Senior scholars?

[Andrew Lockley]

About that recent letter on "International Non-Use Agreement on Solar Geoengineering"... 

https://www.solargeoeng.org/

It has been signed by "senior scholars", we're told:

"...over 45 senior scholars from around the world who are the First Signatories of our Open Letter..."

But is this description correct, insofar as the signatories' publication record on this specific subject? 

I've been asked to share the attached data, by an anon source. It's based on WOS searches, (with a couple of manual amendments for missing pubs).

'Web of science search, topic: "solar geoengineering" OR "solar radiation management" OR "climate engineering" OR "geoengineering" OR "stratospheric aerosol geoengineering" OR "marine cloud brightening" OR "cirrus cloud thinning"' 

While this search is doubtless neither perfect nor exhaustive, it does not appear obviously biased to me. (I had no role in its generation.)

 

I've added only mean/max/mode info - pasting data to a new file to protect my source.

You will note the following key points of information 

1) Mode number of topic papers detected among sigs is zero - Only ~1/3 have ever published on the topic. Any "senior" status has therefore generally been acquired in other fields, or not at all.

2) Max pubs is 8 among signatories (FYI same as me - and am an unwaged RA with no PhD, and not by any sensible objective definition a "senior scholar"). 

3) Of the top ~400 authors on solar geo, only 7 have signed their letter.  (<2%)

4) Mean publications of signatories <1

5) Max pubs of non-signatories is over 10x that of signatories 

As always, I express no opinion. You can form your own view, based on the facts, as to whether these signatories are accurately described as "senior scholars", wrt to this specific letter. 

Andrew 

[Michael Thompson]

Governance scholars are entirely relevant here. They need not be all well published on atmospheric chemistry. I have my issues with this letter, and the campaign around it, but I think this lot of folks has done plenty of work to be considered relevant and listened to on the topic of a non-use agreement. 

[Andrew Lockley]

Michael, can you please explain why the search would exclude such governance scholars?

To clarify: I have passed on my source's data and paraphrased/extended their comments. I have not expressed a view. 

--
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/e2684704-3b0b-43cb-a88d-055c59c5cb91n%40googlegroups.com.

[Michael Thompson]

Ok, fair. 

My (adjusted) point then is that it seems relevant for governance scholars who are not experts in geoengineering, but do have expertise in relevant fields like environmental or climate governance, or re international governance agreements or pathways or enforcement or processes etc etc, to state perspectives or preferences about the utility of a potential so-called non-use agreement. 

I don't agree with much of what they've said, and I vehemently object to the way the campaign around it is being run, but I don't think the authors' lack of publishing record on 
geoengineering should lead to their perspectives being dismissed. Noting, ofc, that you have no expressed view here. :)

[Robert Tulip]

Andrew

 

From the content of the letter, it is obvious the authors are not geoengineering experts.  The signatories of the open letter are listed at https://www.solargeoeng.org/non-use-agreement/signatories/.  They are mainly governance scholars, as noted in the article, which means their fields are more in social science than physical science. 

 

I doubt that people with scientific expertise in geoengineering would support such an ignorant and harmful polemic.  It is distressing that the evidence-free attitudes in this letter have such widespread senior academic support.  If this viewpoint remains influential, our planetary goose is cooked.

 

Robert Tulip

--

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-04ZMTp75MmSfji6PajrK_ujRe208kqxk_sx1MZ9AL8AuQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Greg Rau]

“In short, solar geoengineering deployment cannot be governed globally in a fair, inclusive, and effective manner.” 

Apparently, neither can adequate emissions reduction. Considering what’s at stake, how about trying harder on both fronts? Or would that be asking too much of governance “experts”? Guess our only hope is CDR, or is that also beyond human control?

Greg

Sent from my iPhone

On Jan 21, 2022, at 7:07 PM, 'Robert Tulip' via geoengineering <geoengi...@googlegroups.com> wrote:



To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/033601d80f3d%241ef64f70%245ce2ee50%24%40yahoo.com.au.

[Andrew Revkin]

Yes, that's a solid point. How many sustainability challenges (other than CFC's) have been, or can be, "governed a fair, inclusive, and effective manner"?

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/6E6F2258-A936-41AD-841E-CFAE3A03C2D7%40sbcglobal.net.

