Long New Yorker article on CE mentions SPICE: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/05/14/120514fa_fact_specterOverall, an interesting and thought provoking article that paints SPICE in a light that I believe represents us and our intentions fairly. Here's the bit (p2 of 7) that cites Hugh.
I read with great interest James Cameron's comments on the Titanic story and its use as an analogy to climate change:http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/04/13/463957/the-titanic-at-100-years-were-still-ignoring-warnings-this-time-its-climate-change-says-director-james-cameron/He's right of course, the class of ticket you held dictated your likelihood of survival, a key
I feel like Climate Engineering (CE) - a much clearer term than geoengineering by the way - stands on something of a cusp. There is little doubt that CE is more visible and that it is not the taboo it once was. Most of what I hear feels sensible, humble and restrained, especially from those wrestling with the really big questions. The issue of intellectual property
There are some very mixed messages coming out of the current environmental audit comission meeting on the Arctic. Even given the fact that most media organisations/writers have strong feelings/predicatable biases these appear difficult to resolve.1. Sea ice retreat timescales (Met Office, via Guardian: 2040-2060, BBC, via AMEG: 2013)
Interesting post from Josh Horton yesterday (25/02) here:http://geoengineeringpolitics.blogspot.com/2012/02/environmental-audit-committee-hearing.htmlI agree with most of his interpretation but find the last paragraph somewhat negative. Josh writes:'On balance, geoengineering did not fare well in the hearing. This is not surprising given that its