I heard much more talk at CEC14 about reducing risk posed by attempts to reduce risk from climate change than I heard about attempts to reduce risk from climate change.
There was what seemed to me to be a dangerous meme of geoengineering exceptionalism, that for some reason geoengineering research should be treated differently than other forms of research. With rare exception, shouldn't all research, especially publicly funded research, be open and transparent, make underlying data available, be sensitive to social needs and concerns, seek to minimize risk, seek appropriate public input, etc? There is nothing exceptional about geoengineering research. I started out the meeting asking two questions: 1. What is the problem? 2. What is so special? My answer to the first question is that the problem is how to reduce risk from climate change. My answer to the second question is that there is nothing special about geoengineering research -- let's see an end to 'geoengineering exceptionalism'. -- _______________ Ken Caldeira Carnegie Institution for Science Dept of Global Ecology 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA +1 650 704 7212 [email protected] http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab https://twitter.com/KenCaldeira Assistant: Dawn Ross <[email protected]> -- 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.
