Tiresome nomenclature squabbles
Andrew Lockley
Martha Schwartz
Sent: Monday, January 30, 2023 7:05:59 PM
To: CarbonDiox...@googlegroups.com <CarbonDiox...@googlegroups.com> <carbondiox...@googlegroups.com>; geoengineering <geoengi...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: [geo] Tiresome nomenclature squabbles
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAJ3C-04_FoiiKfqT9ogcapfacZuSU5VJ%3DjwsE5Bn9G1EC5TYCg%40mail.gmail.com.
david....@carbon-cycle.co.uk
Andrew,
I can only speak for myself but please keep doing what you are doing. It is needed.
I tell people that when the world finally wakes up with white knuckle fear to the risks and danger that Climate Change represents they will need geo-engineering to buy the essential couple of decades required to make the real transition to zero carbon emissions and then to start CO2 removal on mass from the atmosphere. Cold hard facts are that even if we started scaling up this today, it would not be fast enough and geo-engineering would be needed. The longer society takes to wake up, the greater the need will be for geo-engineering to address the time problem.
Those would have us do no research into the tools of geo-engineering are those who would leave us and our children defenceless to avoid disaster. No remotely sensible person or organisation in this space is arguing for avoiding moving to net zero quickly. We all worry about the massive risk the delay to this happening is creating and wish this would happen a lot faster.
Keep doing what you are doing and ignore those who would risk our children’ future for foolishness.
David Sevier
Carbon Cycle Limited
248 Sutton Common Road
Sutton, Surrey SM3 9PW
England
Tel 44 (0) 208 288 0128
From: geoengi...@googlegroups.com <geoengi...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of Andrew Lockley
Sent: 31 January 2023 00:06
To: CarbonDiox...@googlegroups.com <CarbonDiox...@googlegroups.com> <carbondiox...@googlegroups.com>; geoengineering <geoengi...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: [geo] Tiresome nomenclature squabbles
Hi Geo/CDR lists,
--
Pol Knops https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3308-3896
Francis Micheal Ludlow
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/4410201f-9021-4727-986f-a7ce8954d893n%40googlegroups.com.
School of Histories & Humanities, Trinity College Dublin
Email: lud...@tcd.ie
Tel: (00353) 87 648 8078
Robert Tulip
Andrew
As you note, many advocates of CDR are totally opposed to SRM. This is partly due to the widely held view among the general public that SRM is playing God, tinkering with nature, a dangerous intervention, whereas CDR is benign.
As a result of this context, some CDR proponents tactically distance themselves from SRM and the associated terminology of geoengineering. This is either because they really believe the anti-SRM ideology, or just in order to get investment and support and engagement.
Some NGOs reportedly oppose SRM because their finance departments believe supporting it would be bad for their fundraising efforts, due to widespread opposition among their donor base. They also believe that discussing SRM confuses their single message of the need to cut emissions.
This situation reflects the priority of politics over science in the formation of opinion. It means the united front on climate action is seen as including CDR, in line with IPCC acceptance, but not SRM, which was given pariah status in the last IPCC Summary For Policymakers. The confused moral hazard ideology is a main support for this political line.
This hostile attitude involves a refusal to see the earth as a single unified system, an inability to consider that earth system fragility and sensitivity can only be stabilised by brightening the planet.
Greta Thunberg’s recent publication, The Climate Book, contains the assertion that “all geoengineering schemes are attempts to manipulate the Earth with the same domineering mindset that got us into the climate crisis in the first place.” This quasi-religious hostility to technology commands broad support among climate activists, producing a refusal to listen to reason, despite being a recipe for social and economic and ecological collapse.
The philosophical and psychological and political blockages to albedo enhancement as a primary climate objective lead to highly dubious arguments, such as that accelerated emission reduction and CDR could prevent tipping points without any action on albedo.
It is essential to defend the concept of geoengineering, since questioning it demonstrates an inability to understand the climate problem.
These concerns ought to be the subject of much more discussion and debate, as they are actually central to planetary security, with significant moral implications. Thank you for highlighting the problem.
Robert Tulip
From: carbondiox...@googlegroups.com <carbondiox...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of Andrew Lockley
Sent: Tuesday, 31 January 2023 11:06 AM
To: CarbonDiox...@googlegroups.com <CarbonDiox...@googlegroups.com> <carbondiox...@googlegroups.com>; geoengineering <geoengi...@googlegroups.com>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Carbon Dioxide Removal" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to CarbonDioxideRem...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/CAJ3C-04_FoiiKfqT9ogcapfacZuSU5VJ%3DjwsE5Bn9G1EC5TYCg%40mail.gmail.com.
Andrew Lockley
What is the value of this discussion to the subject of CDR?So far:1) Someone reports getting their feelings hurt.2) We've been presented with an odd ball list of largely unsupportable assumptions and rambling personal views about CDR supporters etc.This is not the GE group nor an emotional support group. I don't mean to be insensitive to those in need of emotional support yet this is a STEM, policy, and economic space focused upon CDR. What has been presented has nothing to do with the STEM, policy, or the economics of CDR, that I can find.Best regards
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/046901d93640%24a995bd70%24fcc13850%24%40yahoo.com.au.
Andrew Lockley
[...] My original message had two purposes
A) to offer a full, citable explanation as to why I'm *not* planning on rebranding all my scicomm to suit anyone's doublespeak - any more than Coca-Cola will rebrand, now it's got no cocaine in
B) an appeal to stop the petty politics associated with these attempts to factionalise academia. [...]MH]1) Your single person 'branding' ability over such discussions should be questioned. No single person should have 'branding' rights to such a large field of study.2) Academia has already split largely due to the early GE discussion being 'branded' as only about SAI. Your single person 'branding' of the GE subject as only being about SAI as the GE group moderator triggered the formation of a seperate CDR group. Bombarding the stratosphere with sulfur loaded artillery rounds was your 'hobby horse' for years as the GE group moderator, and the totality of the early GE discussions within that GE had to revolve around your personal 'branding' desires. Years were wasted, IMO.Channeling expert level discussions through your personal GE 'SAI biased branding' efforts within the old GE group has now been largely made moot, the petty personal politics at this expert level of discussion are now largely over. You're free to object to my historical account and insist upon your personal 'branding' rights over climate disruption mitigation and adaptation expert discussions. Please keep it within 3 short paragraphs.
