Mr. Zhang: (with ccs)
1. You are correct. I apologize for over simplifying on what your paper
said. I try below to be more specific.
You broke your analysis into six parts.
# 1: 2.1. An Argument on Complex Cross-Boundary Feedbacks in
Human-Environment System
[RWL: Nine paragraphs. This is where the meat of this article resides. I now
see this is the only place in the article where strong comparative statements
are made between CDR and SRM - and where there are ideas and figures that
provide new insights. I like this section. You said (emphasis added)
a. Our rationale here on the superiority of CDR over SRM, however, gives an
alternative philosophical argument that aids our strategic decision making.
b. The rationale here argues that from the “proximity of stake to
catastrophe” perspective, by analyzing the feedback system, CDR is “less
proximate” than SRM to human stakes.
[Less is to be preferred]
c. Through a “proximity of catastrophe to stake” argument, CDR prevails over
SRM because it leaves more “buffer time” for humans to take urgent remedy
actions if a severe impact in a system occurs due to improper planetary
intervention. (This last from the conclusions section.)
#2 2.2. Can We Afford It?
[RWL: 3 paragraphs. Of course, mostly this community agrees that
there is a large cost advantage for SRM. But this section notes many cost
downsides and warnings as well. If I were an SRM proponent, I wouldn’t use
this section to claim victory.
#3. 2.3. Can Cost-Benefit be the Only Criterion
[RWL: 2 paragraphs. Seems to argue much more against least cost SRM,
as implied by the section heading’s question. Term here is CO2 mitigation, but
seems to mean CDR.
#4. 2.4. Conflicting Interests and Values
[RWL: 3 paragraphs. No comparisons provided, but almost everyone
agrees that CDR is the less controversial of the two approaches being discussed.
#5. 2.5. Lack of Central Geoengineering Governance Authority
[RWL: 2 paragraphs. No definitive comparative statement, but CDR
seems to be a winner here, since its governance, almost by definition, need not
be “central”.
#6 2.6. The Tuxedo Fallacy in Geoengineering Decision Making
[RWL: 1 paragraph Tuxedo refers to looking at risks as at a
roulette table. I think most geoengineering analysts and this paragraph are
saying that there are lower risks for CDR. No simple quote to provide, but I
read this last also as favoring CDR.
In sum: after a close secondary reading, I stand by my original statement on
the article favoring CDR. But I did incorrectly state that there was a full
comparison of CDR and SRM. That applies only to the first of the six
categories. I’d like to hear from anyone agreeing with Dr. Zhang that there
was no winner described.
3. Thanks for the additional leads.
I found Prof. Allenby’s material somewhat helpful, but I hope his
including bioethanol as geoengineering is not followed.
4. You have done an apparently excellent job in defining “wickedness”,
including the phrase ..” difficult, if not impossible, to solve…” I hope this
list can today reject the “impossible” part of this. This list has had
similar disagreement on the term “irreversible”. Many on this list have
concluded that CDR solutions will (repeat will) permit near term “
reversibility” - at least of atmospheric carbon levels and global surface
temperatures (not deep ocean carbon or temperature). So. I hope this list can
have arguments/dialog about topics like that, facilitated by this article. I
agree on the “difficult” part of the definition.
5. Wiki on wicked problems gives a very helpful set of 10 characteristics -
for those wanting to read more about wickedness.. It also talks about “super
wicked”, with the standard example being climate change, the four additional
characteristics also being given in the Zhang paper.
Time is running out.
No central authority.
Those seeking to solve the problem are also causing it.
Policies discount the future irrationally.
I think one CDR solution (biochar) today 1) still allows enough time if we
get on it, 2) does not require a central authority, 3) has “solvers”
available who are not causing the problem, and 4) I don’t see irrational
discounting (positive economic returns are sometimes seen even in the first
year, and several cultures have used biochar practices for millennia, without a
climate motivation - showing discounting has worked).
