Hi Ron et al, Regarding your point 3 - well, I certainly wouldn't be the first to point out the messiness or flaws in the umbrella term, and don't have too much to say beyond what you suggested. It seems likely that "geoengineering" will be maintained as a concept / "socio-technical imaginary" by people who find it useful— e.g. bloggers who want a sci-fi edge for click-bait, or people who oppose it and believe that it reveals some essential tendency in the way the world is working and find it an evocative descriptor of a certain mentality towards human-earth relationships. It seems likely that people developing technologies will just use the words for the technologies themselves, as there's not much added advantage in branding them as "geoengineering" as the connotation becomes increasingly negative.
I'm not sure what would change up those tendencies… what's would be interesting would be to ask a search engine optimization person what they think. Terminology & language has always evolved with some mix of intention & organic growth, but now there are a class of professionals who engineer keywords— and the keywords matter more these days, since the path to information now often begins with hearing a keyword. I also think it would be interesting to look more deeply at the "geoengineers" implied by the word "geoengineering", as it tends to call up a Cold War command-and-control era figure, which I think is out of date and somewhat misleading in an era of appreciating uncertainty and complex systems. This is to some degree what I tried to do in the case study, as I think talking to people about their motivations and visions can help get at this question of who "geoengineers" are and what geoengineering is. The case showed that geoengineering isn't necessarily defined by the people doing the project, which is out-of-sync with most endeavors (a writer wouldn't be surprised when she's called a writer, a cook knows they're a cook, and an engineer probably knows they're an engineer). Holly On 14 Jan 2014, at 4:56 PM, Ronal W. Larson <[email protected]> wrote: > Greg, cc Holly and list > > 1. I agree with all you say about avoiding the term “geoengineering”. I > do the same. > > 2. But I see no way to eliminate its use - especially because there are > so many who want to retain it. The genii is out of the bottle. The yolk and > the white (already scrambled) can no longer be put back in the egg. > > 3. This is to ask Holly if she has any further (coherency/stability) > thoughts on her final sentence below (that won’t detract from her thesis) - > to start the “due” evolution. > > Ron > > > On Jan 14, 2014, at 12:35 PM, Greg Rau <[email protected]> wrote: > >> As for Holly's parting comment: >> The [An?] umbrella term is useful in that it invites comparison of different >> possible approaches to address climate change. Still, the evolution of the >> umbrella term “geoengineering” into something more coherent and analytically >> stable is probably due." >> >> Agree that geoengineering is no longer descriptive or useful. As we've >> previously discussed, how about "climate intervention" to include all >> potential methods of mitigating or avoiding AGW? Even this does not capture >> all of the rationale for CO2 management in that ocean acidification is not >> addressed by the preceding "umbrella". In any case in describing my work my >> tack has been to avoid the use of "geoengineering" and to explicitly state >> what it is I'm trying to do - "CO2 removal", CO2 management", "CO2 >> mitigation", etc and let the evaluation of socio-ecological risks and >> benefits be based on the specific actions I'm proposing, and not biased by >> the real or imagined risk/benefit of some totally different approach like >> SRM. >> >> Greg >> >> From: Ronal W. Larson <[email protected]> >> To: Geoengineering <[email protected]> >> Cc: [email protected]; Holly Buck >> <[email protected]> >> Sent: Tuesday, January 14, 2014 8:14 AM >> Subject: Re: [geo] Case Study by Holly Buck on Haida Gwaii OIF demonstration >> >> List with ccs >> >> 1. Thanks to Sean for the alert of a paper I think is important. >> Important on two grounds - the Haida/OIF controversy (I am not qualified to >> discuss, but think we have not heard enough) and the use of the term >> “Geoengineering” (where I have been regularly commenting and also think we >> have not heard enough). Ms Buck is knowledgeable on both - and from a >> social science perspective, again about which we do not hear enough. >> >> 2. Ms Buck’s last few sentences sum up the article and issues well: >> >> "It is not possible to separate out “geoengineering” activities from these >> socio-ecological concerns; nor is it possible to cleave it from natural >> resource use and access, which are at the heart of this project.[30] [RWL: >> [30] is open source at http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol17/iss1/art24/ >> (no time yet to read, but looks highly pertinent) >> In conclusion, this case has pointed to the mounting set of problems with >> the umbrella term “geoengineering.” As a linking term, “geoengineering” >> served to connect the salmon restoration project not just with solar >> radiation management, but with imaginaries of global control, fossil fuel >> industry corruption, conservative think tanks, and a whole web of signifiers >> that are unconnected with this specific project save the semantic link. In >> this case, it was useful for activists to link the project to solar >> radiation management and other contentious strategies. Yet it is absurd to >> link these techniques— with their varying scales, mechanisms, and >> motivations— and at the same time keep them separate from “usual” >> planetary-scale modifications, such as runoff from industrial agriculture or >> deep-sea trawling. The umbrella term is useful in that it invites comparison >> of different possible approaches to address climate change. Still, the >> evolution of the umbrella term “geoengineering” intolaunch something more >> coherent and analytically stable is probably due." >> . >> 3. I think/hope I am in agreement with Ms. Buck, re the use of the term >> “Geoengineering” to appropriately include both SRM and CDR. The problem is >> too often the use of “geoengineering” to refer only to “SRM”. I have yet to >> see the reverse problem, with CDR. >> It seems too late to redefine “geoengineering, but I would not want >> to anyway. As Ms Buck is pointing out, we just have to make sure that >> decisions on both sides of the “Geo” world are made on more than costs >> related only to carbon. We need more papers on doing either, neither, both, >> or in-between. I have yet to see an adequate metric for comparing SRM and >> CDR on costs. Any out there? My suspicion is that the method will be one >> based on life cycle costs - and for this comparison, the problems are >> horrendous, if you include co-benefits such as carbon neutral energy and >> soil improvements. >> >> Ron >> >> >> >> On Jan 14, 2014, at 5:12 AM, Geoengineering Our Climate (eds. Blackstock, >> Miller and Rayner) <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Dear colleagues, >>> >>> For the Geoengineering Our Climate? Working Paper Series, Holly Buck >>> (Cornell University) has written a case study on the Haida Gwaii OIF >>> demonstration, titled: "Village Science Meets Global Discourse: The Haida >>> Salmon Restoration Corporation's Ocean Iron Fertilization Experiment". >>> >>> In this short study, she explores the tension between citizen / >>> village-scale science and institutional science, the media response to the >>> event, the slippery definition of geoengineering, and repercussions for >>> governance. >>> >>> The article can be read and downloaded at: >>> http://geoengineeringourclimate.com/2014/01/14/village-science-meets-global-discourse-case-study/ >>> >>> >>> Best wishes to all, >>> >>> Sean Low >>> >>> -- >>> 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. > -- 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.
