Yes, this seems to stem from a fear of technology as summarized in their
closing statement:
"Because of the geopolitical high-stakes, risk of weaponization,and
intergenerational implications of geoengineering, theglobal community should
first and foremost debate theseaspects, before allowing the development of
tools that aclimate-denying government or “a coalition of the willing”could
use, even if all other governments would conclude it istoo risky and unfair to
use. Geoengineering can never beconfined to a technical discussion, a matter of
“developingtools, just in case” or confined just to a climate
perspective.Geoengineering research should – in line with the CBDdecision – be
focused on socio-political, ecological, ethicalquestions and potential impacts
and contribute to a debateabout whether democratic governance of geoengineering
isever possible, and how. And even more important: fundingand research on
climate change needs to urgently be scaledup to support implementation of
proven and locallyadapted ecologically and socially sound solutions to
theclimate crisis – not speculative and distracting technofixes."
While I'm all for debating the various actions before deciding when/if to use
them, it would seem important to fully understand the benefits as well as the
risks and impacts of these, and that requires research and testing. Or shall we
continue to base our decisions on speculation? Case in point, while BECCS, DAC,
enhanced weathering, biochar and the others on ETCs s&*t list might be risky
(e.g., they don't work as advertised, too expensive, etc, -let's find out for
sure), how could these be "weaponized"and "unfair"? Interestingly I see that
a-/re- forestation is not on their s&*t list, despite serious concerns from
ecologists (though weaponization is still not mentioned):
https://ecopreservationsociety.wordpress.com/2008/02/03/does-reforestation-contribute-to-global-warming-part-1/https://news.mongabay.com/2016/02/in-the-rush-to-reforest-are-the-worlds-old-growth-grasslands-losing-out/
https://cereo.wsu.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/95/2016/03/Joppa_Science_IPBES_2016.pdf
Then there is this curious statement: "fundingand research on climate change
needs to urgently be scaledup to support implementation of proven and
locallyadapted ecologically and socially sound solutions to theclimate crisis –
not speculative and distracting technofixes."
Am all for more funding of climate change research, but there seems to be
enough scary knowledge already to warrant greatly expanded R&D funding
specifically on a broad and deep search for solutions. Locally adapted
ecological ones certainly are preferred, but with 7+B of us now on the planet
is it likely that these solutions alone will solve the problem in the time
required, while they also continue to (so how) feed, house and clothe us?? For
the sake of ecology, might it be wise and less risky to also search for
solutions that don't ask more from Earth's already overtaxed ecosystems?
Anyway, I'll cc the ETC authors to see if we can elicit a response as to why
and how we have the luxury of ignoring/castigating technology/new ideas without
having a better understanding of their actual risks and benefits.
Greg
From: Stephen Salter <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2017 12:40 PM
Subject: Re: [geo] etc_hbf_geobriefing_may2017.pdf
Hi all It would help if the ETC people could give more detail about why
putting sea surface temperatures back to where we liked to have them in the
good old days should be criminal. We may be able to do this by changing the
size distribution of 0.5% of the mass of a natural material, shown to help
asthmatic children, which is now being produced from breaking waves. We may be
able to do this with energy coming from the wind at a cost below the climate
conference budget. ETC, please explain, if possible with some numbers. Stephen
On 11/05/2017 19:42, Adam Dorr wrote:
While several of the concerns expressed in the document bear some
consideration, I must say I'm discouraged by the overall thinking behind a
priori opposition to climate engineering technology. By analogy, it would be
like opposing the development of dentistry technologies because they might
allow you to continue eating sugar without damaging your teeth.
The thinking seems to be rooted in the notion that actions with negative side
effects are morally depraved (irrespective of their concomitant benefits), and
that remedying those side effects only serves to *worsen* the depravity rather
than alleviate it. I suspect a psychology that valorizes self-deprivation and
self-flaggelation is at work here, but that isn't my field.
Regardless of whatever psychology is involved, I think it is clear that this
orientation toward any specific technology cannot withstand any scrutiny since
countless examples of its hypocrisy (e.g. the benefits of dentistry and all the
other accouterments of modernity) immediately emerge.
-- Adam Dorr
PhD Candidate
University of California Los Angeles School of Public Affairs
[email protected]
[email protected] www.adamdorr.com
On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 1:08 PM, Andrew Lockley <[email protected]>
wrote:
Climate change, smoke and mirrors
Latest missive from etc group.
A --
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 geoengineering+unsubscribe@ googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups. com.
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.
--
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.
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
--
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.
--
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.
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
--
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.
