List and ccs:
Four points in this response to Ms. Buck (whose comments below I like
and are unrelated to this message):
1. Ms. Buck has provided by far the most cogent social science (not
including ethics, but she would be good at that too) information, that I have
seen - on both parts of Climate Engineering (I am going to stop using the term
"Geoengineering"). Any academic social science program looking for a
soon-to-be PhD would be unlikely to find someone as good as Ms. Buck. Her
Master's thesis from Lund is well worth reading on media - but there are half a
dozen other recent papers by her worth looking at, in addition to her comments
on this list last December and January. I make this strong endorsement of her
future influence in part from a few off-list exchanges as well.
2. I had forgotten about CEC14 (mentioned below by Ms. Buck). Ms.
Buck has organized two sessions and is presenting in another. Her views on
social development could be ahead of anyone else's. So this is to hope someone
reading this will report back on how her views were received there. Of course
this applies to all parts of the conference, which seems to be attended by 90%
of this list. Wish I could be there. Congratulations to the Conference
organizers - Ms. Buck was one.
3. I could not recommend going to CEC14 for anyone (besides myself)
interested in biochar. Only one biochar expert I found listed (Jurgen Kern -
see http://www.biochar-international.org/profile/ATB_Germany). He is on a
Wednesday afternoon (one of five-breakout) panel of four German scientists in a
panel "Biogenic ......".
Why no more from the biochar community?
The main reason is that the usual ranking of CDR options completely
excludes the reason most biochar papers are written: soil improvement (which
has zero conflict with biochar's CDR capabilities, and which is going to
greatly reduce the eventual cost of this form of CDR).
A secondary reason is that the normal comparison of CDR options pays
scant attention to the carbon-neutral energy aspects of biochar - shared only
with BECCS. BECCS has no favorable out-year impacts on soil, with some on
energy production, whereas biochar has favorable long-term impacts for both.
Biochar will even provide both more energy and more sequestration in the long
term.
A third reason is that exemplified by Ms. Buck's work - that biochar
has a strong (Social Science) societal constituency; there are dozens of local
biochar support groups worldwide (including University degree programs).
Hundreds of companies are being formed to meet this need - one at least with
plenty of funds - seemingly unknown to CE analysts.
This and similar conferences are unlikely to hear from biochar
proponents until the ranking of CDR approaches includes more than (only)
conservative assumptions about annual sequestration capability (ignoring the
huge problem areas of soil, energy, water, food, fertilizer, waste, public
support, etc.)
4. These co-benefits of biochar also seem unfathomable to the several
anti-climate-engineering (and anti-biochar) folks presenting earlier on
Wednesday. This is also to request that CEC14 attendees tell us how any CDR
topic came across (assuming we will hear lots on SRM) among the anti-CE
attendees.
Ron
On Aug 4, 2014, at 9:50 AM, Holly J <[email protected]> wrote:
> I basically agree with Ken's observations. I also share concerns about the
> proliferation of non-novel writing, but I don't think these consume effort or
> postpone action.
>
> At least two factors are driving the production / overproduction of
> literature. One is the crisis in academia-- by that I mean that you have an
> overproduction of Ph.Ds relative to tenure-track positions (basically 1
> position for every 4 PhD graduates in the 1980s, compared to 1:14 today--
> that's in the sciences). Besides the numbers game, universities overspend on
> administration and new buildings & face diminishing state support-- so less
> jobs-- and for the jobs that are there, published papers are an increasingly
> important metric to sort through those applications, and I'd bet hiring
> committees don't read for the quality of every published paper for every
> applicant. So there's an incentive to publish quantity over quality. This
> is a systemic problem which goes way beyond geoengineering (at least in the
> US context).
>
> Secondly, it's hard to generate new data without funding. Again with the US
> context-- the NSF has a $7.4 billion budget with $267 million for the social,
> behavioral, and economic sciences, with people in Congress who would like to
> see that 3.5% share reduced-- and you can imagine how much of that anyone's
> interested in spending on geoengineering. There's quite a pressure to
> generate novel, publishable insights with limited resources. For really
> interesting stuff-- e.g. large-n studies to examine attitudes towards
> geoengineering in developing economies, in-depth studies-- the money /
> interest is not there at present. However, it seems that the national
> science councils in the UK are good about funding social science research
> about emerging technologies, and there's interesting work coming from it.
