Hi Ryan, and all,

 

Thanks for all of this.  I agree (and I think everyone is aware of the concern) 
that there is the potential for vested fossil fuel interests to seize on SRM as 
an excuse to avoid regulation – we saw that in Lamar Smith’s comments before 
the hearing last year (I don’t recall that he actually stayed to listen to the 
hearing, since all 4 of us repeated the fact that you can’t do that anyway, but 
I doubt that would have mattered).

 

There were certainly a few connections people mentioned that I was unaware of 
(Shell funding some CDR) or had forgotten about (like Steve Koonin, my former 
provost, who had some passing interest and also had a brief stint at BP).  But 
all incredibly minor contributors to the subject.  I was simply reacting, as is 
Jesse, to the assertion in the email thread that they “fund many GE supporters” 
in the present tense.  Indeed, I think it is far more striking observation that 
the precise opposite is true – that at least as far as SRM is concerned, within 
a rounding error 100% of the interest, and even without a rounding error 100% 
of the research funding comes from people committed to mitigation.  Indeed, 
given that history, that might give some of us more hope for the future 
interests as well.

 

As a minor point, Jesse already pointed out that Tillerson’s comment wasn’t 
about GE, but I’d also point out that you can’t use the fact that Ken and Bala 
used to work at Livermore as some mysterious connection to vested interests; 
Livermore has a great climate group that has been instrumental in CMIP and 
hence in IPCC, so by that argument you’d also have to assert that fossil fuel 
interests support climate science. 

 

doug

 

From: Gunderson, Ryan [mailto:gunde...@miamioh.edu] 
Sent: Friday, February 02, 2018 7:29 AM
To: Reynolds, J.L. (Jesse) <j.l.reyno...@uu.nl>
Cc: m...@clivehamilton.com; Daniel B Kirk-Davidoff <da...@umd.edu>; Douglas 
MacMartin <macma...@cds.caltech.edu>; geoengineering 
<geoengineering@googlegroups.com>; brian.peter...@nau.edu; diana.stu...@nau.edu
Subject: Re: [geo] Fwd: Geoengineering and Capitalism

 

Dear Jesse,

I assume and hope that the majority GE scientists also support mitigation.  
Certainly the most prominent do. 

Regarding the comment about GE as a "project of the right": As I mentioned in 
one of the emails with Dan, the concrete intentions (and I'd include political 
priorities here) of GE scientists may be relatively unimportant. What is more 
consequential, in my opinion, is what happens to GE in social, political, and 
economic context.  And why GE will likely pick up steam due to this context.  
Our paper tries to highlight these social conditions as well as the types of 
justifications that appeal to powerful interests.  If the fossil fuel industry, 
climate change denialists like the Heartland Institute, and the GOP embrace GE, 
for example, it's worth asking why this is the case. (This does not mean that 
only the right supports GE research or deployment, or that something is "bad" 
just because the right supports it.  The right here is just meant to signify a 
group that best represents captial's interest in $ > burn fossil fuels > $$ > 
burn fossil fuels > $$$.)  I assume that the majority of GE scientists would 
argue that GE without mitigation is a problematic way forward (ocean 
acidification etc.).  Despite this, one should still try to understand the 
large appeal GE has to those who have a vested interest in burning fossil fuels 
to accumulate capital.  To me, the issue is "structural" - our paper is not an 
attempt to blame GE scientists for the prospects of deployment.

 

Take care,

Ryan 




--
Ryan Gunderson, Ph.D.

Assistant Professor
Department of Sociology & Gerontology
Miami University

rgsoc.blogspot.com <http://rgsoc.blogspot.com> 

 

On Fri, Feb 2, 2018 at 2:47 AM, Reynolds, J.L. (Jesse) <j.l.reyno...@uu.nl 
<mailto:j.l.reyno...@uu.nl> > wrote:

Folks:

 

That “infamous statement by Exxon's Rex Tillerson” was about adaptation, not 
geoengineering: “And as human beings as a — as a — as a species, that’s why 
we’re all still here. We have spent our entire existence adapting, OK? So we 
will adapt to this.  Changes to weather patterns that move crop production 
areas around -- we’ll adapt to that. It’s an engineering problem and it has 
engineering solutions.” 
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/12/13/rex-tillersons-view-of-climate-change-its-just-an-engineering-problem/
 

To my knowledge, Tillerson has never said a single word about geoengineering. 

