List:
1. I found that this book (in e-book form) was in my price range -
$7.69 at Amazon (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00KU2H6U0?ref_=kcp_mac_dp
<http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00KU2H6U0?ref_=kcp_mac_dp>). I was reading
it within 5 minutes of starting the search. The book review below by Ross
Gillard looks accurate.
2. I have now used the Kindle search engine enough to see that there
was nothing negative about CDR. I couldn’t find a way to copy from it or would
quote the little about biochar (some positive). The three other CDR approaches
listed in his Box 1.1 are ocean fertilization, carbon capture and storage
(often called DAC on this list - not talking BECCS here [this missing item is a
major surprise]), and Enhanced Weathering. About these four, his last words
early in the book are: “They are not my target”.
3. But especially the SAI approach to SRM certainly is his target. As
noted below, there are three lines of argument. With my new $7.69 purchase, I
look forward to being able to understand why SAI or SRM proponents feel Dr.
Hulme’ “Case” is wrong about desirability, governability, and reliability.
Ron
> On Jan 27, 2016, at 1:56 AM, Andrew Lockley <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> http://psw.sagepub.com/content/13/4/600.full
> <http://psw.sagepub.com/content/13/4/600.full>
> Doi: 10.1111/1478-9302.12101_62
> Political Studies Review November 2015
> vol. 13 no. 4 600
>
> Book Review: General Politics: Can Science Fix Climate Change? A Case against
> Climate Engineering
>
> Can Science Fix Climate Change? A Case against Climate Engineering by Hulme
> Mike. Cambridge: Polity Press,2014. 158pp., £9.99, ISBN 978 0 7456 8206 8
>
> Ross GillardUniversity of Leeds
>
> Stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI) is the flagship geoengineering
> technology, often touted as a direct solution to climate change, whereby
> solar radiation is reflected back into space to prevent further warming of
> the planet. In this short and punchy book, Mike Hulme presents three clear
> lines of argument to suggest that such a global-scale techno-fix is precisely
> not what is needed. After describing SAI as undesirable, ungovernable and
> unreliable, Hulme concludes with a call for more pragmatic approaches to
> dealing with the hazards of a changing climate and a degree of pluralism and
> reflexivity in the way we frame the problem(s)/solution(s). This sensitivity
> to the power of problem framings and the fuzziness between research and
> practice will be familiar to anyone who has read Hulme's other publications
> or who comes from a critical social sciences background. However, even those
> new to the geoengineering debate, or to climate change more generally, will
> have no problem with the content or prose. Key details are helpfully boxed
> into case study vignettes so the overall narrative flows from beginning to
> end.
>
> The approach of (re)framing a complex issue to make somebody else's framing
> and arguments seem ridiculous is nothing new in the world of social science.
> However, that is not to say it is not a valuable exercise. Hulme does not
> change the terms of reference (that climate change is caused by, and
> threatens, current human way(s) of life), but he does interpret them
> differently to proponents of geoengineering and SAI in particular. Viewing
> climate change as a ‘super-wicked problem’ (undefinable and unsolvable) (p.
> 138) makes the notion of a single, silver-bullet solution such as a
> controlling the Earth's temperature seem laughable. Put simply, SAI cannot
> control regional climates, it doesn't solve the ongoing international
> deadlock in the climate governance regime and its unforeseeable side-effects
> are irreversible. If you accept Hulme's (and many others’) insistence that
> climate change is about more than just Earth's temperature, then his
> arguments for abandoning SAI and hubristic geoengineering in favour of
> ‘climate pragmatism’ (pp. 122–30) will certainly appeal. According to this
> broad characterisation, a social and political response to climate change
> would focus on fostering social resilience, reducing all harmful emissions
> and pursuing sustainable energy production and provision, while a scientific
> response would be merely to control the climate. Deciding which is most
> appropriate, or ‘rational’, depends on your rationale, but this book makes a
> convincing argument for the former.
>
>
> --
> 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]
> <mailto:[email protected]>.
> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
> <mailto:[email protected]>.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering
> <https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering>.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout
> <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 https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
