Andrew and List (adding Prof Martinez-Alier as cc) Thanks for this new information below.. I have reviewed the EVOLT site and am a bit confused. I can't find the word "biochar" even once. I don't want any researcher looking at the EVOLT site to think biochar is being discussed by EVOLT, if it is not.
Below, Professor Martinez-Alier, says about ETC (my main interest in this response).: " One should start with ETC’s impressive inventory and map of 300 Climate Engineering projects and experiments, correcting mistakes or omissions in agreement with ETC itself. The ETC group has been at the vanguard of civil society engagement with geoengineering. Then, a smaller but in-depth inventory of conflictive cases, is urgently needed. " Thankfully, obviously, we would be making a big mistake in thinking that EJOLT is in complete agreement with ETC. I note that one can't find the term CDR anywhere on the ETC site. There are 7 references to biochar but not one is to a peer-reviewed anti-biochar document. This is OK since ETC does not claim to be the premier anti-biochar iste; ETC is accepting the "analytical" work of others. But ETC certainly should not be thought of any sort of expert group on geoengineering - or any of its subparts, regardless of producing a map.. Re the actual ETC data and map, i note that almost all for biochar are directly quoted from the IBI website - and so I urge Prof Martinez-Alier to do the same. Biochar is about 30% (79) of the total number of ETC map entries. - I judge to be larger than any other geoengineering category (which, strangely, includes lots of algae and weather modification), but some entries mention more than one company, project, or product. There may more university degree programs for biochar at the IBI site than ETC has given overall. In other words, what looks like a large set of geoengineering entries by ETC is both over and undercounting at the same time. (I assume ETC doesn't want to make biochar, algae, etc. look too popular - especially in academic circles This is to hope Professor Martinez-Alier can give us a little more background on how the ETC data and map will be pared back (corrected?) for the new EVOLT geoengineering study. Under some circumstances, a number of us on this list are probably ready to help - for instance on "fracking" where I applaud the EVOLT emphasis. Ron ----- Original Message ----- From: "Andrew Lockley" <[email protected]> To: "geoengineering" <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2013 4:23:24 PM Subject: [geo] Geoengineering conflicts: the ETC map Posters note : lots of links, pls read online if poss http://www.ejolt.org/2013/01/geoengineering-conflicts-the-etc-map/ Joan Martinez-Alier. When we wrote the EJOLT project three years ago, we selected a wide range of environmental justice conflicts: from extraction to waste and from nuclear to biomass. But we left aside some relatively new and upcoming types of environmental conflicts. There is the recent boom in shale gas fracking. And serious questions arise on geoengineering experiments. Last autumn, the world’s largest geoengineering experiment caused a much needed public debate. The incident revealed the urgent need for ecological economists, political ecologists and activists to dig deeper in this issue.Geoengineering is the intentional, large-scale technological manipulation of the Earth’s systems, often discussed as a techno-fix for combating climate change. But scientists and engineers do not operate in a vacuum. Once they produced a technology, entrepreneurs and governments will decide where and when to use it. But what if these technologies have uncertain far reaching and long lasting impacts on a vast number of people, if not the whole world population? That is their aim, by altering the climate. But then how can other stakeholders than scientists, entrepreneurs and governments be brought into such a crucial dialogue? Can they bring the incommensurability of values or the unequal distribution of costs and benefits to the table? Can they influence decisions that affect them on such a vast and deep scale?It has been rightly written by the Earth Institute at Columbia University that “Governance is perhaps the thorniest aspect of geoengineering. Because geoengineering is a relatively cheap way to address climate change, it is unilateral—rich countries and billionaires could finance it on their own – yet the consequences would be global. Who then should get to control geoengineering, and under what governance? Some strategies would benefit certain countries and harm others, so who would have the right to decide whether, when and how to use it? Geoengineering would likely create winners and losers – should losers be compensated?”.How uncertain risks, costs and benefits of environmental actions or inactions are distributed among contemporary human groups, and with future generations and other species, is the stuff of Political Ecology. There are already some advances in the field of Political Ecology on Climate Engineering. But an inventory of such studies should be carried out, within EJOLT or in new research.One should start with ETC’s impressive inventory and map of 300 Climate Engineering projects and experiments, correcting mistakes or omissions in agreement with ETC itself. The ETC group has been at the vanguard of civil society engagement with geoengineering. Then, a smaller but in-depth inventory of conflictive cases, is urgently needed. We need to look at the social actors involved, the valuation languagesdeployed and we need to ask if the principle “losers should be compensated” should be prioritized above the principle of “the incommensurability of values”.The ETC map is both an outcome of and a subject for new research. It claims plausibly to be a “world map of geoengineering – the large-scale manipulation of earth or climate systems”. While there is no complete record of the scores of weather and climate control projects in dozens of countries, this map is the first attempt to document the expanding scope of research and experimentation. The geoengineering experiments on the map belong to 10 different types of climate-altering technologies. The science around geoengineering is proceeding much faster than the critical reflections by scientists or the watchdog operations by activists.If there is one thing that the map already teaches us, it’s the urgent need for a public debate infused with knowledge from different scientific disciplines and a range of activists and concerned citizens. -- 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.