--

ANDREW REVKIN

Founding Director, Initiative on Communication & Sustainability

Columbia University Climate School

Sustain What newsletter

Sustain What webcast

+1 914.441.5556 phone, @revkin Twitter

@revkin, Facebook, Music, Books

[Gernot Wagner]

To be clear, this effort goes quite a bit further. From the "extended argument": "[…] it is effective and enforceable political control by the Global South that would be required."

That, of course, renders basically any global (climate) governance effort anywhere illegitimate.

Gernot Wagner, New York University (on leave at Columbia Business School, spring 2022)
gwagner.com
Keep in touch: gwagner.com/#newsletter 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CA%2Bakwtb8K9G1OfyVMvABhDqMxQWC31kcqd0iKaidpxF84Gm4Yg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Jessica Gurevitch]

I see two things to keep in mind here: first, climate intervention is a deliberate attempt to improve things that have been made worse by human actions, so, it is not comparable in that regard to anthropogenic climate change or to pollution more generally, which are not deliberate attempts to achieve various objectives, but are rather side effects of other activities. Second, there are many attempts to improve environmental things, but most of them are done at regional, not global levels. The work to reduce the ozone hole, the Antarctic treaty and governance of Antarctic activities, and (insufficient) reductions of killing large ocean mammals are some that are deliberate attempts to improve environmental things at very large to global scales, thus, are somewhat comparable to climate intervention. Maybe regulation of nuclear weapons might count, but it's a pretty distinctive issue, more concerned with reduction of risk than reduction of existing damage. I don't think any of these examples involved the Global South, or issues like equity and inclusivity at all, but no doubt others know much more about them than I do and can comment on that. While there are were were some concerns about negative impacts of these activities, these concerns have mostly been about perceptions of economic disadvantages, I think, while opposition to and alarm about climate intervention is largely about perceived (mostly unknown) threats and risks to health, well being, the environment, nature, etc. in addition to the (getting tiresome) arguments about moral hazards. Notably I don't think moral hazards were an issue with any of these other attempts to reduce or prevent anthropogenic damages and harms.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAJK3vz3KNkb3e0a1ZCy7jjX0R2dmMrsJxPjCvS%2BGJUA43UdrNg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Ronal Larson]

Greg,  GEO list and 2 ccs  

  Six answers to your questions below;

On Jan 21, 2022, at 9:46 PM, Greg Rau <gh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

“In short, solar geoengineering deployment cannot be governed globally in a fair, inclusive, and effective manner.” 

[RWL1:    This quote follows three reasons (that do not follow for CDR) from this cite - 5 days ago:

https://science.thewire.in/environment/scholars-float-political-intervention-against-solar-geoengineering/

Apparently, neither can adequate emissions reduction.

[RWL2; Maybe - but depends on “adequate” (which wasn’t for decades)..  Both wind and solar PV are now least cost and energy efficiency was always getting pretty good government - based on my experience with our local PUC (= Public Utility Commission).  Our local utility has pretty aggressive goals now in all these reduction (as opposed to removal) categories - and it is being governed..  (My PUC is NOT doing well with CDR (because our utility is not) - but some PUCs and utilities are.)

Considering what’s at stake, how about trying harder on both fronts?

[RWL3:  Good -  with your “both” meaning solar geoengineering and emissions reductions.  But the group of 45 has given three reasons why the former is impossible.  I doubt the 45 are concerned at all with governance of emissions reductions.

Or would that be asking too much of governance “experts”?

[RWl4:   The 45-group, which has given up on solar geoengineering are predominately from the field of “governance".  So they are saying “trying harder" isn’t going to work - for   theirthree stated reasons.  Arguments against their conclusions should focus on their three reasons., 

Guess our only hope is CDR,

[RWL5:  Maybe not “our only hope” - but CDR seems a lot more possible than solar geoengineering now  - especially after the strong negative message this week - in Science.  We working on CDR are very fortunate to not have this sort of dialog on the CDR list

or is that also beyond human control?

[RWL6.   Not sure whether your  “that” refers to “hope” or “CDR” or “beyond human control”.  Assuming you are referring to “ DR" (whose list moderation you lead), I now believe it very unlikely we will ever see any such negative reaction to CDR.  This in large part because CDR generally seems to not need be controlled and if needed,  can be or already is.

       One point of evidence is the many hundreds of entrees in four categories of the $100 million Musk XPRIZE (only on CDR).  Entrants have to answer (in 10 days) many dozens of questions - none on this topic.

