Bhaskar,
The prefix ‘geo’ has NO implication of ‘global scale’. It comes from Greek and means 'of the earth'. For example, geology is the study of the solid earth and geochemistry the study of the Earth's chemistry, without any scale being implied – see *http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geology*<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geology>. Thus, geoengineering does not necessarily deal with planetary scale interventions. Geoengineering literally means 'engineering the earth' and I am told that is the Chinese translation of ‘geoengineering’. Chris. On Thursday, July 11, 2013 11:50:02 AM UTC+1, M V Bhaskar wrote: > Andrew > > There is a difference between Engineering and Geoengineering. > The examples you gave are simple engineering solutions not Geoengineering. > > The Geo in Geoengineering means that BEFORE action is started (research or > deployment) there is an INTENT to use on global scale. > > An engineering solution is not Geoengineering merely because it impacts > the whole world, the intent to impact the whole world should be explicitly > be present and stated. > > The person who discovered fire did not INTEND to set fire to the whole > world, they just wanted to cook a hot meal. > The person who first cleared a forest with an axe did not INTEND to cut > down ALL the forests in the world, they just wanted to clear a small patch > of land to grow enough food for themselves, etc. > It is only incidental that all the people in the world adopted these > solutions and caused global impact. > > N fixation started AFTER the WHOLE world was surveyed and the TOTAL amount > of Nitrate deposits worldwide was quantified and it was computed that this > would be inadequate to kill or feed the world after a few decades. > > regards > > Bhaskar > > On Thursday, 11 July 2013 12:09:00 UTC+5:30, O Morton wrote: >> >> @ Andrew -- There is a continuum here, but i would distinguish >> "large-scale" and "global", and note that global effects of clearance on >> climate (as opposed to homogocene issues) not large, or even necessarily >> noticeable >> >> @ Fred -- method might be nice -- but read Crookes, the key document >> here, and the scientific method is not obvious. The fact that he was >> speaking to and trying to speak for a scientific elite matters, I think. >> Remember a key part of Bolin's plan for IPCC was to get global buy in to >> elite scientific view. Also note that I do not see elite in this context as >> pejorative, merely descriptive >> >> @ David -- Not quite sure why the existing political order is irrelevant, >> but in general i agree with Phil's informal definition -- except that I >> don't think limate is the only thing that can be geoengineered/ "Change to >> teh way the earth system works made deliberately not carelessly" would suit >> me fine. And I don't think introduction of agriculture was intended >> deliberately to change the earth system, while nitrogen was, to a >> significant extent. Green revolution is, after all, an expression of global >> geopolitics, named is specific opposition to the "red revolution" >> >> On Wednesday, 10 July 2013 17:38:45 UTC+1, David Lewis wrote: >>> >>> I wonder why it should matter who identified the problem or who thought >>> of the solution, i.e. a member or members of the scientific elite. Why >>> should it matter whether the perceived problem is obvious to the person on >>> the street? And whether the proposed solution or any solution other than >>> the proposed geoengineering scheme can be implemented easily by the >>> existing political order or not seems irrelevant. >>> >>> Phil Rausch recently gave a talk entitled Geoengineering at the AGU >>> Chapman conference on Communicating Climate Science (available >>> *here*<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=coa3VFcMCIA>) >>> where he referred to geoengineering as "the introduction of climate change >>> deliberately rather than carelessly", which seems to be at the heart of >>> what the word means to actively researching contemporary climatologists. >>> >>> Bringing the nitrogen cycle up while discussing geoengineering seems >>> useful as a way to talk about the fact that humans have had an impact on >>> the planet for some time, but the question is, does it advance the debate >>> to include it as geoengineering now? >>> >>> On Wednesday, July 10, 2013 3:43:49 AM UTC-7, O Morton wrote: >>>> >>>> David (and also Andrew),-- if you look at "Morton's reasoning" as >>>> expressed in the text, you'll find that I don't agree. >>>> >>>> The technology required for the industrial takeover of the nitrogen >>>> cycle did not appear through an unguided process of innovation, nor was it >>>> deployed that way; the foresight involved is part of what makes it a >>>> geoengineering technology in a way that other agricultural innovations, >>>> and >>>> indeed agriculture itself, are not. Nitrogen fixation was developed >>>> purposefully in response to a threat, which, while not obvious in everyday >>>> life, had been identified by the scientific elite. Like climate change >>>> today, that threat was seen as being of global significance and to have no >>>> easily attainable political solution. That justified a concerted effort to >>>> develop a technological response. Though people working in the climate >>>> arena may not immediately recognize this response as geoengineering, some >>>> of those working on the nitrogen cycle have no problem seeing it as such. >>>> >>>> -- 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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
