Sceptical realist

I think I've formalised my position on geoengineering...

I am skeptical realist: I know, unequivocally, that reducing carbon emissions is the right thing to do. I believe that CDR has the best long term outcome if we can’t do that, as it deals with the problem at source, but it’s not a free ride. There are some serious technical and ethical challenges there too. However, if we suddenly find ourselves in a period of rapid-onset climate instability the only way out is SRM. It’s the only thing we could do in a short timeframe to mitigate the effects of such an event. Given that, it has be on the table as an option to be investigated. That is all we are doing.

I am skeptical that geoengineering is the right option (I am pretty green at heart, really) but realistic enough to know that it may be required. 

I want to make it clear that I have no vested interest in making  SPICE work. I do not stand to profit from it and I will report any scientific findings honestly, transparently and without bias.

Interesting ideas from the blogosphere....

I am in the midst of developing a 'sticky questions' brief for EPRSC. For that, I've been trawling the web for ideas/prompts and I'm heartened by the fact that there are some very good ideas, well-articulated, floating in the ether. Roger Pielke's is still my favourite I think - he appears to manage to have deep insights into a spectacularly broad range of subjects...

http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/

With focus a bit more on the job in hand, as it were, are two orthogonal perspectives from 'futarists' of different flavours - Mark Lynas's (we're going to have to talk at some point about the 'hush-hush' barb in his blog - I guess soon that won't be a criticism soon)

http://www.marklynas.org/

and George Dvosrky's (although the title annoys me :) )

http://www.sentientdevelopments.com/2010/08/create-future-myth.html

Given that they are almost polar opposites in terms of their crystal ball reading, I suppose that instinctively I side with Dvosrky. Odd that, given what I am doing you could argue. I digress (meaninglessly) as I've not crystalised this feeling yet. If/when I do, I'll let you know...

The brief itself is in preparation for any media interest in SPICE over the next few weeks. It is not, I hasten to add, designed to subvert or spin, simply to prepare for the challenge and to fully develop a personal framing. I guess, given what I decided to call the blog, my internal conflict is apparent - although it is resolving itself through the strong assertion that you can see the importance of research into geoengineering without being an advocate of deployment...