I haven’t read the article, but just in case there’s anyone who hasn’t been following this, the abstract by itself is extremely misleading.
It would be pretty stupid and irresponsible to issue carbon credits for an approach for which there is no evidence for the claimed amount of net drawdown of atmospheric CO2. I suppose that being aware of big uncertainty could be labeled as an “interpretation” of uncertainty. And contrary to what ETC folk keep repeating endlessly no matter how many times people point out that they are wrong, the governance that was put in place doesn’t ban further research on OIF. This basically elevates the role of the extreme anti-geoengineering rhetoric of ETC rather than emphasizing the role played by basic common sense. From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Andrew Lockley Sent: Monday, April 10, 2017 3:33 PM To: geoengineering <[email protected]> Subject: [geo] Consensus, Certainty, and Catastrophe: Discourse, Governance, and Ocean Iron Fertilization http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1162/GLEP_a_00404#.WOvbW9LyuUk Consensus, Certainty, and Catastrophe: Discourse, Governance, and Ocean Iron Fertilization Kemi Fuentes-George I thank my three anonymous reviewers, as well as the following, for their helpful comments: Chris Klyza, Bert Johnson, Sarah Stroup, and Jessica Teets. I also thank my invaluable research assistants, Sam Wegner, Evelin Töth, and Katie Theiss. Finally, I am grateful to the Undergraduate Collaborative Research Fund and the Summer Research Assistant Fund administered by Middlebury College for supporting this research project. <http://www.mitpressjournals.org/journal/glep> Global Environmental Politics Vol. Early Access: <http://www.mitpressjournals.org/toc/glep/Early+Access/Early+Access> Issue. Early Access: Pages. 125-143 (Issue publication date: 0) DOI: 10.1162/GLEP_a_00404 States, transnational networks of scientists, corporate actors, and institutions in the climate change regime have known for decades that iron ore, when dumped in the ocean, can stimulate the growth of plankton. Over the past twenty years, normative disagreements about appropriate behavior have shaped international governance of the phenomenon. Prior to 2007, firms lobbied governments to treat the oceans as a carbon sink and to allow corporations that dumped iron to sell carbon credits on the international market. However, after 2007 a transnational coalition of oceanographers and advocates opposed this agenda by linking it to an emergent antigeoengineering discourse. Crucial to their efforts was their interpretation of uncertainty: for opponents, scientific uncertainty implied possibly devastating consequences of iron dumping, which was thus best addressed with extreme caution. This normative approach ultimately shaped governance, since advocates successfully used it to lobby institutions in ocean governance to prevent carbon credits from being issued for ocean fertilization. Since these subjective understandings of certainty influenced global ocean governance, this article explains international behavior as a consequence of changing norms. -- 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. 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 https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
