Tiresome nomenclature squabbles

[Andrew Lockley]

Hi Geo/CDR lists, 

I say very little personally - but I feel it's time to confront a problem, which has been building up for a while. 

I'm noticing increasingly ill-tempered nomenclature egg-throwing in this community. It's affecting my work - and it's probably harming other people's work, too. I'm therefore cross-posting, in an attempt to get the problem under control.

Most particularly, the eggs are being thrown by a few select CDR folk, who refuse to cooperate with people/projects describing the field as geoengineering (or related terms). Sorry if that's blunt, but them's the facts. I'm declining to name names - but I have the receipts, if anyone needs them.

Before addressing the core argument being (incorrectly) made, here's some background on my scicomm work. This context is relevant, as the scicomm reaches broadly across this field (2k twitter followers, 10k podcast downloads, ~3k email readers).

I've always worked on SRM and CDR, in both academic publications and scicomm.

As a matter of historical fact, the CDR list (which I don't moderate) was spun out from the geoengineering Google group (which I do moderate), and as a matter of convenience the residual list focussed on SRM. This was done to manage comms in a practical way, not as some ideological schism. Plenty of people cross both lists, and I've seen no reason to rebrand.

The other information services I operate (@geoengineering1 twitter, Reviewer 2 Does Geoengineering podcast) use the same generic geoengineering branding, and have done for a decade or more. This is partly as a matter of historic consistency, and partly because the word is being used correctly - as I'll explain below. I don't therefore feel that this wording choice is any justification for people to attack me or my work.

How bad has it got? Well, I'm reliably informed that I've had my CV binned for at least 1 job because I use the word "geoengineering" to describe the field. I've recently had several people (without exception CDR types) refuse to cooperate with my scicomm work - because I use the word "geoengineering" as a convenient, dictionary-accurate, and historically-relevant way to describe my work. That's denying their work an audience, based on a squabble over historic branding. Coca-Cola doesn't even have cocaine in anymore, but people don't argue with bar staff about it. So why argue with me, when my work is much more accurately described?

People are free to use whatever words they like to describe what they do; my beef isn't with the string of related terms for the same things (geoengineering vs climate intervention; solar radiation modification vs solar radiation management; carbon removal vs CDR vs GGR; etc.). The problem I have is with the petty personal sniping and factionalism that's increasingly creeping in to the discipline, as a result.

For the avoidance of doubt: I'm not rebranding everything I do just because a few CDR fans won't play nicely with their SRM counterparts. And I'm not going to jump into a silo, just because other people think I should. 

Notwithstanding the objectionable pettiness of this behaviour, I don't believe the core argument bears any real scrutiny. So let's get to that. 

With a quick Google I have found both present and historical references to the term "geoengineering" (relatedly climate engineering/intervention) being used to encompass CDR. 

Here's the OED 

https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803095848469;jsessionid=8F01D3B289E2BB2911C69F51B5050E01#:~:text=Geoengineering%20is%20the%20intentional%20large,of%20reducing%20undesired%20climatic%20...

NASEM

https://nap.nationalacademies.org/catalog/18805/climate-intervention-carbon-dioxide-removal-and-reliable-sequestration

Wikipedia 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_engineering

Royal Society

https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/publications/2009/geoengineering-climate/

Futurelearn / Adam Smith

https://www.futurelearn.com/info/courses/climate-change-and-public-policy/0/steps/291219

...I could go on. 

The issue here isn't the use of one word or another, it's the daftness of people shunning opportunities/people because of the utilisation of a standard (if not ubiquitous) term to describe the discipline. 

So please, let's not have wars over words reminiscent of the kids' book "Fatipuffs and Thinnifers" https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fattypuffs_and_Thinifers 

...as even the kids reading that book knew it was stupid. We have all got much more to lose than to gain from such silly squabbles. Just because we might not like words that have been used for 15y or more doesn't mean it's a valid excuse to shun people and opportunities.

