Hi there, Albeit rapidly, we treated some social sciences and risk theory aspects in the paper quoted below (also available via Researchgate). Your feedback will be welcomed. Best wishes, Marc
Marc Poumadère Institut Symlog 262, rue Saint-Jacques 75005 Paris France + 33 1 40 46 00 29 / + 33 6 03 22 53 59 [email protected] Poumadère, M., Bertoldo, R. and Samadi, J. (2011), Public perceptions and governance of controversial technologies to tackle climate change: nuclear power, carbon capture and storage, wind, and geoengineering. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change. doi: 10.1002/wcc.134 From: Andrew Lockley Sent: Tuesday, August 04, 2015 7:32 PM To: David Grober-Morrow Cc: Peter Irvine ; geoengineering Subject: Re: [geo] 2 quick questions for Social scientists, humanities researchers, philosophers of SRM Pete, Sorry for rudely having a second go (when I'm not eligible for a first go)... But one thing that's becoming increasingly apparent is that there's a risk of delay in action (see today's media frenzy over Ken's paper). So it would be great if we could have more research on the consequences of faffing about and not doing geoengineering until it's too late. Eg starting in 5 yrs vs 20, and whether we need a hard start (cooling) medium start (no further warming) or soft start (reduce rate of warming). Thanks Andrew On 4 Aug 2015 15:39, "David Morrow" <[email protected]> wrote: Hi Pete: Building on the suggestions others have given, I'd add two more specific things to study in more detail: 1. Potential high-damage side effects of SRM, such as a major decline in the Indian Ocean monsoon. 2. Risks that would be slow to materialize, but that might make people want to discontinue SRM after a lengthy deployment. Through some conversations prompted by your and Andy Parker's ideas on termination shock, I came to think that the real worry about termination shock is that if unexpected side effects developed slowly, they might become hard to bear only at the point where discontinuing SRM would cause a serious termination shock. And then, as Konrad Ott has argued, future generations would be stuck in a dilemma of tolerating those side effects during ramp-down or coping with termination shock. But what might those side effects be? Can we anticipate them? Also, in connection with Holly's point, one thing to bear in mind is that if SRM is ever deployed, it won't be deployed by benevolent global social planners looking to maximize inequality-adjusted global welfare (or whatever). So in thinking about what kinds of deployment scenarios to model, it might be illuminating to study the kinds of deployment scenarios envisioned in, e.g., Ricke, Moreno-Cruz & Caldeira (2013). Hope that's helpful! David On Sunday, August 2, 2015 at 5:53:27 PM UTC-4, Ron wrote: Peter: 1. I have just started reading a text where (almost Dr.?) Holly Buck is one of 13 different chapter authors. See https://books.google.com/books?id=__7FdtVobcAC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_atb#v=onepage&q&f=false for this book edited by Christopher Preston. Her contribution re your topic is positive - saying that justice and development can possibly be furthered with SRM. 2. It would help advance your query if we knew more about whether any of your simulations to date have shown substantial variation that might favor Holly’s “development-justice” interests. For example do you see any major change in developing country impacts (rainfall, etc) with the same sulfur inputs at different altitudes and latitudes? Are there ways for SRM to favor developing over developed countries? Ron On Aug 1, 2015, at 1:25 PM, Peter Irvine <[email protected]> wrote: Hi all, Thanks for the thoughtful responses. To summarize crudely: Suggestions to improve output from scientists to social scientists: - Assess more tangible things - Perhaps: Coral reefs, the amazon rainforest, iconic species? - Provide more details of regional climate response + its uncertainties. - Put the biogeophysical projections in the context of the site-specific societal factors that will shape its effects on peoples lives. Thing to bear in mind: don't think about it as if there were output "from scientists to social scientists" - this is an issue that requires more linked-up thinking. I agree that its critical to think about the issues around SRM in a joined up way but my concern is how do we do so without becoming paralyzed by the complexities of the issues involved? I'd suggest that we do need to divide up the issues somehow (though perhaps not along traditional disciplinary boundaries) to reduce the complexity enough to grasp the nature of parts of the issue which can then be reassembled to form a clearer picture of the whole. Thanks again, and please feel free to add more suggestions and thoughts. Cheers, Pete Peter Irvine Research Fellow Institute for Advanced Sustainability Studies (IASS) Berliner Str. 130, D-14467 Potsdam Tel: 0049 331 288223 68 Email: [email protected] On 1 August 2015 at 20:50, Holly J <[email protected]> wrote: Hi Pete, Thanks for the thought-provoking questions. As a social scientist / geographer working with questions of "development", I'd answer: 1) With regards to its consequences, what one thing would help you to better understand the implications of SRM for your area of interest? More detailed and uniform, spatially explicit social / demographic baseline data about pretty much everything: employment, income, infrastructure. Land tenure data, forest resource use, agricultural techniques; the social aspects of land use that can't be remotely sensed and are expensive to collect reliable data on. Even if biophysical scientists working on SRM had fantastically predictive impacts models, understanding the implications for social dynamics (conflict, inequality, livelihoods etc.) relies on acquiring more granular, reliable knowledge of specifically who lives where, and how they live. (Apologies, not an answer many physical scientists working on SRM can do much with - needs massive funding from national & international agencies worldwide to address!) 