Re: [geo] HOME/ETC Group Targets IPCC
rongre...@comcast.net
1. First, this is to suggest a possible middle ground between Alvia (recommends no observers?) and Andrew (would include anyone wanting to observe?). The White House press corps sometimes solves this with a few pool reporters - I think as few as two or three sometimes. A ratio of one observer for 4-5 participants should work OK All costs would be borne by the observers - and they could rotate after putting their names on an "interest" list. I believe problems for the official sponsors would decrease with this approach. Invitations can be accompanied by rules established by those hosting the meeting. I believe virtually every US form of government has rules allowing closed meetings only for specific topics. But, I have been to many "almost-closed" meetings where my chance to speak was only at a specific time and for a short time. I can't think of a crowd being an integral part of a small designated Committee meeting in any Democratic Society. The time for public reaction is after decisions are made and a report made available. But I support the concept of non-participatory observations.and think invited observers goes one step further.
2. Andrew - I believe you have established a dangerous $1000 bet (given below a few messages). BiofuelWatch (a signer) has regularly featured arguments against Biochar since just before the 2008 IBI meeting in Newcastle, UK. Their reports keep getting more professional looking, but all of them are PR-oriented, no original science I find major fault with all their reports and can share this with anyone interested. I have not seen the same detail yet from ETC.
On Biochar, ETC often refers favorably to the BFW work.. They surely coordinate on many topics. BFW seems to use roughly the same list of anti-Biochar endorsers as does the ETC anti-Geoengineering work. Like you, I couldn't find specific mention of this latest ETC letter for any signer on this list exceot ETC, but it is early. I hope you can/will take the bet back. Based on seeing this interlocking work, I bet (a beer) that you will lose this bet as it now stands..
3. I think ETC and BFW can't possibly be unhappy about the huge amount of experimentation going on with Biochar - little with any governmental funding. I have seen no call for this rapidly growing Biochar research to stop. Their main claim seems to be that it won't work (although it demonstrably is/has). If such research (with only a little voluntary credit support) is happening with any other part of Geoengineering (save for tree planting), I would love to hear about it. There are many more organized ("civil society") groups supporting Biochar actively than the 4 or 5 small NGOs opposing it - only as part of their other efforts. More specifically, Biochar only superficially resembles a biofuel. We need to spend more time in dialog with these groups - and point out that their message is inconsistent.
4. I also would like to sign your letter (affiliation label below). My sole concern with your draft is that I hope you can mention that Geoengineering has both SRM and CDR parts. In everything related to this ETC story, I (again) cannot tell who is talking apples, who oranges, and who fruit. The different parts of Geoengineering, with different goals, should be analyzed and defended differently.
Ronal W. Larson, PhD
Board Member, United States Biochar Initiative (USBI)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Andrew Lockley" <andrew....@gmail.com>
To: "Alvia Gaskill" <agas...@nc.rr.com>
Cc: geoengi...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2011 4:37:55 PM
Subject: Re: [geo] HOME/ETC Group Targets IPCC
Etc argument that geo research raises risks of inaction on emissions is credible and can't be ignored - even if people may argue it's wrong.
If my research project involved the development and testing of nuclear weapons, I'd think it proper to have ethics and social science support when it was assessed, as its very existence is a game changer.
Etc will not shut up if technocrats make decisions behind closed doors, even if these aren't policy decisions. Lock outs are not smart, imo
The perception that reports are policy is also non trivial. We would be naive to assume others won't take that stance.
We should learn from the past. Even today, the huge potential of genetics is held back by the history of hubris and recklessness of the eugenics movement
Let's not make the same mistakes again.
A
> The IPCC meeting as I understand it, is simply to consider the efficacy of
> some of the proposed technological alternatives to emissions reductions,
> i.e., geoengineering. It is not to adopt or endorse action plans based on
> them. The IPCC has held workshops and published reports on the subject of
> climate change for nearly 20 years and I don't think it has been their
> policy or should it be to have every meeting vetted or overseen by people
> from outside the discipline being considered.
>
> Would you like for example, to have someone from the philosophy department
> at your local university "sit in" on every discussion you have on
> development of a research tool? Oh, this could have far reaching
> implications. Better get the ethics people to sign off on this first. EPA
> doesn't do this. I am getting ready to review SBIRs again and I don't think
> that it's necessary to have anyone from ETC or the Guardian drop by to make
> sure I don't ignore the intergenerational implications of the X technology.
> That's for later.
>
> There have been more than ample opportunities for the non science
> contributors to make their case against geoengineering and they have already
> received a disproportionate share of the attention as well as funding. The
> recent meeting in the UK, the Asilomar conference and most recently, Ken's
> wrongheaded hand wringing conclusion that the IPCC meeting needs greater
> transparency just makes the problem worse. There's an old saying that you
> shouldn't feed stray animals because it will just encourage them to come
> back for more and bring some friends. Feeding ETC a steady diet of outrage
> is just what they want.
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Andrew Lockley" <and...@andrewlockley.com>
> To: <s.sa...@ed.ac.uk>
> Cc: <geoengi...@googlegroups.com>
> Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2011 5:25
> Subject: Re: [geo] HOME/ETC Group Targets IPCC
>
>
> Suggested wording, for amendment and endorsement.
>
> A
>
> We the undersigned represent a selection of the scientists, engineers
> and social & policy experts involved in the development of
> geoengineering and its governance. We write with frustration at the
> sentiments expressed in the recent letter sent by ETC et al to the
> press and IPCC. As a result, we would like to express the following
> views on the IPCC's process on geoengineering, and more generally:
>
> 1) We do not propose geoengineering as a substitute for emissions
> cuts, and never have done.
> 2) We believe that research demonstrates that emissions cuts are
> necessary, but may not be sufficient to control dangerous climate
> change.
> 3) We note that several geoengineering schemes have been proposed
> which appear to be workable, but that we currently lack the research
> necessary to determine the full extent of any role they may play in
> the future control of global warming.