Ken Caldeira
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/CAJ3C-0645PTGZBXu3amtFweG-ad7QW-EyvicvSUD_9n2nQMQ3Q%40mail.gmail.com.
Robert Tulip
Dear Michael
I really am surprised that you claim to be unable to see the direct relevance of this topic to CDR policy.
It is very clear that albedo enhancement is essential to prevent dangerous warming. Many CDR proponents are in denial of this basic science. This is a political problem delaying effective action on climate change.
Conversation within CDR circles and more broadly can help improve understanding of the need to integrate direct climate cooling with the slower and indirect cooling methods provided by CDR and emission reduction. Disparaging SRM should be discouraged and challenged when it occurs.
It is understandable that these distorted beliefs against SRM have gained credence, given that much literature presents unbalanced and misinformed views criticising the moral case for geoengineering, ignoring cost benefit analysis and realistic scenarios.
The scientific community has a responsibility to take an evidence based approach to these sensitive complex questions.
Robert Tulip
From: carbondiox...@googlegroups.com <carbondiox...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of Michael Hayes
Sent: Thursday, 2 February 2023 4:38 AM
To: Robert Tulip <rtuli...@yahoo.com.au>
Cc: Andrew Lockley <andrew....@gmail.com>; CarbonDiox...@googlegroups.com <CarbonDiox...@googlegroups.com> <carbondiox...@googlegroups.com>; geoengineering <geoengi...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [CDR] Tiresome nomenclature squabbles
What is the value of this discussion to the subject of CDR?
So far:
1) Someone reports getting their feelings hurt.
2) We've been presented with an odd ball list of largely unsupportable assumptions and rambling personal views about CDR supporters etc.
This is not the GE group nor an emotional support group. I don't mean to be insensitive to those in need of emotional support yet this is a STEM, policy, and economic space focused upon CDR. What has been presented has nothing to do with the STEM, policy, or the economics of CDR, that I can find.
Best regards
On Wed, Feb 1, 2023, 5:25 AM 'Robert Tulip' via Carbon Dioxide Removal <CarbonDiox...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/046901d93640%24a995bd70%24fcc13850%24%40yahoo.com.au.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Carbon Dioxide Removal" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to CarbonDioxideRem...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/CABjtO1fBGTWVNACZWfEiek0ecCz1ztPvPAkrkaBwwC1nVWefWw%40mail.gmail.com.
Wil Burns
Dear Ken,
I’m curious where you found a definition of “geoengineering” that establishes the criteria you set forth here. Here’s a couple of mainstream ones:
- Geoengineering is the deliberate large-scale intervention in the Earth’s natural systems to counteract climate change.
Oxford Geoengineering Programme
- Attempted large scale human control of either biogeochemical cycles or the climate itself.
Robert G. Watts, Engineering Response to Global Climate Change (1997)
Under both of these definitions, I think CDR fits under this rubric:
- Under the Oxford definition, CDR is: 1. A large-scale intervention (or certain can be in terms of the scales society now is contemplating), and 2. Seeks to counteract the impacts of climate change that are inevitable should atmospheric concentrations continue to rise;
- Under the Watts definition: 1. Many CDR approaches will exert a profound impact on biogeochemical cycles (kind of the
quintessential definition, for example of those that rely on photosynthesis to effectuate sequestration, see: https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_Chapter06_FINAL.pdf;) and 2. CDR is intended to “control” the climate in terms of ensuring
radiative forcing is mediated.
I get why CDR folks worry about the “g word,” but I don’t buy the distinction you’re making, Ken, based on credible definitions that have been promulgated to date.
wil
|
|
WIL BURNS Co-Director, Institute for Carbon Removal Law & Policy American University
Visiting Professor, Environmental Policy & Culture Program, Northwestern University
Email: wbu...@american.edu Mobile: 312.550.3079 https://www.american.edu/sis/centers/carbon-removal/
Want to schedule a call? Click on one of the following scheduling links:
|
From: carbondiox...@googlegroups.com <carbondiox...@googlegroups.com>
On Behalf Of Ken Caldeira
Sent: Thursday, February 2, 2023 11:05 AM
To: Andrew Lockley <andrew....@gmail.com>
Cc: Michael Hayes <electro...@gmail.com>; Robert Tulip <rtuli...@yahoo.com.au>; CarbonDiox...@googlegroups.com <CarbonDiox...@googlegroups.com> <carbondiox...@googlegroups.com>; geoengineering <geoengi...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [CDR] Tiresome nomenclature squabbles
Carbon dioxide removal is an activity, or a tool, and can be fully described without reference to intent.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/CAKNUXC0-jt%2B41ORwCqD4ZEXfO2YLWiqPb5JD_kM%3Du3cMr2zemA%40mail.gmail.com.
Adrian Hindes
In fact, I think the "intent" part is something that makes solar radiation management meaningfully different in kind from CDR. CDR is more of a "cleaning up after ourselves" type of activity. The intention of SRM is to deliberately alter the Earth's climate in such a way that there is a design and end goal in mind. Any given SRM technology has significantly more degrees of freedom than CDR, which implies there are more choices (and hence, subjective intentions) involved.
Francis Micheal Ludlow
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAKNUXC0-jt%2B41ORwCqD4ZEXfO2YLWiqPb5JD_kM%3Du3cMr2zemA%40mail.gmail.com.
Greg Rau
I hit the Send button a moment too soon. I should have added that I would be delighted if those who know a lot more about the climate science than I do can convince me that I have seriously misinterpreted the messages from the sources I referred to.
Regards
Robert
I'm getting very confused. Perhaps naively, I've always thought that the purpose (i.e. intent) of CDR, GGR and AE (albedo enhancement, my newly preferred term to SRM) was to head off a climate crisis caused by global warming caused by the Earth Energy Imbalance at the TOA. That's why, as a bundle, they were originally grouped under the heading 'geoengineering'. To the extent that any of them are delivered by tools whose intent is not to intervene in global warming, they are not geoengineering. But to the extent that they are not geoengineering, they're of no interest to me because they can't intervene to help in averting the impending climate crisis. For example, CDR solely for the purpose of EOR is of zero interest to me unless it's a test bed for scaling CDR to become climatically significant (and even then I'm being more than a little indulgent).