 

The other purported connections – including those in the 2014 Hamilton essay 
that Ryan posted – are generally old, tenuous, and with CDR.

 

Anyone familiar with the geoengineering discourse could make a list of who have 
moved it substantially forward. Off the top of my head, I’d suggest Paul 
Crutzen, the US National Academies, the Royal Society, Mike MacCracken, David 
Keith, Ken Caldeira – each of whom has emphasized the primacy of mitigation. 
Shell, Steve Koonin, Lee Lane, and Newt Gingrich are bit players in this story, 
at best.

 

In my opinion, claims that (solar) geoengineering is a project of the right are 
examples of people choosing limited evidence in order to reach a conclusion 
upon which they have already decided. I suspect that some of them know better.

 

-Jesse

Dr. Jesse Reynolds | Assistant Professor and Research Funding Coordinator | 
Institute for Jurisprudence, Constitutional and Administrative Law | Utrecht 
Centre for Water, Oceans and Sustainability Law | Faculty of Law, Economics and 
Governance | Utrecht University | Newtonlaan 201 | 
<https://maps.google.com/?q=Newtonlaan+201%0D+%7C+3584+BH+Utrecht%0D+%7C+The+Netherlands&entry=gmail&source=g>
  3584 BH Utrecht | 
<https://maps.google.com/?q=Newtonlaan+201%0D+%7C+3584+BH+Utrecht%0D+%7C+The+Netherlands&entry=gmail&source=g>
  The Netherlands 
<https://maps.google.com/?q=Newtonlaan+201%0D+%7C+3584+BH+Utrecht%0D+%7C+The+Netherlands&entry=gmail&source=g>
  | +31 (0) 30 253 7637 <tel:+31%2030%20253%207637>  | j.l.reyno...@uu.nl 
<mailto:j.l.reyno...@uu.nl>  |  <http://www.uu.nl/staff/JLReynolds/> 
www.uu.nl/staff/JLReynolds/ |  <http://jreynolds.org/> jreynolds.org

My latest publication: “ 
<http://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199680832.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780199680832-e-71>
 Climate Engineering, Law, and Regulation” in The Oxford Handbook on the Law 
and Regulation of Technology 

 

From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com <mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com>  
[mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com 
<mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com> ] On Behalf Of Clive Hamilton
Sent: Thursday, February 1, 2018 23:25
To: Daniel B Kirk-Davidoff <da...@umd.edu <mailto:da...@umd.edu> >
Cc: Douglas MacMartin <macma...@cds.caltech.edu 
<mailto:macma...@cds.caltech.edu> >; geoengineering 
<geoengineering@googlegroups.com <mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com> >; 
gunde...@miamioh.edu; brian.peter...@nau.edu <mailto:brian.peter...@nau.edu> ; 
diana.stu...@nau.edu <mailto:diana.stu...@nau.edu> 
Subject: Re: [geo] Fwd: Geoengineering and Capitalism

 

There's a bit more:

 

Royal Dutch Shell was funding an ocean liming study

Steve Koonin of BP chaired an expert meeting at Novim

And if course there was the infamous statement by Exxon's Rex Tillerson that 
climate change is an engineering problem with 'engineering solutions'.

See pp 77-8 pf Earthmasters.

 

I haven't followed things closely for a couple of years, but I am not aware of 
anything more.

 

Clive

 

On 2 February 2018 at 09:05, Daniel B Kirk-Davidoff <da...@umd.edu 
<mailto:da...@umd.edu> > wrote:

The Hamilton reference points to Haroon Kheshgi at Exxon-Mobil as an enthusiast 
of ocean liming as far back as 1995 and has having put out a report on 
stratospheric aerosol SRM.   

 

Dan 

 

On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 4:36 PM, Douglas MacMartin <macma...@cds.caltech.edu 
<mailto:macma...@cds.caltech.edu> > wrote:

Sorry, couldn’t leave this alone…  I do find this sentence interesting:

 

The second reason I’m surprised is it seems that the fossil fuel industry is 
supportive of GE, given that they fund many GE supporters (Hamilton 2013).

 

The only connection I’m aware of between the fossil fuel industry and GE is 
that Lee Lane showed up at a geoengineering meeting in 2006.  Has anyone 
actually had their research funded by the fossil fuel industry?  Is there any 
support for that assertion?

