Ken etal 1. I concur on that sentence. The literature on biochar that I read certainly includes the public (and only rarely any "elite").
2. We have mentioned Dr. Sikka's name before on this list. The new article being pricey, I found a similar free article of the same time frame at: http://www.academia.edu/2646863/A_Critical_Discourse_Analysis_of_Geoengineering_Advocacy The sentence there that made me laugh (and cry) is on p. 173, in the second from final paragraph: Further, as I have argued, there are other significant problems with geoengineering whichtend to stem from the fact that it fails to address the root cause of climate change, i.e. toomuch carbon in the atmosphere, and would thus be a temporary stop gap, if it worked at all. Further, as I have argued, there are other significant problems with geoengineering whichtend to stem from the fact that it fails to address the root cause of climate change, i.e. toomuch carbon in the atmosphere, and would thus be a temporary stop gap, if it worked at all. "Further, as I have argued, there are other significant problems with geoengineering which tend to stem from the fact that it fails to address the root cause of climate change, i.e. too much carbon in the atmosphere, and would thus be a temporary stop gap, if it worked at all." 3. Clearly her CDA (Critical Discourse Analysis) methodology was leading her only to SRM material (and she DID clearly define geoengineering to be both SRM and CDR). The fault for that lies with the definition, but also with those discussing the topic in the policy discourse circles she was looking at. Your messages of the last week on redefining "Geoengineering" would have made her analysis more correct, but we would still have the problem of getting the CDR (or , per Andrew, GGR?) message across as well. I am afraid that your (and my) attempts to change the definition will still leave a big communication hole. Perhaps getting rid of the word "Geoengineering" all together - maybe starting with changing the name (but not the membership) of this Google group. Ron On Sep 27, 2013, at 3:13 AM, Ken Caldeira <[email protected]> wrote: > I laugh: > > The central argument is that the material and discursive monopolisation of > geoengineering research and discussion by elite groups—political, economic > and scientific-technological—has led to the marginalisation of the public > from this debate ... > > One of the main discussion fora about geoengineering research is this google > group, which is open to anybody who has anything even semi-coherent and not > completely redundant to say. > > > > _______________ > Ken Caldeira > > Carnegie Institution for Science > Dept of Global Ecology > 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA > +1 650 704 7212 [email protected] > http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab @kencaldeira > > > > > On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 10:11 AM, Andrew Lockley <[email protected]> > wrote: > http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-3-642-31110-9_35 > > Climate Change and Disaster Risk Management > Climate Change Management 2013, pp 535-551 > > An Analysis of the Connection Between Climate Change, Technological Solutions > and Potential Disaster Management: The Contribution of Geoengineering Research > > Tina Sikka > > Abstract > > In this article, the author uses a critical political economy approach to > provide a basic topology of the current state of geoengineering research, > funding and testing. The central argument is that the material and > discursivemonopolisation of geoengineering research and discussion by elite > groups—political, economic and scientific-technological—has led to the > marginalisation of the public from this debate and has presented a distorted > view of its (geoengineering’s) need. Its connection to the main theme of this > conference is located in the very clear nexus between climate change, the > potentially disastrous outcomes of increased global warming and an > examination of the potentially equally dangerous consequences of > technologically intensive solutions (like geoengineering) that do not address > but disregard the core problem: overconsumption based a resource-extractive > and energy-intensive economic system. This piece begins with a brief > introduction to geoengineering technologies. I then outline the critical > political economy approach which is, at its core, a historically and socially > reflexive method that focuses on unpacking the “production and reproduction > of…structures” (Mosco 1996, 29) of privilege, followed by a brief > justification of why it is pertinent in this context. Following this, the > author delivers a critical snapshot of some of the most striking, and > simultaneously troubling, geoengineering research currently taking place > worldwide. The paper ends with a call for the public to get aggressively > involved in learning about geoengineering and engaging in critically informed > geoengineering activism, both online and offline > > > -- > 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.