> 4) We fear the deployment in emergency of poorly tested geoengineering
> techniques
> 5) We argue for the proper funding and testing of possible
> geoengineering technologies, in order to better understand them
> 6) We note that, despite the lack of clear geoengineering solutions
> available for deployment at present, efforts to curtail emissions have
> thus far achieved little or nothing. As such, we believe that further
> research will not in itself raise climate risks due to any perceived
> panacea which the existence of the technology may wrongly appear to
> offer.
>
> Nevertheless, we note the the IPCCs consideration of this issue
> represents a departure from its traditional pure science remit. We
> argue therefore for greater transparency of the process, the inclusion
> of experts from social policy fields in the process, and the opening
> up of sessions to external observers, notably civil society groups.
>
> Yours sincerely
>
>
> On 16 June 2011 09:39, Stephen Salter <S.Sa...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>> Hi All
>>
>> Pat Mooney of the ETC group repeats much of the IPCC letter in today's
>> Guardian see
>>
>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jun/15/geo-engineering-climate-consideration
>>
>> Can we get the Guardian to print Ken's list of points?
>>
>> Stephen
>>
>> Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design
>> Institute for Energy Systems
>> School of Engineering
>> Mayfield Road
>> University of Edinburgh EH9 3JL
>> Scotland
>> Tel +44 131 650 5704
>> Mobile 07795 203 195
>> www.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs
>>
>> On 16/06/2011 08:21, Andrew Lockley wrote:
>>
>> You'll have to question them directly
>>
>> I suggest that we circulate a response to each - likely the same as sent
>> to
>> the ipcc
>>
>> A
>>
>> On 16 Jun 2011 02:54, <vogle...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Interesting list of groups. I will bet $100 that if each group were to be
>>> contacted, that we would find they have no knowledge of this ETC effort.
>>> I
>>> just randomly picked one... "Institute for Social Ecology" and searched
>>> their website for "Geoengineering". This is what I
>>>
>>> found....http://www.social-ecology.org/?s=geoengineering&submit.x=10&submit.y=9
>>> No Result
>>>
>>> So, I tried another...."Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy. USA"
>>> and again searched their site for GE. Here is what I found
>>> http://www.social-ecology.org/?s=geoengineering&submit.x=10&submit.y=9 No
>>> Result
>>>
>>> Being and hard headed SOUTHERN fellow, I tried one
>>> more....."International
>>> Presentation Association of the Sisters of the Presentation, USA" Here is
>>> the search result http://www.presentationsisters.org/search-results.php
>>> AGAIN NO RESULT!!!
>>>
>>> Ok, I am upping the bet to $1,000. Any takers?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On , "Rau, Greg" <ra...@llnl.gov> wrote:
>>>> From the letter:
>>>
>>>> "The likelihood that geoengineering will provide a safe, lasting,
>>>> democratic and peaceful solution to the climate crisis is non-existent."
>>>
>>>> [please fill us in on the safer, longer lasting, more democratic, and
>>>> peaceful solutions, and therefore why further evaluation of GE isn't
>>>> needed.]
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> "Asking a group of geoengineering scientists if more research should be
>>>> done on the topic is like asking a group of hungry bears if they would
>>>> like honey. Their predictable answer should be viewed with skepticism.
>>>> At
>>>> the same time, independent organizations, which have devoted years of
>>>> critical research to geoengineering, are not allowed to participate,
>>>> even
>>>> as observers."
>>>
>>>> [ glad someone has been able to do years of critical research on GE.
>>>> Please transparently provide results, as well as evaluations of the
>>>> better, non-GE solutions]
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> "...we urge the IPCC to ensure that a variety of civil society voices is
>>>> heard, understood, and taken into account, particularly from the global
>>>> South. This will provide much-needed common sense and a global
>>>> perspective, as well as a counterpoint to the more prominent and extreme
>>>> positions of some Northern scientists engaged in geoengineering
>>>> research."
>>>
>>>> [didn't realize that there is a north/south divide here. I thought
>>>> global
>>>> warming and ocean acidification were equal opportunity impactors. Any
>>>> Southerners on the GE list? care to weigh in?]
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Interesting signatories* of this letter, including the African
>>>> Biodiversity Network, Africa, international World Rainforest Movement,
>>>> Cook Islands Climate Action Network (CICAN), Rarotonga, Cook Islands,
>>>> Island Sustainability Alliance CIS Inc (ISACI) Rarotonga, COOK ISLANDS,
>>>> Rainforest Rescue – Rettet den Regenwald, Germany, Sisters of Charity of
>>>> Nazareth Congregational Leadership, United States. Certainly we are all
>>>> for biodiveristy, rainforests, Pacific islands, charity, etc. Why run
>>>> the
>>>> risk of losing them by not considering all of our options for preserving
>>>> them?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> I've learned that effective political messaging requires 3 things: a
>>>> victim, a villain, and an opportunity. While HOME et al. certainly have
>>>> the first two covered, they offer no alternative opportunities for
>>>> saving
>>>> the world. That's truly dangerous. Let's keep all of our options open.
