We made a simple little ethics game about this very possibility for an exhibit on anthropogenic change:
http://sciencebuzz.org/earth/scenario
World's biggest geoengineering experiment 'violates' UN rules
11–20 of 27 posts
Re: World's biggest geoengineering experiment 'violates' UN rules
#12"History is full of examples of ecological manipulations that backfired."
You mean like extracting billions of barrels of oil a day and burning them? We're already manipulating the environment.
This is what I wish we were discussing in the global warming debate in the U.S. - not whether global warming was happening, but conservation versus mitigation/adaptation.
Re: World's biggest geoengineering experiment 'violates' UN rules
#13This is, in the end, a reflection of the incentives governments have crafted in recent environmental policy. Now that there's an opening for profit, the market has rushed in to provide "solutions" of varying quality and ethics.
Re: World's biggest geoengineering experiment 'violates' UN rules
#14Actual Headline > World's biggest geoengineering experiment 'violates' UN rules The word illegal in the HN headline is a bit of extra editorial, and should be removed. The inverted commas in this case are not trivial, as not all UN rules are Law, either per-se or in the (even then endlessly debated) eyes of 'International Law.'
In this case, Canada and the US are both signatories to the violated UN rules. According to Wikipedia, US law incorporates the Convention, and I'd imagine Canada does the same.
Re: World's biggest geoengineering experiment 'violates' UN rules
#15"History is full of examples of ecological manipulations that backfired." You mean like extracting billions of barrels of oil a day and burning them? We're already manipulating the environment. This is what I wish we were discussing in the global warming debate in the U.S. - not whether global warming was happening, but conservation versus mitigation/adaptation.
> You mean like extracting billions of barrels of oil a day and burning them?
The actual figure is about 85 million barrels per day [1].
Re: World's biggest geoengineering experiment 'violates' UN rules
#16Actual Headline > World's biggest geoengineering experiment 'violates' UN rules The word illegal in the HN headline is a bit of extra editorial, and should be removed. The inverted commas in this case are not trivial, as not all UN rules are Law, either per-se or in the (even then endlessly debated) eyes of 'International Law.'
In this case, Canada and the US are both signatories to the violated UN rules. According to Wikipedia, US law incorporates the Convention, and I'd imagine Canada does the same.
This is a good comment, I have no issues with having such a discussion in the comments. Its just bad form to the outcome a legal proceeding in a headline, generally. If someone with additional information wants to jump in and clarify, for example, the role of international waters the competing issues of soveriegnty, and distinction between the actors of states and individuals, etc. would be very informative.[1]
______________
[1] A bit of additional color:
International law differs from national legal systems in that it primarily concerns nations rather than private citizens. [Continuing...] National law may become international law when treaties delegate national jurisdiction to supranational tribunals such as the European Court of Human Rights or the International Criminal Court. Treaties such as the Geneva Conventions may require national law to conform. ...[A] state member of the international community is not obliged to abide by international law unless it has expressly consented to a particular course of conduct.[3] This is an issue of state sovereignty.
etc. Not my area of expertise, but this is very much an area where such expertise would be quite useful. Not just international law in general, but also (presumably) the UN doctrines Law of the sea, ect. (covers private parties). http://www.un.org/Depts/los/index.htm
Re: World's biggest geoengineering experiment 'violates' UN rules
#17We made a simple little ethics game about this very possibility for an exhibit on anthropogenic change: http://sciencebuzz.org/earth/scenario
It didn't save my comments? At least I couldn't see them...
Re: World's biggest geoengineering experiment 'violates' UN rules
#18I'm a bit surprised at the negative tone of the articles. Yes, it's unproven that this will work as a fix for global warming. But what better way to find out than by running a large experiment? (This isn't just some crackpot theory, real scientists have looked into it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_fertilization ) I've noticed two divergent environmental movements lately. The "do nothing" crowd that doesn't like…
Yes. The "do nothing" crowd IMHO makes things worse "Nuclear is bad", "Wind will kill the birds", "Hydro is evil", etc, etc, guess what, countries will use coal then. There's also the "not economically viable" crowd, that rejects anything if it "costs" more than oil (usually under fallacious arguments and/or ignoring some oil costs and/or inflating alternative energy costs. Every activity causes an impact. Deal with…
I was with you until the "cost more than oil" line. My reasoning on that is the third world is going to need large amounts of energy to boost themselves to everyone else's standard of living. Like India and China, they are going to use the same, proven sources we did unless the alternatives are cheaper to implement and just as reliable. It isn't a do nothing attitude, its a realistic assessment based on human behavior. That's why alternatives really need to have an advantage over oil.
Re: World's biggest geoengineering experiment 'violates' UN rules
#19Earlier quoted context omitted.
What if it doesn't work? What if it kills all the salmon and worsens global warming? The reason there's so much negative press is that this was done pretty much unilaterally and it was done to make quick cash. This type of large-scale geoengineering project is almost certainly what will get us out of the current global warming mess, in my opinion, but it must be approached carefully and scientifically . What science…
What if it does work? I do agree with you and I'm not trying to defend the way this guy has gone about this. However, the path we're on now is basically, "we know we're fucked, but let's do nothing." The UN is not going to be able to agree on anything more active than Kyoto. In the US, Romney is using Obama's previous comments on climate change as a laugh line. The EU has plenty of luddites themselves; they would nev…
I have a theory that shooting holes in clouds makes the rain pour out. I can't get the UN to agree on it, but I do have a lot of bullets and a rifle.
"It takes too long" isn't a good excuse for acting in an unsafe or illegal manner. If it does work, good. But the guy should still be punished for acting in an unsafe and illegal manner. If he damages the environment, he should be punished for breaking the law and for the damage done. If he succeeds, he should be celebrated for his solution, but still punished for breaking the law.
Driving at a steady speed between freeway and city driving and blowing through stoplights will save on greenhouse gas emissions from accelerating a car, but it's still dangerous and illegal.
Re: World's biggest geoengineering experiment 'violates' UN rules
#20I'm a bit surprised at the negative tone of the articles. Yes, it's unproven that this will work as a fix for global warming. But what better way to find out than by running a large experiment? (This isn't just some crackpot theory, real scientists have looked into it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_fertilization ) I've noticed two divergent environmental movements lately. The "do nothing" crowd that doesn't like…
[deleted]