Andrew, list, adding the author, Nils (short bio at
http://www.sts.aau.at/eng/Team/Researchers/Matzner-Nils)
1. I found a wide range of mostly PPts (a few papers such as that cited by
Andrew) at this STS conference site:
http://www.sts.aau.at/ias/IAS-STS/Publications/Proceedings-STS-Conference-Graz-2014
This conference looked interesting, but not to many papers on CE-related
topics.
2. Nils' Ppt has a specific cite that I couldn't copy, but anyone wishing to
see his Ppt can find it about 1 page down at the above cite. I thought his Ppt
to also be well done and ask Nils to post an address for the PPt. Also send us
the last slide so I can ask a few further questions. This is an interesting
slide I have not seen before. His Ppt includes the words "afforestation" and
"biochar" on a different slide.
3. The rest is to bring Nils work (with his valuable Political Science
perspective) more into this list's discussion on governance, as I want to ask
about a few suggested modifications - such as these three of his sentences:
a. "Furthermore CE needs transnational modes of governments ,"
"Furthermore at this time, most but not all CE needs transnational modes
of governments ,"
b. "For citizens side effects of CE will remain dangerous but not risky."
"For citizens, at this time most but not all side effects of CE will remain
dangerous but not risky."
c. "Responsibility and governance are important to be discussed
immediately"".
Responsibility and governance at this time, most but not all CE are important
to be discussed immediately."
4. Nils (and others): can you concur that some CE approaches can allow the
exemptions I am trying to bring into the thought processes behind your paper
and Ppt? In particular, I am thinking of afforestation, reforestation and
biochar. All three are now happening widely, mostly on privately held land,
and no obvious negative impact obviously important to neighboring countries,
much less even counties. And plentiful positive impacts. And they have
histories over milennia.
I have included a time element because all three approaches obviously
could take out more CO2 than would be wise, and at least biochar be justified
by individual farmers/foresters for its soil improvement and renewable energy
economic values. Decades from now, when it might appear we will blast past
350 (or other) ppm, slowing CDR/NET down obviously should be a reason for
international discussion. But I feel it would be unwise to wait for such a
political discussion now, when we are unlikely to see a peak CO2 level for many
decades, even under the most aggressive CDR/NET program imaginable. Time is
short.
Admission/disclosure: I think Political Science to be a most important
discipline - having worked for the US. Congress and worked in local politics as
well.
Thoughts?
Ron
On Aug 5, 2014, at 1:21 PM, Andrew Lockley <[email protected]> wrote:
> Matzner, Nils (2014): Responsibility and Governance of Climate Engineering
>
> Attached
>
>
> --
> 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.
> <Matzner_paper.pdf>
--
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.
