I'm sympathetic to some of the criticisms of technofixes, but only when other plausible fixes are available.
In the case of climate change, it seems that the notion of solving the problem with interventions like recycling, energy-efficient lightbulbs, organic food and the rest of the "locally adapted ecologically and socially sound solutions" folks typically have in mind is every bit "speculative and distracting" (if not just plain delusional) as CDR climate engineering. On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 3:57 PM, Greg Rau <[email protected]> wrote: > 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, the > global community should first and foremost debate these > aspects, before allowing the development of tools that a > climate-denying government or “a coalition of the willing” > could use, even if all other governments would conclude it is > too risky and unfair to use. Geoengineering can never be > confined to a technical discussion, a matter of “developing > tools, just in case” or confined just to a climate perspective. > Geoengineering research should – in line with the CBD > decision – be focused on socio-political, ecological, ethical > questions and potential impacts and contribute to a debate > about whether democratic governance of geoengineering is > ever possible, and how. And even more important: funding > and research on climate change needs to urgently be scaled > up to support implementation of proven and locally > adapted ecologically and socially sound solutions to the > climate 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: "funding > and research on climate change needs to urgently be scaled > up to support implementation of proven and locally > adapted ecologically and socially sound solutions to the > climate 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 > <[email protected]>. > To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups. com > <[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. > > -- > 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. > -- 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.