>>>
>>>> -Greg
>>>
>>>> *
>>>
>>>> African Biodiversity Network, Africa, international
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> ATALC – Amigos de la Tierra America Latina y Caribe, Latin America,
>>>> international
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Coordinadora Andina de Organizaciones Indígenas -CAOI, Andean,
>>>> international
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> ETC group, international
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Friends of the Earth International
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Global Forest Coalition, International
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Global Justice Ecology Project, International
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> GRAIN, International
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Land is Life, international network of indigenous communities and
>>>> organizations
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Missionary Oblates of Mary Immaculate, International
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> International Center for Technology Assessment (ICTA), US /
>>>> international
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> OILWATCH Sudamérica, international
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Pan African Climate Justice Alliance (PACJA), Africa, International
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> RALLT, Red por una América Latina libre de Transgénicos, Latin America,
>>>> international
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Red Latinoamericana contra los Monocultivos de Árboles (RECOMA), Latin
>>>> America, international
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Redmanglar Internacional, Guatemala, international
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Temple of Understanding US / international
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Third World Network, international
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Via Campesina, International Peasant Movement, international
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> World Future Council Foundation, international
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> World Rainforest Movement / Mov. Mundial de Bosques, international
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Aboriginal Legal Rights Movement Inc, Australia
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Acción Ecológica, Ecuador
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Acción por la Biodiversidad, Argentina
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> ADEID, Action pour un Développement Équitable, Intégré et Durable,
>>>> Cameroon
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> African Centre for Biosafety, South Africa
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Alliance Sud, Switzerland
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Amigos da Terra, Brazil
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Amigu di Tera FoE Curaçao, Brazil
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> APUNA, Andhra Pradesh United Nations Association, India
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Asociación ANDES, Cusco, Perú
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Bio WILD Foundation, Biodiversity and Wildlife Integration for
>>>> Livelihood
>>>> Development, INDIA
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Biofuelwatch, UK / US
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Casifop, México
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Ceccam, México
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Cenami, México
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Censat Agua Viva, Colombia
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Center for Cultural Interchange and Greenheart, USA
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Centre for Civil Society Environmental Justice Project, Durban, South
>>>> Africa
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Centro Ecológico IPÉ, Brazil
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Centro Ecologista Renacer, Argentina
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Centro Fray Julián Garcés de Derechos Humanos y Desarrollo Comunitario,
>>>> México
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> CESTA, Amigos de la Tierra El Salvador
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> COECOCEIBA-AT Costa Rica
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Colectivo COA, México
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Colectivo Voces Ecológicas COVEC, Panamá
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Consejo de Ejidos y Comunidades Opositores a la Presa La Parota (CECOP),
>>>> México
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Cook Islands Climate Action Network (CICAN), Rarotonga, Cook Islands
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Cooperativa por un Ambiente Biodiverso y Sustentable, CAMBIOS, SC de
>>>> RL,México
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Corner House, UK
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Cuarto Menguante Aliento por la conservación AC, México
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Dewan Adat Papua, New Guinea
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Dogwood Alliance – Asheville, NC, USA
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Ecological Society of the Philippines
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Ecologistas en Acción, Spain
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Ecomunidades, red ecologista autónoma de la cuenca de México
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Educación AT Argentina
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> CEIBA AT, Guatemala
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Ethiopian Society or Consumer Protection, Ethiopia
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Fair Coop (Fair Trade), Italy
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Family Farm Defenders, Madison, Wi, USA
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> FASE, Brazil
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Fondation Sciences Citoyennes, France
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Frente de Pueblos en Defensa de la Tierra y el Agua, Región Malinche,
>>>> México
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Friends of the Earth US
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Food First, US
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Fundación Heifer-Ecuador
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Fundación por el Futuro, Madrid, España
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Fundación Promotora de Cooperativas – FUNPROCOOP, El Salvador
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Gaia Foundation, UK
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> GMWatch, UK
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Greenovation Center, China
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Grupo SEMILLAS,Colombia
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Grupo Thunhupha, Bolivia
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> IBON International, Philippines
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Indian biodiversity forum, India
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, USA
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Institute of Science in Society, Mae-Wan Ho, UK
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Instituto de Estudios Ecologistas del Tercer Mundo, Ecuador.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> International Presentation Association of the Sisters of the
>>>> Presentation, USA
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Institute for Social Ecology, USA
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> ITC, Comité Intertribal, Brazil
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Island Sustainability Alliance CIS Inc (ISACI) Rarotonga, COOK ISLANDS
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Movimiento Madre Tierra, Honduras
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Ka Lahui Hawai'i
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Kiee Lu'u SSS México
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> L'Union Paysanne, Canada
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> La Asamblea Veracruzana de Iniciativa y Defensa Ambiental (LAVIDA),
>>>> México
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Mangrove Action Project, USA
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Movimiento de la Juventud Kuna, Panamá
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Movimiento por la Vida y la Equidad Campesina, El Salvador
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Na Koa Ikaika KaLahui Hawaii
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> National Indigenous Peoples of Solomons Islands (NIPS), Solomon Islands
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> National Toxics Network Inc. Coordinator, Australia
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> New World Society For Friendship Cooperation And Peace, India
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Ngati Hine tribe of the Bay Of Islands, New Zealand
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> NusaAlifuru of Maluku (Pacific, considered Indonesian)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Observatorio Latinoamericano de Conflictos Ambientales -OLCA, Chile
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> OFRANEH, Organizacion Fraternal Negra Hondureña, Honduras
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Ole Siosiomaga Society Incorporated (OLSSI), SAMOA
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Organización de Agricultores Biológicos AC, México
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Philippinenbuero eV im Asienhaus; Germany
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Proceso de Comunidades Negras de Colombia
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Rainforest Rescue – Rettet den Regenwald, Germany
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> RAPA NUI PARLIAMENT (Polinesia)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Red de Coordinación en Biodiversidad, Costa Rica
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Rede Brazileira de Pesquisas em Nanotecnologia – RENANOSOMA, Brazil
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> REDES AT, Uruguay
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> SAFEAGE, Observatory, Cape Town, South Africa
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Salva la Selva, Spain
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Savia, Escuela de Pensamiento Ecologista, Guatemala
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> SEARICE, Philippines
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Sisters of Charity of Nazareth Congregational Leadership, United States
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Sunray Harvesters, India
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> SWISSAID, Switzerland
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Seeds Action Network, Germany
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Terra de Direitos, Human Rights Organization- Brazil
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Terra-1530, Moldova
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Texas Drought Project, USA
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> The Development Fund, Norway
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> The Enviro Show, Western Massachusetts/USA
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> The Koani Foundation, Lihue, Kauai, Hawaii
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> The Noordhoek Environmental Action Group, Noordhoek, Cape Town, South
>>>> Africa
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Un Salto de Vida, AC, El Salto, Jalisco, México
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> US Federation for Middle East Peace (USFMEP), USA
>>>
>>>> ________________________________________
>>>
>>>> From: geoengi...@googlegroups.com [geoengi...@googlegroups.com]
>>>> On Behalf Of Josh Horton [joshuah...@gmail.com]
>>>
>>>> Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2011 5:08 AM
>>>
>>>> To: geoengineering
>>>
>>>> Subject: [geo] HOME/ETC Group Targets IPCC
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Here is the latest salvo from the HOME campaign, this time targeting
>>>
>>>> the IPCC expert group on geoengineering meeting in Peru:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> http://www.handsoffmotherearth.org/2011/06/lettertoipcc/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Josh Horton
>>>
>>>> joshuah...@gmail.com
>>>
>>>> http://geoengineeringpolitics.blogspot.com/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> --
>>>
>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>>>> Groups "geoengineering" group.
