I'd been meaning to write something along these lines (sort of) about how we should be ignoring the 2% at either end of the climate debate when I stumbled across this. I am still laughing and I actually pulled a muscle while crying when I read it the first time...
Wow! Just wow! Ladies and gentlemen, we have a polemic. Some green-on-green! OK, it's related to GMO but clearly foreshadows the burgeoning debate on climate engineering. Most of you probably know about the punch up already: Mark Lynas (a 'neo-enviro') stood up in Oxford and admitted he had a Monbiotian conversion, had (shock) looked at some evidence and
Of course, being a member of SPICE, I know Kirsty pretty well. Her views closely mirror my own and I think this article strikes the perfect tone...
I think part of the reason I am so comfortable with the stage-gate process is that I believe in collective restraint. The metaphorical 'cliff' looms large, and governance (even opposition to the idea of geoengineering) is like a safety barrier - it prevents me from using intellectual freedom negatively. It is good that this [global scale SRM] cannot be done easily, and that no one has the freedom
An interesting article out today, published by David Keith, suggests strong support for geoengineering research.http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15399832 This is a continuing theme, following from IAPGs efforts, that suggest most people are comfortable with, even support of, research but alarmed about deployment.
