Matt, My concern is not chiefly for what was said in the piece, but for what was not said, and for its context. Geoengineering has been associated with a right-wing edge, particularly in the US, who consider it as an alternative to mitigation. Freakonomics focussed on economic tradeoffs, and thus appeared to take their position on GE as part of the 'alternatives argument', and not as part of the mitigation + GE 'attenuation argument'. It's this perceived distinction in aims and practice which I feel wasn't properly emphasised in the post. Whilst you mentioned attenuation, the failure to mention or describe mitigation alongside this renders your position unclear at best, and aligned to that of Freakonomics' apparent 'alternatives argument' at worst. Most GE researchers take care to clarify their stance in this regard, in a way which I feel this post does not.
The attenuation argument has been the essentially exclusive position of all GE researchers I've had contact with over the past 3-5 years. It's therefore very unfortunate when any researchers risk being seen as positioned with the alternatives argument. It is a politically and climatically dangerous position to hold, and the risk of any association with this camp blurs the clear message from the *scientific* GE lobby for the attenuation argument. Mitigation must thus be stated at every turn, especially when the context does not assume this. Such clear positioning is routinely the case in both scientific papers and public discourse from scientists. It is therefore unfortunate that the word mitigation, or a description of the concept, did not appear once in your post. I don't think it's any great secret that SPICE left a lot to be desired on the handling of the PR and consultation. In my personal opinion, it fell uncomfortably between two possible stools of 'gentle research progress with public consent' and 'cod liver oil, which is good for you, and which you will have whether you like it or not'. As a result, the project has been *seen* as a failure and *seen* as a victory for the anti-GE research lobby. It has risked setting a precedent in the public mind that even climatically benign experiments are a) somehow irresponsible and b) can be successfully derailed by public protest. Far better, in my view, that it was never even proposed than that it was executed with the regrettable approach to public engagement which transpired. I know this was not planned, and I don't doubt the good intentions of the researchers. I'm not blaming them personally for not being PR gurus or professional ethicists. I do however personally hold the view that the SPICE project has had a net-negative effect on the field - as a result not of its worthy scientific intentions, but because of its unfortunate PR handling and resulting precedents. I apologise if my criticisms seem either inappropriately harsh, or personal. They are not intended to be, and I hope they can be viewed as constructive. I do, however, feel that the SPICE project has been an example of everything not to do in terms of positioning and execution of research. I'm a reluctant GE advocate, and the last thing I want to see is botched projects derailing the research agenda which I (and apparently you) believe is necessary. We should be very, very careful when we position our personal and institutional brands with third parties, and equally careful to point out our differences from those of the third parties when important subtleties may be lost on an audience unfamiliar with the nuances of our position. A On 28 July 2012 11:59, Matt Watson <[email protected]> wrote: > Andrew - I thought the piece was quite balanced.I don't think anyone could > suggest I've not been clear about mitigation being the right thing to do. I > guess I'd be keen to know which bits you really didn't like and why? A very > close draft has been on my blog for a week without objection - is it the > 'alliance' with freakonomics that jars? > > As for PR we are doing things honestly and publicly, and learning as we go. > I think it's unfortunate you think our PR record is less than exemplary and > unfair that you think researchers are always to blame... > > Sent from my iPad > > On 28 Jul 2012, at 10:10, Andrew Lockley <[email protected]> wrote: > > Poster's comment: The Freakonomics GE chapter was one of the more > influential pop sci essays on GE in recent years. Personally, I think that > geoengineering researchers should stay well away from any perceived alliance > with the freakonomics brand, as it represents the worst excesses of the > magic-wand approach to geoengineering. If they do engage, it would perhaps > be prudent to stress the limitations of GE and the need to continue > mitigation efforts - something largely ignored by freakonomics. I suggest > Readers can form their own conclusions about the wisdom of this SPICE post. > I think it can be argued that SPICE researchers seriously mishandled the PR > on their project. Could this post be a continuation of a less than exemplary > PR record? > > A > > http://www.freakonomics.com/2012/07/27/the-case-for-climate-engineering-research-a-guest-post-by-spice-researcher-matthew-watson/ > > This is a guest post by Matthew Watson, a lecturer in geophysical natural > hazards at the University of Bristol and the lead researcher for the > Stratospheric Particle Injection for Climate Engineering project (SPICE), > whose experiments are currently on hold. He blogs at The Reluctant > Geoengineer. > > The Case For Climate Engineering Research By Matthew Watson > > As project lead for the SPICE project (Stratospheric Particle Injection for > Climate Engineering), I have been on quite a journey over the last eighteen > months. SPICE is important, challenging, socio-politically charged, and > high-profile: a heady mix for a youngish researcher like me. It looks to > answer the question “Can we emulate the cooling observed after large > volcanic eruptions to ameliorate the worst effects of global warming?” > Despite playing to my apparent Messiah complex, the trials and tribulations > of steering the project through rough seas has been more than enough to keep > my feet on the ground. That is a challenge that faces all who research such > grand things. > > One of the leitmotifs of the recent discussions around the SPICE project > technology test cancellation was the overwhelming support for the remainder, > more than ninety percent of the project, to continue. This is important to > point out as the good work being done by scientists and engineers outside of > the field experiment is often lost. Over the course of the project > supporters and objectors of climate engineering research have used the > experiences of SPICE to bolster their argument. Both sides present strong > arguments, which, when couched fairly make for an intense and stimulating > debate. I personally believe passionately in research into climate > engineering – knowledge always beats ignorance. With knowledge comes risks > we must be mindful of however, as we look for an easy way out of the crisis > that looms large. > > Objectors’ responses to allowing researchers to explore climate engineering > are entirely predictable. Firstly, we were accused of being ‘in it for the > research money’, an obnoxious slur borrowed from climate sceptics when > describing climate scientists. When this didn’t appear to stick objectors > began to change tack. Now, we are “sweet and naive”: well-meaning, bumbling > boffins, trying to help but only providing ammunition to the Machiavellian > aims of politicians too lazy or corrupt to do anything but retain the status > quo. It’s better than being purely evil I suppose, but not by much. > > Next, I predict, we’ll be encouraged to turn on each other and our research > will be used to try to “divide and conquer.” Differences of opinion are our > modus operandi. It’s already beginning to happen. Stock responses to papers > suggesting climate engineering might work/have positive impacts (no matter > how buried in caveats) include demonizing the researchers involved. On the > other hand, research, including several recently published papers, is > already being used to suggest that climate engineering (and by extraction > from objectors researching climate engineering) is a waste of time. Just > think about that paradox for a moment – “research into climate engineering > shows research into climate engineering is worthless.” > > What these papers demonstrate is that it is surely better to know than not. > After all three large volcanic eruptions of the latter half of the 20 th > > century rainfall patterns were impacted by increased aerosol. Does this mean > that this form of climate engineering should be discarded? No, it doesn’t. > Make no mistake, no form of climate engineering is a free ride and we cannot > get back to where we were. There will be winners and losers if we deploy > stratospheric aerosols or not, unless we change, as an entire species, very, > very quickly. > > The questions we have to ask are “What are the impacts of both scenarios?” > and “Given the evidence, which is preferable?” I am often asked, “Is climate > engineering a good idea?” My response is “I’ve no idea, but it would be a > good idea to know if it’s a bad idea.” Only through research can we generate > the evidence base for a salient answer. It is vitally important that > scientists are given the space within which to ask and try to answer > difficult questions. > > -- > 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.
