Article - "As the [environmentalist?] thinking goes, a focus on future technology would be, at best, a distraction. At worst, having people think that there's an easy way out will make them apathetic and unwilling to make changes in the short term."
GR - Present day [conventional?] technologies that are now an essential part of solving AGW (e.g. wind turbines, solar PV, computers, etc.) were at one time "future technologies". Is it really a good idea to not to continually actively solicit and research new technologies in the off chance that they might provide a faster, cheaper, better way to to sustain the planet and avoid AGW? Or shall we go "fundamentalist", turn the clock back to pre-1750 and see how effective those technologies would be in feeding and clothing 7+B people while cooling the planet? Rather than downplaying technology, environmentalists need to embrace researching new and possibly better ideas, just in case presently available methods and policies (and thinking) continue to fail to deliver. -------------------------------------------- On Fri, 9/5/14, Andrew Lockley <[email protected]> wrote: Subject: [geo] Why Environmentalists Should Keep Quiet About Geoengineering | Smart News | Smithsonian To: "geoengineering" <[email protected]> Date: Friday, September 5, 2014, 2:23 PM Poster's note : this is a massive over interpretation of the research (see article for paper link), but still interesting http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/why-environmentalists-should-keep-quiet-about-geoengineering-180952629/ Why Environmentalists Should Keep Quiet About Geoengineering If it seems like there's a technological fix, people lose interest in helping By Colin Schultz SMITHSONIAN.COM AN HOUR AGO There's an oft-unspoken perspective within the circle of environmentalists, climate change researchers and activists that the less is said about pie-in-the-sky technological fixes to environmental issues the better. A massive global issue like anthropogenic climate change, they say, is most easily and most affordably fixed through policy—rules that reduce carbon dioxide emissions. Any talk of unproven technology like geoengineering will only hurt that effort. As the thinking goes, a focus on future technology would be, at best, a distraction. At worst, having people think that there's an easy way out will make them apathetic and unwilling to make changes in the short term. Psychologists Marijn Meijers and Bastiaan Rutjens have lent some empirical support to that opinion. According to their research, “experiments show that portraying science as rapidly progressing—and thus enabling society to control problems related to the natural environment and human health in the not-too-distant future—is detrimental to environmentally friendly behaviour because such a frame affirms perceptions of an orderly (vs chaotic) world." This in turn negatively affects the likelihood of engaging in environmentally friendly behaviour. Simultaneously, communication that questions (vs affirms) scientific progress leads to lower perceptions of order and consequential increases in environmentally friendly behaviour. These findings show that when the aim is to promote environmentally friendly attitudes and behaviour, it helps to not overstate scientific progress. The more we as individuals believe that scientific progress is key to solving our environmental problems, the less we feel we need to do anything to help. The more chaotic and out-of-control the world seems, the more we're driven to right wrongs. Describing the research, the British Psychological Society suggests a take-away for environmentalists and activists: "If they're doing something, I don't have to" is a lazy rubric in most situations, but it's hard to think of a more misguided application than to the maintenance of our living environment. Science cannot fully mitigate the ongoing environmental crises, so - whether through the day-to-day habits of energy efficiency or one-off decisions to invest in a home away from a flood plain - we need to be prepared to get stuck in ourselves. To support this, science communicators should be wary of presenting science as an unstoppable force, and instead highlight the fascinating truth: it's a process of inquiry that makes no promises. TAGS New Research Psychology About Colin Schultz Colin Schultz is a freelance science writer and editor based in Toronto, Canada. He blogs for Smart News and contributes to the American Geophysical Union. He has a B.Sc. in physical science and philosophy, and a M.A. in journalism. -- 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.
