let me further refine the hierarchy (priority) as 1 CDR required 2 CDR + SRM possible 3 SRM unlikely (where 3 may be required to mitigate ocean heat content ) mitigation and adaptation to emissions are not included as they are essential for all scenarios
I dont have any issue with research into SRM - the question about implementation concerns risk/return and this is a complex socio economic problem - not an all conquering grand engineering scheme in the way that it is usually presented LDM On Wednesday, January 31, 2018 at 6:10:52 PM UTC, dankd wrote: > > 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 > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Gunderson, Ryan <gund...@miamioh.edu <javascript:>> > Date: Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 12:37 PM > Subject: Re: Geoengineering and Capitalism > To: Daniel Kirk-Davidoff <dkirkd...@gmail.com <javascript:>> > Cc: Diana Lynne Stuart <diana....@nau.edu <javascript:>>, Brian Craig > Petersen <brian.p...@nau.edu <javascript:>> > > > 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 > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Jan 31, 2018, at 9:37 AM, Daniel Kirk-Davidoff <dkirkd...@gmail.com > <javascript:>> 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 > > On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 10:47 PM, Gunderson, Ryan <gund...@miamioh.edu > <javascript:>> 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 >> >> On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 9:06 PM, Daniel Kirk-Davidoff < >> dkirkd...@gmail.com <javascript:>> 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 >>> >>> On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 12:37 PM, Gunderson, Ryan <gund...@miamioh.edu >>> <javascript:>> 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 < >>>> dkirkd...@gmail.com <javascript:>> 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 >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 11:50 AM, Diana Lynne Stuart < >>>>> diana....@nau.edu <javascript:>> 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....@nau.edu <javascript:> >>>>>> ------------------------------ >>>>>> *From:* Daniel Kirk-Davidoff <dkirkd...@gmail.com <javascript:>> >>>>>> *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 >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> > > > > > -- > ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > Daniel Kirk-Davidoff > Adjunct Associate Professor of Atmospheric and Oceanic Science > University of Maryland > College Park, MD 20742 > 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. 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.