6. Further on super wickedness of the climate topic, I found this paper’s
abstract helpful:
“Overcoming the tragedy of super wicked problems: constraining our future
selves to ameliorate global climate change”
Kelly Levin, Benjamin Cashore, Steven Bernstein, Graeme Auld
at: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11077-012-9151-0
with a version possibly similar but free at
http://environment.research.yale.edu/documents/downloads/0-9/2010_super_wicked_levin_cashore_bernstein_auld.pdf
But like Zhang-Posch, not at all detailed on the CDR approaches and not even
much quantitative on the SRM-CDR difference.
A few more inserts below:
Ron
On Nov 10, 2014, at 1:32 PM, ZHANGYanzhu <[email protected]> wrote:
> The paper does not only discuss ethical principles. Instead, the paper
> discusses a range of aspects in order to outline the wickedness and
> complexity of geoengineering, just like Brad Allenby puts it "wicked
> complexity". Therefore, the paper elaborates on six arguments: complex
> cross-boundary feedbacks, economic affordability, decision-making criteria,
> conflicting interests and values, lack of central governance, and tuxedo
> fallacy of decision making, not just ethical aspect, or just cost aspect, but
> different aspects.
>
> As geoengineering is a wicked problem that transcends the boundaries between
> science, ethics, politics, economy, culture and environment. So it is no
> wonder that we include ethics, economics, values, governance, decisions etc.
> in the discussion and reflection of this cross-boundary wickedness and
> complexity.
>
> Is this paper, we have not concluded any preference between SRM and CDR.
> Instead, we have discussed that from one perspective, perhaps SRM is
> preferred, from another perspective, perhaps CDR is preferred.
[RWL: What I read was more nearly one strong, detailed preference (#1-
proximity and other) for CDR, a weak preference (#2-cost) for SRM and four mild
preferences (3-6) for CDR. I’d appreciate hearing if others thought the
article was about 50-50? I hope later papers addressing wickedness and
especially super-wickedness will be as quantitative in comparing SRM and the
numerous different types of CDR as was the first section.
> Since such conflicting attitudes surface up from social, economic and
> environmental world views in the international community while we lack
> central governance for its decision making, geoengineering remains
> controversial and a wicked problem, which is exactly the topic of the paper.
[RWL: I think there is broad agreement on this last sentence. The
question that needs answering is are there CDR approaches with a much lower
level of wickedness than SRM (as was essentially claimed by Prof. Robock today.)
>
> For maximin rule, I recommend the following reference:
>
> Luce, R.D.; Raiffa, H. Games and Decisions: Introduction and Critical Survey;
> Wiley: New York, NY, USA, 1957
>
> For precautionary principle and maximin rule, I recommend the following
> reference:
>
> Gardiner, S.M. A core precautionary principle. J. Polit. Philos. 2006, 14,
> 33–60.
>
> Besides, please find in literature:
> “Gardiner refers to his version of the maximin rule as a "core precautionary
> principle". It is by and large equivalent with the anticatastrophe-principle
> developed and defended by Sunstein (2005).”
> Source: Betz, G. The case for climate engineering research: an analysis of
> the “arm the future” argument. Climatic Change, 2011, 111 (2), 473–485.
> doi:10.1007/s10584-011-0207-5.
>
> “The maximin rule can be used as a formal version of the precautionary
> principle.”
> Source: Hansson S.O. The Limits of Precaution. Foundations of Science
> 11-1997, Volume 2, Issue 2, pp 293-306
>
> I also recommend the following articles by acclaimed Industrial Ecology
> professor Brad Allenby
>
> Geoengineering redivivus
> http://elementascience.org/article/info:doi/10.12952/journal.elementa.000023
>
> Wicked Complexity and False Certainty
> http://www.greenbiz.com/blog/2007/10/01/wicked-complexity-and-false-certainty
[RWL: Thanks for these additions.
>
> Hope I have cleared some of your misunderstandings.
[RWL: I did have some misunderstandings, but we probably disagree on
what.