Thanks for listening. And best wishes to all my geoengineering friends - including both the SRM and CDR ones. 

Andrew 

[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  

--
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.

[Michael Hayes]

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.

[Chris Neidl]

A third view not represented in the above: those who 1. see CDR and Geo-engineering as two distinct categories, technically, and therefore believe that they deserve two separate terms, for accuracy's sake, but who also 2. acknowledge that both are required, provided that proper guardrails and regulations are established around testing and deployment. I'm in that camp. Rejecting GE because it offends one's sensibilities about "nature" or humanity's proper place within it is indefensible and based more on aesthetic and, yes, quasi-religious value judgements, not an objective assessment of what's required to solve a big problem. 

And no surprise that Greta is wrong about this.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/CABjtO1fBGTWVNACZWfEiek0ecCz1ztPvPAkrkaBwwC1nVWefWw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Andrew Lockley]

Michael, nobody is complaining about hurt feelings. This issue at hand is the practical problems created by an attempted redefinition of established terminology - apparently to precipitate a disciplinary schism (as others have pointed out). This situation has seemingly been manufactured by a small subset of CDR supporters - apparently to disassociate themselves from SRM, despite historical, definitional and personnel links between the two fields.

While I understand the politics perfectly well, it's absurd to try to redefine dictionary words to whitewash the politics of a discipline. I'm far from the only one affected by this, hence the desire to raise the issue in public - a rare personal message, on my part. 

Let's be clear: CDR *is* geoengineering - and always has been. It's literally in the dictionary. Just because CDR *isn't* SRM, doesn't mean that it is free of the same moral hazard issues - as the overshoot scenarios attest. Any attempt to invoke piety by shunning supposedly morally-impure colleagues (or their work) is uncivil, unwarranted, and ultimately unproductive. Let he who is without moral hazard cast the first stone! 😁

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.

Whether you're working on CDR or SRM, shortwave or longwave, upwelling or downwelling radiation, we're all on the same team. 

Andrew 

[Michael Hayes]

[...] 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.

[Chris Neidl]

Charles -  my intention was not to be snide. But no one, regardless of influence, media standing, or good intentions, should get a halo on their head. We have a real problem with designating saviors and messiahs in the climate space, and it's deeply damaging to our cause. It always has been. 

I admire Greta, but you must be aware that her influence, while certainly 'huge', has not been entirely 'positive'. She's human, after all, and has a particular view of the world, technology and political economy that is very distinct, but one that is not universally or even widely held outside of a certain end of the political spectrum. Regardless of what we think about these big matters, our interest is not well served when we anchor the climate emergency to a non-climate agenda that is unpopular or alien, to various degrees, to many of the constituencies who have to come on board for progress to be made. Building a movement on a 'nature is perfect, humans are bad, capitalism sucks' narrative will always attract a passionate core of protestors, university intellectuals, and metropolitan bloggers, but will alienate mostly everyone else. If you are an activist in the trenches trying to get specific policies enacted through legislative action, this will be all too obvious. 

I believe that the worldview I'm questioning here comes with massive blindspots that obscure the very things that we know historically actually deliver change. Critiques of "techno-fixes" and "techno-optimism" actively direct our attention away from the need for innovation, discovery and investment; engender suspicion and often assume conspiracy; and elevate vague notions that correcting moral failure alone will magically produce solutions to problems. This is a dangerous fallacy, and one that is baked into the cake of the environmental imagination. It should be challenged, and no one should be spared criticism for holding it, regardless of their charisma and intentions.

For context, I have been a fulltime renewable energy and now CDR activist and project developer for 20 years, working in both the Global North and Global South on policy campaigns and projects in both global cities and last mile rural communities in India and Africa. This experience is what informs the views I'm sharing. Surely I come with my own blindspots, as we all do, but my point of view on this comes from participation and practice, not twitter. I am not a "MAGA Republican" in any way, shape or form. The impulse to suggest that anyone who has issues with the Greta Thurnburgs of the world or their prescriptions must be one, is a big part of the problem. 

