<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Geoengineering: Does it need a dose of geoethics?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://2020science.org/2009/01/28/geoengineering-does-it-need-a-dose-of-geoethics/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://2020science.org/2009/01/28/geoengineering-does-it-need-a-dose-of-geoethics/</link>
	<description>Providing a clear perspective on developing science and technology responsibly</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Feb 2012 16:00:29 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Geoengineering the climate: A clear perspective from The Royal Society</title>
		<link>http://2020science.org/2009/01/28/geoengineering-does-it-need-a-dose-of-geoethics/#comment-25266</link>
		<dc:creator>Geoengineering the climate: A clear perspective from The Royal Society</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 01 Sep 2009 14:59:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://2020science.org/?p=818#comment-25266</guid>
		<description>[...] Geoengineering: Does it need a dose of geoethics? [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Geoengineering: Does it need a dose of geoethics? [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Time to vote for your favorite science blogs</title>
		<link>http://2020science.org/2009/01/28/geoengineering-does-it-need-a-dose-of-geoethics/#comment-14974</link>
		<dc:creator>Time to vote for your favorite science blogs</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 19 Jun 2009 12:45:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://2020science.org/?p=818#comment-14974</guid>
		<description>[...] Geoengineering: Does it need a dose of geoethics? [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Geoengineering: Does it need a dose of geoethics? [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Geoengineering goes mainstream</title>
		<link>http://2020science.org/2009/01/28/geoengineering-does-it-need-a-dose-of-geoethics/#comment-3768</link>
		<dc:creator>Geoengineering goes mainstream</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 08 Apr 2009 21:47:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://2020science.org/?p=818#comment-3768</guid>
		<description>[...] in January, I asked the question &#8220;Does geoengineering need a dose of geoethics?&#8220;  I cautiously suggested it might be a good idea, before things move along too far.  But [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] in January, I asked the question &#8220;Does geoengineering need a dose of geoethics?&#8220;  I cautiously suggested it might be a good idea, before things move along too far.  But [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: A 2020 Science Taster</title>
		<link>http://2020science.org/2009/01/28/geoengineering-does-it-need-a-dose-of-geoethics/#comment-871</link>
		<dc:creator>A 2020 Science Taster</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 19 Feb 2009 13:44:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://2020science.org/?p=818#comment-871</guid>
		<description>[...] Geoengineering: Does it need a dose of geoethics? We’ve all heard of bioethics, but if the earth can be treated like one massive complex organism, do we need the planetary equivalent of bioethics—“geoethics” perhaps?  From January 2009. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Geoengineering: Does it need a dose of geoethics? We’ve all heard of bioethics, but if the earth can be treated like one massive complex organism, do we need the planetary equivalent of bioethics—“geoethics” perhaps?  From January 2009. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Andrew Maynard</title>
		<link>http://2020science.org/2009/01/28/geoengineering-does-it-need-a-dose-of-geoethics/#comment-494</link>
		<dc:creator>Andrew Maynard</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 08 Feb 2009 22:47:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://2020science.org/?p=818#comment-494</guid>
		<description>Russ,

To be clear on this point, I do not advocate inaction, and I do not downplay the seriousness of the situation we face.  But I do strongly advocate thinking through the consequences of actions, ensuring people who will bear the brunt of the consequences have a seat at the table, and being cautious of scientific hubris. 

There needs to be action - but that doesn&#039;t mean we can&#039;t be smart about the decisions we make.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Russ,</p>
<p>To be clear on this point, I do not advocate inaction, and I do not downplay the seriousness of the situation we face.  But I do strongly advocate thinking through the consequences of actions, ensuring people who will bear the brunt of the consequences have a seat at the table, and being cautious of scientific hubris. </p>
<p>There needs to be action &#8211; but that doesn&#8217;t mean we can&#8217;t be smart about the decisions we make.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Russ</title>
		<link>http://2020science.org/2009/01/28/geoengineering-does-it-need-a-dose-of-geoethics/#comment-490</link>
		<dc:creator>Russ</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 08 Feb 2009 20:27:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://2020science.org/?p=818#comment-490</guid>
		<description>Your editorial seems to blithly ignore the real world circumstance we find ourselves and the oceans in at this time.  Acadamies of Science around the world have recently published reports on the dire condition of the oceans brought on by the toxic dose of  CO2 released into the air over the past century.  The Aust. Acad reported that the Southern Ocean has already reached CO2 saturation half a century before the most pessimistic previous estimates and that it will be so far over the tipping point by 2030, a mere 21 years off, that by that time there will be no hope for that ocean ecosystem as we know it.  Then the US Acad reported that with 25,000 data points from an exhaustive 8 years of direct observation of the N. Pacific the rate of acidification was shown to be more than 20 times faster than the worst predictive models had suggested and that the most hardy intertidal life barnacles and mussels were in dramatic decline in lock step to this acidification.  NASA and NOAA have reported on the cataclysmic decline of ocean plant life as monitored and measured over the past nearly 40 years.. 10% of plant life in the Southern Ocean has disappeared, 17% in the N. Atlantic, 26% in the N. Pacific, and in a paper in Science we read that 50% of the plant life of the sub-tropical tropical Pacific has disappeared. 