Ron
>
> I welcome discussions, supports or rebuttals from other researchers, perhaps
> in their future publications referring to this paper. As geoengineering
> remains wicked and controversial, it is certainly not strange that there
> exist different opinions, perspectives and worldviews. I also think our human
> civilization could keep forward only if we keep reflecting on the human
> behaviors, planing our future actions with precautionary awareness, and keep
> learning from each others, keep listening to different perspectives and
> opinions.
>
> I will not give any further email reply. But I welcome your ideas in your
> future scientific publications.
>
> Yanzhu ZHANG
>
>
>
> Subject: Re: [geo] The Wickedness and Complexity of Decision Making in
> Geoengineering
> From: [email protected]
> Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2014 11:36:06 -0700
> CC: [email protected]; [email protected]
> To: [email protected]; [email protected]
>
> Joshua and list (and adding the two authors)
>
> 1. Thanks for this lead to what I think will be an important
> geoengineering comparison. Not only that there are few papers that
> analytically compare CDR to SRM, but state a clear preference for one or the
> other. Mostly Zhang-Posch compare based on ethical principles, but they
> discuss costs.
>
> 2. I hope SRM advocates will take this chance to rebut the Zhang-Posch
> stated preference for CDR.
>
> 3. My main “beef” is that CDR was treated as a single entity. I hope
> Zhang-Posch will now add a second paper doing the same analyses for the main
> CDR approaches. Not as stark differences as between SRM and CDR, but this
> list continually notes that CDR is not one technology.
>
> 4. I like their two figures, but feel more differences will show up
> when they (hopefully) modify Figure 2 for different CDR approaches (as I
> don’t see it adequately covering biochar - which term is never mentioned).
> Also hope they can distinguish on such a figure between costs and benefits
> (positive and negative feedbacks). The time dimension is included more than
> most such figures.
>
> 5. Because they emphasized the term, I looked up “minimax” on Wiki and
> found this new-to-me philosophic/ethical principle (my emphasis added)
> “In philosophy, the term "maximin" is often used in the context of John
> Rawls's A Theory of Justice, where he refers to it (Rawls (1971, p. 152)) in
> the context of The Difference Principle. Rawls defined this principle as the
> rule which states that social and economic inequalities should be arranged so
> that "they are to be of the greatest benefit to the least-advantaged members
> of society".[6][7]
>
> 6. Probably would fail with Ayn Rand or the new US Congress, but might
> get a super majority if voted on by all 7 billion of us.
>
>
> Ron
>
>
> On Nov 10, 2014, at 4:35 AM, Joshua Jacobs <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Are these guys from upstate Maine? No, Austria... Wicked!
>
> Another for the policy wonks.
>
> http://www.mdpi.com/2078-1547/5/2/390/htm
> The Wickedness and Complexity of Decision Making in Geoengineering
> Yanzhu Zhang 1,2,* and Alfred Posch 1
> 1
> Institute of Systems Sciences, Innovation and Sustainability Research,
> University of Graz, Graz 8010, Austria
> 2
> MIND Education Program in Industrial Ecology, European Commission Erasmus
> Mundus Coordination Institute, Graz 8010, Austria
> *
> Author to whom correspondence should be addressedExternal Editor: Andreas Manz
> Received: 26 May 2014; in revised form: 29 October 2014 / Accepted: 30
> October 2014 /
> Published: 6 November 2014
> Abstract: Geoengineering, the deliberate large-scale manipulation of the
> planetary environment to counteract anthropogenic climate change, has been
> more widely considered as an accompanying strategy to conventional climate
> change mitigation measures to combat global warming. However, this approach
> is far from achieving agreements from different institutional domains.
> Geoengineering, intended to be deployed on a planetary scale, would cause
> fundamental interventions to the human-environment system and create new
> risks and problems with high uncertainty and uneven distribution around the
> globe. Apart from the physical effects, conflicting attitudes appear from
> social, economic, and environmental worldviews in the international
> community. The intertwined sociotechnical complexity and conflicting
> attitudes make geoengineering a wicked and complex issue. This article
> elaborates the wickedness and complexity from a system perspective, primarily
> for an interdisciplinary, policy-oriented audience.
>
> --
> 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
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.
