"Strategies shouldn't be assessed on their ability to modify the temperature, as the temperature isn't really our problem."
Tell that to the ice. ----- Original Message ----- From: Holly Buck To: [email protected] Cc: [email protected] Sent: Sunday, June 19, 2011 12:34 Subject: Re: [geo] HOME/ETC Group Targets IPCC Greetings, Thanks for reading, Ron. I'll try to respond to as many of your points as I can. On how I would rephrase anything in both these papers if I was ONLY talking about CDR: Let me first say that I used to think it was unhelpful to use the signifier "geoengineering" for such vastly different approaches as SRM & CDR. It seemed a shopping-cart approach, too dependent on a rational-choice model of human behavior / consumption. However, lately I've been thinking that there's a great utility in this catch-all signifier "geoengineering": being able to compare these approaches on a conceptually equal playing field can be empowering. In the media content analysis, I simply searched for "geoengineering" or "climate engineering", and if it sounded like I was using the term interchangeably with SRM, that probably reflects the hundreds of media articles I read which often did so. It would be interesting to repeat the media content analysis with only terms that referred to CDR to see how the narrative frames are different. However, many of the stories on geoengineering take the shopping-cart approach (i.e. Ten Crazy Schemes to Save the World), so I don't know if it would have differed very much. And as I wrote, climate stability is almost always framed as averting the negative, not about establishing something positive— this is possibly less true for CDR, but not dramatically so. In short, that paper might not have been too different. However, for the public participation & narrative communication paper, I would have written a very different paper if it was only about CDR. Part of this is because some CDR options, like biochar & afforestation, offer direct participation opportunities, not just in decision-making but in actualization. Also, CDR would deal with existing institutions differently (e.g. the World Bank already looking into biochar— lots of potential links with multilateral humanitarian and agricultural instituions who deal with land use, etc.) Having more clearly relevant existing institutions makes it a different conversation. And for the section on changing the narratives on geoengineering: I think this would be easier if talking only about CDR. For one, the phrase of "carbon dioxide removal" implies taking something away; I think people are more at ease with that idea. Works with the make-a-mess, clean-it-up thinking we learned as kids, whereas "solar radiation management" is like management, tiresome responsibility. And the imagery is more palatable: for an article on biochar, you can head with an image of two hands holding dark earth with a seed sprouting. Even for ocean fertilization, you can have a diagram with some little fishes in it. For SRM, you've got The Earth from Space or the ubiquitous rendering of the sea-spray vessel. These might sound like stupid points, but they aren't incidental differences; they are crucial. On the NERC report and "expert" advice: though I criticize it somewhat in my paper, I believe the NERC endeavor was a well-intentioned attempt at a public dialogue. I do think you need different parties doing the informing and facilitating the dialogue, though. I like your idea about having three different sets of experts. I would posit that they should be experts from across disciplines, too. Like in the example you mentioned: the large land areas involved in biochar are not an essential problem, but a problem in implementation. The fears that biochar production would be taking place on large plantations in the global South to fix the problems the North created have some justification, I think, based mostly on the current (evolving) land-use trends we see today with large scale land-leases, expanding palm oil plantations displacing farmers, etc. It's not totally inconceivable that similar trends could happen if biochar production was ramped up, so there will have to be some norms, institutions, and regulatory scheme set up to deal with these kinds of issues. So, back to the topic of public consultation: are you going to have experts that present all these angles to the public? Educational institutions should be carrying weight here. On assessment of technologies: I agree with you that we need to find a better way to assess possible climate-important technologies, and I think that it should take into account not just "economic" costs, but social and ecological opportunities. If biochar can help us deal with the food and fuel crises, it should score some points— and the inability of other strategies to do that should be marked down as an opportunity lost. Strategies shouldn't be assessed on their ability to modify the temperature, as the temperature isn't really our problem: I see our root problems as poor land use, socio-economic systems that depend on fossil-fuel combustion, and uneven development. So strategies should be assessed on their ability to contribute to solving these, and downgraded if they can't. Difficult, politcally and methodologically, but if we are actually serious about a planet that would support human well-being, we should consider some type of approach like this. (I haven't entirely thought through the mechanism, obviously, but hopefully the rudimentary idea comes through.) On the plus side, incorporating opportunities into assessement might mobilize support from a lot of the people who are against geoengineering (back to the ETC topic): one of their main concerns is that geoengineering is a way of maintaining the status quo. Take care, Holly p.s. the full thesis is pretty much these two papers; nothing radically different is added. They will probably be published in an anthology and a journal, but not for some months. On Sat, Jun 18, 2011 at 6:55 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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. -- 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.