These effects are the geo-engineering of the planet that will as many reports note be irreversible in a mere 20 years.  Your report follows the lies of many so called green organizations but which are more aptly described by world leaders as &#039;the anti-science brigades&quot; in suggesting we don&#039;t know enough to do anything about this ocean crisis.  Decades of scientific research at the cost of hundreds of millions of dllars have shown the role of diminishing iron is causing both ocean productivity losses and exacerbated acidification and that show tiny amounts of iron replenishment might undo this great harm through ocean eco-restoration. 

Your haring toward some inane &#039;precautionary principle&#039; is certain prescription to doom the oceans to the most dramatic mass extinction ever on this small blue planet. That the tipping point is a mere 21 years off, less time than has been dedicated to studying iron replenishment, ought to tell us that to do nothing is to make certain the oceans re-boot back to the root level bacterial ecosystem from which green plants and higher life forms like animals evolved some 600 million years ago. 

The carbon bomb already airborne, those hundreds of billions of tonnes of CO2 emitted over the past century, have a lifetime in the air of a century or more. This clearly means that even if we were to miraculously stop emissions of even a single additional molecule of CO2 that emission reduction would not save the oceans. That carbon bomb is now expolding in the oceans is more than potent enough to force that eco-system re-boot. ONLY ocean eco-restoration and the power of photosynthesis offers the chance to have ocean plants fix that deadly acidifying CO2 into ocean life instead of ocean death. 

But hey we&#039;ve got lots of time to engage in fear mongering lies about the dangers of anything humankind might do as being never the right thing, we&#039;ve got 21 years. Tell your children that you are leaving them a blue planet where the ocean life filled blue oceans are oceans of slime.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Your editorial seems to blithly ignore the real world circumstance we find ourselves and the oceans in at this time.  Acadamies of Science around the world have recently published reports on the dire condition of the oceans brought on by the toxic dose of  CO2 released into the air over the past century.  The Aust. Acad reported that the Southern Ocean has already reached CO2 saturation half a century before the most pessimistic previous estimates and that it will be so far over the tipping point by 2030, a mere 21 years off, that by that time there will be no hope for that ocean ecosystem as we know it.  Then the US Acad reported that with 25,000 data points from an exhaustive 8 years of direct observation of the N. Pacific the rate of acidification was shown to be more than 20 times faster than the worst predictive models had suggested and that the most hardy intertidal life barnacles and mussels were in dramatic decline in lock step to this acidification.  NASA and NOAA have reported on the cataclysmic decline of ocean plant life as monitored and measured over the past nearly 40 years.. 10% of plant life in the Southern Ocean has disappeared, 17% in the N. Atlantic, 26% in the N. Pacific, and in a paper in Science we read that 50% of the plant life of the sub-tropical tropical Pacific has disappeared. </p>
<p>These effects are the geo-engineering of the planet that will as many reports note be irreversible in a mere 20 years.  Your report follows the lies of many so called green organizations but which are more aptly described by world leaders as &#8216;the anti-science brigades&#8221; in suggesting we don&#8217;t know enough to do anything about this ocean crisis.  Decades of scientific research at the cost of hundreds of millions of dllars have shown the role of diminishing iron is causing both ocean productivity losses and exacerbated acidification and that show tiny amounts of iron replenishment might undo this great harm through ocean eco-restoration. </p>
<p>Your haring toward some inane &#8216;precautionary principle&#8217; is certain prescription to doom the oceans to the most dramatic mass extinction ever on this small blue planet. That the tipping point is a mere 21 years off, less time than has been dedicated to studying iron replenishment, ought to tell us that to do nothing is to make certain the oceans re-boot back to the root level bacterial ecosystem from which green plants and higher life forms like animals evolved some 600 million years ago. </p>
<p>The carbon bomb already airborne, those hundreds of billions of tonnes of CO2 emitted over the past century, have a lifetime in the air of a century or more. This clearly means that even if we were to miraculously stop emissions of even a single additional molecule of CO2 that emission reduction would not save the oceans. That carbon bomb is now expolding in the oceans is more than potent enough to force that eco-system re-boot. ONLY ocean eco-restoration and the power of photosynthesis offers the chance to have ocean plants fix that deadly acidifying CO2 into ocean life instead of ocean death. </p>
<p>But hey we&#8217;ve got lots of time to engage in fear mongering lies about the dangers of anything humankind might do as being never the right thing, we&#8217;ve got 21 years. Tell your children that you are leaving them a blue planet where the ocean life filled blue oceans are oceans of slime.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Kev</title>
		<link>http://2020science.org/2009/01/28/geoengineering-does-it-need-a-dose-of-geoethics/#comment-361</link>
		<dc:creator>Kev</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 04 Feb 2009 16:08:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://2020science.org/?p=818#comment-361</guid>
		<description>This is most worrying. How can anyone in their right mind even begin to consider altering ecosystems on a global scale when we still do not understand the most basic level interactions between individual systems.
Claiming that:
&quot;Geoethical principles do not forbid long-term, widespread and/or hard-to-reverse changes, but require a consideration of repercussions and so-called “second-order effects” (that is, the usually-unintended consequences arising from the interaction of the changed system and other connected systems).” is like saying we only have to show that we have &#039;considered the consequences&#039; and that &#039;there will be problems, but then again there are always problems when we start screwing around with the planet&#039;.
Nothing like a bit of foresightedness to instil confidence in the human populace.
How can you say that progress has been made in geoengineering when the effects of nano-technology have not only never been investigated but have now been seriously suspected of causing more than their fair share of serious life threatening problems on a global scale? 
How can you even think we mere humans have matured enough to be trusted to manipulate DNA at our leisure when even as I type there are increasing numbers of events occurring which show how dangerous our interference is?
How can you even claim to possess &#039;god like&#039; powers to manipulate the environment on a global scale and then in the next breathe say we must exercise  caution &#039;just in case&#039;? That&#039;s really reassuring!
Sounds like a bad case of &#039;Today the test tube, tomorrow the world&#039;.
Nice to know megalomania is alive and well and taking not a blind bit of notice of past events.
As if the causes of climate change weren&#039;t enough of a clue as to how much our tinkering has already screwed up the planet and our future chances of survival, along comes another &#039;Nice little research grant just to keep our hand in you understand&#039;.