 

I’m also not sure what a “GE supporter” looks like, or whether I’ve ever met 
one (or indeed, whether such people exist in the scientific community).  I 
really do wish people would distinguish between “supports doing research so we 
can understand it” and “supports deploying it”.  

 

doug

 

 

From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com <mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com>  
[mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com 
<mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com> ] On Behalf Of Daniel B Kirk-Davidoff
Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2018 10:11 AM
To: geoengineering <geoengineering@googlegroups.com 
<mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com> >; gunde...@miamioh.edu 
<mailto:gunde...@miamioh.edu> ; brian.peter...@nau.edu 
<mailto:brian.peter...@nau.edu> ; diana.stu...@nau.edu 
<mailto:diana.stu...@nau.edu> 
Subject: [geo] Fwd: Geoengineering and Capitalism

 

Hi all, 

 

I reached out to the authors of that paper on geoengineering and capitalism.   
With their permission, I'm forwarding the conversation.  

 

Best, 

Dan 




----------------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Kirk-Davidoff
35 Dove St. 
<https://maps.google.com/?q=35+Dove+St.+Albany,+NY+12210518&entry=gmail&source=g>
 
Albany, NY 12210 
<https://maps.google.com/?q=35+Dove+St.+Albany,+NY+12210518&entry=gmail&source=g>
 

518-434-0873 <tel:(518)%20434-0873> 

 

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Gunderson, Ryan <gunde...@miamioh.edu <mailto:gunde...@miamioh.edu> >
Date: Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 12:37 PM
Subject: Re: Geoengineering and Capitalism
To: Daniel Kirk-Davidoff <dkirkdavid...@gmail.com 
<mailto:dkirkdavid...@gmail.com> >
Cc: Diana Lynne Stuart <diana.stu...@nau.edu <mailto:diana.stu...@nau.edu> >, 
Brian Craig Petersen <brian.peter...@nau.edu <mailto:brian.peter...@nau.edu> >

Hi Dan,

 

You’re not boring me and I appreciate your suggestions and comments. I think 
this will be become one of the most important discussions of the 21st century. 
Though this may have to be my last email so I don’t distract myself from 
research too much.

 

Regarding the intentions of GE advocates and GE as a fringe science: I’m 
surprised by your comment that most GE advocates identify as enemies of the 
fossil fuel industry. I’m surprised for two reasons. First, this is not a 
common theme in the case for GE. The research on framing is fairly consistent: 
economics and techno frames are core, though I understand that there are moral 
cases too. I wouldn’t be surprised if the frame you’re pushing catches on: 
GE-is-a 
tool-for-climate-justice-and-opposition-to-it-is-a-reflection-of-privilege. 
Biotech pushes the same narrative. The second reason I’m surprised is it seems 
that the fossil fuel industry is supportive of GE, given that they fund many GE 
supporters (Hamilton 2013).

 

One thing worth considering is that the concrete intentions of GE scientists 
are relatively unimportant. But this requires a distinction between subjective 
intentions and meaning-making, on the one hand, and unintended outcomes and 
social structure on the other. For example, in the unlikely case that every 
current GE scientist that reads our paper were convinced that GE is a tool for 
the reproduction of capitalism and detrimental to mitigation (though from your 
review of the listserv's reception, this seems very unlikely), I bet other 
bodies and minds will fill their roles for reasons argued in the paper. It may 
be a fringe science now but it will only grow along with GDP and the burning of 
fossil fuels. At the risk of sounding deterministic, I think SRM is almost 
fated if capitalism lumbers on, regardless of, or even in spite of, the 
intentions of GE scientists. To give a seemingly unrelated example. When I 
teach a class my intention is to foster critical thinking skills, to pass on 
facts about society and the environment, to get kids to look at the world in 
new ways, etc. But perhaps what I’m actually doing, despite these intentions, 
is creating the next generation of worker-consumers that are punished if they 
don’t show up on time and follow directions.

 

Regarding jargon and style/polemics: I’m genuinely sorry to hear that the paper 
was cast off as jargony. We strive to make critical theory as clear as 
possible. It’s a difficult tradition to digest, but that's the nature of nearly 
all German philosophy and sociology. The distinction between essence and 
appearance is older than Plato, it just takes a slightly different form since 
Hegel.  Marcuse is firmly rooted in the Western tradition and committed to the 
goals of the Enlightenment. The “this is silly pomo crap so I’m going to read 
further” doesn’t fit. Historically, scientists have read philosophy closely. If 
Einstein could regularly quote Spinoza and Schopenhauer, I think GE scientists 
can take some time to think through new concepts and arguments (technology 
embodies values, these values are restricted by social structure, etc.). All GE 
advocates have an implicit theory of technology even if they never justify it 
and it is taken to be commonsense. Feenberg’s Questioning Technology is highly 
recommended for engaging in the very long conversation about what technology 
is, exactly.

