Andrew cc list
Can we assume that your use of the term "geoengineering" below is meant
to ONLY include the term "Solar Radiation Management " (or SRM) or "Solar
geoengineering"? You do not mean to include the terms "Carbon Dioxide
Removal" (CDR) and "Negative Emissions Technologies" (NETs)?
Ron
On Aug 3, 2014, at 8:56 AM, Andrew Lockley <[email protected]> wrote:
> Just a personal opinion, but one that's been brewing for a while. I
> am definitely NOT writing this in my capacity as list moderator!
>
> I'm concerned that governance and social policy research is not always
> entirely what it seems. My suspicion is that it's potentially a
> delaying tactic. This work is advocated by funders and politicians to
> avoid grasping the nettle of seemingly-odious experimentation. I'm
> not saying that anyone who works in the field is acting in bad faith,
> but there's a risk that social/governance work is supported because
> there's a need to 'do something' about geoengineering, but not
> actually to do anything that would possibly upset anyone. The risk is
> that such lily-livered prevarication stops us learning crucial lessons
> about the science - lessons which would help us better answer the
> governance questions (which we delay the science in order to seek
> answers to).
>
> To make genuine, effective policy decisions, we need accurate
> information about the science and engineering. Governance research in
> a 'fact-vacuum' achieves little. Governance decision-making without
> the friction of urgency lacks realism. The problem with the
> 'governance first' approach is that it leads to bad, ill-informed
> governance - 'govern-nonsense'. To do good governance, we need a
> 'science first' approach, which strives to provide complete and
> accurate information to policy makers. This simply can't be done
> dependably without experimentation. With the exception of some small
> ocean iron fertilisation trials, there have been no
> officially-sanctioned outdoor experiments on geoengineering. As a
> result, we have wasted years of progress into deployment technology,
> aerosol physics etc.
>
> The problem with the current timidity is two-fold. Firstly, we don't
> have full factual information about the technologies. Secondly, we
> have an artificial sense that decisions about deployment are far into
> the future. As a result, we don't have the heated and crucial
> discussions about deployment, which are actually what governance IS.
> Both of these elements are the true feedstock of a proper governance
> process, and both are held up by a lack of experimentation and
> technological development - which is in turn held up by the very
> governance research which is ostensibly aiming to assist the process.
> It's like an evil chicken and egg scenario.
>
> There seems to be both an explicit and implicit view that more
> 'governance' is needed before any 'offensive' outdoor research can be
> done. This can be interpreted as governance of the research agenda,
> and of eventual deployment. But the result is still the same - we
> delay and delay, whilst sailing closer and closer towards the
> waterfall.
> My personal view is that we are wasting valuable time. We need to
> sweep aside the social policy work and get on with the science,
> without obsessively worrying about the consequences. Do we delay
> physics at CERN, because someone may in future develop a Higgs-field
> death ray? No. Do we insist on social policy research before
> developing Google Glass? No. There are many other fields where
> governance is equally 'required' as it is in geoengineering - and it
> is absent. We are not being asked to research governance in these
> fields because people do not fear research on them. Governance is
> still required, but it is not conducted at present, because there is
> nothing anyone wishes to delay.
>
> We must recognise and resist what is happening. When we're implored
> to delay science to research or establish governance, we need to ask a
> simple question: 'is the benefit of delay worth the risks of delay'.
> We could wait another 5 years before doing the first test flights, or
> launching the first ships. We would have a lot more papers on
> governance, and yet we would really be no further along in the
> governance process. We'd have another 5 years of climate change under
> our belts, with all the effects, both reversible and irreversible,
> that go with it.
>
> I think the true governance work has a clear start date. It's when we
> have a shiny aerosol plane sitting on the runway, full tested and
> ready to deploy - with its performance well studied. Only when the
> engineering team asks the question 'Do you want us to fly this thing
> tomorrow, in ten years, or never?' will governance discussions start
> with the information and urgency needed to do the job properly. Anyth
> such discussion beforehand is just govern-nonsense.
>
> Any comments?
>
> A
>
> --
> 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/d/optout.
--
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/d/optout.
