out-of-jail-free card' when it comes to climate change.
Speaking to The Guardian, Matthew Watson, who leads the Spice project at Bristol University, said the team's study exposes the "dramatic consequences" of uninformed geoengineering. He continued:
"This paper tells us there are consequences for our actions whatever we do. There is no get-out-of-jail-free card[...]"
"Whatever we do is a compromise, and that compromise means there will be winners and losers. That opens massive ethical questions: who gets to decide how we even determine what is a good outcome for different people?
"How do you get a consensus with seven billion-plus stakeholders? If there was a decision to do geoengineering tomorrow, it would be done by white western men, and that isn't good."
_____________________
Unproven and large-scale geoengineering schemes designed to offset the global warming impacts of greenhouse gas emissions should not be allowed without global consensus, say researchers in the UK.
And due to the profound dynamics of nature, say scientists at the Met Office Hadley Centre, efforts to manufacture planetary cooling--by spraying sulphate particles into the atmosphere, for example--could go "spectacularly wrong."
The researchers who modeled some of the scenarios of geoengineering found that though there is some hope that they could impact the atmosphere enough to drive down warming, the unintended consequences of such experiments could greatly harm other systems, especially in vulnerable or developing areas.
As The Guardian reports:
The dangers arose in projects that cooled the planet unevenly. In some cases these caused devastating droughts across Africa; in others they increased rainfall in the region but left huge areas of Brazil parched.
"The massive complexities associated with geoengineering, and the potential for winners and losers, means that some form of global governance is essential," said Jim Haywood at the Met Office's Hadley Centre in Exeter.
There is 'Get-out-of-jail-free card' when it comes to climate change.
Speaking to The Guardian, Matthew Watson, who leads the Spice project at Bristol University, said the team's study exposes the "dramatic consequences" of uninformed geoengineering. He continued:
"This paper tells us there are consequences for our actions whatever we do. There is no get-out-of-jail-free card[...]"
"Whatever we do is a compromise, and that compromise means there will be winners and losers. That opens massive ethical questions: who gets to decide how we even determine what is a good outcome for different people?
"How do you get a consensus with seven billion-plus stakeholders? If there was a decision to do geoengineering tomorrow, it would be done by white western men, and that isn't good."
_____________________
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.