 

I admit it is a polemical paper and am saddened if it was not read closely due 
to the tone. However, I don’t mind if this just means it ruffled feathers. I 
would be delighted if political economy became a central concern of the GE 
debate.

 

Regarding aid to the poor: Although this is an aside, it’s worth noting that 
aid given to poor countries, and the reasons capital interacts with poor 
countries at all, may be different than official narratives or our commonsense. 
 If interested, check out world-systems research and dependency theory. This is 
also a good example of why we should distinguish between subjective intention 
and structure, and what is possible and what is.

Unless Diana and Brian object, you're more than welcome to forward our 
conversation to that GE listserv you mentioned.  It may help clarify things 
and, hopefully, encourage GE advocates to give it another read.  I assume you 
won't edit the conversation and the like.

 

Take care,

 

Ryan

 

--

Ryan Gunderson, Ph.D.

Assistant Professor

Department of Sociology & Gerontology

Miami University

rgsoc.blogspot.com <http://rgsoc.blogspot.com> 

 

Sent from my iPhone


On Jan 31, 2018, at 9:37 AM, Daniel Kirk-Davidoff <dkirkdavid...@gmail.com 
<mailto:dkirkdavid...@gmail.com> > wrote:

Hi Ryan, 

 

You keep replying, so I'm going to take that as indication that I'm not boring 
you too terribly.  This is obviously out of my expertise, and I will not be 
offended when you decide that you've got better things to do.  

 

I'm not a supporter of implementing solar radiation management.  What I'm 
trying to accomplish in this dialog is to do my little bit to make the 
conversation about geoengineering as productive as possible.  I heard about 
your paper from a geoengineering email list that I skim but to which I rarely 
contribute.  It was received derisively, I think because many of the folks on 
the list who are geonengineering proponents view themselves as part of a fight 
against the fossil fuel industry's role in our economy, and saw your paper as a 
jargon-filled attack on the brave few willing to look at the world with clear 
eyes, etc. etc. 

 

At this point geoengineering is a fringe science activity.  If you wanted to 
slow it down, convincing a few of the small numbers of people involved to drop 
it, or somehow make it substantially more benign could have a big impact.  So 
I'm suggest you think hard about that audience when you write.  That audience 
is probably more interested in SRM because they think it will help poor people 
than because they think it will allow unrestrained capital growth   

 

The industrial world does spend a few billion dollars every year "helping" poor 
farmers in various ways.  What if argument 2) is actually the stronger 
rhetorical argument for SRM than 1)?  Argument 1) is laughable- there are a 
whole lot of good substantive reasons about which you're well aware why a plan 
to emit CO2 indefinitely while continuously ramping up SRM would be a very dumb 
plan, even for the west (interruption risk,  ocean acidification, precipitation 
changes that might be harmful to rich countries, etc.).   But 2) (if it's true 
that SRM, on balance, and in isolation would help poor farmers) could be 
compelling, and its cost would be consistent with other "aid" efforts of the 
industrial world.  And it would have the "side" benefit of making global 
warming less damaging to the rich world, at least temporarily (leading to moral 
hazard).   So I think that understanding the appeal of geoengineering to its 
backers via argument 2) is very important, and understanding the truth of the 
underlying claim (that SRM would help poor farmers) is also very important.    

 

The moral hazard argument is very important to David Keith, at least, and he's 
thought a lot about it.  But I think understanding the social dynamics around 
that is really tough and potentially really interesting.  SRM would have real 
aesthetic downsides (hazy skies) that people with food in their bellies would 
notice.  Maybe if it were implemented it would act as a visible sign of the 
cost of carbon pollution that would make people in rich countries more, rather 
than less interested in rapid emissions reductions.  I know that's speculative, 
but how much actual evidence do we have about how moral hazard works in this 
realm? 

