Maybe i missed something, but what is "carbon negative biofuel production"?
Greg
________________________________
From: [email protected] [[email protected]] on
behalf of Michael Hayes [[email protected]]
Sent: Saturday, February 01, 2014 11:33 AM
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Re: [geo] Geoengineering in a World Risk Society - By Tina Sikka.
Oscar,
The premise of the paper is highly biased. To quote: "I argue that it is their
inherently global, unpredictable, uninsurable and potentially catastrophic
character, which can be both inimitable, frightening,......".
Carbon negative biofuel production is not "unpredictable", "uninsurable",
"potentially catastrophic", "inimitable" nor "frightening". The same can also
be said about MCB, direct air capture, biochar, olivine in its' many uses, flue
capture etc.
By characterizing the entire geoengineering tool box as Frankensteinish, the
author shows her lack of in depth understanding of the science and engineering.
Emily makes a good point in that we are constantly involved in activities which
affect our planetary ecology. The truly "frightening" thing about these
undeclared GE activities is that few have environmental or social value. GE has
great potential for both.
Best,
On Wednesday, January 29, 2014 9:07:32 PM UTC-8, Oscar Escobar wrote:
Dear Emily,
I am sorry you chose to focus on such narrow area of the paper, in which she
perhaps did not elaborate appropriately. But she does so a bit more in the main
body, if you read the complete work. Even so I think that , 'outlandish' is one
of the more terse terms I have heard used to describe geoengineering in a
negative manner. And I mean terse, compared to some other adjectives used by
some geoeng. proponents.
What I though more important than her assessments of individual techniques, was
that, even though she is highly, and rightfully, critical of GE, she highlights
the importance of not only the public's participation in the dialogue but the
need for continued research.
Now the fact that a few 'lay persons' may have a chance to post here, doesn't
mean that the public at large is involved in the conversation. Consider that
Geoengineering has been talked about (with its present CO2 focus) at least
since the 1970s, and yet the science in general is still presented as new.
Regarding her assessment that continued research is needed, I would think that
is something geoengineering researchers would welcome.
Dear Dr. Salter,
Thank you for the paper, I have read and written a little on the cooling
effects of these type of clouds and the hydrological cycle in general.
I am not a professional scientist. I blog and comment from a layperson's point
of view. I guess the knowledge I do possess is what the average lay person with
some interest may be able to gather these days.
I would generally agree with you that we need to know more. But, why not start
first by being exhaustive about knowing the effects of aviation emissions and
ship tracks, which are two of the closest anthropogenic analogs ("albeit
imperfect") to SRM?
Regarding the roll of clouds, and in my limited capacity, I have written a few
entries in my blog such as these:
On cirrus: A SAFER ALTERNATIVE TO SOLAR RADIATION MANAGEMENT
http://geoengineeringclimateissues.blogspot.com/2013/03/a-safer-alternative-to-solar-radiation.html
On type of cloud: Short cutting the cooling properties of the hydrological
cycle
http://geoengineeringclimateissues.blogspot.com/2013/04/short-cutting-cooling-properties-of.html
Water vs Heat - Re. Global warming affects crop yields, but it's the water not
the heat
http://geoengineeringclimateissues.blogspot.com/2013/03/wow-out-just-today-march-4-2013-eye.html
Best Regards,
Oscar Escobar
A #Geoengineering #Climate Issues Blog - Geoingeniería
On Wednesday, January 29, 2014 3:01:47 AM UTC-5, Emily L-B wrote:
Hi thanks for this. Perhaps it is a cultural or translation issue, but
'outlandish' is quite an 'outlandish' word for a scientific paper. - I am
struck by the application of this term for painting roofs white, OIF and
mirrors in space because taking these examples, we do all of these things
already:
We have, i dont know how many, black rooves in the world already(why is white
worse);
We pump sewage and drain fertiliser from the land around the world in I dont
know what quantity daily in very concentrated time and space in inshore waters
which are much more vulnerable (fertilising the ocean in shallow seas with low
water exchange often);
And we pump i dont know how much dust into the atmosphere daily, globally, on a
rather large scale.
