Dear Pol, I share your views here, but would note that for many the issue of intent is important - removing CO2 intentionally seems meaningfully different (and more akin to an act of "engineering") than inadvertently (even if now knowingly) affecting change by releasing the CO2.
All best wishes, Francis On Tue, Jan 31, 2023 at 10:58 PM Pol Knops https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3308-3896 <[email protected]> wrote: > Hello Andrew, > > Some remarks: > First of all I don't let this put your valuable work down. That would be a > pity and is not fair (and for sure not for turning down a possible job). > > Personally I don't like the term geo-engineering. > About a decade ago Solar Radiation Management and Carbon Removal > Management were usually mixed and described in the general term > geo-engineering. > But since then it has been accepted that Solar Radiation Management is > completely different from Carbon Dioxide Removal. > From a physical point of view nobody considers the current CO2 emissions > as geo-engineering. So the reverse removing this CO2 is just as same as > emitting CO2. > > Best regards, > Pol Knops > > > Op dinsdag 31 januari 2023 om 01:06:13 UTC+1 schreef Andrew Lockley: > >> Hi Geo/CDR lists, >> >> I say very little personally - but I feel it's time to confront a >> problem, which has been building up for a while. >> >> I'm noticing increasingly ill-tempered nomenclature egg-throwing in this >> community. It's affecting my work - and it's probably harming other >> people's work, too. I'm therefore cross-posting, in an attempt to get the >> problem under control. >> >> Most particularly, the eggs are being thrown by a few select CDR folk, >> who refuse to cooperate with people/projects describing the field as >> geoengineering (or related terms). Sorry if that's blunt, but them's the >> facts. I'm declining to name names - but I have the receipts, if >> anyone needs them. >> >> Before addressing the core argument being (incorrectly) made, here's some >> background on my scicomm work. This context is relevant, as the scicomm >> reaches broadly across this field (2k twitter followers, 10k podcast >> downloads, ~3k email readers). >> I've always worked on SRM and CDR, in both academic publications and >> scicomm. >> >> As a matter of historical fact, the CDR list (which I don't moderate) was >> spun out from the geoengineering Google group (which I do moderate), and as >> a matter of convenience the residual list focussed on SRM. This was done to >> manage comms in a practical way, not as some ideological schism. Plenty of >> people cross both lists, and I've seen no reason to rebrand. >> >> The other information services I operate (@geoengineering1 twitter, >> Reviewer 2 Does Geoengineering podcast) use the same generic geoengineering >> branding, and have done for a decade or more. This is partly as a matter of >> historic consistency, and partly because the word is being used correctly - >> as I'll explain below. I don't therefore feel that this wording choice is >> any justification for people to attack me or my work. >> >> How bad has it got? Well, I'm reliably informed that I've had my CV >> binned for at least 1 job because I use the word "geoengineering" to >> describe the field. I've recently had several people (without exception CDR >> types) refuse to cooperate with my scicomm work - because I use the word >> "geoengineering" as a convenient, dictionary-accurate, and >> historically-relevant way to describe my work. That's denying their work an >> audience, based on a squabble over historic branding. Coca-Cola doesn't >> even have cocaine in anymore, but people don't argue with bar staff about >> it. So why argue with me, when my work is much more accurately described? >> >> People are free to use whatever words they like to describe what they do; >> my beef isn't with the string of related terms for the same things >> (geoengineering vs climate intervention; solar radiation modification vs >> solar radiation management; carbon removal vs CDR vs GGR; etc.). The >> problem I have is with the petty personal sniping and factionalism that's >> increasingly creeping in to the discipline, as a result. >> >> For the avoidance of doubt: I'm not rebranding everything I do just >> because a few CDR fans won't play nicely with their SRM counterparts. And >> I'm not going to jump into a silo, just because other people think I >> should. >> >> Notwithstanding the objectionable pettiness of this behaviour, I don't >> believe the core argument bears any real scrutiny. So let's get to that. >> >> With a quick Google I have found both present and historical references >> to the term "geoengineering" (relatedly climate engineering/intervention) >> being used to encompass CDR. >> >> Here's the OED >> >> https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803095848469;jsessionid=8F01D3B289E2BB2911C69F51B5050E01#:~:text=Geoengineering%20is%20the%20intentional%20large,of%20reducing%20undesired%20climatic%20. >> .. >> >> NASEM >> >> https://nap.nationalacademies.org/catalog/18805/climate-intervention-carbon-dioxide-removal-and-reliable-sequestration >> >> Wikipedia >> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_engineering >> >> Royal Society >> >> https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/publications/2009/geoengineering-climate/ >> >> Futurelearn / Adam Smith >> >> https://www.futurelearn.com/info/courses/climate-change-and-public-policy/0/steps/291219 >> >> ...I could go on. >> >> The issue here isn't the use of one word or another, it's the daftness of >> people shunning opportunities/people because of the utilisation of a >> standard (if not ubiquitous) term to describe the discipline. >> >> So please, let's not have wars over words reminiscent of the kids' book >> "Fatipuffs and Thinnifers" >> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fattypuffs_and_Thinifers >> ...as even the kids reading that book knew it was stupid. We have all got >> much more to lose than to gain from such silly squabbles. Just because we >> might not like words that have been used for 15y or more doesn't mean it's >> a valid excuse to shun people and opportunities. >> >> Thanks for listening. And best wishes to all my geoengineering friends - >> including both the SRM and CDR ones. >> >> Andrew >> >> -- > 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/4410201f-9021-4727-986f-a7ce8954d893n%40googlegroups.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/4410201f-9021-4727-986f-a7ce8954d893n%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > -- Associate Professor of Medieval Environmental History School of Histories & Humanities, Trinity College Dublin Email: [email protected] Tel: (00353) 87 648 8078 -- 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/CAHd8A_-y3Kk_-aKhKaT0Ayp4Xw%2BQ%3DoNHki_cbW1gnjM6-FTQ0w%40mail.gmail.com.