 

Best regards, 
Dan 

  




----------------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Kirk-Davidoff
35 Dove St. 
<https://maps.google.com/?q=35+Dove+St.+Albany,+NY+12210518&entry=gmail&source=g>
 
Albany, NY 12210 
<https://maps.google.com/?q=35+Dove+St.+Albany,+NY+12210518&entry=gmail&source=g>
 

518-434-0873 <tel:(518)%20434-0873> 

 

On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 10:47 PM, Gunderson, Ryan <gunde...@miamioh.edu 
<mailto:gunde...@miamioh.edu> > wrote:

Hi Dan,

Again, I would actively support democratizing global climate governance.  And I 
don’t doubt that my perspective is influenced by my social position. It’s an 
empirical question concerning what pathways and options would be chosen if 
power in decision-making was extended to the global public. An empirical 
question I hope I can see the answer to someday. My guess is mitigation, and I 
doubt we’d select the potentially catastrophic option.

 

Critics of GE are not asking for a "perfect" solution.  We're asking for more 
mitigation efforts. (I’m sure you want more mitigation too, but you’re also 
likely aware of the moral hazard argument against GE.) Mitigation would require 
social changes. Drawing attention to these alternatives and attempting to 
locate pathways to these alternatives are some of the goals of our research.

 

Another goal of our research is to explain why current structures carry on 
despite contradictions and the massive amounts of harm they cause. I think it 
is logical to make the case that GE will catch on precisely because it will act 
as a way to literally mask the problem and allow the system to reproduce 
itself.  For example, which of the following cases for GE do you think will 
have a real influence on those who will have the power to launch an SRM 
project?:

 

1) This is a cheap and easy technology that allows us to keep making money and 
pumping GHGs.

 

2) Let’s help the poor Bangladeshi farmers. 

 

You know the answer and Marcuse can help clarify why that’s the obvious answer 
- and asks us to figure out why it doesn’t have to be that way.

 

Would you send me the articles in which geoengineering advocates incorporate a 
theory of how capitalism operates and explicitly denounces the role of capital 
in squandering mitigation efforts?  Of course I'm being a bit sarcastic and 
mean here, but I have never seen a take like this (though I’m happy to be wrong 
here).  Again, our piece is an attempt to thrust this issue in the discussion.

 

One agreement we have is that GE may be the best system-maintenance strategy 
modern society can deliver.  If that's the case, I think the conclusion of our 
paper still holds.

 

Take care,

 

Ryan




--
Ryan Gunderson, Ph.D.

Assistant Professor
Department of Sociology & Gerontology
Miami University

rgsoc.blogspot.com <http://rgsoc.blogspot.com> 

 

On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 9:06 PM, Daniel Kirk-Davidoff <dkirkdavid...@gmail.com 
<mailto:dkirkdavid...@gmail.com> > wrote:

Hi Ryan, 

 

Thanks very much for your thoughtful reply.  I appreciate what I take to be 
your central point, that a false economy that values some people's suffering 
much less heavily that others undergirds a lot our discussions of all kinds of 
policy and especially climate policy.   But what if the impulse towards 
geoengineering comes not from an unconscious restriction of the range of 
thought to that consistent with a capitalist worldview, but rather from a 
despairing acknowledgement that the unjust arrangements of power have already 
prevented us from taking the steps that a  just society would have take 30 or 
40 years ago that would have kept us from reaching the current dilemma?   I 
don't think that many of us in the climate science community are unaware of the 
role that capital has played in constraining real action to reduce carbon 
emissions.    

 

What if the objection to geoengineering comes from a perspective of wealth and 
entitlement that says any solution less than perfection, any solution that 
might expose pale-skinned northern rich people to a slight additional risk of 
skin cancer, can't be considered, even if it would relieve the suffering of 
millions of poor people caused by those pale skinned northerners?   So not only 
will we refuse to substantially reduce our carbon emissions at anything like 
the necessary speed, but we won't even do the barest cheapest bit to stave off 
sealevel rise that will inundate Bangladesh?   

 

Best regards, 

Dan 




----------------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Kirk-Davidoff
35 Dove St. 
<https://maps.google.com/?q=35+Dove+St.+Albany,+NY+12210518&entry=gmail&source=g>
 
Albany, NY 12210 
<https://maps.google.com/?q=35+Dove+St.+Albany,+NY+12210518&entry=gmail&source=g>
 

518-434-0873 <tel:(518)%20434-0873> 

 

On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 12:37 PM, Gunderson, Ryan <gunde...@miamioh.edu 
<mailto:gunde...@miamioh.edu> > wrote:

Hi Dan,

 

Thank you for your email.

