Hi Jim, Part of the purpose of the piece is to show how such an event can have diverse and contested interpretations; I appreciate hearing yours and Gloria's perspectives.
I do think the idea of village science is more than just a framing or PR, and worthy of further thought. For me "village science" connotes something about scale. I've been to HSRC's company office in Vancouver, as well as spent some time in the village of Old Massett, and there's a huge jump between the resources HSRC had and what would be available to a lab in a research university. You can hardly compare it— so I don't mean that all the work was literally done in a village, but that both the funds and the research protocol were smaller, more personal and DIY, than what you would get in what would have been a very expensive study if it had been done by an "established" research institution. I think it's village science by comparison to science with national-scale funding, levels of formality and hierarchy, less personal relationships, etc. The reason I think this is important to think about is that it's quite possible that people other than university scientists may want to participate in various types of science / climate remediation / geoengineering, and not all of them will be "rogue"; some may be concerned citizens or "makers", though of course at this point it's hard to imagine a group taking an action that has planetary-level effects. I think there's a cultural turn— with the idolization of Silicon Valley wizards who didn't go to college, and bootstrapping, and "everyone should learn to code", and the "maker movement"— towards people without advanced research degrees being involved in data-driven science, and not just for creating flashy apps, but for real-world problems. Traditional research institutions can try to keep a monopoly on "solutions" and research, or find more creative ways to engage with other groups who might have different methods and levels of expertise and resources. So it's worth thinking about what scales geoengineering might happen on, and the interactions between these scales, no matter if you're seeking moratoriums or increased research funding or governance protocols. Cheers, Holly On 15 Jan 2014, at 11:54 AM, jim thomas <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Holly > > Thanks for the interesting paper and comments below > > Regarding whether a cook describes themself as a cook or an engineer > describes themself as an engineer (does a con artist describe themselves as a > con artist??): I think you maybe give a little too much credence to John > Disney's after-the-fact claim that " I never once heard the term > ‘geoengineering’.". Of course its important to take your interview subjects > at their word and give them the benefit of the doubt but John Disney had > worked for many years with his colleague Russ George whose previous iron > fertilization endeavours with Planktos have been widely and very commonly > described as geoengineering going back to at least 2003. I find it very > surprising that John Disney would not have heard this word associated with > ocean fertilization. Russ George himself certainly knew his own work was > commonly described as geoengineering. Until last year Russ was the main mover > behind HSRC, he appears to have written all of their public materials, owned > a majority of the company, chaired the board and seemingly made all the key > decisions until he became too much of a liability for the Old Massett band > council to be associated with. All the deliberate framing of 'village > science' and 'stewardship of ocean pastures' is 100% Russ George PR talk. > > The 'village science' framing is especially open to question as to its > authenticity. As I understand it from reports out of the village and what > names were publically shared almost the entire crew of the Ocean Pearl was > non-Haida, - the same is true of its past and present day to day leadership, > The 'research' and most of the company activities was carried out in > Vancouver (not in old Massett). An account of what happened in the village by > Gloria Tauber which you can read on p4 of the attached newsletter describes > that the crew had been assembled and contracts signed before the village even > learned about the scheme. let alone voted on it. I just noticed that Gloria > has also posted an extensive response on your original piece that gives a > bit more of the 'village perspective'. > > a few other small points: > > You quote an interview subject (Macnamee?) as describing the research > purpose of the ocean fertilization event to be answering the question “Does > adding a trace amount of iron to an HNLC[1] ocean eddy located in a known > salmon migration route cause phytoplankton to grow, and if so, what are the > resulting environmental benefits or costs?”. Once again this is an > after-the-fact description. As far as i'm aware no research protocols were > ever made available to the scientific community (and many asked for them once > teh matter became public) around the event itself indeed John Disney, Russ > George and others didn't describe the iron dump as 'research' so much as a > commercial deployment - it was sold to the village as a carbon credit scheme > that would return monies almost immediately and as a salmon restoration > scheme - not simply a research voyage. it may have been sold to funding > agencies as a research activity in order to get monies for staff (the subject > of a dispute with NRCan as best i understand) and to borrow monitoring > equipment. It woudl be good to see the research protocols. > > You also report, based on an interview with an HSRC principal (Disney? > macnamee?), that Environment Canada was notified - however Environment Canada > claim that when they learned about the plans they met with HSRC and told them > that they considered such an activity to contravene the Canadian legislation > for dumping at sea and that a permit would be required - which was never > granted (or applied for?). This is the basis on which Environment Canada > later launched an investigation and raided HSRC's offices to seize evidence. > (HSRC disputes Environment Canada's legal interpretation) > > I also somewhat disagree with you characterisation of ETC Group's role - but > I realise that you are just reporting Josh Hortons point of view. We would > have been happy to have chatted directly about what happened so you don't > need to rely on a third party mischaracterization. > > Otherwise a very interesting paper - thanks > > Jim > > <ECO WG8J issue2 Oct13.pdf> > > > On Jan 15, 2014, at 11:16 AM, Holly Buck wrote: > >> 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. > > Jim Thomas > ETC Group (Montreal) > [email protected] > +1 514 2739994 > > > > > -- 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.
