Perhaps the split is more generational. On Sun, Nov 24, 2019, 3:32 PM Andrew Lockley <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Poster's note: is this too simplistic? I'd say the split is not > necessarily the same for biochar, afforestation, and SRM. Is there any data > on this? > > > https://www.newsroom.co.nz/2019/11/22/913382/the-new-left-right-divide-on-climate# > The new left-right divide on climate > > *With emissions still rising, climate geo-engineering is a topic we need > to debate. But political researchers fear people are falling into the same > left/right tribalism that has long plagued climate politics.* > > If there’s one thing Al Gore must know by now, it’s that all the > verifiable evidence in the world doesn’t matter if someone dislikes you too > much to listen. > > Gore's role as a champion of climate action was a mixed blessing for the > planet – he raised awareness, but he also turned off people who were > vehemently, politically opposed to the US Democrat. > > Now a US Republican movement for climate action has emerged, led > by ex-congressman Bob Inglis, although the concept apparently remains so > outlandish that its website <https://www.republicen.org/>reassures > visitors: ‘No, we’re not kidding.' > > Although worsening fires, droughts, diseases and floods will affect people > of all political persuasions, studies have repeatedly shown that a sizeable > chunk of the population uses their politics as a proxy when deciding > whether to trust the scientific evidence on climate. > > As well as worsening climate damage, the resulting delays almost certainly > cost money: last year, a report released by Westpac > <https://www.stuff.co.nz/environment/102781174/early-action-on-climate-change-would-save-new-zealand-30b-report-finds> > found that, in New Zealand alone, moving to a low carbon economy sooner > rather than later would reap up to $30 billion in economic benefits. > > Now researchers fear that a new split is emerging, this time on climate > geo-engineering - a catch-all term that is used to describe various ways of > cooling the planet. > > This time, the left-right roles are reversed: left-aligned people are more > likely to be cautious about relying on techno-fixes to cool the climate, > while right-aligned people are more likely to support taking action. > > “Climate change is one of these issues that has become bigger than the > scientific fact," says Rebecca Colvin, who researches conflict and the > environment at Australian National University in Canberra. "It’s wrapped up > in political affiliations and identities. Strong climate action is bundled > up with left-wing political identities, while resisting climate action has > been traditionally aligned with the right. The United States is most > extreme in this regard, but Australia and, to a lesser extent, New Zealand, > show a similar pattern,” she says. > > With geo-engineering becoming a controversial topic, a left-right split is > again emerging, though not as strongly as last time, says Colvin. > “There are signs that it may fall along the political spectrum in the > opposite way, with left-aligned political identities opposing it because it > can be viewed as a reason to delay strong action on emissions reductions, > and right-aligned political identities supporting geo-engineering because > it can be seen as justifying the status quo." > > “There are some sensible reasons why the mindsets that underpin left- and > right-aligned political identities would fall on the spectrum of supporting > and opposing geo-engineering in this way," says Colvin. "But the problem > is, once an issue becomes a polarised political object, discourse about the > issue becomes less about the substance of the issue itself, and more about > the different groups attempting to ‘win’ a debate." > Rebecca Colvin researches conflict and the environment at Australian > National University in Canberra. Photo: Supplied > > Having a debate about geo-engineering is urgent, because the longer > nations delay making steep emissions cuts, the more dependent the world > becomes on technologies that suck carbon away and/or geo-engineering. > > Colvin, along with other ANU researchers (including Mark Howden, > Australia's top scientist on the IPCC) recently wrote a paper > <https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17524032.2019.1630463>suggesting > how to avoid the pitfalls of climate politics. > > While it might pain Gore and Inglis to hear it, they concluded that having > a cogent discussion may mean keeping political champions out of it. > > “I think part of it is about who the messenger is,” says Colvin. “Al Gore > speaking out about climate change is very persuasive if you’re the kind of > person who is inclined to trust Al Gore. If you are not, you may be > thinking ‘well, if Al Gore thinks that, I want no part of it.” > > “Folks who are not the usual suspects and who cannot be – fairly or > otherwise – pigeon-holed into a pre-defined ideological position are likely > to be the most productive messengers, if we want to grapple with > geo-engineering and negative emissions," she says. > > Aside from keeping left-right politics aside, Colvin says the second key > to having a good conversation is understanding how much > the technologies vary. The possibilities range from traditional, > nature-based solutions, such as mass tree-planting, to sci-fi-esque and, > as-yet, little-studied interventions, such as shooting aerosols into the > air > <http://discovermagazine.com/2018/jun/should-we-cool-earth?utm_source=dsctwitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=dsctwitter> > to simulate the cooling effect of volcanic eruptions. In between are > options such as grinding up basalt and spreading it on fields, to absorb > carbon. Each one has its own risks, drawbacks and benefits. Some are vastly > better-studied than others. Yet people tend to lump them together, she > says. > > “One of the key distinctions is to think about the difference between > approaches that remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere, so they > contribute to repairing the damage we have done to the climate, and > technologies that change the amount of incoming heat, so they are trying to > protect us from the worst impacts of climate change," says Colvin. "The > approaches that limit incoming heat don’t really absorb the problem, they > just put a band aid over the impacts. But they often go hand-in-hand [in > discussions]." > > "A lot of people respond almost with repulsion to the idea that we can > protect ourselves from the consequences of the problem without actually > solving the problem itself,” she says. "Grouping them all under these > high-level categories of ‘geo-engineering’ or ‘negative emissions’ runs the > risk of driving a blunt public discourse that is unable to engage with the > nuances.” > > Karen Scott, a law professor at the University of Canterbury, agrees. She > says the debate needs better research behind it. “The risks are remarkably > varied between technologies, both in respect of their ability to affect or > ameliorate climate change and other consequential risks to the > environment," says Scott. "I agree that an evidenced-based conversation is > sensible, but the only way of doing that is to conduct research into these > various technologies. At the moment, this research is largely unregulated." > > There is a risk to having the conversation, too. Scott says studying and > discussing cooling can make people complacent about cutting > emissions. "There is a ‘moral hazard’ in researching these technologies, > that [people assume] we are able to develop a technological solution to > climate change, and we do not need to take hard decisions. The more time we > prevaricate and explore technical options without also reducing emissions, > the harder it will be to effectively tackle climate change in the long > run," says Scott. "If we're going to explore geo-engineering, we have to > agree that these technologies ... will not replace emissions reductions.” > > The exploring is already happening, however. Sun-dimming technology is already > being trialled <https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-07533-4> in > the United States, along with other new solutions. > > The public conversation will need to play catch-up. > > Researchers like Colvin and Scott hope that, this time, people will decide > by the evidence. > > -- > 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 view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAJ3C-04J2Q7zvoh%2B1_L-oSR3KyAjUVWAjemOnOu5tu4Jr5bRzw%40mail.gmail.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAJ3C-04J2Q7zvoh%2B1_L-oSR3KyAjUVWAjemOnOu5tu4Jr5bRzw%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > -- 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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAOPTWeKoZbyLWWbj5Ge0yx0XrQ9T97LPU7nyXFLRDFvQJaegKA%40mail.gmail.com.