The problem here is that it seems increasingly that 'geoengineering' is identified with SRM and SRM has become almost synonymous with SAI and everyone loves to hate SAI and therefore, by extension, everyone loves to hate SRM and 'geoengineering'. And because everyone hates geoengineering, everyone's worried that CDR/GGR will be harmed by any association with it. When I say 'everyone', I'm referring to everyone who is not adequately versed in the science. This is fundamentally a problem of communication between scientists and the rest. And that is important for the following reason.
It is now almost certain that warming will exceed 2degC well before 2050, even if we got to net zero emissions next week. There is no realistic possibility that emissions are going to fall dramatically anytime soon, indeed, it's not even clear when they'll peak. Add to this, insights around the imminence of cascading tipping points and it becomes clear that given the scale of risk (extremely high negative impacts with reasonable likelihood) a prudent response requires short-term control of the temperature anomaly. That cannot be delivered by any GHG-centred policy and necessitates AE at scale and urgently. (References to support this para are Hansen et al Warming in the Pipeline and Armstrong-McKay et al on the current assessment of where we're at with tipping points. Tim Lenton's recent presentation to the NAS tipping point workshop is also worth the 23 minutes it lasts - it is based on the Armstrong-McKay paper of which he and Johan Rockstrom were co-authors. These messages are reinforced by this posting from Carbon Brief from last September and Steffen et al from 2018.)
That does not mean that CDR/GGR are not also necessary. It means that if we don't start very soon doing some serious cooling (albedo enhancement) to stop, and even reverse, the surface temperature rise, the younger of those amongst us, and our children and grandchildren will be lucky to be around to enjoy the benefits from the reduced GHGs.
So rather than devote our time to arguing about whether CDR and GGR should be associated with geoengineering, perhaps we should focus on how we bring the simple message in the previous paragraph to the wider world.
I'll leave it to the moderators of the CDR Google Group to work out how to position the group for the task ahead.
Regards
Robert
On 03/02/2023 14:02, Douglas MacMartin wrote:
Count me as one of those who sees no value (or rather negative value) in any term that lumps CDR with SRM. Though of course that’s what the geoengineering term originally did, and it seems too late to redefine it, so maybe better to just retire it completely. “Solar geoengineering” is tolerable, but seems unnecessary cumbersome to have to modify a term that doesn’t need to exist, but “geoengineering” without a modifier serves no purpose.
But please, it’s ok to know nothing about a subject, but if you do, please don’t just make stuff up.
“SAI has the real ability to … heat the polar regions”
Sure, and seagrass explodes on contact and sprays everyone with boiling lava. Seriously, I think we can manage a more informed discussion about the role of individual tools that might reduce some climate risks depending on how they get used.
From: carbondiox...@googlegroups.com <carbondiox...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of Michael Hayes
Sent: Friday, February 3, 2023 4:17 AM
To: Wil Burns <w...@feronia.org>
Cc: Ken Caldeira <kcal...@carnegiescience.edu>; CarbonDiox...@googlegroups.com <CarbonDiox...@googlegroups.com> <carbondiox...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [CDR] Tiresome nomenclature squabbles
Seagrass Meadow CDR v SAI, the Informal Fallacy of the GE/CDR Definition(s)
The current definitions likely represent an Informal Fallacy at this time due to our better understanding of the importance of context issues.
Seagrass meadows are an important marine environment and the total C sequestration ability directly associated with the plant is tiny compared with planetary C cycle, yet some prefer to focus upon that form of mCDR as it offers a broad overall benefit to the Ocean, and thus to us. Seagrass meadows CDR work clearly is not a form of GE itself, yet a large basket of other mCDR projects likely can reach GtC/y scale and mCDRs are relatively low risk. The context of mCDR work is rather broad.
Conversely, unlike all other form of mitigation and adaptation, SAI has the real ability to trigger hot wars, heat the polar regions, erode the O3 layer etc. Most agree it is a radical last ditch effort that should never be used, and thus the context of SAI is extremely narrow.
A new definition of GE that reflects the importance of context is likely needed.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/CABjtO1csfAnf4PZ6OLh1%2BwrOyHXstN62a9YVjfK%2BH3ydMMGGBA%40mail.gmail.com.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Carbon Dioxide Removal" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to CarbonDioxideRem...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/DM6PR04MB7100A77D4EB347A3F3C32A848FD79%40DM6PR04MB7100.namprd04.prod.outlook.com.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Carbon Dioxide Removal" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to CarbonDioxideRem...@googlegroups.com.
David Hawkins
particles have a tendency to cool
the earth on the average, and when
they are injected into the stratosphere
they remain there for several years and
have a more prolonged cooling effect
at the surface. Thus, if we were concerned
about a general rise in temperature
due to carbon dioxide and thermal
pollution, why not inject enough of the
right kind of particles into the stratosphere
to counteract the warming? Perhaps
a fleet of supersonic transports
would help here, since they could create
a kind of "stratospheric smog" at about
the right level (6, 36)."
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/1359378505.25998.1675461326911%40mail.yahoo.com.
Wil Burns
These distinctions that you attempt to make here appear to be an effort to liberate the CDR community from admitting that what its advocating may have, and is intended to have,
profound biogeochemical and climatic impacts. Virtually all of these approaches, indeed, involve substantial “meddling” in the system that makes the distinction with SRM seem highly questionable. You admit so much in the context of OIF, which is a CDR option.
However, it doesn’t stop there. Recent research also indicates that large-scale afforestation can fundamentally alter hydrological regimes at the regional level, which is hardly “minimal” intervention or one with “minimum” moral considerations. See:
https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document?repid=rep1&type=pdf&doi=a01ee20d34deff361ae78b312c2a292bd62f4d9a, as well as recent research on the impacts of the “green wall” in Africa. Research on the potential impacts of enhancing alkalinity into ocean ecosystems
could also profoundly alter biogeochemical cycles; indeed, again, it’s the INTENT of those who do so. Ocean upwelling, as Oschlies, et al., have pointed out, could pose the specter of a “termination effect” similar to what opponents of SRM often point to.
