Proposal For United Nations To Study Climate-Cooling Technologies Rejected (reuters.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Reuters: A push to launch a high-level study of potentially risky technological fixes to curb climate change was abandoned on Thursday at a U.N. environmental conference in Nairobi, as countries including the United States raised objections. "Geoengineering" technologies, which are gaining prominence as international efforts to curb climate-changing emissions fall short, aim to pull carbon out of the atmosphere or block some of the sun's warmth to cool the Earth. They could help fend off some of the worst impacts of runaway climate change, including worsening storms and heatwaves, backers say. But opponents argue the emerging technologies pose huge potential risks to people and nature, and could undermine efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, not least because many are backed by fossil-fuel interests. Observers at the U.N. Environment Assembly in Nairobi said the Swiss-backed proposal was rejected in part because it called for a "precautionary principle" approach to geoengineering the climate. That principle says great care must be taken in starting activities that have unclear risks for human health or the environment. The United States, Saudi Arabia and Brazil were among the strongest opponents of the proposal, with Japan also expressing reservations.
You have my sympathies on this one, but actually we're fucked. The jamming has been successful, nothing is happening fast enough to really get emissions under control, and when Miami is underwater you're going to see a panic to Do Something about this problem, and then we're going to do some of the quickest and dirtiest shit you can imagine (like, think blowing sulfides into the upper atmosphere with nuclear explosions).
No one sane wants to roll the dice on geoengineering to ameliorate global warming, but really that is what we're going to do, and it would be a good idea to start doing some research on the techniques now, in hopes of dodging some of the worst ideas.
I would be happy to be proved wrong about this prediction, but what we're actually seeing is the right is still in denial about the problem and the left is in denial about the solutions (we can do it all with renewables! In fact the problems have already been solved! Just sit back and watch the juggernaut of green technology conquer the world!) and the middle of the road folks aren't paying any attention because gas prices are down, so obviously there's no problems anywhere.
Um, no. The left does not fear that climate change will have a good solution. You're just being silly.
cutbacks and regulations won't do it, we've been doing those for half a century with no noticeable impact whatsoever
Oh, please, there have not been doing serious cutbacks and regulations. Where there were - like the problem with the ozone hole, cutting back on the emissions at the source of the problem up to the point of eliminating them has had a most noticeable impact.
Here the same approach would work well, except for the selfishness of those who shirk the responsibility for their contribution to it.
they would have no reason to attempt to steal all our money and bring poverty to the citizens of the USA.
You would have been spot on with this sharp and super-smart observation, if not for the small fact that The United States, Saudi Arabia and Brazil were among the strongest opponents of the proposal, with Japan also expressing reservations.
Its hard to believe that there are those that do NOT see that this movement is engineered in Moscow in order to damage their chief rival, the USA
This conspiracy theory would have been very interesting as well, except that Moscow is, as a major fossil fuels exporter, among the staunchest opponents of CO2 emissions reductions.
You're probably just as "well" informed about the other aspects of the global warming issues.
Yes, and in order to gain that knowledge you must... NOT study it?
They didn't vote down implementing technologies, they voted down gaining knowledge.
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
Laws are not all tyranny. Denying that is delusion. Burning fossils to obtain power or transportation is NOT an "immutable law" in our world. Practical solutions exist, and impractical super-greedy obstacles called corporate oil industry profits stand in the way. These are cartels that you're allowing to be in charge of weaning you off their heroin.
the research could actually go towards helping prove that APGW is real, rather than just a theory.
I disagree with your choice of words, as "just a theory" makes it sound as if it's someone's hunch/idea/opinion/guess/hypothesis. A scientific theory is something very different, and presents both explanatory and predictive claims that have been tested and stood up to falsification attempts. A scientific theory can never be "proved," as those hard statements are reserved for mathematics and philosophy. Religious folk would muddy the waters with the same "just a theory" argument about the theories of evolution and heliocentricism, and it's very misleading.
It may also help identify better metrics so we can make an accurate prediction as well... since we know they have only failed in all of their models.
I must disagree here as well. Climate models tend to do pretty well at making predictions that are subsequently backed up by observations. See https://www.skepticalscience.c... for a primer on the topic, along with some illustrative videos.
The harsh fact is that getting 200 countries to cooperate to stop emissions is probably impossible. Whereas it only takes one country to fund geoengineering.
Right now is obviously too early to turn to implement risky geoengineering strategies, but right now is definitely the time to study them, which was what the proposal was about. If we put off the studying until we're already in a serious crisis, it'll be too late for the decades of study needed to produce anything in time to prevent catastrophe.
This space intentionally left blank
All the things mentioned are much less a problem than the simple fact that new nuclear costs over ten cents per kWh. Nobody's going to build such a thing anymore. Why, when wind turbines cost 60-70% less?
Ezekiel 23:20