>>>
>>>> To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com.
>>>
>>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>>>> geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com.
>>>
>>>> For more options, visit this group at
>>>> http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> --
>>>
>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>>>> Groups "geoengineering" group.
>>>
>>>> To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com.
>>>
>>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>>>> geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com.
>>>
>>>> For more options, visit this group at
>>>> http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>>> "geoengineering" group.
>>> To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com.
>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>>> geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com.
>>> For more options, visit this group at
>>> http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
>>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "geoengineering" group.
>> To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com.
>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>> geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com.
>> For more options, visit this group at
>> http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
>>
>> The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
>> Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "geoengineering" group.
>> To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com.
>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>> geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com.
>> For more options, visit this group at
>> http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
>>
>>
>>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "geoengineering" group.
> To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
>
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group.
To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
Holly Buck
Hi All,
A few brief thoughts on geoengineering representation in the news media, after spending a few years writing a master's thesis on this:
-- ETC can't represent civil society, because civil society largely doesn't know about geoengineering. As Tony Leiserowitz said, "the frame has yet to be set."
-- Scientists are instrumental in setting this frame, as they have the greatest share of media attention: natural scientists and engineers make up roughly 70% of assertions in the media about geoengineering. Policy people and economists, most of the rest. (That's in print media, but much web media is sourced from print media.)
-- Hence, ETC is still somewhat fringe, but because of how new media works, they can reach people who are interested in the issue. And their arguments could have deep resonance for the "citizens-on-standby" who don't yet know about geoengineering. Attractive parts of this cosmology may include:
- a sense of loss (environmental fall-from-grace story, where we long for the world-as-it-was before we screwed it up)
- a disgust with techno-managerial approaches to the environment, and
- anger with the northern elites who got us into this mess.
Tea Party: If you mix fall-of-grace stories with a desire for freedom (in the form of wildness, unregulated "nature") and anger toward elites, you have a cosmology that looks kind of like.... the Tea Party. That's what I'd be worried about. Fortunately traditional ideas of what is red/blue have kept this issue from going in that direction.
But I don't think you get anywhere by approaching someone else's argument; rather, speak to their narrative. All their narrative concerns are reasonable (to me) and could have traction, especially the latter-- I still don't think we've seen the popular anti-elite fallout from the 2008 financial mess (though we begin to in Europe, MENA). What does that have to do with geoengineering research and governance? A lot, potentially.
Prediction: Going forward, I'd expect to see a humanitarian frame, which you don't see much at present: geoengineering as a humanitarian intervention done forward on behalf of the countries who are getting hit by climate change. ETC manages to speak for the Global South at present, but it's still unclear how both citizens and leaders of developing countries feel about this prospect. More research is needed here, as the G-77 is an entitity that would break down here: Pakistan and Brazil may have different ideas than Boliva on this point. This could really transform the discussion in the Western press.
Opportunity analysis: it would be a great time for a science diplomacy initiative to shine-- scientists in EU/US really working with scientists in other countries on research. For environmentalists, it's a great time to fully elaborate a vision of carbon-cycle projects like biochar that could be done locally, but on a wide scale, and ramp up funding for this + other projects that would reform the global food system & fuel system in the process. If we believed humans were actually capable of transforming our environment for the better, environmentalists might get somewhere.
Cheers,
Holly
Mike MacCracken
When I was elected, the practice was to have time for public comment at the beginning of the meeting and then not later. Well, it is kind of hard for the public to make intelligent comments before hearing what the proposals from staff even were, much less the discussion of the 5 directors on the board I was on. On the other hand, allowing people to react after all was proposed and decided would provide only a reaction for the reporters and no input to the process. What we did as I recall, was have time at the beginning of the meeting to allow raising issues that were not on the agenda, so the public did not have to wait late into the night through all sorts of topics to raise a new topic at the end under new business. On topics that were on the agenda, we provided for public input after having staff make their report and directors had been able to ask their questions (I should note that staff met with a subcommittee of the directors, so, by law, less than half, to do a test of their ideas, etc., so at least there was some preparatory work), but before the directors had really gotten into a discussion of their views and worked to account for comments that had come in, etc., working toward a final motion to vote on, etc. Then would come the vote, and indeed, the public could react to the press later, but they were provided a real opportunity to give voice to their views at a useful time in the process [e.g., in our case, typically the design of neighborhood parks, etc.--and in those cases we actually also would have staff hold a meeting on the park site with a few options for the design and ask the people in area to write their comments right on the plans (and some of us would be there to pick up public comments as well)—what they liked and did not, so the site plan that came to us later already had a significant opportunity for public comment]. This can all take time, etc., but it also tended to lead to better results and better relations with the public.
For our situation, I think it fine to have observers (groups and media) there, although on this case we are awfully early in the process, trying to figure out what the path forward will even be. And fine to have a time for brief presentations of views, I would think after at least most of the meeting has gone along, but before the end. And I would assume after the meeting the leaders might summarize the meeting for groups and media and be open to questions about what happened and what status moving forward is. We are not deciders on bigger issues, so those questions go elsewhere, but I think we should indeed be open on all of this. Rather than climate engineering leading to less pressure for mitigation, if there is indeed so much concern about it, then there should be more pressure for mitigation, etc. So, while it might all seem bothersome, I’d recommend being open on this.
Mike MacCracken
>>>
>>>> For more options, visit this group at
>>>> http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> --
>>>
>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>>>> Groups "geoengineering" group.
>>>
>>>> To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com.
>>>
>>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>>>
>>>> For more options, visit this group at
>>>> http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>>> "geoengineering" group.
