The Asilomar conference on geoengineering had been touted as a potentially historic event. What emerged, however, were some unexpected lessons about the possibilities and pitfalls of manipulating the Earth’s climate to offset global warming.
Carlin, A. (2011), ‘A Multidisciplinary, Science-Based Approach to the Economics of Climate Change’, IJERPH, 8/4: 985–1031.
„Economic analyses of environmental mitigation and other interdisciplinary public policy issues can be much more useful if they critically examine what other disciplines have to say, insist on using the most relevant observational data and the scientific method, and examine lower cost alternatives to the change proposed. These general principles are illustrated by applying them to the case of climate change mitigation, one of the most interdisciplinary of public policy issues. […] The risk of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming appears to be so low that it is not currently worth doing anything to try to control it, including geoengineering.“
Goes, M., Keller, K., and Tuana, N. (2011), ‘The economics (or lack thereof) of aerosol geoengineering’
Goes, Marlos; Tuana, Nancy; Keller, Klaus (2011): The economics (or lack thereof) of aerosol geoengineering. In: Climatic Change 109 (3-4), pp. 719–744.
„Anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions are changing the Earth’s climate and impose substantial risks for current and future generations. What are scientifically sound, economically viable, and ethically defendable strategies to manage these climate risks? Ratified international agreements call for a reduction of greenhouse gas emissions to avoid dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system. Recent proposals, however, call for a different approach: to geoengineer climate by injecting aerosol precursors into the stratosphere. […]“
Horton, J. B. (2011), ‘Geoengineering and the Myth of Unilateralism: Pressures and Prospects for International Cooperation’, Stanford Journal of Law, Science [&] Policy, IV: 56–69.
„In this article, I argue that fear of unilateralism is largely misplaced, grounded more in unexamined policy assumptions than in reasoned analysis of the strategic situation faced by states. I will present this argument in five parts. First, I will document the widespread notion that unilateral geoengineering poses a genuine threat to the international order. Second, I will closely examine the interests and constraints that are likely to confront states contemplating intervention in the climate system. Third, I will demonstrate that international dynamics are
more likely to create pressures leading to cooperation than to foster tendencies toward unilateralism. Fourth, I will consider different mechanisms for encouraging collaboration on climate intervention strategies. Finally, I will consider the implications of this argument for future discussions of geoengineering.“
Lane, Lee (2011): U.S. National Interest, Climate Engineering, and International Law. Hudson Institute. Washington, D.C. (Economic Policy / Briefing Paper).
Short report on the U.S. potential interest in CE.
Short report with links about a workshop on CE located in New Zealand. It used the 1000minds tool.
Schwefelimpfungen für die Atmosphäre, Eisendünger für die Meere und gigantische Spiegel für die Erdumlaufbahn: In Nagoya haben die UN-Länder ein Moratorium für umstrittene Geoengineering-Experimente beschlossen. Für Umweltschützer ein „Meilenstein“.
Betz, G., and Cacean, S. (2011), ‘The moral controversy about Climate Engineering. an argument map’, Version 2011-02-24 [lt]http://digbib.ubka.uni-karlsruhe.de/volltexte/1000022371[gt], updated 24 Feb 2011, accessed 4 Jul 2011.
Flow chart of arguments in the discours on Climate Engineering.
Hester, Tracy (2011): Remaking the World to Save it: Applying U.S. Environmental Laws to Climate Engineering Projects (February 4, 2011). Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1755203
Paper on legal regulation according to U.S. laws.