On Thu, Feb 2, 2023 at 1:12 AM Charles H. Greene <ch...@cornell.edu> wrote:

Hey Chris:

Greta Thunberg has a huge and positive influence on global climate policy; snide remarks about her are not helpful (leave that to MAGA Republicans). With regard to that quote from her book, it’s not ideal but also largely true. I would change one word in it to make it spot on: "all geoengineering schemes are attempts to manipulate the Earth with the same technological mindset that got us into the climate crisis in the first place.” Unfortunately, whether any of us like it or not, it is now necessary to embrace that technological mindset, at least CDR and possibly SRM. Your time would be better spent explaining this to 20-something idealists like Greta than taking cheap shots at them.

Chuck Greene

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/CAG6%3DtRjBDNLho_6qpqZcQp7AvZVs2-QeQAf4todTCN%2BA95CsaQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Adam Wolf]

I think there is a disparity between what we as individuals think words mean, and our personal associations with them, and the use of those same words by other people with other and perhaps opposite intentions.

"Fake news" was first used by a Democrat, before it was used extensively by Republicans.

"Pepe the Frog" was first an innocuous cartoon before it became a noxious meme of white supremacists

"Woke" was a term used by some progressives about a desired set of beliefs before it was used by conservatives to disparage progressive beliefs generally 

In other words just because we as individuals coin a word doesn't mean it can't escape our control and be used in ways we don't like. I can't say "fake news" without sounding hysterical or post a Pepe the Frog cartoon or talk about how woke I am for supporting DEI endeavors. 

I found out yesterday the Industrial Minerals Association of Europe rebranded as the Essential Minerals Association, presumably because people have negative connotations with the word "Industrial". Even my favorite beer changes its packaging every couple years.

I'm not dogmatic about any terminology related to CDR or GE etc, only to say there is a larger non-technical conversation about what constitutes "nature based" or "tech based", and it is mostly linked to feelings, not facts. I personally try to stay abreast of those currents so that I can speak persuasively to the audiences I'm trying to reach.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/CABjtO1dsrQgZtvj%3DRE_wzCWHW2Lbz0fnN%2BnYzAa1-u6XShL0Hg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Andrew Lockley]

Michael, as always, I'm very keen to avoid entering an extended discussion with you - but I'm writing to correct your false statements:

*The geoengineering list was focussed specifically on SRM only after the CDR list was established. 

*As should be obvious, I'm talking only about the branding of the services I'm personally involved in branding: Reviewer 2, the geoengineering Google group and @geoengineering1. Plainly, I don't get naming rights beyond this.

As a note of caution, anyone using the geoengineering Google group to disparage individuals or make false statements about them can expect to be blocked or banned. 

I will not reply further, and I hope you will not either. 

Andrew Lockley 

[Ken Caldeira]

Carbon dioxide removal is an activity, or a tool, and can be fully described without reference to intent.

In contrast, geoengineering involves specific intention to alter Earth's climate.  CDR is a tool that is not typically applied to this intention, but could be.

If the intention of using CDR is to avoid climate change from concurrent CO2 emissions, the intent is to prevent the alteration of climate, not to alter climate.

If the intention of using CDR is to bring atmospheric CO2 levels down below pre-industrial levels, then that application of CDR technologies might be considered geoengineering.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/CAJ3C-0645PTGZBXu3amtFweG-ad7QW-EyvicvSUD_9n2nQMQ3Q%40mail.gmail.com.

[Michael Hayes]

Andrew, the only tiresome nomenclature squabbles between the two groups seems to be at your direction and under your direct leadership as the GE moderator. You seem to be complaining about something that you yourself are doing. Removing you from the GE moderators post would likely end this manufactured issue.