>>> To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com.
>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>>> For more options, visit this group at
>>> http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
>>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "geoengineering" group.
>> To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com.
>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>> For more options, visit this group at
>> http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
>>
>> The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
>> Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "geoengineering" group.
>> To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com.
>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>> For more options, visit this group at
>> http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
>>
>>
>>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "geoengineering" group.
> To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
Alan Robock
This discussion seems to ignore the purpose of IPCC. The job of IPCC is
to assess peer-reviewed literature on the subject of climate change and
report the assessment to the governments of the world to that they can
make informed policy choices. This assessment will include
geoengineering in all three working group reports. I attach a brochure
on IPCC so you can see the titles of the different chapters of each report.
The purpose of IPCC is NOT to organize research, to conduct research, or
to recommend policies. The purpose of the Experts' Meeting on
Geoengineering to be held in Lima next week, which I will attend, is to
bring IPCC authors from all three working groups together to inform each
other of the work they have done so far, so that each working group
report will be better informed by all the current work in
geoengineering, and so that the reports will not be contradictory or
ignorant of the other reports. The meeting will forge collaborations so
that authors from different working groups will be able to know about
each other and stay in touch over the next 2-3 years as the reports are
finalized.
Alan
Alan Robock, Professor II (Distinguished Professor)
Editor, Reviews of Geophysics
Director, Meteorology Undergraduate Program
Associate Director, Center for Environmental Prediction
Department of Environmental Sciences Phone: +1-732-932-9800 x6222
Rutgers University Fax: +1-732-932-8644
14 College Farm Road E-mail: rob...@envsci.rutgers.edu
New Brunswick, NJ 08901-8551 USA http://envsci.rutgers.edu/~robock
rongre...@comcast.net
1. Thanks for sending the brochure on IPCC-5. I see several places that Geoengineering could appear in each of the four reports, but the words "Geoengineering" and carbon dioxide removal (CDR) don't stand out anywhere - much less Biochar or even REDD. Which sections will the Lima Geoengineering Committee be focusing on (so we can compare to the last IPCC report). Or has that not yet been established?
2. My main concern is that your Lima group may not include any person working mainly in Biochar research. If that is the case, how can one ensure that Biochar literature is considered by the Lima group?
3. The IBI site (www.biochar-international.org) has a Bibliography of over 500 citations - most are refereed. By searching within that number I found only three (<1%) that refer to the term "Geoengineering". The Biochar research community is focused on soil augmentation, not CDR - even though the latter comes along with zero conflict and with out-year CDR advantages. I fear that a Geoengineering panel that includes no-one who has ever attended a Biochar conference will assume that the Biochar CDR literature is sparse.
In fact there is a lot and rapidly growing - maybe with a doubling time of about a year. The IBI site for the first five months of 2011 added 10, 7, 10, 14, and 14 (mostly refereed) citations to this Bibliography. Does any other part of Geoengineering have this sort of publication growth? (In addition to the 3 in the bibliography, there were another 20 news items related to geoengineering - but I assume that none of those could be discussed in Lima.).
4. Can you assure me that this rapidly growing Biochar literature will be acknowledged in IPCC-5? And will not include that from the anti-Biochar community - which looks scientific, but I believe has never appeared in a refereed publication. The most recent with 150 supposed references doesn't even name any authors - and yet it will probably be available in Lima..
Of course, I would hope the same principles for finding applicable citations apply for all the other photosynthesis-related CDR approaches. I am guessing that most non-biomass CDR approaches will be represented at this Lima meeting.
5. As an example of my fears, the IPCC (WG III) has recently released a massive report on Renewable Energy. There is a fine chapter (#2) on Bioenergy, with hundreds of citations. See http://srren.ipcc-wg3.de/report/IPCC_SRREN_Ch02 . There is not one citation on Biochar. The word does not even appear in this chapter (although BECCS does - very briefly). The problem presumably is that none of the many knowledgeable authors of this chapter were soil scientists or working in CDR. Or (hopefully) the RE authors were passing all of the CDR aspects of Biomass on to the Geoengineering (or some other?) subgroup.
Thanks in advance for more on any IPCC-5 or Lima meeting details.
Ron
From: "Alan Robock" <rob...@envsci.rutgers.edu>
To: "Geoengineering" <Geoengi...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Friday, June 17, 2011 8:56:11 AM
Subject: Re: [geo] HOME/ETC Group Targets IPCC
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group.
To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com.
Alan Robock
I'll know more about WG II and III after the meeting, but for WG I, Chapter 6 (Carbon and Other Biogeochemical Cycles) will deal with CDR. For this and the other working groups, you can obtain a list of the authors from the IPCC website, https://www.ipcc-wg1.unibe.ch/AR5/AR5.html
Alan Alan Robock, Professor II (Distinguished Professor) Editor, Reviews of Geophysics Director, Meteorology Undergraduate Program Associate Director, Center for Environmental Prediction Department of Environmental Sciences Phone: +1-732-932-9800 x6222 Rutgers University Fax: +1-732-932-8644 14 College Farm Road E-mail: rob...@envsci.rutgers.edu New Brunswick, NJ 08901-8551 USA http://envsci.rutgers.edu/~robock
rongre...@comcast.net
Thanks for the note (and for serving in elected office). I can't think of anything to add, but do support the post-meeting descriptions you have mentioned - presumably appearing at least on this list.
Ron
From: "Mike MacCracken" <mmac...@comcast.net>
To: rongre...@comcast.net, "Andrew Lockley" <andrew....@gmail.com>
Cc: "Geoengineering" <Geoengi...@googlegroups.com>, "Alvia Gaskill" <agas...@nc.rr.com>
Sent: Friday, June 17, 2011 7:37:24 AM
Andrew Lockley
Will the Lima meeting be attended by anyone with expertise in methane feedback?
They key scientific justification for geoengineering development in the short to medium term is to prevent or react to tipping points, ie methane feedbacks, so it helps to have expertise on hand.
If we're at the tipping point now, it would be handy to know this when considering the matter of development and deployment.
Shakhova is an obvious choice for a jolly to Peru.
