Hi Folks, I haven't been able to read beyond the abstract, yet Buck seems to be giving us a foundational perspective as important as the Precautionary Principle. Her statement of: *"**The logic that shapes the geoengineering research process could potentially influence social ecologies centuries from now."* brings a spotlight to the issue of which type of projects should be given long term priority. SRM is important yet it is only a short term solution to a long term problem which has a multitude of attached issues. One avenue in which GE could be developed that would provide the broadest possible range of "social ecologies" for the long term, as well as climate warming mitigation, is found within the ocean based proposals. A well designed, organized and regulated large scale Ocean Afforestation/Mariculture project (combined with MCB) can provide for a wide range of humanitarian agendas such as food,fuel,fertilizer, jobs, room for climate refugees, ocean pH adjustment, SRM and direct air capture of CO2/CH4. All of these issues will eventually need to be addressed and provided for (for the foreseeable future). I believe Buck is correctly pointing out that GE can do far more than just address the first order technical issues of GW. If so, the only concept I'm aware of that can provide for that type of broad based vision is found within ocean based projects. The scale of a comprehensive ocean based project large enough to combat yearly emissions is hard for most people to conceive. The global surface area needed is continental in scale. Yet, our yearly population increase and the corresponding increase need for basic commodities can fill such a space within a few short years. The only long tern means to accommodate those needs, without transborder conflicts being a major limiting factor, seems to be expansion out into/onto the oceans. Our current 'social ecology' has little to do with the oceans beyond the endless (and damaging) harvest of the wild marine based biota, fuel and of course shipping is of major importance. Few realize that half of all wild caught fish are reduced to fish food! Clearly, the marine based oil and gas needs to be replaced with safer bio alternatives. And, if a major focus on ocean development is initiated, ocean transport would probably be revolutionized in short order (oceanic hyperloop?). However, the oceans can provide an even wider array of our basic needs and can provide them in a sound and sustainable way. The nutracline is the greatest store of nutrients on the planet and it is capped off by a highly active renewable energy environment. As we know, many groups and individuals are calling for a paradigm shift in thinking about our environment, resource management and "social ecology", as well as planetary cooperation at the environmental policy level. The $275B China is willing to spend over the next 5 years to clean up air pollution is a *SMALL* indication of the scale of the problem each nation faces on this meta issue. Marine based systems can pay for themselves over the long run, which is no small consideration. It may take over $8T just to compensate for our current level of environmental damage. For that cost, we deserve to see long term solutions at many different levels! We need a truly comprehensive meta plan which can address the first order environmental mitigation needs (GE) as well as the foundational matrix of issues which compel us to be so dysfunctional on the issues of food, fuel, fertilizer etc. Our species has few long term options which exclude the needed evolution of a large scale marine based meta system. I suspect that such an evolutionary step by our species (going back to the oceans) would eventually be recognizable as something of a oceanus hominis modification to the anthroprocene. Oceanic development could be a large game changer and may possibly provide for an ethical/sustainable social ecology so many desire. Any thoughts?
On Tuesday, August 13, 2013 11:38:11 AM UTC-7, andrewjlockley wrote: > > http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-7660.2011.01744.x/abstract > > Climate engineering, or geoengineering, refers to large-scale climate > interventions to lower the earth's temperature, either by blocking incoming > sunlight or removing carbon dioxide from the biosphere. Regarded as > ‘technofixes’ by critics, these strategies have evoked concern that they > would extend the shelf life of fossil-fuel driven socio-ecological systems > for far longer than they otherwise would, or should, endure. A critical > reading views geoengineering as a class project that is designed to keep > the climate system stable enough for existing production systems to > continue operating. This article first examines these concerns, and then > goes on to envision a regime driven by humanitarian agendas and concern for > vulnerable populations, implemented through international development and > aid institutions. The motivations of those who fund research and implement > geoengineering techniques are important, as the rationale for developing > geoengineering strategies will determine which techniques are pursued, and > hence which ecologies are produced. The logic that shapes the > geoengineering research process could potentially influence social > ecologies centuries from now. > -- 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