 

1) About capitalism and the alternatives: I'm sure you know that there was and 
is a lot of discussion about what kind of political-economic thing the Soviet 
system was, whether it was "state capitalist," a "degenerated worker's state," 
"communism," etc.  One thing that is certain is that that model was 
ecologically unsustainable too.  But very few people want to bring that model 
back.   Any growth-dependent economy is likely unsustainable.   The reason we 
emphasize capitalism as the underlying issue that needs addressing is that most 
of the world is under the dictates of capital and capitalism is 
growth-dependent for systemic reasons.  If you're interested in this argument, 
one of the best analyses to date is still Schnaiberg's 1980 "The Environment: 
From Surplus to Scarcity."  Some of the degrowth thinkers are pretty good about 
making this case as well (e.g., 
http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/375/2095/20160383). 

 

2) About being unfair to Keith: It goes without saying that we didn't intend 
for our analysis to be a personal attack on Keith.  As of the content of his 
arguments and how they're treated in our paper, two points are relevant.  

 

First, this quote may address most of your concern:

"To be clear, our argument is not that economic and technological 
justifications for geoengineering are the only justifications, though, as shown 
in the literature above, economic and technological justifications are dominant 
modes of legitimation in the geoengineering agenda. We focus on economic and 
technological legitimations of geoengineering because we think these will 
register as the most valid and relevant justifications in policy-making and 
appeal to (a historically contingent) “commonsense”. We make the case that the 
prominence, validity, and relevance of these arguments can only be understood 
in a particular and contradictory social context."

Like the other arguments we critique, we focus on Keith's economic and 
technological justifications.  

 

Second, we do acknowledge that Keith is very aware of the risks and is 
sometimes uneasy in his support.

 

3) Regarding the question about asking Bangladeshis about GE: My opinion is 
absolutely, there should be a much more democratic system of global climate 
governance, with GE likely being one proposal at some point.  This is a good 
entry point to speak to your comment about "appearance" and "essence," terms 
that I assume you're reasonably skeptical of due to their metaphysical 
haziness.  You're framing this choice as one between geoengineering or not 
geoengineering.  Are those the only options?  What else is possible and more 
substantively rational ("essential")?   I can think of a handful economic 
policies and social programs that would be proposed in a more democratic 
governance of climate politics.  But this also means a willingness to ask 
Bangladeshis, in this example, all related alternative pathways in terms of 
mitigation and adaptation, not just "intervention."  In this example, this 
would include relocation to regions that are historically heavy polluters 
(i.e., that put them in their precarious situation in the first place) as well 
as having a say in the emissions targets of the first world.  If your response 
is "This isn't politically feasible," it is helpful to figure out why, exactly, 
this is not politically feasible.  That opens up what we think are some of the 
most important questions, many of which direct attention to undesirable power 
structures.  And many of which are ignored in the geoengineering debate. 

 

I hope this clarifies the paper some!  We really do appreciate your email and 
questions.

 

Take care,

 

Ryan




--
Ryan Gunderson, Ph.D.

Assistant Professor
Department of Sociology & Gerontology
Miami University

rgsoc.blogspot.com

 

On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 11:55 AM, Daniel Kirk-Davidoff <dkirkdavid...@gmail.com 
<mailto:dkirkdavid...@gmail.com> > wrote:

Thanks, Diana!  

Hi Ryan,  I look forward to reading your thoughts. 

 

Best regards, 
Dan 




----------------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Kirk-Davidoff
35 Dove St. 
<https://maps.google.com/?q=35+Dove+St.+Albany,+NY+12210518&entry=gmail&source=g>
 
Albany, NY 12210 
<https://maps.google.com/?q=35+Dove+St.+Albany,+NY+12210518&entry=gmail&source=g>
 

518-434-0873 <tel:(518)%20434-0873> 

 

On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 11:50 AM, Diana Lynne Stuart <diana.stu...@nau.edu 
<mailto:diana.stu...@nau.edu> > wrote:

Dear Daniel, 

 

Thank you for your email. I have forwarded it to the first author of the 
article to respond. 