A
> Mike.
>
> Thanks for the note (and for serving in elected office). I can't think of anything to add, but do support the post-meeting descriptions you have mentioned - presumably appearing at least on this list.
>
> Ron
>
>
>>> Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
>>>
>>> --
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>>> "geoengineering" group.
>>> To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com .
rongre...@comcast.net
1. Thanks for entering this dialog - which (to remind) is partly about signing a letter to the IPCC. This is also pertinent to our thread on representation at an IPCC Lima meeting and, lastly,.re claimed HOME/ETC misrepresentations on Geoengineering
2. I found your note below from yesterday and its attached short paper very informative (which paper I couldn't find anywhere on the web, so others will have to go back to that message if they want to read it; is it available on any web site yet?). I recommend it to those who haven't read it as a good introduction to framing of SRM (and I think not intended to discuss CDR at all). I think you are breaking a lot of valuable new ground here.
3. That paper seems to be the second in a string on this topic. But I like a longer and slightly (?) earlier one even more - which can be found at:
http://www.umt.edu/ethics/EthicsGeoengineering/Workshop/articles1/Holly%20Buck.pdf
4. The subject of this earlier paper was clearly intended to be only SRM - no CDR. I think the same was true for the paper you attached, however I found the separation less clear in your attachment. But in both your papers, the term "geoengineering" was often (you much less than most) used interchangeably with SRM. Could you give us a few paragraphs on how you would rephrase anything in both these papers if you were ONLY talking about CDR? Please don't do this if you haven't studied CDR yet.sufficiently.
5. As an example of what I am looking for - this was on your p 4, as part of your seventh and last premise on media: "........Imagine talking about “geoengineering” without the signifier “geoengineering”: for one, vastly different approaches like biochar and aerosols in the stratosphere would probably not be lumped together in the same news article, and so “geoengineering” would not have the dread-inspiring gravitas that it does."
6. As another example, you had a nice section on the NERC follow-up to the Royal Society report on Geoengineering, which report on pp 24-25:, said (emphasis added):
"However, some misunderstandings persisted which may have skewed perceptions in favour
of two of the CDR approaches, Afforestation and Biochar. In particular, the majority did not
fully take on board the land use trade-offs that large-scale deployment of Biochar or
Afforestation might require, nor the length of time required for these to make a difference to
global CO2 levels. Scientists and facilitators explained the land use question and the
timescale, but participants preferred to focus on the benefits of this “natural” process of
carbon sequestration and identified many more positives than they did challenges. This was
apparent throughout Event 1 and 2, and in the shorter sessions with other participants, as
well as in the online survey."
Unlike the NERC experts, I (maybe also the participants?) take the large areas involved to be a plus for Afforestation and Biochar - not a negative - given the huge amount of land that used to be forested, became farm land until worn out, and is now good only for pastures. Large land areas also guaranties more and permanent food and employment.
I wonder how many points were lost from the (already sizeable) NERC point score for Biochar because of this sort of "expert" guidance. I choose Biochar as an example because of personal interest there and little expertise on other Geoengineering approaches, but also because I recognize (but I haven't looked carefully) no Biochar researcher among the list of experts. It would be interesting to compare the voting at three different locations with three different sets of experts.
Your thoughts on this example as a way to bring in the public? (I like this approach better than most - only wanting to be sure that we really have experts.)
7. NERC's artificial tree (direct air capture) point total was higher than for Biochar (but lower than for afforestation). What would the result have been had Robert Socolow been the guiding expert? I am thinking of the new report, not available then, from the APS:
http://www.aps.org/policy/reports/popa-reports/loader.cfm?csModule=security/getfile&PageID=244407
My point is not to promote or denigrate any Geoengineering technology - but to say that we need to find a better way to assess all possible climate-important technologies.
I once worked for the (no longer existent) US Congress' Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) - and know that this is not easy to do. Many TA experts would argue for something like most judicial systems - strong "Advocates" making their case before a "jury". Few of us would want our case made by a lawyer we didn't choose. Deliberative polling and lengthy exchanges between experts are also promoted
Your paper has given me another excuse to express a concern for what might happen in Lima.
8. I liked your papers because they have many new ideas, are well thought out, and are getting at these issues of public participation, fully in the context of this list's (quite different SRM and CDR) interests. You are a good writer, as well..
I was tempted to say something about your last two sentences below (which I applaud) - but this note is already too long.
How soon can we read your full thesis?
Thanks again for entering the dialog.
Ron
From: "Holly Buck" <holly.j...@gmail.com>
To: rongre...@comcast.net
Cc: geoengi...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Friday, June 17, 2011 6:12:01 AM
Andrew Lockley
It doesn't need a lot of money to do do this.
Some time ago I suggested a formal membership organisation, which would be the obvious focus for media attention
At the time ken argued against the idea, and it seemed to die at that point.
Is there now any support for establishing a "geoengineering studies society "
A
Ken Caldeira
Ken Caldeira
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group.
To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com.
Andrew Lockley
start - they both have independent credibility.
Perhaps Prof. Shepperd would be willing to make the geoengineering
ctte permanent?
A
Holly Buck
Greetings,
Thanks for reading, Ron. I'll try to respond to as many of your points as I can.
On how I would rephrase anything in both these papers if I was ONLY talking about CDR: Let me first say that I used to think it was unhelpful to use the signifier "geoengineering" for such vastly different approaches as SRM & CDR. It seemed a shopping-cart approach, too dependent on a rational-choice model of human behavior / consumption. However, lately I've been thinking that there's a great utility in this catch-all signifier "geoengineering": being able to compare these approaches on a conceptually equal playing field can be empowering.
In the media content analysis, I simply searched for "geoengineering" or "climate engineering", and if it sounded like I was using the term interchangeably with SRM, that probably reflects the hundreds of media articles I read which often did so. It would be interesting to repeat the media content analysis with only terms that referred to CDR to see how the narrative frames are different. However, many of the stories on geoengineering take the shopping-cart approach (i.e. Ten Crazy Schemes to Save the World), so I don't know if it would have differed very much. And as I wrote, climate stability is almost always framed as averting the negative, not about establishing something positive— this is possibly less true for CDR, but not dramatically so. In short, that paper might not have been too different.
