Greetings, a few points to clarify: -- I wouldn't argue that geoengineering for profit is unethical, full stop. It's usually more complex. Suppose, for example, that you had an indigenous group whose population had been reduced to more than 90% during colonialism, that regulations and ecological changes made it difficult for them to earn a living from the sea, and that their land was heavily logged and they wanted to make a living without cutting down all the trees around them, so they started some (working, socially accepted and tradable) carbon sequestration project to earn a living that didn't involve destroying their land. I wouldn't say that was unethical.
What I say in this article is that the institutional design matters. As does the logical and rationale of the funders. Hence, highly financialized schemes might not work. I'm not a trained ethicist and generally don't frame things that way; what I see is a system of perverse incentives, where investors in a get-rich scheme have an incentive to see more global warming happen, so they make more money. That seems like a looming design flaw to me. There are probably systems that can be improved (like REDD+) which turn a profit for someone somewhere which is helpful. It's important who the funds are flowing to, how, and why. -- The private sector isn't the only driver of economical growth. But that isn't even the right question here. A slightly better question: *What is the driver of technological progress?* It's not just the private sector. Many tech developments have important public sector roots. Thank god for the public sector role in ARPANET, and that our networks use many standards that aren't proprietary: think how much more expensive and obnoxious the internet would be to use if it was more for-profit. Any kind of carbon management should probably be a distributed, collective, crowd-sourced effort with a huge public role in R&D and development. This isn't so much an ethical position as one that looks at how current peer-to-peer big-data type trends are going and sees how information processing power could maybe help coordinate a resilient distributed network type system. I realize how abstract this is getting, so: A much better question: *What is the driver of social progress?* When it comes to the remarkable drop in the US violent crime rate, reduced deaths from drunk driving or plane crashes, reduced smoking, reduced infant mortality in much of the world— quality-of-life and civic health trends are shaped by non-marketplace forces like culture, government interventions, public service announcements (see Steven Johnson, *Future Perfect*, as this is his argument paraphrased). In case it's not clear why this question is relevant, it's because 1) climate change is a social problem as it comes from flaws in our socio-economic-political structure, hence geoengineering to "solve" climate change is a social act; 2) even if you don't believe that, many critics see geoengineering as a strategy being planned to evade social improvements and keep the rich staying rich, so that's a conversation that needs to be had with them. -- As far as implying that we shouldn't keep existing systems functioning, I do more or less imply this in my article— but the point is that existing systems need to be transformed because they don't work for billions of people: the people who have no access to energy, the people who can't drink the water or use their land because some oil company polluted it, etc. So it's more accurate to say that I want to see our energy systems start functioning more equitably for everyone, probably according to some kind of distributed design with a public role. best, Holly Jean On Sat, Aug 17, 2013 at 5:02 AM, Robert Tulip <[email protected]>wrote: > Michael, sketching the “social ecology” of possible future oceanic > geoengineering technology would seem to some readers to veer into science > fiction. And yet, there are good reasons why such a possibility should > be researched as a potentially practical strategy, as you suggest. The > physical ecology of our planet is bursting at the seams in terms of global > warming, species extinction and habitat loss, resource security, human > population, and potential for war and economic failure. Our global > economy struggles with seven billion people now, let alone with the > projected nine or ten billion population that could be alive later this > century. What Holly Jean Buck has termed 'social ecology' is the > determinant factor in sustaining physical ecology in the Anthropocene.**** > ** > To prevent conflict and collapse, we actually do need to develop > transformative visionary ideas involving better use of the oceans. The > oceans are the primary new frontier for the twenty first century, both in > terms of how we can protect them and how they can be turned to productive > sustainable use. Innovative pioneering technology, including > ocean-focused geoengineering, is the best insurance to make global systems > more robust against possible shocks and protect against the economic > fragility that climate change will bring.**** > The world ocean occupies 71% of our planet and contains well over a > billion cubic kilometres of water, soaking up anthropogenic warming with > consequences for climate change on land and at sea. My view, as flagged > at the MIT CoLab Geoengineering competition, is that we should experiment > with simple fabric technology to build floating platforms using bags of > fresh water at sea. This concept could be scaled up profitably with > potential applications for climate stabilisation and industrial production. > **** > Holly Jean Buck’s abstract cited below implies that geoengineering for > profit is unethical. I prefer to view the profit motive as the best > incentive for rapid expansion, innovation and results. The private > sector is the driver of economic growth. A new “social ecology” focussed > on applied oceanic technology can be regulated to achieve environmental > goals within a capitalist market framework. **** > The political economy of these debates is fascinating. Some > environmentalists bring dubious assumptions to bear. I have argued that > continued fossil fuel production can be compatible with climate > stabilisation, but only if we store more carbon than we emit, and that > this could be possible through large scale ocean based algae production. This > geoengineering approach jars against the widespread view that emission > reduction is the only path to climate stability. Holly Jean Buck implies > that we should not try to keep existing systems functioning, and that a > “critical reading” of geoengineering ideas sees capitalism as a central > problem. I have read Buck’s article, and can forward it to anyone > interested.**** > Part of the “social ecology” of a future oceanic civilization could > involve active technological management of carbon on a scale far larger > than we have imagined to date. Seeing carbon as a valuable commodity > provides the prospect of mining it from the atmosphere. Wave and tide > power could make this geoengineering goal economic on large scale. The > conversation about these topics should be opened up.**** > Robert Tulip > *From:* Michael Hayes <[email protected]> > *To:* [email protected] > *Sent:* Wednesday, 14 August 2013 8:17 AM > > *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. > -- 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.
