Holly (cc list):
1. Thanks for entering this dialog - which (to remind) is partly about signing
a letter to the IPCC. This is also pertinent to our thread on representation at
an IPCC Lima meeting and, lastly,.re claimed HOME/ETC misrepresentations on
Geoengineering
2. I found your note below from yesterday and its attached short paper very
informative (which paper I couldn't find anywhere on the web, so others will
have to go back to that message if they want to read it; is it available on any
web site yet?). I recommend it to those who haven't read it as a good
introduction to framing of SRM (and I think not intended to discuss CDR at
all). I think you are breaking a lot of valuable new ground here.
3. That paper seems to be the second in a string on this topic. But I like a
longer and slightly (?) earlier one even more - which can be found at:
http://www.umt.edu/ethics/EthicsGeoengineering/Workshop/articles1/Holly%20Buck.pdf
4. The subject of this earlier paper was clearly intended to be only SRM - no
CDR. I think the same was true for the paper you attached, however I found the
separation less clear in your attachment. But in both your papers, the term
"geoengineering" was often (you much less than most) used interchangeably with
SRM. Could you give us a few paragraphs on how you would rephrase anything in
both these papers if you were ONLY talking about CDR? Please don't do this if
you haven't studied CDR yet.sufficiently.
5. As an example of what I am looking for - this was on your p 4, as part of
your seventh and last premise on media: ".. ......Imagine talking about
“geoengineering” without the signifier “geoengineering”: for one, vastly
different approaches like biochar and aerosols in the stratosphere would
probably not be lumped together in the same news article, and so
“geoengineering” would not have the dread-inspiring gravitas that it does. "
6. As another example, you had a nice section on the NERC follow-up to the
Royal Society report on Geoengineering, which report on pp 24-25:, said
(emphasis added):
" However, some misunderstandings persisted which may have skewed perceptions
in favour
of two of the CDR approaches, Afforestation and Biochar. In particular, the
majority did not
fully take on board the land use trade-offs that large-scale deployment of
Biochar or
Afforestation might require, nor the length of time required for these to make
a difference to
global CO2 levels. Scientists and facilitators explained the land use question
and the
timescale, but participants preferred to focus on the benefits of this
“natural” process of
carbon sequestration and identified many more positives than they did
challenges. This was
apparent throughout Event 1 and 2, and in the shorter sessions with other
participants, as
well as in the online survey. "
Unlike the NERC experts, I (maybe also the participants?) take the large areas
involved to be a plus for Afforestation and Biochar - not a negative - given
the huge amount of land that used to be forested, became farm land until worn
out, and is now good only for pastures. Large land areas also guaranties more
and permanent food and employment.
I wonder how many points were lost from the (already sizeable) NERC point score
for Biochar because of this sort of "expert" guidance. I choose Biochar as an
example because of personal interest there and little expertise on other
Geoengineering approaches, but also because I recognize (but I haven't looked
carefully) no Biochar researcher among the list of experts. It would be
interesting to compare the voting at three different locations with three
different sets of experts.
Your thoughts on this example as a way to bring in the public? (I like this
approach better than most - only wanting to be sure that we really have
experts.)
7. NERC's artificial tree (direct air capture) point total was higher than for
Biochar (but lower than for afforestation). What would the result have been had
Robert Socolow been the guiding expert? I am thinking of the new report, not
available then, from the APS:
http://www.aps.org/policy/reports/popa-reports/loader.cfm?csModule=security/getfile&PageID=244407
My point is not to promote or denigrate any Geoengineering technology - but to
say that we need to find a better way to assess all possible climate-important
technologies.
I once worked for the (no longer existent) US Congress' Office of Technology
Assessment (OTA) - and know that this is not easy to do. Many TA experts would
argue for something like most judicial systems - strong "Advocates" making
their case before a "jury". Few of us would want our case made by a lawyer we
didn't choose. Deliberative polling and lengthy exchanges between experts are
also promoted
Your paper has given me another excuse to express a concern for what might
happen in Lima.
8. I liked your papers because they have many new ideas, are well thought out,
and are getting at these issues of public participation, fully in the context
of this list's (quite different SRM and CDR) interests. You are a good writer,
as well..
I was tempted to say something about your last two sentences below (which I
applaud) - but this note is already too long.
How soon can we read your full thesis?
Thanks again for entering the dialog.
Ron
----- Original Message -----
From: "Holly Buck" <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
Sent: Friday, June 17, 2011 6:12:01 AM
Subject: Re: [geo] HOME/ETC Group Targets IPCC
Hi All,
A few brief thoughts on geoengineering representation in the news media, after
spending a few years writing a master's thesis on this:
-- ETC can't represent civil society, because civil society largely doesn't
know about geoengineering. As Tony Leiserowitz said, "the frame has yet to be
set."
-- Scientists are instrumental in setting this frame, as they have the greatest
share of media attention: natural scientists and engineers make up roughly 70%
of assertions in the media about geoengineering. Policy people and economists,
most of the rest. (That's in print media, but much web media is sourced from
print media.)