However, for the public participation & narrative communication paper, I would have written a very different paper if it was only about CDR. Part of this is because some CDR options, like biochar & afforestation, offer direct participation opportunities, not just in decision-making but in actualization. Also, CDR would deal with existing institutions differently (e.g. the World Bank already looking into biochar— lots of potential links with multilateral humanitarian and agricultural instituions who deal with land use, etc.) Having more clearly relevant existing institutions makes it a different conversation. And for the section on changing the narratives on geoengineering: I think this would be easier if talking only about CDR. For one, the phrase of "carbon dioxide removal" implies taking something away; I think people are more at ease with that idea. Works with the make-a-mess, clean-it-up thinking we learned as kids, whereas "solar radiation management" is like management, tiresome responsibility. And the imagery is more palatable: for an article on biochar, you can head with an image of two hands holding dark earth with a seed sprouting. Even for ocean fertilization, you can have a diagram with some little fishes in it. For SRM, you've got The Earth from Space or the ubiquitous rendering of the sea-spray vessel. These might sound like stupid points, but they aren't incidental differences; they are crucial.
On the NERC report and "expert" advice: though I criticize it somewhat in my paper, I believe the NERC endeavor was a well-intentioned attempt at a public dialogue. I do think you need different parties doing the informing and facilitating the dialogue, though. I like your idea about having three different sets of experts. I would posit that they should be experts from across disciplines, too. Like in the example you mentioned: the large land areas involved in biochar are not an essential problem, but a problem in implementation. The fears that biochar production would be taking place on large plantations in the global South to fix the problems the North created have some justification, I think, based mostly on the current (evolving) land-use trends we see today with large scale land-leases, expanding palm oil plantations displacing farmers, etc. It's not totally inconceivable that similar trends could happen if biochar production was ramped up, so there will have to be some norms, institutions, and regulatory scheme set up to deal with these kinds of issues. So, back to the topic of public consultation: are you going to have experts that present all these angles to the public? Educational institutions should be carrying weight here.
On assessment of technologies: I agree with you that we need to find a better way to assess possible climate-important technologies, and I think that it should take into account not just "economic" costs, but social and ecological opportunities. If biochar can help us deal with the food and fuel crises, it should score some points— and the inability of other strategies to do that should be marked down as an opportunity lost. Strategies shouldn't be assessed on their ability to modify the temperature, as the temperature isn't really our problem: I see our root problems as poor land use, socio-economic systems that depend on fossil-fuel combustion, and uneven development. So strategies should be assessed on their ability to contribute to solving these, and downgraded if they can't. Difficult, politcally and methodologically, but if we are actually serious about a planet that would support human well-being, we should consider some type of approach like this. (I haven't entirely thought through the mechanism, obviously, but hopefully the rudimentary idea comes through.) On the plus side, incorporating opportunities into assessement might mobilize support from a lot of the people who are against geoengineering (back to the ETC topic): one of their main concerns is that geoengineering is a way of maintaining the status quo.
Take care,
Holly
p.s. the full thesis is pretty much these two papers; nothing radically different is added. They will probably be published in an anthology and a journal, but not for some months.
Alvia Gaskill
rongre...@comcast.net
Mostly I agreed with your remarks below. But, like Ms. Gaskill, I was surprised at your statement on rising temperatures. The cruciality of rising temperatures is one of the few areas where most on this list - CDR and SRM alike - agree. We are concerned not about the present temperature as much about future tipping points. Probably most of us strongly endorse the work of Dr. Jim Hansen, who has probably been at this the longest and with the greatest depth and conviction, and who is calling for urgent, rapid action to reduce atmospheric carbon content - to avoid one or more serious tipping points.
What I'd like to believe about your pair of sentences is in this attempted re-write, changing your:
HJB: "Strategies shouldn't be assessed on their ability to modify the temperature, as the temperature isn't really our problem: I see our root problems as poor land use, socio-economic systems that depend on fossil-fuel combustion, and uneven development."
over to:
RWL: "Strategies shouldn't be assessed ONLY on their ability to modify the temperature, as the temperature isn't really our problem - rather, rising temperature is a most serious symptom.: I see our root causal problems as poor land use, socio-economic systems that depend on fossil-fuel combustion, and uneven development."
Admitting that I am putting words in your mouth, does this rewrite come closer to your own beliefs? To me, rising temperature (caused mostly by "fossil fuel combustion") is THE key unifying feature for this list. I don't want this temperature "problem" topic to take away from your other keen observations exemplified below..
Your thoughts?
Ron
From: "Alvia Gaskill" <agas...@nc.rr.com>
To: "holly jean buck" <holly.j...@gmail.com>, rongre...@comcast.net
Cc: geoengi...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Monday, June 20, 2011 6:21:47 AM
Holly Buck
Michael Hayes
Michael Hayes
Holly Buck
Hi Michael,
Thanks for all your useful comments; there is a lot I want to address about them.
- Michael writes: "I would also like to comment on your statement; "I see our root problems as poor land use, socio-economic systems that depend on fossil-fuel combustion, and uneven development. So strategies should be assessed on their ability to contribute to solving these, and downgraded if they can't.". Holly, that is social engineering....not GE!"
Yes, it's true that there is some social engineering involved... but I think the Anthropocene challenges the Cartesian nature / society divide for many people. We have changed our atmospheric composition due to patterns that are very much social and cultural: it's not just burning of hydrocarbons or cutting of biomass that created 394 ppm. It's love for the open road, jet-set glamour, dietary patterns, corrupt regimes that allow illegal logging, aspirations of the Chinese middle class, whatever. All of these sociocultural factors have helped lead us to this juncture.
More explicitly on-point to this thread: people who vociferously oppose geoengineering believe geoengineering to be a social project with nefarious social aims, and they don't see the natural / social divide in the way a scientist might. They are problematizing global warming differently. And it can be difficult to have a conversation between two parties who have a different conceptualization of exactly what problem they're trying to address. So any "PR" strategy would do well to speak to the "problematization problem", I think.