And seeking to “return” back to a previous era in ocean ecosystems that have adapted to different regimes, and evolved as such, is not necessarily benign, or “minor” as a form of intervention. If we believe in the necessity of CDR, let’s be willing to admit
that its substantial intervention in the climatic system, and defend it as such. Again, I return to these definitions below and ask how one can plausibly argue that CDR doesn’t fit easily within each.
Geoengineering is the deliberate large-scale intervention in the Earth’s natural systems to counteract climate change.
Oxford Geoengineering Programme (2019)
Attempted large scale human control of either biogeochemical cycles or the climate itself.
Robert G. Watts, Engineering Response to Global Climate Change (1997)
|
|
|
WIL BURNS Co-Director, Institute for Carbon Removal Law & Policy American University
Visiting Professor, Environmental Policy & Culture Program, Northwestern University
Email: wbu...@american.edu Mobile: 312.550.3079 https://www.american.edu/sis/centers/carbon-removal/
Want to schedule a call? Click on one of the following scheduling links:
|
From: Seth Miller <setha...@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, February 3, 2023 4:01 AM
To: Wil Burns <w...@feronia.org>
Cc: Ken Caldeira <kcal...@carnegiescience.edu>; Andrew Lockley <andrew....@gmail.com>; Michael Hayes <electro...@gmail.com>; Robert Tulip <rtuli...@yahoo.com.au>; CarbonDiox...@googlegroups.com <CarbonDiox...@googlegroups.com>
<carbondiox...@googlegroups.com>; geoengineering <geoengi...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [CDR] Tiresome nomenclature squabbles
I will shill for a version of Ken’s distinction of geoengineering as an activity that requires an intent to change the earth’s climate.
We scientists and engineers tend to define terms technically, and this is the right thing to do when we ask each other to make technical decisions. Which technology will have the largest impact for the least cost? It’s a technical question, and we try to estimate costs and impacts and risks quantitatively, and
The public will tend to define things morally, which is probably the right thing to do for public policy. The public has an intuition - which is technically pretty sound - that meddling in complex systems often elicits large, unexpected results. They frame this in moral terms (“Playing God”) that don’t resonate with scientists, but honestly their inherent distrust of our ability to cleanly engineer complexity has merit.
In my view, CDR is seen as ‘morally acceptable’ because it is perceived as reversing processes with the minimum possible deviation from their original path. The good activity (CDR/CCS) isn’t exactly the opposite of the bad one (extracting and burning fossil fuels), but it’s pretty close. There is minimal ‘change’, the word I underlined in Ken’s definition, and the complexity of the intervention is low so the moral risks are small. By contrast, marine arctic brightening or OIF or aerosol injection have a longer distance from the original activity of burning carbon. Substantial change is required, the complexity is high, so the moral risks are perceived as high.
Technical definitions do a different job than moral ones, and we should not confuse the two simply because they both contain the word ‘definition’. It’s useful to call on the old saying that you can’t logic a person out of a belief that they didn’t logic themselves into! I am skeptical that we will ever move the public to embrace a technical definition as a replacement for a moral, in this or any other field. They are each aides to a different type of thinking.
To be clear, the public’s moral definition is failing them because the planet is faced with a unique situation where the default moral choice (inaction) is riskier than just about any action, and therefore should not be considered moral anymore. This is why I think Peter’s framing of ‘climate restoration’ as a public goal is genius. It re-defines morality at such a great distance from today that small, conservative steps should be seen as immoral.
Seth
P.S. Back to Andrew’s original point: We scientists are logic-ing our way through this morass and should be more responsible about getting terms right. Instead, we often will sprinkle a little technical jargon in on top of a little moral jargon and see if that’s enough to position us for scarce funding. This is indeed bad, and my intuition is that this is the behavior that is rubbing Andrew wrong.
I don’t have a good way to stop it any more than I have a good way to stop bullshitting in any endeavor. I’ll just offer my perspective that they problem is not that people are using logically wrong definitions, but that they are mixing the moral definitions with technical ones because this allows them to achieve communications ‘victory’, at the expense of communications clarity.
On Feb 3, 2023, at 1:10 AM, Wil Burns <w...@feronia.org> wrote:
Dear Ken,
I’m curious where you found a definition of “geoengineering” that establishes the criteria you set forth here. Here’s a couple of mainstream ones:
- Geoengineering is the deliberate large-scale intervention in the Earth’s natural systems to counteract climate change.
Oxford Geoengineering Programme
- Attempted large scale human control of either biogeochemical cycles or the climate itself.
Robert G. Watts, Engineering Response to Global Climate Change (1997)
Under both of these definitions, I think CDR fits under this rubric:
- Under the Oxford definition, CDR is: 1. A large-scale intervention (or certain can be in terms of the scales society now is contemplating), and 2. Seeks to counteract the impacts of climate change that are inevitable should atmospheric concentrations continue to rise;
- Under the Watts definition: 1. Many CDR approaches will exert a profound impact on biogeochemical cycles (kind of the quintessential definition, for example of those that rely on photosynthesis to effectuate sequestration, see: https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_Chapter06_FINAL.pdf;) and 2. CDR is intended to “control” the climate in terms of ensuring radiative forcing is mediated.
I get why CDR folks worry about the “g word,” but I don’t buy the distinction you’re making, Ken, based on credible definitions that have been promulgated to date.
wil
WIL BURNS
Co-Director, Institute for Carbon Removal Law & Policy
American University
Visiting Professor, Environmental Policy & Culture Program, Northwestern University
Email: wbu...@american.edu
Mobile: 312.550.3079
Want to schedule a call? Click on one of the following scheduling links:
- 60-minute phone call: https://calendly.com/wil_burns/phone-call
- 30-minute phone call: https://calendly.com/wil_burns/30min
- 15-minute phone call: https://calendly.com/wil_burns/15min
- 60-minute conference call: https://calendly.com/wil_burns/60-minute-conference-call
- 30-minute conference call: https://calendly.com/wil_burns/30-minute-group
- 60-minute Zoom call: https://calendly.com/wil_burns/60min
- 30-minute Zoom call: https://calendly.com/wil_burns/30-minute-zoom-call
Follow us:
<image004.png>
.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/BL0PR04MB4705E4CEF1FE62A0F8CCE295A4D79%40BL0PR04MB4705.namprd04.prod.outlook.com.