On top of these, we are already doing an amazing amount of other things to
Earth on the most incredible scale. And we dont seem to be able to agree to
stop.
I am not sure i understand why efforts with the intention of being positive are
viewed so negatively when things we do in full knowledge of their negative
impacts are allowed to continue and increase with little or no successful
strategies to stop them.
Best wishes,
Emily.
Sent from my BlackBerry(R) smartphone on O2
________________________________
From: Oscar Escobar <[email protected]>
Sender: [email protected]
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2014 18:24:12 -0800 (PST)
To: <[email protected]>
ReplyTo: [email protected]
Subject: [geo] Geoengineering in a World Risk Society - By Tina Sikka.
Hello all,
A short intro about me. My name is Oscar Escobar, I blog about geoengineering
(climate engineering) here:
A #Geoengineering #Climate Issues Blog - Geoingeniería
Geoengineering - Climate Engineering from a layman's critical perspective.
http://geoengineeringclimateissues.blogspot.com/
Previously I described myself as 'opposed' to geoengineering. This continues to
be largely accurate in the case of SRM and OIF deployment. But I do think that
more public knowledge is important for all concerned.
Twitt here: @oscare2000 https://twitter.com/oscare2000
paperli http://paper.li/oscare2000/1347466963
This article by Tina Sikka stroke a chord with me, I am posting it here hoping
it helps in broadening the conversation,
best regards,
Oscar Escobar
Lakeland, FL - EEUU
Geoengineering in a World Risk Society
By Tina Sikka.
(Full paper in academia.edu<http://academia.edu> (scroll down a few pages)
https://www.academia.edu/5672333/Geoengineering_in_a_World_Risk_Society
Abstract:
http://ijc.cgpublisher.com/product/pub.185/prod.126
Published by The International Journal of Climate Change: Impacts and Responses
In the following paper, I draw on Ulrich Beck's model of the world risk society
to examine, unpack and critique geoengineering technologies. Briefly,
geoengineering can be defined as large-scale technological interventions into
the environment in an attempt to mitigate or even reverse climate change. They
include such proposals as painting the surfaces of buildings white to reflect
the sun's rays, placing mirrors in space for similar ends or the more
interventionist seeding of oceans with iron in order to encourage the growth of
carbon absorbing algae blooms. What is startling about geoengineering is that
despite its seeming outlandishness, it has recently been seriously considered
by a number of governments, corporations, research institutes and professional
scientific bodies.
In an attempt to better understand and appreciate the possible normative,
political, economic and environmental consequences of such large-scale
technological interventions, I have found Beck's thesis of reflexive modernity
and the world risk society to be particularly useful and illuminating.
Essentially, Beck's thesis is that we live in a world that distinguished from
the past by the extent to which it is constituted by global technological risks
that one, tears down traditional boundaries between people and their
environments (de-localization); two, resists anticipation by conventional
scientific and/or rational means; three, denies compensation or insurability
against danger; and four, re-orients social attention to the constant
anticipation of catastrophe. These risks, as Beck argues, "represents a shock
for the whole of humanity" who never could have anticipated "the
self-destructiveness-not only physically but also ethical-of unleashed
modernity" (Beck, 2006, p. 330).
In applying these insights to geoengineering, it becomes clear that these
technologies are, by definition, risk technologies. I argue that it is their
inherently global, unpredictable, uninsurable and potentially catastrophic
character, which can be both inimitable, frightening, which renders them in
need of further study. As such, in undertaking an examination of these
questions, I have chosen to divide this article into the following sections: I
begin with a brief introduction to geoengineering technologies and discuss not
only what they are and what they are supposed to do. Following this, I delve
into a more considered discussion of how geoengineering technologies are in
fact risk technologies as Beck defines them. I begin with an overview of
reflexive modernization, followed by discussions Beck's concepts of risk,
insurability and responsibility, and subpolitics, which I use to examine
geoengineering in turn.
--
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.