- Michael also writes that "the original core of the GE concept is not so broad that "uneven development" even shows up on the radar."
This is of course true; I mention uneven development because this is what prevents us from making process with the UNFCCC process. To briefly frame the situation: many developing countries see the developed world as having developed with use of their resources, at their expense under colonialism, and with the benefit of fossil fuels. They think they are entitled to a "fair" allowance of catch-up emissions and that developed countries should pay for what they've already emitted. Developed countries don't want to pay up (especially since many developing countries have corrupt regimes) and they are heavily invested in existing fossil fuel structures. This development dilemma, because it is what keeps us from just going and cutting emissions, is the dilemma that causes the need for geoengineering.
So let's entertain a thought-experiment: what if it was possible that geoengineering could actually contribute to solving this dilemma?
- This brings me to Michael's excellent question: "How can any GE concept address the social issues you are attaching to the evaluation criteria?
This is perhaps easier to see with strategies like afforestation techniques, biochar, etc.: it's possible to introduce an implementation design that could be combined with development mechanisms so that developing countries, or even communities, could be financially rewarded for undertaking them and benefit from them, and have their land use and energy situations improved. I mean, this is already a part of the UNFCCC process. It's not just CDR techniques that could potentially address the social development dilemma, but also reflective crop varieties and grasslands (especially if combined with ecological restoration of degraded lands). Or see Michael's recent post on diatoms:
"This GE approach offers at least two non global warming mitigation related benefits to society. First would be the overall water quality improvement in the operational area due to the increase in saturated O2 levels provided by the seeded diatom blooms. Second would be that fisheries may improve due to the increase in the marine food production rates at the micro level."
Fishery improvement has all kinds of social benefits. Your phrase "general regional ecological enhancement" is really key: regional ecological enhancements are often social enhancements, especially when applied with the intention to be so.
Clearly, a lot of potential social solutions aren't inherent in the technologies, but in their implementation. But because the research process is entangled with the implementation of the technologies, I do think scientists can keep in mind how their research would be scaled-up or deployed, and play a role in it. (For example, the Internet had many influences and funders in its nascency-- DARPA, CERN, NSF, etc.-- but its structure, and even its social role, might be different if Tim Berners-Lee had patented hypertext. Not a perfect example, but the evolution of every tech, from pharma to farming, has some social impact and story.) I know I haven't fleshed out any of these ideas at much, but I am writing a longer paper on this topic.
Final note on PR: Michael, you proposed a website some posts back about a PR organization. My humble two cents, if you or others go through with this, would be to abandon the term PR-- it's too ideologically loaded already-- and rather discuss "outreach." And use it for genuine outreach, networking internationally with young & old scientists and civil society out there. Great way to touch base with the intergenerational issue. I'm so glad you mentioned graphics, too: images, design, and feel are so important. Best to go beyond the sci-fi diagrams and the ubiquitous rendering of the ocean spray ship; include images with people and plants and water in them, of scientists actively discussing and working out ideas and talking to the publics. May seem obvious, but in the hundreds of articles I analyzed on geoengineering, none had images like this. Also, crowdsourcing from all the inventors, climate geeks, environmentalists, and people who have too much free time on the net is key to making it work. I would work with educators, esp. on funding sources, as this could easily fit in with science education, and everybody loves education.
Kind regards,
Holly
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/geoengineering/-/wUJzn7RMwZIJ.
Veli Albert Kallio
This has "holier-than-thou" attitude and is only to harden polarisation and opposition of GE in developing world.
After all, what is the definition of corruption? Could one define all unsustainable development, immoral and hence corrupt. Sounds like the climate-skeptic elements in the US Christian coalition who blame all the problems on too many abortions being allowed. Never mind world's overpopulation, limits and diminishing land based natural resources.
Are the US on higher ground or the EU. Nope. Until they show that they can "develop" their economies with sustainable energy supply and responsible use of mineral resources. Also much of the pollution is sourced to China as the goods produced there with lower labour cost are then shipped across world to Europe rather than producing less consumables locally with higher wages (hence less purchasing power and sales volumes).
Geoengineering needs to be seen as one element in a toolbox of solutions to climate change, not as an elixair that solves everything. Social engineering, reforestation, etc. play their solutions as well.
Kr, Albert
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2011 22:05:17 -0400
Subject: Re: [geo] HOME/ETC Group Targets IPCC
Michael Hayes
- Michael also writes that "the original core of the GE concept is not so broad that "uneven development" even shows up on the radar."
"This GE approach offers at least two non global warming mitigation related benefits to society. First would be the overall water quality improvement in the operational area due to the increase in saturated O2 levels provided by the seeded diatom blooms. Second would be that fisheries may improve due to the increase in the marine food production rates at the micro level." (My statement)
" Fishery improvement has all kinds of social benefits. Your phrase "general regional ecological enhancement" is really key: regional ecological enhancements are often social enhancements, especially when applied with the intention to be so." (Holly's statement)
rongre...@comcast.net
I agree with your unhappiness over the phrase "Developed countries don't want to pay up (especially since many developing countries have corrupt regimes)". However I took this fourth sentence in Ms Buck's second bullet (responding to Michael) a different way. I took it be part of the problem as seen by the developing countries. Of course like many perceptions, there is some partial truth in the statement. I believe there is general agreement that President Mugabe's regime in Zimbabwe (where I have spent a half year) has been especially corrupt.
I believe that more activity on Biochar is taking place in developing countries than developed - and I believe more in Africa (the least developed continent) than any other continent. I think the point of Ms. Buck's short response to us was to say that there are Geoengineering technologies (ie Biochar) that we CAN use to break out of this dichotomy on "uneven development" - the point of this bullet response..
Ron
From: "Veli Albert Kallio" <albert...@hotmail.com>
To: "holly jean buck" <holly.j...@gmail.com>, vogle...@gmail.com
Cc: "Geoengineering FIPC" <geoengi...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2011 2:27:37 AM
Subject: RE: [geo] HOME/ETC Group Targets IPCC