Oliver Morton
Will,
I don’t want to beat this into submission, but I thought it was worthwhile to respond to a couple points. You write:
These distinctions that you attempt to make here appear to be an effort to liberate the CDR community from admitting that what its advocating may have, and is intended to have, profound biogeochemical and climatic impacts.
I disagree! I am not trying to deny that CDR has climatic impact. I am simply saying that the general public - which should be expanded to include many scientists who are not specifically researching global climate for a living - does not distinguish geoengineering this way when they are making practical decisions.As an example, in the US the federal government and the state of California are both opening planning on giving billions of dollars in CDR tax credits to oil companies, a group of people who are not exactly known for their climate stewardship. Meanwhile, in Mexico a startup yahoo buys a balloon on Amazon and releases a couple of grams of combusted sulfur into the atmosphere and causes an international incident.Society had very different reactions to these activities, even though both fit your Oxford Geoengineering Program definition of geoengineering:[1]
Geoengineering is the deliberate large-scale intervention in the Earth’s natural systems to counteract climate change.
This is a climate scientist’s definition. It serves those whose job is to map how climate systems interact. By this definition, any intervention with the intent to scale to global climate impact should be fair game,[2], so that the scientists can study the potential implications ahead of the actual event. This definition allows scientists to do more comprehensive work, and for that use I totally support it.But the public has more interest in geoengineering than studying it. Stuff is happening in real time, on the ground, and we have to figure out whether to fund these activities or slow walk them. And for that purpose, it does not help to lump CDR in with startup bros. The public needs a word that recognizes their similarities but distinguishes the two.Scientists don’t have that word, so naturally the pubic appropriates the word that is available (geoengineering) and twists it to serve their own purposes. IMHO, the sis not a bad procedure. I’d like the public to be able to engage in these conversations, and I am not going to get mad at them when they try, even if they mess things up a bit.A productive response to the public when they do this would not be “stop mucking with my words”, but instead, “what do you mean when you use the word ‘geoengineering’”? They probably honestly don’t know, but I can offer at least three logically consistent answers, none of which come from Oxford, but all of which have plausibly equal merit:
- An NGO or religious organization's definition. We are stewards of the earth. Activities that attempt to reverse climate damage by reversing the direct causes of that damage are not geoengineering, whereas activities that attempt to reverse climate damage by introducing a new mechanism are geoengineering. In this, CDR and afforestation are not geoengineering, whereas AI and liming the ocean are.
- An engineers definition: We implement. Activities that attempt to reverse climate change that can be turned off and/or reversed themselves in case of error are not geoengineering, whereas activities that release particles into the ocean, land, or atmosphere with no practical means for retrieval are geonengineering. Again CDR would be considered ’not geoengineering’, whereas AI would.
- A policymakers definition: We define subsidies and regulations. An activity that could be used to reverse climate change at the large scale does not become geoengineering until it reaches a scale that matters globally (say, 1% of deployment scale). By that logic, biochar is not geoengineering in its current market structure, but if we created a global program to convert crops to char, then biochar becomes geoengineering.
This diversity interferes with communication among scientists, because now we have to be aware that others might use the same words as us and not mean the same thing. But look what we get in return! People care about the work!We don’t want uniformity of perspective, a One Definition that Rules Them All. We want to engage the wild diversity of the planet on this, and that means listening to the ‘misuse’ of the term geoengineering to understand the perspective of the users. (It also means that some of those users will be engaging in bad faith. I don’t have a good solution there, much as I don’t have a good suggestion for handling sociopaths in any field.)Bottom line: We can show some empathy here, “yes and” people instead of telling them “no but”, and we sometimes discover that they are not simply misunderstanding what is important, but instead have something constructive to offer from their own perspective.Thanks for listening! I’ll sit back down now.Best,Seth[1] Caveat: This assumes the aforementioned yahoo is to be taken seriously that he wants to scale aerosol injection. If he is just trying to raise investment dollars, he does not meet the Oxford definition because he lacks intent.[2] In a previous email you said that intent should not be part of the definition, but the word “deliberate” from the Oxford definition belies this. I won’t go into this further here.
Virtually all of these approaches, indeed, involve substantial “meddling” in the system that makes the distinction with SRM seem highly questionable. You admit so much in the context of OIF, which is a CDR option. However, it doesn’t stop there. Recent research also indicates that large-scale afforestation can fundamentally alter hydrological regimes at the regional level, which is hardly “minimal” intervention or one with “minimum” moral considerations. See: https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document?repid=rep1&type=pdf&doi=a01ee20d34deff361ae78b312c2a292bd62f4d9a, as well as recent research on the impacts of the “green wall” in Africa. Research on the potential impacts of enhancing alkalinity into ocean ecosystems could also profoundly alter biogeochemical cycles; indeed, again, it’s the INTENT of those who do so. Ocean upwelling, as Oschlies, et al., have pointed out, could pose the specter of a “termination effect” similar to what opponents of SRM often point to.
And seeking to “return” back to a previous era in ocean ecosystems that have adapted to different regimes, and evolved as such, is not necessarily benign, or “minor” as a form of intervention. If we believe in the necessity of CDR, let’s be willing to admit that its substantial intervention in the climatic system, and defend it as such. Again, I return to these definitions below and ask how one can plausibly argue that CDR doesn’t fit easily within each.Geoengineering is the deliberate large-scale intervention in the Earth’s natural systems to counteract climate change.Oxford Geoengineering Programme (2019)Attempted large scale human control of either biogeochemical cycles or the climate itself.Robert G. Watts, Engineering Response to Global Climate Change (1997)
I will shill for a version of Ken’s distinction of geoengineering as an activity that requires an intent to changethe earth’s climate.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/80B9C038-DED2-48BC-A041-8B7D0222E985%40gmail.com.
Oliver Morton
Senior Editor, Essays, Briefings and Technology Quarterlies
The Economist
+44 20 7830 7041
My 2019 book, "The Moon: A History for the Future", was listed as a science book of the year by the London Times. You can read more about it here.
