As a fellow attendee, I fully agree with the accuracy and sentiment of David's comments. It was a welcome improvement on previous gatherings - in this series and beyond.
Diversity is essential, and the organisers took it seriously. However, capacity building within geoengineering academics in the developing world is a vital, but long term project. Research capacity is not built in a day, and there was an obvious capability gap to be bridged with respect to academic experience in geoengineering social and physical sciences in the developing world. A On Aug 20, 2013 3:20 PM, "Keith, David" <[email protected]> wrote: > George**** > > ** ** > > Your recent post about the summer school mentioned that “...it was still > difficult to escape being struck by the perception that at this juncture > North/Western elites are proceeding ahead with very little input from the > global South”.**** > > ** ** > > Two comments.**** > > ** ** > > First and most important: it’s true. It’s a serious problem. A debate > about managing the planet’s climate must be more inclusive if it’s to have > any legitimacy.**** > > ** ** > > Second, it’s also true that the organizing committee of this school worked > very hard to expand the dialog. A few examples:**** > > **· **27% of students were from outside Europe and north America, > and about a quarter of the total of the total budget was spend on > supporting travel for students from developing countries (travel for > students from Europe and North America was generally not supported). **** > > **· **By many measures this was the most diverse of the four > geoengineering summer school’s held so far; and, it may have been the most > diverse large meeting on geoengineering ever held anywhere. **** > > **· **Beyond disciplinary and geographical diversity the school > also aimed to shift the dialog away from the norm in which the old and > powerful dispense “wisdom” to the young. The first day’s lectures which was > the only complete and comprehensive set of lectures during the school was > entirely presented and largely managed by early career researchers—no > tenured faculty. **** > > ** ** > > None of these facts contradict your basic point which is correct and > relevant. They do however shed a different light on the actions and > intentions of the organizers.**** > > ** ** > > Thanks for raising the topic.**** > > ** ** > > David**** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > *From:* [email protected] [mailto: > [email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Fred Zimmerman > *Sent:* Wednesday, August 14, 2013 10:49 AM > *To:* geoengineering > *Subject:* [geo] reflections on summer school at Harvard**** > > ** ** > > There have been quite a few messages posted this week from attendees at > the Fourth Interdisciplinary Summer School on Geoengineering held at > Harvard last week August 5-9, but I haven't seen an overview, so I thought > I would take a stab at it.**** > > ** ** > > *Atmospheric overview: *There were about 65 people present; about 2/3 > were graduate students and postdocs in their 20s and 30s with a variety of > outliers (like me) of different (i.e. older) ages and roles. The gender > split appeared to be about 70/30 and about 75% of attendees were from the > Northern and Western (i.e., Kardashian) hemispheres. Despite the best > intentions of all concerned, it was still difficult to escape being struck > by the perception that at this juncture North/Western elites are proceeding > ahead with very little input from the global South. Meetings were held in > Pierce Hall (old red brick, comfy leather chairs) and Maxwell Dworkin > (newer, named after the mothers of donors Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer). > The agenda was jam-packed: 10-15 speakers the first day with 300+ > powerpoints, 170 the next day, an all-star debate Wed. night--and it was, > frankly, quite tiring! The dorm accommodations at Tufts were slightly > inferior to a minimum-security Federal prison (no TVs in the rooms, > linoleum floors) so it was a relief to set off every day on the morning > hike to campus which passed through Davis and Porter Squares. Overall, the > student organizers did a great job.**** > > ** ** > > *Substance:* Here are a few of the points that seemed most interesting > *to me* -- others surely have different perspectives.**** > > - There is still considerable controversy about whether SRM sulfate > injection can deliver sufficient negative radiative forcing to offset > anthropogenic component to warming. From reading enthusiastic articles I > had formed the impression that this was settled. In fact, there is > considerable debate over whether there is a saturation point that limits > the RF from stratospheric sulfate injections. **** > - A relatively lightweight SRM plan described by David Keith could cut > the *rate * of climate change in half. I think of this as the > "mini-Me" plan since the resources required are within the reach of the > average mini-mogul, i.e. 2 Gulfstreams a year ultimately ramping up to 40. > Because the sulfate injections in this plan are much less than required to > set off 2xCO2 doubling, the costs and potential side effects are also much > less. Crucially the lower level of injections reduces the risk from > "termination shock" of discontinued SRM causing rapid warming. Keith was > arguing that the mini-me plan should be included in assessments of > geoengineering impact and feasibility and he convinced me.**** > - A presentation by Eva Ahbe et al. showed what the sky would look > like after an injection of sulfates sufficient to offset 2xCO2: a halo > around the sun and no more blue sky -- anywhere on earth. (!!!!)**** > - Everyone still wants to talk about governance. David Keith made a > persuasive argument that NSF and other funding agencies can and should get > involved in laying out guidelines in the very near future. In all > likelihood these guidelines would set de facto standards going forward > which can stand in while the global community struggles to agree upon a > 192-country framework. **** > - There was relatively little discussion of climate science. Most of > the discussion was within the framework of "we may find that we have to > deliver an emergency negative radiative forcing, here are some of the > issues." I found this rather jarring as I am more accustomed to reading and > writing about the climate system as an integrated system-of-systems, > terrestrial, atmospheric, oceanic, land use, water use, energy metabolism, > etc., etc. SRM would be a new subsystem that would plug in to the existing > system of systems and have interactions and feedbacks with all of them. In > terms of geo*engineering* this systems perspective is also important: > systems integration is often a major source of technical and project risk. > **** > - There was relatively little discussion of natural variability in > climate and climate history. I thought this was a problem as it seems to > me that there will be a lot of challenges in untangling SRM contributions > from an already extremely tangled web of physical signals that we are > already struggling to understand (the error bars in many RFs are still > quite high). I would think that with the commencement of SRM everyone who > is measuring forcings would have to revisit their methods to account for > the new influence. That is a huge ripple effect on all of climate science > and would add uncertainty throughout the system precisely when the major > research focus of the IPCC is to reduce it.**** > - Oliver Morton of the Economist gave a reading from his work in > progress on geoengineering entitled "The Deliberate Planet". Morton is a > very talented writer - he reminds me (in an inverse way) of those studies > of Alzheimer's patients where they show that thought density of journals at > age 20 is a good predictor of susceptibility to Alzheimer's in later age. > Morton's writing style has a very high thought density or level of useful > brain convolutions! In this title he puts his fingers on something I find > fascinating about geoengineering, which is the question whether this would > be a brutal and hopefully one-time emergency intervention, or whether it is > instead a natural evolution in the progress of the species towards > conscious ongoing management of Earth's habitability (e.g. the work by > Rockstrom, Hansen et al. to identify safe planetary boundaries for climate > change).**** > > Enough for the moment; too short on time to expound further and probably > at the useful limit for email anyway. Please no one be offended by my > paraphrase of your thoughts or words!**** > > ** ** > > Cordially,**** > > ** ** > > Fred Z.**** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > Fred Zimmerman**** > > Geoengineering IT! **** > > Bringing together the worlds of geoengineering and information technology* > *** > > GE NewsFilter: http://geoengineeringIT.net:8080 **** > > -- > 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.