Best regards 

[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.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/CABjtO1fBGTWVNACZWfEiek0ecCz1ztPvPAkrkaBwwC1nVWefWw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Michael Hayes]

Robert, SRM is not CDR, as such, SRM posts do not belong in the CDR space. Supporting work outside of the CDR space is not a function of the CDR group. That does not disparage anything or any person, it simply helps keep the work focused on CDR.

You and Andrew have obviously planned this dust up for other reasons than what is needed in the CDR field or needed even in the SRM field. What is the political end game for you and Andrew in regards to the CDR list and this most recent spasm of very public whinning?

Best regards 

 

[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:

 

1. 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;
2. 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:  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:

 

 

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.

[Seth Miller]

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.

-------

Seth Miller, Ph.D.

www.linkedin.com/in/sethmiller2

Check my blog at: perspicacity.xyz

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:

 

1. 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;
2. 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

 

 

 

<image001.jpg>

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:  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: <image002.png> <image003.png>   <image004.png>

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/BL0PR04MB4705E4CEF1FE62A0F8CCE295A4D79%40BL0PR04MB4705.namprd04.prod.outlook.com.

[Michael Hayes]

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. 

[Robert Chris]

Ken is clearly correct to state that CDR is a tool and can be described without reference to its intent.  In that respect it's much a gun, a cell phone, morphine, gasoline and any number of other tools that can be put to a range of different uses.  Whether a specific use is morally acceptable is a normative question.  Ken is wrong, however, to state that any tool can be fully described without reference to its intended use.

Perhaps the question for those moderating the CDR Google Group is whether they have any interest in considering the uses to which CDR is put.  In answering that question they might want to reflect on the moral obligations that scientists have to humanity.  That's an issue that the lawyers and philosophers in this group will be very familiar with.

I look forward to some clarity here.

Regards

Robert

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/CAKNUXC0-jt%2B41ORwCqD4ZEXfO2YLWiqPb5JD_kM%3Du3cMr2zemA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Douglas MacMartin]

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.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/CABjtO1csfAnf4PZ6OLh1%2BwrOyHXstN62a9YVjfK%2BH3ydMMGGBA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Robert Chris]

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

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/DM6PR04MB7100A77D4EB347A3F3C32A848FD79%40DM6PR04MB7100.namprd04.prod.outlook.com.

[Robert Chris]

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

[Wil Burns]

I think you’re absolutely correct, Robert, which is why I find Ken’s definition, which again, I don’t see in any of the mainstream literature, as strained. I don’t see the problem in acknowledging that CDR approaches are “geoengineering.” What I advocate is a case-by-case assessment of the effectiveness, and potential risk, of each approach. Have the courage to acknowledge that you believe that large-scale interventions to address climate change are necessary, and defend them. Don’t hide behind issues such as “intent;” it’s too cute by half. wil

[Bruce Melton -- Austin, Texas]

Historically, our global culture has defined strategies that remove contaminants from the environment so we can be safe as pollution treatment. I don't get the association with geoengineering and do not support it for this and the other reasons of perception already stated.

Geeze, Austin is a mess. When you hear about climate change and this ice event, remember the stall. This event was not unprecedented, but as bad as anything in recent memory of our old timers. We had smaller events that created similar tree carnage in the area north of Austin in 1998, and south in 1996. Arctic amplification can create slower moving storms West to East, and this prolongs the enhanced weather extremes caused by warming. Not all systems are slowed, but catastrophes occur because of extremes and when systems slow the risks of catastrophe increases. But it doesn't take an Einstein to see that these events are happening more frequently. Harvey and Sandy were both stalls. The Winter Storm Uri ice bomb in Austin in 2021 was a stall.

B

Bruce Melton PE
Director, Climate Change Now Initiative, 501c3
President, Melton Engineering Services Austin
8103 Kirkham Drive
Austin, Texas 78736
(512)799-7998
ClimateDiscovery.org
ClimateChangePhoto.org
MeltonEngineering.com
Face...@Bruce.Melton.395
Inst...@Bruce.C.Melton
The Band Climate Change
Twitter - BruceCMelton1