Wil Burns
Sent: Monday, February 13, 2023 8:29:29 AM
To: Seth Miller <setha...@gmail.com>
Cc: Wil Burns <w...@feronia.org>; Ken Caldeira <kcal...@carnegiescience.edu>; Andrew Lockley <andrew....@gmail.com>; CarbonDiox...@googlegroups.com <CarbonDiox...@googlegroups.com> <carbondiox...@googlegroups.com>; geoengineering <geoengi...@googlegroups.com>; Douglas MacMartin <dgm...@cornell.edu>
Ken Caldeira
Wil Burns
Well, that’s a different consideration, but I don’t think you address that issue by advancing definitions that belie the reality of what we’re attempting to do in terms of large-scale deployment of CDR. In fact, one of the indictments that skeptics of CDR often level is that we’re trying to engage in manipulation by using different terms. I think it’s more honest to acknowledge that CDR is geoengineering, and distinguish it from SRM on axes e.g. reversibility, scope of impacts, ability to control, social license to operate. I look forward to seeing what Oliver comes up with! wil
|
|
|
WIL BURNS Co-Director, Institute for Carbon Removal Law & Policy American University
Visiting Professor, Environmental Policy & Culture Program, Northwestern University
Email: wbu...@american.edu Mobile: 312.550.3079 https://www.american.edu/sis/centers/carbon-removal/
Want to schedule a call? Click on one of the following scheduling links:
|
|
David desJardins
Hawkins, David
Sent: Monday, February 13, 2023 12:42 PM
To: Ken Caldeira <kcal...@carnegiescience.edu>
Cc: Oliver Morton <oliver...@economist.com>; Seth Miller <setha...@gmail.com>; Andrew Lockley <andrew....@gmail.com>; CarbonDiox...@googlegroups.com <CarbonDiox...@googlegroups.com> <carbondiox...@googlegroups.com>; geoengineering <geoengi...@googlegroups.com>; Douglas MacMartin <dgm...@cornell.edu>
Daniele Visioni
On 13 Feb 2023, at 15:02, David desJardins <da...@desjardins.org> wrote:
I don't really understand why it's important to people to include CDR as a form of geoengineering. What's behind this fight? I suspect that a majority would not include it in that term. If we're going to have a fight about "established nomenclature", I'd like to see some data.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAP%3DxTqP4V7hsPWsc1UYZUt4%2BxHUyU8o0%2BmvqY2fZbjRq0Wxodw%40mail.gmail.com.
Wil Burns
I’m not sure why folks want to be associated with a term like “climate intervention,” which is touted here as a better term because it acknowledges that we might not be able to control said interventions, or do them very precisely, but OK 😊 wil
Will, Why is geoengineering preferred over climate intervention as the overarching clasification? To quote the NAS:
"The committee’s very different posture concerning the currently known risks of carbon dioxide removal as compared with albedo modification was a primary motivation for separating these climate engineering topics into two separate volumes.
Terminology is very important in discussing these topics. “Geoengineering” is associated with a broad range of activities beyond climate (e.g., geological engineering), and even “climate engineering” implies a greater level of precision
and control than might be possible. The committee concluded that “climate intervention,” with its connotation of “an action intended to improve a situation,” most accurately describes the strategies covered in these two volumes. Furthermore, the committee
chose to avoid the commonly used term of “solar radiation management” in favor of the more physically descriptive term “albedo modification” to describe a subset of such techniques that seek to enhance the reflectivity of the planet to cool the global temperature.
Other related methods that modify the emission of infrared energy to space to cool the planet are also discussed in the second volume."
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2015. Climate Intervention: Reflecting Sunlight to Cool Earth. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
https://doi.org/10.17226/18988.
Greg
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/BL0PR04MB47056275C3D8D28799C24115A4DD9%40BL0PR04MB4705.namprd04.prod.outlook.com.
--
Greg H. Rau, Ph.D.
Senior Research Scientist
Institute of Marine Sciences
Univer. California, Santa Cruz
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Greg_Rau
Co-founder and manager, the Carbon Dioxide Removal Google group
Co-founder and CTO, Planetary Technologies, Inc.
510 582 5578
Wil Burns
I find the term “climate intervention” to be extremely expansive, so it tell us very little at the end of the day. Isn’t renewable energy a form of “climate intervention” at the end of the day, for example?
|
|
WIL BURNS Co-Director, Institute for Carbon Removal Law & Policy American University
Visiting Professor, Environmental Policy & Culture Program, Northwestern University
Email: wbu...@american.edu Mobile: 312.550.3079 https://www.american.edu/sis/centers/carbon-removal/
Want to schedule a call? Click on one of the following scheduling links:
|
From: Greg Rau <gr...@ucsc.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 4:24 PM
To: Wil Burns <w...@feronia.org>
Cc: Ken Caldeira <kcal...@carnegiescience.edu>; CarbonDiox...@googlegroups.com <CarbonDiox...@googlegroups.com> <carbondiox...@googlegroups.com>; geoengineering <geoengi...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [CDR] Tiresome nomenclature squabbles
Will, Why is geoengineering preferred over climate intervention as the overarching clasification? To quote the NAS:
"The committee’s very different posture concerning the currently known risks of carbon dioxide removal as compared with albedo modification was a primary motivation for separating these climate engineering topics into two separate volumes.
Terminology is very important in discussing these topics. “Geoengineering” is associated with a broad range of activities beyond climate (e.g., geological engineering), and even “climate engineering” implies a greater level of precision
and control than might be possible. The committee concluded that “climate intervention,” with its connotation of “an action intended to improve a situation,” most accurately describes the strategies covered in these two volumes. Furthermore, the committee
chose to avoid the commonly used term of “solar radiation management” in favor of the more physically descriptive term “albedo modification” to describe a subset of such techniques that seek to enhance the reflectivity of the planet to cool the global temperature.
Other related methods that modify the emission of infrared energy to space to cool the planet are also discussed in the second volume."
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2015. Climate Intervention: Reflecting Sunlight to Cool Earth. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
https://doi.org/10.17226/18988.
