I agree that we should not ignore 70% of the earth's surface in our attempts to manage our global climate, biogeochemical, and social problems. But we obviously need to figure out how to do this safely and sustainably. Ideas, R&D, and esp policies that support these are needed, e.g.: http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v2/n10/full/nclimate1555.html http://www.springerreference.com/docs/html/chapterdbid/303451.html
In this vane, I found this passage from below rather cryptic: "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." What if the "motivation", "rationale", and "logic" of the funders, (researchers), and implementors of global CO2/climate management are to carefully research the possibilities for preserving global ecologies and the societies that depend on them, and then to allow democratic implementation of those methods (if any) deemed safe and effective. How about some essays on this possibility, or would that be too much like science fiction for the ethicists? In any case, centuries from now "social ecologies" will bear little resemblance to the present ones, regardless of climate change or geoengineering. Let's first see if it's possible to preserve Earth habitability so that social ecologies will indeed have a chance to evolve. Greg >________________________________ > From: Michael Hayes <[email protected]> >To: [email protected] >Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2013 3:17 PM >Subject: [geo] Re: Geoengineering: Re-making Climate for Profit or >Humanitarian Intervention? - Jean Buck - 2012 - Development and Change - Wiley >Online Library > > > >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. > > > > > -- 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.