>
> But this social / governance production doesn't take place at the expense of
> the biophysical science. Firstly, if it's not good work, it's just going to
> lie silently on an Elsevier server for eternity; chances are it won't have a
> life in the world that affects much. Secondly, the institutional
> arrangements for funding and publishing in these fields are usually separate.
> All of this could take place simultaneously with no trade-offs, and even no
> interaction. That would be a shame, though, and the work that the summer
> school conveners and CEC14 has done towards encouraging interaction and
> collaboration is really important. One place where the fields do meet is in
> news articles, where journalists want to report on the science and then get
> quotes on governance, usually also hoping for some tension or adversarial
> structure, which helps generate more clicks. Hopefully the collaborations
> can help us improve the quality of journalism & public awareness.
>
> All of this is yet another illustration of how science and society develop
> together, & science grows up in a social context that determines which
> questions are asked & funded. That's another reason why a "first x, then y"
> approach doesn't make too much sense to me.
>
>
>
> Cheers,
> Holly
>
>
>
> On Aug 3, 2014, at 14:40 , Peter Flynn <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Andrew et al.,
>>
>> Thanks for your comments. I share the view that endless discussions of how
>> to regulate geoengineering consume effort and postpone action.
>>
>> Many years ago I was working on a major project, multi-billions of dollars,
>> in the early conceptual stage. We had a schedule of eight to ten years to
>> startup. The then quite old project manager made a comment that stuck with
>> me my whole life: "If this was World War II, we would do this project in 30
>> months. So the question is, how much longer do we need because it isn't
>> World War II."
>>
>> I have the same sense of addressing climate change, both by emission
>> reduction and by geoengineering of impact: it isn't yet "World War II"
>> urgency. But as Andrew notes, we get closer to the waterfall....
>>
>> Peter
>>
>> Peter Flynn, P. Eng., Ph. D.
>> Emeritus Professor and Poole Chair in Management for Engineers
>> Department of Mechanical Engineering
>> University of Alberta
>> [email protected]
>> cell: 928 451 4455
>>
>>
>>
>> From: [email protected]
>> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Stephen Salter
>> Sent: August-03-14 10:56 AM
>> To: [email protected]; Ronal Larson
>> Cc: Andrew Lockley; Geoengineering
>> Subject: Re: [geo] Enough of govern-nonsense
>>
>> Hi All
>>
>> Please excuse any query marks which Thunderbird thinks should be added to my
>> emails without troubling to inform me.
>>
>> I foolishly started saving papers on 'geo-politics' some time ago.?
>> Sometimes there were several a day, many very similar.? Some were even about
>> the number of papers.? The folder now has 3400 files.?
>>
>> There are about 30 really useful papers on climate models.? I know of? 5 on
>> engineering hardware to actually do something unless people can tell me
>> about any more.? Perhaps someone should write a paper about the balance of
>> effort.
>>
>> Stephen
>>
>>
>>
>> Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design. School of Engineering. University
>> of Edinburgh. Mayfield Road. Edinburgh EH9 3JL. Scotland [email protected]
>> Tel +44 (0)131 650 5704 Cell 07795 203 195 WWW.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs YouTube
>> Jamie Taylor Power for Change
>>
>> On 03/08/2014 17:42, Ken Caldeira wrote:
>> From the perception of a physical scientist,h it seems that to publish a new
>> physical science paper you need new facts, but to publish a new "governance"
>> or "ethics" paper you just need opinions, and it seems like they don't even
>> have to be new opinions.
>>
>> Much of the low-hanging fruit that could be picked by climate modeling has
>> already been picked, so in the absence of physical experiments, it is
>> becoming harder and harder to generate new empirical facts. ?On the
>> contrary, the number of people who feel a need to express their opinions on
>> governance and ethics issues appears to be growing daily.
>>
>> As a consequence, it seems as if the ratio of governance/ethics papers to
>> papers reporting new empirical facts is increasing without bound.?
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________
>> Ken Caldeira
>>
>> Carnegie Institution for Science?
>> Dept of Global Ecology
>> 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA
>> +1 650 704 [email protected]
>> http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab??
>> https://twitter.com/KenCaldeira
>>
>> Assistant: ?Dawn Ross <[email protected]>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Aug 3, 2014 at 9:04 AM, Ronal W. Larson <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>> 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 [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 [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 [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.
>>
>> No infections found in this outgoing message
>> Scanned by iolo System Shield
>> http://www.iolo.com
>>
>> --
>> 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.
--
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.