Greg
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/BL0PR04MB47056275C3D8D28799C24115A4DD9%40BL0PR04MB4705.namprd04.prod.outlook.com.
Claudia Wieners
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/BL0PR04MB47056A0379EC5D1B5BFD40C1A4A29%40BL0PR04MB4705.namprd04.prod.outlook.com.
Douglas MacMartin
As I’ve pointed out before, I’m still baffled as to who came up with this strange idea that the term “engineering” implies greater precision than would be possible with SRM, for example. Is that because people think if it’s engineering we’re supposed to know every last detail to the 10th decimal point or something, or because they think we wouldn’t have the foggiest clue what might happen if, say, aerosols were released into the stratosphere? Reality is of course somewhere in between those extremes, just as it is for anything engineered.
So complain about the “geo” prefix because that means land and solid earth, or complain if you will that CDR and SRM don’t have much in common, but there’s no reason to complain about the “engineering” part. I really fail to see the advantage in going from one term, with all its issues, that people are at least used to, in favour of another that isn’t any clearer as to what it means. Figuring that a term has baggage and negative connotations isn’t a reason to change terminology; people will see through that in a heartbeat. Or change to words that at least are crystal clear, like carbon dioxide removal and sunlight reflection methods.
d
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/BL0PR04MB47056B364054016DA6656EEAA4A29%40BL0PR04MB4705.namprd04.prod.outlook.com.
Wil Burns
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 7:06:26 PM
To: Wil Burns <w...@feronia.org>; Greg Rau <gr...@ucsc.edu>
Jim Fleming
* Climate Intervention, 2 vols. National Research Council of the National Academies, 2015.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAJUUK5fGO%2B5v2YEbH-HNJS3Wtrx6BYb38XNiwY_3mjn00hW5SA%40mail.gmail.com.
Charles A. Dana Professor of Science, Technology, and Society, Emeritus, Colby College
"Everything is unprecedented if you don't study history."
Robert Chris
This extraordinary thread brings to mind Humpty Dumpty and his conversation with Alice (see below).
Angsting over the right word
without simultaneously considering the audience, is pointless
self-indulgence. The focus we should have is on effective
communication and that requires some appreciation of who's
communicating with whom for what purpose. All the various
options mentioned in this thread may serve a useful purpose in
certain circumstances. The master uses the right one at the
right time. When in doubt, consider using more than one word,
even a whole sentence.
'There’s glory for you!’
‘I don’t know what you mean by “glory,”’ Alice said.
Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. ‘Of course you don’t—till I tell you. I meant “there’s a nice knock-down argument for you!”’
‘But “glory” doesn’t mean “a nice knock-down argument,”’ Alice objected.
‘When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.’
‘The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’
‘The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master—that’s all.’
Regards
Robert
How about “Climate Protection”? Conveys a clear, simple, positive message.
"What are you working on?”“Climate protection technologies”
Dan
Amen.
From: Douglas MacMartin <dgm...@cornell.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 7:06:26 PM
To: Wil Burns <w...@feronia.org>; Greg Rau <gr...@ucsc.edu>
Cc: Ken Caldeira <kcal...@carnegiescience.edu>; CarbonDiox...@googlegroups.com <CarbonDiox...@googlegroups.com> <carbondiox...@googlegroups.com>; geoengineering <geoengi...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: RE: [CDR] Tiresome nomenclature squabbles
As I’ve pointed out before, I’m still baffled as to who came up with this strange idea that the term “engineering” implies greater precision than would be possible with SRM, for example. Is that because people think if it’s engineering we’re supposed to know every last detail to the 10th decimal point or something, or because they think we wouldn’t have the foggiest clue what might happen if, say, aerosols were released into the stratosphere? Reality is of course somewhere in between those extremes, just as it is for anything engineered.
So complain about the “geo” prefix because that means land and solid earth, or complain if you will that CDR and SRM don’t have much in common, but there’s no reason to complain about the “engineering” part. I really fail to see the advantage in going from one term, with all its issues, that people are at least used to, in favour of another that isn’t any clearer as to what it means. Figuring that a term has baggage and negative connotations isn’t a reason to change terminology; people will see through that in a heartbeat. Or change to words that at least are crystal clear, like carbon dioxide removal and sunlight reflection methods.
d
From: carbondiox...@googlegroups.com <carbondiox...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of Wil Burns
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 2:27 PM
To: Greg Rau <gr...@ucsc.edu>
Cc: Ken Caldeira <kcal...@carnegiescience.edu>; CarbonDiox...@googlegroups.com <CarbonDiox...@googlegroups.com> <carbondiox...@googlegroups.com>; geoengineering <geoengi...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: RE: [CDR] Tiresome nomenclature squabbles
I’m not sure why folks want to be associated with a term like “climate intervention,” which is touted here as a better term because it acknowledges that we might not be able to control said interventions, or do them very precisely, but OK 😊 wil
Visiting Professor, Environmental Policy & Culture Program, Northwestern University
Email: wbu...@american.eduMobile: 312.550.3079Want to schedule a call? Click on one of the following scheduling links:
- 60-minute phone call: https://calendly.com/wil_burns/phone-call
- 30-minute phone call: https://calendly.com/wil_burns/30min
- 15-minute phone call: https://calendly.com/wil_burns/15min
- 60-minute conference call: https://calendly.com/wil_burns/60-minute-conference-call
- 30-minute conference call: https://calendly.com/wil_burns/30-minute-group
- 60-minute Zoom call: https://calendly.com/wil_burns/60min
- 30-minute Zoom call: https://calendly.com/wil_burns/30-minute-zoom-call
From: Greg Rau <gr...@ucsc.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 4:24 PM
To: Wil Burns <w...@feronia.org>
Cc: Ken Caldeira <kcal...@carnegiescience.edu>; CarbonDiox...@googlegroups.com <CarbonDiox...@googlegroups.com> <carbondiox...@googlegroups.com>; geoengineering <geoengi...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [CDR] Tiresome nomenclature squabbles
Will, Why is geoengineering preferred over climate intervention as the overarching clasification? To quote the NAS:"The committee’s very different posture concerning the currently known risks of carbon dioxide removal as compared with albedo modification was a primary motivation for separating these climate engineering topics into two separate volumes.
