Kemi,Thanks for clarifications. Of course neither Doug nor I had the benefit
of reading your paper, just the abstract, so you might send it along if legal
to do so. Yes, it is curious how things like REDD+, LULUCF, BECCS, and
generally anything involving land biology have been embraced as
"non-geoengineering" saviors of the planet, while similar
manipulation/management of marine biology and the use of abiotic strategies and
are considered "geoengineering" and the work of the devil. As you say, the
former, favored strategies do have limitations and risks, so we need to
carefully look at all of our options under the same lens before prematurely
including or tossing any.
You say, "if the international society comes to believe that the effects of
climate change are dire and imminent, then the moral claims behind the
“anti-geoengineering rhetoric” will lose power, and OIF (and probably other
geoengineering options) will start to look more attractive. Thus, (and this is
implied), if you’re serious about opposing geoengineering, you’d better figure
something out now, to preclude it in the future."
Two points: 1) I and many others believe that climate change is dire and
imminent now, so what is to be gained by downplaying any potential solutions
now without testing them first?, and 2) for the rest of humanity, if we wait to
seriously evaluate our options until they perceive that climate change is
imminent and dire there will be a further lag time to deploying those
solutions, assuming we ultimately find any safe and effective ones. Wouldn't it
be wise to be preemptive in researching our options (if any) rather than
reactive, given what is at stake and the urgency involved? So I would have
reworded you statement to explicitly say that those serious about opposing
geoengineering (whatever that is) had better be able to prove to the rest of us
why we don't need to thoroughly evaluate it right now, as temperatures continue
to rise, and coral reefs and polar ice disintegrate.
Greg
From: "Fuentes-George, Kemi" <[email protected]>
To: Greg Rau <[email protected]>; "[email protected]"
<[email protected]>
Cc: geoengineering <[email protected]>; Jim Thomas
<[email protected]>; "[email protected]" <[email protected]>;
"[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2017 1:51 PM
Subject: Re: [geo] Consensus, Certainty, and Catastrophe: Discourse,
Governance, and Ocean Iron Fertilization
I wrote the article. I hope this is clearer in the full article, but I should
say that the full article mentions a couple of things that have cropped up in
this discussion:
- Yes, there is no ban on research on OIF. The pronouncements from the
London Convention & CBD clearly state that “small scale research” is OK; carbon
credits in a commercial market is not. I do recognize this in the full paper.
- Whether or not you think it’s “stupid and irresponsible” to issue credits
for activities that are not “proven” to draw down carbon is somewhat
irrelevant, since many of the mechanisms currently in place as legitimate under
the climate change regime (REDD+, the CDM, LULUCF) also have not been “proven”
to contribute the net drawdown they are claimed to have. Thus, “stupidity and
irresponsibility” have not stopped the climate change regime from adopting
certain carbon storage mechanisms in the past. I also mention this in the full
paper.
- I do agree that the “anti-geoengineering rhetoric” was key in undermining
OIF. That’s the point of the paper, in fact! However, I also conclude that, if
the international society comes to believe that the effects of climate change
are dire and imminent, then the moral claims behind the “anti-geoengineering
rhetoric” will lose power, and OIF (and probably other geoengineering options)
will start to look more attractive. Thus, (and this is implied), if you’re
serious about opposing geoengineering, you’d better figure something out now,
to preclude it in the future.
Ironically, when I first wrote the paper, I was accused of being too far in the
pocket of the pro-OIF crowd; now I’m apparently being associated with a
“fringe” anti-OIF community! On the plus side, at least people are reading my
work…
-Kemi
-- Kemi Fuentes-GeorgeAssistant Professor, Department of Political
Science/Environmental StudiesAuthor of “Between Preservation and Exploitation,”
MIT Press
Writer on Salon.com
From: Greg Rau <[email protected]>
Reply-To: Greg Rau <[email protected]>
Date: Tuesday, April 11, 2017 at 2:56 PM
To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Cc: geoengineering <[email protected]>, Kemi Fuentes-George
<[email protected]>, Jim Thomas <[email protected]>, "[email protected]"
<[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [geo] Consensus, Certainty, and Catastrophe: Discourse,
Governance, and Ocean Iron Fertilization
Roger that, Doug. As we've learned casting doubt and fear can be very
effective in countering reason in the climate change arena, and now applied by
fringe elements to potential climate solutions. Given that their apparently
favored solution, emissions reduction, will very likely fail to single handedly
solve the problem (IPCC), it would seem counterproductive to attack additional
actions without making sure that a particular action's risks an impacts in fact
do out weight its benefits. I'm no fan of OIF, but under the circumstances it
would seem unwise to ignore the ocean's CO2 and climate management potential -
Mother Nature doesn't.
I cite the following, little-noticed legal review as a counter to the "hands
off the ocean" governance mentality that dominates some quarters:
http://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2771&context=lawreview
which concludes:"Until nations sit down for real discussions to support risk
assessments of ocean fertilization experiments,rogue environmentalists will
likely continue to act as a distraction using the lack of international
progress as a rationale for their actions."
Greg
On Apr 11, 2017, at 8:21 AM, Douglas MacMartin <[email protected]> wrote:
#yiv7482455884 -- filtered {panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}#yiv7482455884
filtered {font-family:Calibri;panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}#yiv7482455884
p.yiv7482455884MsoNormal, #yiv7482455884 li.yiv7482455884MsoNormal,
#yiv7482455884 div.yiv7482455884MsoNormal
{margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:12.0pt;}#yiv7482455884 h1
{margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:24.0pt;font-weight:bold;}#yiv7482455884
a:link, #yiv7482455884 span.yiv7482455884MsoHyperlink
{color:blue;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv7482455884 a:visited, #yiv7482455884
span.yiv7482455884MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{color:purple;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv7482455884 p
{margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:12.0pt;}#yiv7482455884
span.yiv7482455884Heading1Char {color:#2E74B5;}#yiv7482455884
span.yiv7482455884EmailStyle19 {color:#1F497D;}#yiv7482455884
.yiv7482455884MsoChpDefault {}#yiv7482455884 filtered {margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in
1.0in;}#yiv7482455884 div.yiv7482455884WordSection1 {}#yiv7482455884 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-GeorgeI 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.
Global Environmental Politics
Vol. 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
[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.--
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 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.
