Exactly so. If you can set aside the headline and subhead, the questions that Hamilton asks in the Nature piece are very much the types of questions many of us here have been asking -- Ken and Alan included. Who controls the figurative thermostat? How transparent is the research? How do you deal with "rogue" projects? What happens when weather-related disasters that happen subsequent to the start of geoengineering get blamed on the work -- or, worse still, seen as an intentional attack, not just by some noisy but ignorant NGO but by national governments?
It's unfortunate that Hamilton didn't say that these questions should be *part* of the research proposed by the "at least do the research" position. It's implicit in what he says, but the framing comes across as far too confrontational. I've written before -- and I'm pretty sure I said directly in that National Academies event I presented at with Ken and Alan -- that a key part of doing the research is figuring out what *not* to do. Some of the climate remediation proposals (both SRM and CDR) could have such immediate and drastic drawbacks that they should never go on the "Plan B" list. Unless we do the research, if things get too desperate, we may accidentally compound the problems we face. -Jamais Cascio On May 29, 2013, at 8:17 AM, Fred Zimmerman <[email protected]> wrote: > When I was a magazine editor I wrote many, many captions. Bear in mind that > authors are often not responsible for the exact phrasing of headlines and > subheads. Typically this is done by magazine staff as they need to make sure > the caption fits the space available. Magazine editors also have a somewhat > different agenda than authors: they may have a somewhat keener interest in > making the subhead "punchy" as opposed to "descriptively exact". > > > --- > Fred Zimmerman > Geoengineering IT! > Bringing together the worlds of geoengineering and information technology > GE NewsFilter: http://geoengineeringIT.net:8080 > > > On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 11:11 AM, David Lewis <[email protected]> wrote: > The subhead under the title of Clive's Nature piece "No we should not just at > least do the research" accuses anyone who takes the position that > geoengineering research should be undertaken of not carefully thinking > through what they are advocating. I.e. it states: "the idea of applying > geoengineering research to mitigate climate change has not been thought > through". So Paul Crutzen, to take an example of a mere Nobel prize winner > who at one point in his career was the most cited author in the Geosciences, > who might happen to read Clive's piece, would have to believe Clive means he > has not "thought through" what he is advocating. > > According to Clive in his Nature piece, anyone who believes "we should at > least do the research" has a "naive understanding of the world" that is out > of touch with "reality". That would be people like Ken Caldeira, or Alan > Robock: Clive is saying these researchers are not in touch with "reality". > > According to Dr. Rapley, Clive actually feels "misunderstood". > > When you set yourself up as the guy who has thought things through as opposed > to everyone else who hasn't, you really should have a bit more than Clive > seems to be offering. People will be looking for something original and > coherent. > > > On Tuesday, May 28, 2013 8:33:50 AM UTC-7, Lou Grinzo wrote: > Can we make contact with Hamilton and simply ask him about his thoughts on > these points? Speculating about them like this is likely to lead to some > wildly inaccurate conclusions. > > I think it's just as likely that his view is: [1] the political system in > some places, most notably the US, is horribly broken in terms of dealing with > CC, [2] a major part of [1] is the huge influence of large corporations, [3] > because of [1] and [2] we're playing with fire by attempting geoengineering > -- i.e. we'll make horribly wrong decisions about what to do, when, how, etc. > -- so we shouldn't even go down that road, and should instead focus on fixing > the political system and making the swiftest possible cuts in GHG emissions. > > I'm NOT saying this is his view, merely that as I read his published work and > interviews, it's one possible interpretation. And given his fairly high and > (seemingly) rising profile, it seems like a good idea to find out how he > views this incredibly messy situation. > > On Tuesday, May 28, 2013 1:10:40 AM UTC-4, David Lewis wrote: > The root of Clive Hamilton's "thought" on geoengineering appeared more > clearly in this interview. > > When discussing the fact that The Heartland Institute and the American > Enterprise Institute have endorsed geoengineering as a solution for the > problem they have denied exists more emphatically than anyone else on the > planet, Clive said: > > "They see it—see geoengineering as a way of protecting the system, of > preserving the political economic system, whereas others say the problem IS > the political and economic system, and it’s that which we have to change." > > And later in the interview, after Clive states that the risks to civilization > that scientists such as David Keith and Alan Robock are concerned about are > one thing, i.e. "scientific risks" whereas Clive sees an additional factor, > which he calls "political risks", he says this: [edited to make my point > clear] > > "the danger that geoengineering becomes... ...a way of protecting the > political economic system from the kind of change that should be necessary" > > A way to interpret this is to say Clive wants our system of economic and > political relationships as they exist to fail to cope with climate change in > order that civilization will change in ways he thinks will make it more > likely that the changed civilization will survive for a longer term. Another > way to say this is he wants everyone in civilization to realize there is no > way forward without a fundamental reordering of our political and economic > relationships with each other, which is a necessary precursor to fundamental > change. > > In "Green" philosophy, this lines up with those who say anything that allows > this civilization to continue, such as discovering how to mitigate acid rain > back in the 1980s for instance, is not the good thing it appears on the > surface, because it merely allows the civilization to exist a bit longer > which allows it to expand to a larger size, enabling it to do more damage to > the planetary life support system, allowing it to take more of the rest of > life on Earth with it as and when it collapses. Geoengineering, even > removing CO2 from the atmosphere, in this line of thought, is therefore > something to be opposed. > > If this is the root of Clive's "thought", it would throw some light on why he > has taken the position in his Nature piece, i.e. "no, we should not do the > research" [into geoengineering]. > > On Saturday, May 25, 2013 1:12:10 AM UTC-7, andrewjlockley wrote: > http://m.democracynow.org/stories/13653 > > Democracy Now!/ MON MAY 20, 2013/ Geoengineering: Can We Save the Planet by > Messing with Nature? > > Amy Goodman interviews Clive Hamilton with some recorded clips of Shiva, > Dyer, Keith, etc. > > > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "geoengineering" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "geoengineering" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