-- Hence, ETC is still somewhat fringe, but because of how new media works,
they can reach people who are interested in the issue. And their arguments
could have deep resonance for the "citizens-on-standby" who don't yet know
about geoengineering. Attractive parts of this cosmology may include:
1. a sense of loss (environmental fall-from-grace story, where we long for
the world-as-it-was before we screwed it up)
2. a disgust with techno-managerial approaches to the environment, and
3. anger with the northern elites who got us into this mess.
Tea Party: If you mix fall-of-grace stories with a desire for freedom (in the
form of wildness, unregulated "nature") and anger toward elites, you have a
cosmology that looks kind of like.... the Tea Party. That's what I'd be worried
about. Fortunately traditional ideas of what is red/blue have kept this issue
from going in that direction.
But I don't think you get anywhere by approaching someone else's argument;
rather, speak to their narrative. All their narrative concerns are reasonable
(to me) and could have traction, especially the latter-- I still don't think
we've seen the popular anti-elite fallout from the 2008 financial mess (though
we begin to in Europe, MENA). What does that have to do with geoengineering
research and governance? A lot, potentially.
Prediction: Going forward, I'd expect to see a humanitarian frame, which you
don't see much at present: geoengineering as a humanitarian intervention done
forward on behalf of the countries who are getting hit by climate change. ETC
manages to speak for the Global South at present, but it's still unclear how
both citizens and leaders of developing countries feel about this prospect.
More research is needed here, as the G-77 is an entitity that would break down
here: Pakistan and Brazil may have different ideas than Boliva on this point.
This could really transform the discussion in the Western press.
Opportunity analysis: it would be a great time for a science diplomacy
initiative to shine-- scientists in EU/US really working with scientists in
other countries on research. For environmentalists, it's a great time to fully
elaborate a vision of carbon-cycle projects like biochar that could be done
locally, but on a wide scale, and ramp up funding for this + other projects
that would reform the global food system & fuel system in the process. If we
believed humans were actually capable of transforming our environment for the
better, environmentalists might get somewhere.
Cheers,
Holly
On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 10:29 PM, < [email protected] > wrote:
Hi all
1. First, this is to suggest a possible middle ground between Alvia (recommends
no observers?) and Andrew (would include anyone wanting to observe?). The White
House press corps sometimes solves this with a few pool reporters - I think as
few as two or three sometimes. A ratio of one observer for 4-5 participants
should work OK All costs would be borne by the observers - and they could
rotate after putting their names on an "interest" list. I believe problems for
the official sponsors would decrease with this approach. Invitations can be
accompanied by rules established by those hosting the meeting. I believe
virtually every US form of government has rules allowing closed meetings only
for specific topics. But, I have been to many "almost-closed" meetings where my
chance to speak was only at a specific time and for a short time. I can't think
of a crowd being an integral part of a small designated Committee meeting in
any Democratic Society. The time for public reaction is after decisions are
made and a report made available. But I support the concept of
non-participatory observations.and think invited observers goes one step
further.
2. Andrew - I believe you have established a dangerous $1000 bet (given below a
few messages). BiofuelWatch (a signer) has regularly featured arguments against
Biochar since just before the 2008 IBI meeting in Newcastle, UK. Their reports
keep getting more professional looking, but all of them are PR-oriented, no
original science I find major fault with all their reports and can share this
with anyone interested. I have not seen the same detail yet from ETC.
On Biochar, ETC often refers favorably to the BFW work.. They surely coordinate
on many topics. BFW seems to use roughly the same list of anti-Biochar
endorsers as does the ETC anti-Geoengineering work. Like you, I couldn't find
specific mention of this latest ETC letter for any signer on this list exceot
ETC, but it is early. I hope you can/will take the bet back. Based on seeing
this interlocking work, I bet (a beer) that you will lose this bet as it now
stands..
3. I think ETC and BFW can't possibly be unhappy about the huge amount of
experimentation going on with Biochar - little with any governmental funding. I
have seen no call for this rapidly growing Biochar research to stop. Their main
claim seems to be that it won't work (although it demonstrably is/has). If such
research (with only a little voluntary credit support) is happening with any
other part of Geoengineering (save for tree planting), I would love to hear
about it. There are many more organized ("civil society") groups supporting
Biochar actively than the 4 or 5 small NGOs opposing it - only as part of their
other efforts. More specifically, Biochar only superficially resembles a
biofuel. We need to spend more time in dialog with these groups - and point out
that their message is inconsistent.
4. I also would like to sign your letter (affiliation label below). My sole
concern with your draft is that I hope you can mention that Geoengineering has
both SRM and CDR parts. In everything related to this ETC story, I (again)
cannot tell who is talking apples, who oranges, and who fruit. The different
parts of Geoengineering, with different goals, should be analyzed and defended
differently.
Ronal W. Larson, PhD
Board Member, United States Biochar Initiative (USBI)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Andrew Lockley" < [email protected] >
To: "Alvia Gaskill" < [email protected] >
Cc: [email protected]
Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2011 4:37:55 PM
Subject: Re: [geo] HOME/ETC Group Targets IPCC
<snipped a lot of material here>
--
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.