Terminology is very important in discussing these topics. “Geoengineering” is associated with a broad range of activities beyond climate (e.g., geological engineering), and even “climate engineering” implies a greater level of precision and control than might be possible. The committee concluded that “climate intervention,” with its connotation of “an action intended to improve a situation,” most accurately describes the strategies covered in these two volumes. Furthermore, the committee chose to avoid the commonly used term of “solar radiation management” in favor of the more physically descriptive term “albedo modification” to describe a subset of such techniques that seek to enhance the reflectivity of the planet to cool the global temperature. Other related methods that modify the emission of infrared energy to space to cool the planet are also discussed in the second volume."
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2015. Climate Intervention: Reflecting Sunlight to Cool Earth. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.https://doi.org/10.17226/18988.
Greg
On Mon, Feb 13, 2023 at 9:42 AM Wil Burns <w...@feronia.org> wrote:
Well, that’s a different consideration, but I don’t think you address that issue by advancing definitions that belie the reality of what we’re attempting to do in terms of large-scale deployment of CDR. In fact, one of the indictments that skeptics of CDR often level is that we’re trying to engage in manipulation by using different terms. I think it’s more honest to acknowledge that CDR is geoengineering, and distinguish it from SRM on axes e.g. reversibility, scope of impacts, ability to control, social license to operate. I look forward to seeing what Oliver comes up with! wil
Visiting Professor, Environmental Policy & Culture Program, Northwestern University
Email: wbu...@american.eduMobile: 312.550.3079Want to schedule a call? Click on one of the following scheduling links:
- 60-minute phone call: https://calendly.com/wil_burns/phone-call
- 30-minute phone call: https://calendly.com/wil_burns/30min
- 15-minute phone call: https://calendly.com/wil_burns/15min
- 60-minute conference call: https://calendly.com/wil_burns/60-minute-conference-call
- 30-minute conference call: https://calendly.com/wil_burns/30-minute-group
- 60-minute Zoom call: https://calendly.com/wil_burns/60min
- 30-minute Zoom call: https://calendly.com/wil_burns/30-minute-zoom-call
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/BL0PR04MB47052CBBFE9376CA445AA559A4A39%40BL0PR04MB4705.namprd04.prod.outlook.com.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Carbon Dioxide Removal" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to CarbonDioxideRem...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/AF57797C-1D08-443B-88E9-8AD9D566E66F%40rodagroup.com.
Wil Burns
I think that’s a reasonable argument, Jim, but I think it argues in favor of not drawing a distinction between SRM and CDR in terms of ability to control, or predict outcomes, which I fear some are attempting to do. I work primarily in the field of marine-based CDR currently, and we know that many questions of the ultimate impacts of large-scale deployment of ocean iron fertilization or enhanced ocean alkalinity, for example, remain opaque, and in some cases, these “interventions” could irreversibly alter ocean ecosystems biogeochemically. I would be fine with using the term “climate intervention” for both CDR and SRM, but not “privileging” from a rhetorical perspective, CDR based on alleged precision or ability to control. We have not reached that point, in my mind.
Jim Fleming
Robert Chris
Might there be some merit in
drawing a distinction between methods that affect short-wave
radiation and those that affect long-wave radiation (not
necessarily using the word 'radiation')? This distinction is
important because while LWR methods are essential in the
medium to long-term and remain urgent to scale because of
their lengthy climate response time, they are now unlikely to
be capable of keeping surface temperature below tipping point
thresholds. For that only SWR methods can work. The
difference between approaches capable of delivering climate
stability and those that will keep us in the game long enough
to enjoy that future climate stability, is perhaps one that
needs emphasising at every opportunity.
Trying to find a single term that unambiguously and universally describes the nature of the technology, its climatic impact, and its controllability and risk profile across the multiple dimensions of the intractably complex climate system (including the biosphere and human society), seems to me to be asking rather a lot of a couple of words.
It might also be worth noting
that we are having this debate in English but most of the
world don't speak English. Are we expecting to take control
of this usage in every language?
CDR, SRM, intervention,
management and so on, all these words and terms have become
imbued with nuanced, imprecise and variable meanings. Those
contributing to this thread have comprehensively demonstrated
that there is no single answer to what is the best terminology
- if this group of luminaries haven't been able to come up
with it, then no one will. If there is perceived to be such critical
sensitivity in how we communicate ideas focused on averting a
climate crisis, perhaps we should consider those sensitivities
in more depth. From that would likely emerge a language that
offers greater power and flexibility.
Regards
Robert
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/BL0PR04MB47051786A88BED0C0356712EA4A39%40BL0PR04MB4705.namprd04.prod.outlook.com.
Wil Burns
I think we’re on the same page here. The reason that I don’t really care if all these approaches get put under the broad rubric of “geoengineering,” which I think they can fit under, but some others disagree, is that, at the end of the day, we need to defend their benefits and costs discretely. That’s why I’m fine with dispensing with the argument as to whether they all fall under the “g-term,” and focus on arguing why some of these approaches are worth pursuing. I fear, however, that when one starts trying flee from the “g-term” many see it as an effort to engage in sleight of hand. So why risk that perception?
|
|
WIL BURNS Visiting Professor Environmental Policy & Culture Program Northwestern University
Email: william...@northwestern.edu Mobile: 312.550.3079
1808 Chicago Ave. #110 Evanston, IL 60208 https://epc.northwestern.edu/people/staff-new/wil-burns.html |
|
Want to schedule a call? Click on one of the following scheduling links:
|
I acknowledge and honor the Ojibwe, Potawatomi, and Odawa, as well as the Menominee, Miami and Ho-Chunk nations, upon whose traditional homelands Northwestern University stands, and the Indigenous people who remain on this land today.
|
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/3f606820-017e-6322-5afc-45ec9c1c16be%40gmail.com.
donn viviani
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/BL0PR04MB47052CBBFE9376CA445AA559A4A39%40BL0PR04MB4705.namprd04.prod.outlook.com.
David desJardins
I don't think it's incorrect to say fossil fuel burning has reengineered the atmosphere and the oceans. So slowing, stabilizing, returning are all engineering as well IMO.