Well in a way I&#039;m not surprised because, as per usual, the mad scientists will come up with the most plausible reasons for travelling down this road and generally they involve someone making loads of money.
Pity you can&#039;t eat money.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This is most worrying. How can anyone in their right mind even begin to consider altering ecosystems on a global scale when we still do not understand the most basic level interactions between individual systems.<br />
Claiming that:<br />
&#8220;Geoethical principles do not forbid long-term, widespread and/or hard-to-reverse changes, but require a consideration of repercussions and so-called “second-order effects” (that is, the usually-unintended consequences arising from the interaction of the changed system and other connected systems).” is like saying we only have to show that we have &#8216;considered the consequences&#8217; and that &#8216;there will be problems, but then again there are always problems when we start screwing around with the planet&#8217;.<br />
Nothing like a bit of foresightedness to instil confidence in the human populace.<br />
How can you say that progress has been made in geoengineering when the effects of nano-technology have not only never been investigated but have now been seriously suspected of causing more than their fair share of serious life threatening problems on a global scale?<br />
How can you even think we mere humans have matured enough to be trusted to manipulate DNA at our leisure when even as I type there are increasing numbers of events occurring which show how dangerous our interference is?<br />
How can you even claim to possess &#8216;god like&#8217; powers to manipulate the environment on a global scale and then in the next breathe say we must exercise  caution &#8216;just in case&#8217;? That&#8217;s really reassuring!<br />
Sounds like a bad case of &#8216;Today the test tube, tomorrow the world&#8217;.<br />
Nice to know megalomania is alive and well and taking not a blind bit of notice of past events.<br />
As if the causes of climate change weren&#8217;t enough of a clue as to how much our tinkering has already screwed up the planet and our future chances of survival, along comes another &#8216;Nice little research grant just to keep our hand in you understand&#8217;.</p>
<p>Well in a way I&#8217;m not surprised because, as per usual, the mad scientists will come up with the most plausible reasons for travelling down this road and generally they involve someone making loads of money.<br />
Pity you can&#8217;t eat money.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: SusHI &#124; Sustainability in Hawai`i &#187; criminal acts: on sustainability and culpability</title>
		<link>http://2020science.org/2009/01/28/geoengineering-does-it-need-a-dose-of-geoethics/#comment-333</link>
		<dc:creator>SusHI &#124; Sustainability in Hawai`i &#187; criminal acts: on sustainability and culpability</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 03 Feb 2009 18:34:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://2020science.org/?p=818#comment-333</guid>
		<description>[...] It’s gotta be immoral to continue spewing carbon long after we know it does irreparable damage to the planet, and since business-as-usual will increase this risk, it must be considered unethical. Even geo-engineering to fix our mess has an ethical dimension (via 2020science). [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] It’s gotta be immoral to continue spewing carbon long after we know it does irreparable damage to the planet, and since business-as-usual will increase this risk, it must be considered unethical. Even geo-engineering to fix our mess has an ethical dimension (via 2020science). [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: New Reviews of Talking Nano Coming Soon &#171; Talking Nano</title>
		<link>http://2020science.org/2009/01/28/geoengineering-does-it-need-a-dose-of-geoethics/#comment-257</link>
		<dc:creator>New Reviews of Talking Nano Coming Soon &#171; Talking Nano</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 30 Jan 2009 02:56:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://2020science.org/?p=818#comment-257</guid>
		<description>[...] about backyard experiments with Mentos and Diet Coke to musings on recent and future experiments in geoengineering.  Great material on doing science responsibly in a cultural [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] about backyard experiments with Mentos and Diet Coke to musings on recent and future experiments in geoengineering.  Great material on doing science responsibly in a cultural [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

