It depends on the purpose of such a group. If its primary goal was to advance the science and discipline of geoengineering, then establishing such an organization under the present conditions might stifle more than facilitate. But if its purpose is more political, then this sort of institution could serve a very useful function by putting geoengineering "on the map" and helping it gain traction in the policy debate and popular imagination. I am in favor of the latter, although it would be very important to ensure as much openness and neutrality as possible.
Josh Horton [email protected] On Dec 14, 9:03 am, "David Keith" <[email protected]> wrote: > Institutions of this kind of work well when there are a large group of > experts who share roughly similar expertise and when the group acts > primarily as a value-neutral way to advance the discipline. > > We are not remotely close to that stage for geoengineering. > > If created now such a group would be primarily a lobby group, since > there are widely divergent views about what should be done on this topic > I see no chance that the group would be effective in speaking for a > broad community. > > -David > > ________________________________ > > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Ken Caldeira > Sent: December 13, 2009 5:32 PM > To: [email protected] > Cc: geoengineering > Subject: Re: [geo] Geoengineering society - draft letter > > I am generally in favor of a bit of anarchy in science and technology, > and see institutions often as mechanisms that stifle creativity and > innovation. > > What is the purpose of such an institution? What need is it trying to > fill? > > How do you prevent the primary goal of the institution becoming its own > persistence and growth, regardless of how that might impact the stated > goals of the institution? > > How do you prevent an institution from picking a few early winners and > then excluding ideas that come along later (that challenge statements of > institutional leaders, initial funding priorities, and assembled > constituencies)? > > I am fine with people banding together to advance their specific goals. > I am skeptical about the need for an institution that attempts to speak > for everybody. > > On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 10:49 PM, Andrew Lockley > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > I note the UK's IMechEhttp://www.imeche.org/is currently a strong > supporter of > geoengineeringhttp://www.imeche.org/about/keythemes/environment/Climate+Change/Geoeng > > We have on several occasions suggested the creation of a 'geoengineering > institute' on this list. I write today with an alternative suggestion. > > My proposal is that we present a letter to the IMechE, signed by > prominent members of this list (especially those in the UK). In this, > we would set out our plans for the institution, and ask that the IMechE, > with its existing infrastructure and recognition, will operate this new > geoengineering institution until such time as it is able to be 'spun > off' as an organisation in its own right. > > My suggestion is that the letter should address the following points: > > 1) Setting out the principle of the organisation's existence as > a part of the IMechE > > 2) The creation of a specific class of memberships for > accredited and non-accredited geoengineers. > > 3) Defining the IMechE as the focal point for the study of the > regulation and systematisation of geoengineering. > > 4) Encouraging the model to be adopted internationally, > providing professional 'residence' to the geoengineering community > worldwide. > > In my opinion, such a move is vital. For too long, this community has > lacked a proper system of organisation, and I suggest that, after > several non-starter attempts to get things moving, we now look to an > established and sympathetic body to help systematise the discipline. > > I look forward to receiving comments of all colours by return. > > Thanks > > A > > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups "geoengineering" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected] > <mailto:geoengineering%[email protected]> . > For more options, visit this group > athttp://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. > > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups "geoengineering" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]. > For more options, visit this group > athttp://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
