PANEL DISCUSSION GEOENGINEERING AND CLIMATE CHANGE:POSSIBILITIES, PROMISES, PERILS
MONDAY, MARCH 29 AT 3:30 PM
CIRES AUDITORIUM
Directions
With a certain amount of anthropogenic climate change now "built in" to the system, the potential for rapid, irreversible outcomes, and doubts about the speed with which we can reduce greenhouse gas emissions, scientists and governments are beginning to contemplate deliberately engineering the earth's climate system. Opinions among the scientific community span the spectrum from "it's our responsibility to provide this tool for the toolbox" to revulsion at the hubris of the idea, and concerns that it could reduce pressure for greenhouse gas reductions. A flurry of reports and conferences have considered the feasibility of developing and deploying geoengineering, potential unintended consequences, and the difficulty of governing the technology in which some options may be unilaterally undertaken. This panel seeks to illuminate the many questions surrounding research on geoengineering, and the technology’s political and ethical dimensions; how does it compare with other solutions to global warming? Should we research it, much less seek to implement it? Is geoengineering acceptable because it addresses harms already done? How would we know when to use it? And who decides?
PANELISTS INCLUDE:
- Max Boykoff, CU Environmental Studies and Geography
- Lisa Dilling, CU Environmental Studies
- Benjamin Hale, CU Environmental Studies and Philosophy
- Roger Pielke, Jr., CU Environmental Studies
- Bill Travis, CU Environmental Studies and Geography
A reception will start at 3:00 pm in the CIRES auditorium (338), with the talk beginning at 3:30 PM. This event is being co-sponsored by the CIRES Center for Science and Technology Policy Research, the CU Environmental Studies Program, the Renewable and Sustainable Energy Institute (RASEI), and the Institute of Behavioral Science, Environment and Society Program.
7 comments:
A completely pointless exercise, because you are multiplying one uncertainty (geo-engineering)with another (AGW hypothesis) that simplys leads to more uncertainty.
Creating a less certain world means you have found an answer to an improper question.
This seems like it has the potential for group think. All of you are academics from a single university.
with all respect, from the general theme, 'environmental justice' (what a null-value name) to the premise, that AGW is 'built in, to there are rapid 'irreversible' outcomes, this entire excercise seems to be more appropriate to a science fiction writing workshop.
will this be videotaped?
Roger will there be any webcasting or e-materials for those of us who are too far away?
Environmental Justice? Why not add Social Justice, too, since they both have the same end goal? I think I'll skip this one.
Lessee, Roger is the "policy expert", I assume (based on the "philosophy" part) that Ben Hale is the "humanist", any of the other three could be the scientist, oh I don't know, maybe Lisa, since she's just environmental studies not mixed w/ geography.
Why do two people getting billing not get mentioned indirectly on the poster?
Post a Comment