I doubt that a thread like this would get much attention on your CDR list.   But I am glad to see such discussion here.  Has to help come up with better technologies (that go beyond global long-lived sulfur additions).

Ron

Greg

Sent from my iPhone

On Jan 21, 2022, at 7:07 PM, 'Robert Tulip' via geoengineering <geoengi...@googlegroups.com> wrote:



Andrew

 

From the content of the letter, it is obvious the authors are not geoengineering experts.  The signatories of the open letter are listed at https://www.solargeoeng.org/non-use-agreement/signatories/.  They are 

<SNIP - NOT RELATED TO CDR>

[Russell Seitz]

" Notably I don't think moral hazards were an issue with any of these other attempts to reduce or prevent anthropogenic damages and harms."

The large red  hazard warnings on new, ozone-friendly air conditioners relate  to flammability and explosion not  morality. 

[Georg Kössler]

Hi Folks

i find it rather irritating to read of "government scholars"? Do you mean that privately funded scholars would make a better round of signatories? Given the large sums of private money involved and potential business opportunities connected with GE, I would argue for the contrary. But that's actually another discussion. ;-)

Just wanted to point out that there are some heavyweights among the signatories, such as Prof. Stefan Rahmstorf, lead author of AR 4 of the IPCC.

I enjoy (most) of the conversations and information here. Keep up the good debates!

Best

Georg

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/033601d80f3d%241ef64f70%245ce2ee50%24%40yahoo.com.au.

--

Georg P. Kössler

Twitter GYGeorg

www.georg-koessler.de

Berlin

P   Bitte prüfen Sie, ob diese Mail wirklich ausgedruckt werden muss!

         Sie sparen pro Seite bis zu 10L Wasser, 2 g CO2 und 2 g Holz.

[Daniele Visioni]

Georg,

you must have misunderstood.

They said “governance” scholars (as in, scholars that study the topic of governing stuff at various levels, from the small to the International) and not “government” scholar.

A scholar is a scholar (and most scholars are funded by state/federal money anyway) and nobody would dream of classifying a scholar depending on the source of their funding (I hope).

What some take issue with is the fact that the vast majority of the signatories are not climate scientists-with some exception, as you point out.

There can be various things one can cherry-pick out of the list of names (how many of them are from the Global North, how few have really engaged with the specific topic before, their self-styling as “senior scholars” and so on) but I don’t even think it’s good to focus on the specifics anyway. I am more worried, as Robert was saying, about the actual opinion, which is vaguely censorious and willfully muddles different issues in many places (like confusing research into the possible impacts versus an eventual funding for deployment, for instance).

Some of the statements are just plain weird, as when they say that “We don’t need geoengineering” which can mean whatever each of the signatories might want it to mean.

I remain convinced that the best we (as researchers on the topic) can do against such gratuitous attacks is just to keep doing good science (and keep discussing about what good science is), be honest about our findings (and funding) and try to engage with as many people as possible. Expanding the field by including diverse voices, diverse perspectives and diverse opinions sounds better to me than demanding that the topic be made so toxic that people will just stop researching it for fear of their career, which is what they explicitly demand in their letter. 

Best,

Daniele

On 23 Jan 2022, at 19:12, Georg Kössler <georg.k...@gmail.com> wrote:



To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAGHRYuMa9g20BWemcygeds5WL4XJuW9DtLCk0VQTsdNQXF0foA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Michael MacCracken]

Very well explained.

What I found troubling was that there was no comparative analysis provided of where we are headed with and without solar engineering. Basically, they seem to be the frog in the heating pot that is arguing to stay on because I am more worried about jumping out (and surviving) than staying in the pot and hoping that those controlling the heating of the pot will somehow find the will to turn off the pot when virtually all trends are pointing to those outside addicted to the warmth from the heating element.

Mike MacCracken

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/7E5A5AA1-BD12-4D40-A090-D3ABE3BB1266%40gmail.com.

[Greg Rau]

Further rebuttal to SRM moratorium:

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2022/01/could-solar-geoengineering-be-a-force-for-peace.html

“ Fearing the dangers of solar geoengineering means that the world risks not knowing its full rewards.”

“ Technology could be a great friend in modifying ecosystems, earth systems, and ourselves — as long as we are not too scared to use it wisely. “

Greg

Sent from my iPhone

On Jan 24, 2022, at 7:27 AM, Michael MacCracken <mmac...@comcast.net> wrote:



To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/2790d69e-0211-b38b-2519-782f801e800c%40comcast.net.