2) What one thing do you wish that those of us working on the physical consequences of SRM would bear in mind? That the social impacts / consequences / implications don't inhere in the technologies themselves, or perhaps even in the method and process of "deployment": the social implications depend on the social / cultural / political context in which SRM is used. This seems so obvious that it maybe shouldn't even be mentioned, but often both research design and casual conversation leaves it out— it's almost reflexive to talk about "societal impacts" of geoengineering as if society is a "thing" which responds to geoengineering as a stimulus external to the system. Or to project SRM done in the future into a social world that looks like today's. To some degree I understand why this is the case: it's "too big" to look at how migration policy, or instability in the "Middle East", or new biotech crops, or changes in income inequality, or corruption, would work with whatever precipitation patterns are predicted to influence the social implications and real social costs or benefits of doing SRM. Obviously, the sheer complexity is easier to address when the knowledge is simplified broken up into specific domains for specialists. Yet I do think we, collectively, could produce more relevant and interesting research if we figure out how to think and talk about the problem somewhat differently (with less of a we do x, y happens model / research question framing). Cheers, Holly -- Ph.D. Candidate / Development Sociology Cornell University / [email protected] On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 8:20 PM, Jon Lawhead <[email protected]> wrote: Hi Pete et. al., Philosopher of climate science here, for what it's worth. I'd echo what the others have said here with respect to your first question. It's very important that we get a better understanding of the magnitude and distribution of regional variation in both SRM effectiveness (that is, reduction of radiative forcing and/or associated average temperature drops) and in associated side-effects (especially on the hydrological cycle). Whether or not SRM via aerosol injection is the sort of thing that would be worth trying--and in what circumstances it would be worth trying--depends very strongly on the nature of our best estimates of those two things, as well as our confidence in those estimates. While some uncertainty is obviously unavoidable, the wide disparity in model estimates of these factors right now is incredibly worrying. Your second question seems more complicated (if that's possible). My first instinct is to suggest that even this way of framing the question highlights something that's a cause for concern: namely, that there is (or ought to be) a sharp delineation between those who are working purely on the physical consequences of SRM, and those who are working on SRM as a piece of a broader social, political, and humanistic problem. Climate science in general--and the physical basis of geoengineering in particular--represents a multidisciplinary problem that's virtually unprecedented in the history of science. Attempting to divorce the physical investigation from more "messy" real-world concerns of implementation and governance strikes me as very dangerous, and likely to lead to serious problems down the road. Keeping one eye on the fact that this is a deeply multifaceted issue with significant implications for political scientists, economists, philosophers, and many other is absolutely essential if you're going to produce models that have relevance for making collective decisions with respect to the implementation of this stuff. The burgeoning integrative assessment approach to looking at SRM (as well as climate science more generally) is really heartening to see, and I think it's important that even those who are steeped in the day-to-day arcana of developing and improving specialized physical models maintain close ties to that community--and that the community be enlarged as much as is necessary to include even more perspectives. Asking questions like those you're asking here is, in other words, absolutely essential. If ever there was a time when the physical sciences, social sciences, and humanities need to work closely with one another in pursuit of a common understanding, it is surely now. It's vital that we all see ourselves as engaged in a single project, and that we maintain the kind of dialog this thread has opened up. Those of us who aren't directly engaged in the modeling project have a responsibility to understand the output of our best contemporary science to the best of our abilities, and those of you who aren't directly engaged in the social or humanistic evaluation of the policies suggested by those models have a responsibility to understand how your work fits into the larger context. I think that, by and large, both "sides" of this project have been doing admirably well so far, but that both sides can also probably continue to improve going forward. I'll add in more relevant thoughts if/when I have them. Thanks for opening up this topic. Naturally, Jon Lawhead, PhD Postdoctoral Research Fellow University of Southern California Philosophy and Earth Sciences 3651 Trousdale Parkway Zumberge Hall of Science, 223D Los Angeles, CA 90089-0740 http://www.realityapologist.com On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 2:05 AM, p.j.irvine <[email protected]> wrote: Hi all, As you might know, I work primarily on the climate response to SRM and I'd like to know how we can better understand the implications of SRM and how those implications will depend on what we discover about its likely consequences. So if you have the time, I'd like all you social scientists, humanities researchers and philosophers of SRM to answer these 2 questions: 1) With regards to its consequences, what one thing would help you to better understand the implications of SRM for your area of interest? 2) What one thing do you wish that those of us working on the physical consequences of SRM would bear in mind? These don't have to be easily achievable and feel free to be controversial but I'd like to get a taste for what people feel we'll need to do to understand this issue better. Cheers, Pete -- 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. -- 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.
