This thread highlights some key issues about communicating the geoengineering message. Andrew's 'abject screaming panic' (ASP) and Bhaskar disappointment about the BBC being ill-informed indicate some gaps in our understanding of the media. The BBC won't do 'abject screaming panic' until the tanks are trundling down Whitehall, and even then they'll be concerned about how to report it in a balanced way. As to them not keeping up to speed on developments in geoengineering, why would they? Who's lobbying them to get this issue on the agenda? Where does it sit within the whole climate change story and the sense of boredom that seems to have overwhelmed the media where that's concerned. The high proportion of citizens who are still unclear/undecided/sceptical about climate change is a testament to the entirely short term focus we all have in our daily lives, save perhaps for the few of us spending our days and nights thinking about catastrophic climate change and we're minuscule minority. Even those newspapers that have a reasonable profile in this area (e.g. The Guardian) are a long way from ASP. The social scientists can work on why it is that our response to climate change is so muted. Perhaps the adrenalin of fear doesn't kick in until the tanks are on the lawn and as far as climate change is concerned for the vast majority of the world's population and certainly for the vast majority in the developed world, those tanks are a long way beneath the horizon.
No doubt Lima will be reported, albeit briefly, but maybe we should be thinking more coherently about a communications strategy. There's nothing like the prospect of serious geoengineering to focus the mind on what climate change is likely to entrain. But ASP is almost certainly going to be a major turn off. As far as Lima is concerned, don't lose sight of the follow on session dealing with the role of economics, cost benefit analysis and ethics in climate change policy making. There are some critical issues in there too. Robert Chris Open University [email protected] On Jun 18, 11:45 am, M V Bhaskar <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi > > Its unfortunate that BBC is still discussing Urea fertilization of > oceans when much more sophisticated solutions are available. > > Bhaskar > > On Jun 17, 7:43 pm, Andrew Lockley <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Hi > > > Just watched it athttp://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006mk25 > > > You can view it through a UK proxy if you're overseas. > > > I thought it was rubbish. The presenters had been very poorly briefed > > and failed to explain the technologies at all. The options were > > presented as > > 1) space mirrors, > > 2) urea fertilisation of the oceans, or > > 3) chemical CO2 scrubbing. > > Later they discussed sulfur, but without giving any real context. > > > The whole discussion seemed predicated on the argument that GE might > > be a bit more deliverable than emissions cuts. The Greenpeace guy > > didn't give Ken the roasting I was expecting, but he basically put > > forward the argument as "loft insulation vs geoengineering". We need > > to put across to the public that it's not like that. In fact, it's > > more likely that it's "loft insulation plus everything else we can > > think of plus geoengineering and then if we're really lucky we might > > not have a mass extinction". Ken mentioned the methane issue, but > > didn't get the opportunity to present the implications properly. > > > To my ear, it completely missed the point that we're just about to > > sail over the waterfall in a barrel, and GE might offer a paddle (or a > > parachute) to save us from what could just out to be a re-run of the > > PT Mass Extinction. > > > To me the whole presentation of the issue lacked the abject screaming > > panic that the science suggests is necessary. It made me want to > > shout at the screen. But hey, maybe I'm just a doom-monger, and we'll > > all just be fine. Normally I like being smug and right but it won't > > do me much good if everyone's dead. > > > A > > > On 17 June 2011 05:37, Ken Caldeira <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > I was on BBC TV (UK) Newsnight at 23:03 on 16 June 2011 with Doug Parr of > > > Greenpeace for a short discussion about geoengineering. > > > > Unfortunately, I do not think it is available for streaming (at least not > > > outside of the UK). Did anybody see it? > > > > Just wondering how it came off. > > > >http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/default.stm > > > ___________________________________________________ > > > Ken Caldeira > > > > Carnegie Institution Dept of Global Ecology > > > 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA > > > +1 650 704 7212 [email protected] > > >http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab @kencaldeira > > > > -- > > > 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. -- 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.