 

Best Wishes, 

Diana

 

Diana Stuart

Assistant Professor 

Sustainable Communities Graduate Program and

School of Earth Sciences and Environmental Sustainability

Northern Arizona University

diana.stu...@nau.edu <mailto:diana.stu...@nau.edu> 

  _____  

From: Daniel Kirk-Davidoff <dkirkdavid...@gmail.com 
<mailto:dkirkdavid...@gmail.com> >
Sent: Saturday, January 27, 2018 2:48:44 PM
To: Diana Lynne Stuart
Subject: Geoengineering and Capitalism 

 

Dear Prof. Stuart,  

 

I enjoyed reading your recent article,  "A Critical Examination of 
Geoengineering: Economic and Technological Rationality in Social Context".   
But I had a couple of questions about it.   First, I'm wondering what you think 
the definition of Capitalism ought to be.  I spent a little time in Hungary, 
Romania and East Germany before and just after the fall of their nominally 
Communist governments, and it seems pretty clear that a world where all 
governments were organized along those lines would have eventually reached high 
levels of atmospheric CO2.  It also seems hard to believe that those 
governments would have found it any easier to reduce the rate of material 
wealth accumulation for the sake of ecological health than our own.   So do we 
need a different word than Capitalism to describe the tendency  of human 
civilizations to prioritize growth over stability?   

 

Second, do you think you were fair to David Keith?  Full disclosure: he's a 
friend and colleague.  You quote him as saying the geoengineering would be 
"cheap and easy", but you don't address his actual moral arguments.  For 
example on page 139 of A Case for Climate Engineering, he points out that 
geoengineering and carbon emissions reductions "are not interchangeable 
alternatives."  Past emissions are already causing harms to present and future 
generations.  I'm working as hard as I can to help renewable energy replace 
fossil-fuel electrical generation (I forecast renewable generation for grid 
operators), but however hard we all work, at best we might get to much lower 
global levels of carbon emissions in 30 or more years.    If pumping aerosols 
into the stratosphere would cause more good than harm for poor farmers (by 
counteracting the carbon dioxide that industrial civilization has dumped into 
their atmosphere for the past 150 years),  David's saying we have a moral 
obligation to do that,  while we also do everything we can to reduce carbon 
dioxide emissions.    

 

Why is that wrong?   Let's say we win the political argument next year, and in 
a beautiful revolution, lead the world to rapidly reorganize around meaningful 
work, sustainable agriculture, housing and transportation, open borders and  
mutual cultural respect.  On that great day, wouldn't we still want to protect 
subsistence farmers in Bangladesh from the sea level rise and heat stress that 
CO2 we've already put into the air will cause?  If repurposing some military 
aircraft to put non-ozone depleting aerosols into the stratosphere  would 
accomplish that, why would Marcusian analysis argue against that?   Shouldn't 
we ask the Bangladeshi farmers?  If they wanted that step taken, would it 
because they were confused about appearance and essence?  

 

In solidarity, 

 

Dan Kirk-Davidoff

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Kirk-Davidoff

Adjunct Associate Professor of Atmospheric and Oceanic Science

U. Maryland

Lead Research Scientist, AWS Truepower LLC 
35 Dove St. 
<https://maps.google.com/?q=35+Dove+St.+%0D+Albany,+NY+12210%0D+518&entry=gmail&source=g>
 
Albany, NY 12210 
<https://maps.google.com/?q=35+Dove+St.+Albany,+NY+12210+%3Chttps://maps.google.com/?q%3D35%2BDove%2BSt.%2BAlbany,%2BNY%2B12210518%26entry%3Dgmail%26source%3Dg%3E518&entry=gmail&source=g>
 

518-434-0873 <tel:(518)%20434-0873> 

 

 

 

 

 

 





 

-- 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Daniel Kirk-Davidoff

Adjunct Associate Professor of Atmospheric and Oceanic Science

University of Maryland 

College Park, MD 20742

 <http://www.atmos.umd.edu/~dankd> http://www.atmos.umd.edu/~dankd

 

-- 
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+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
<mailto:geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com> .
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com 
<mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com> .
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.





 

-- 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Daniel Kirk-Davidoff

Adjunct Associate Professor of Atmospheric and Oceanic Science

University of Maryland 

College Park, MD 20742

 <http://www.atmos.umd.edu/~dankd> http://www.atmos.umd.edu/~dankd

 





 

-- 

Clive Hamilton
Professor of Public Ethics
Charles Sturt University, Canberra
www.clivehamilton.com <http://www.clivehamilton.com> 

-- 
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+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
<mailto:geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com> .
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com 
<mailto: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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@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.

Reply via email to