Michael, nobody is complaining about hurt feelings. This issue at hand is the practical problems created by an attempted redefinition of established terminology - apparently to precipitate a disciplinary schism (as others have pointed out). This situation has seemingly been manufactured by a small subset of CDR supporters - apparently to disassociate themselves from SRM, despite historical, definitional and personnel links between the two fields.
While I understand the politics perfectly well, it's absurd to try to redefine dictionary words to whitewash the politics of a discipline. I'm far from the only one affected by this, hence the desire to raise the issue in public - a rare personal message, on my part. Let's be clear: CDR *is* geoengineering - and always has been. It's literally in the dictionary. Just because CDR *isn't* SRM, doesn't mean that it is free of the same moral hazard issues - as the overshoot scenarios attest. Any attempt to invoke piety by shunning supposedly morally-impure colleagues (or their work) is uncivil, unwarranted, and ultimately unproductive. Let he who is without moral hazard cast the first stone! 😁 My original message had two purposes A) to offer a full, citable explanation as to why I'm *not* planning on rebranding all my scicomm to suit anyone's doublespeak - any more than Coca-Cola will rebrand, now it's got no cocaine in B) an appeal to stop the petty politics associated with these attempts to factionalise academia. Whether you're working on CDR or SRM, shortwave or longwave, upwelling or downwelling radiation, we're all on the same team. Andrew On Wed, 1 Feb 2023, 17:38 Michael Hayes, <[email protected]> wrote: > > What is the value of this discussion to the subject of CDR? > > So far: > > 1) Someone reports getting their feelings hurt. > > 2) We've been presented with an odd ball list of largely unsupportable > assumptions and rambling personal views about CDR supporters etc. > > This is not the GE group nor an emotional support group. I don't mean to > be insensitive to those in need of emotional support yet this is a STEM, > policy, and economic space focused upon CDR. What has been presented has > nothing to do with the STEM, policy, or the economics of CDR, that I can > find. > > Best regards > > > > On Wed, Feb 1, 2023, 5:25 AM 'Robert Tulip' via Carbon Dioxide Removal < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> Andrew >> >> >> >> As you note, many advocates of CDR are totally opposed to SRM. This is >> partly due to the widely held view among the general public that SRM is >> playing God, tinkering with nature, a dangerous intervention, whereas CDR >> is benign. >> >> >> >> As a result of this context, some CDR proponents tactically distance >> themselves from SRM and the associated terminology of geoengineering. This >> is either because they really believe the anti-SRM ideology, or just in >> order to get investment and support and engagement. >> >> >> >> Some NGOs reportedly oppose SRM because their finance departments believe >> supporting it would be bad for their fundraising efforts, due to widespread >> opposition among their donor base. They also believe that discussing SRM >> confuses their single message of the need to cut emissions. >> >> >> >> This situation reflects the priority of politics over science in the >> formation of opinion. It means the united front on climate action is seen >> as including CDR, in line with IPCC acceptance, but not SRM, which was >> given pariah status in the last IPCC Summary For Policymakers. The >> confused moral hazard ideology is a main support for this political line. >> >> >> >> This hostile attitude involves a refusal to see the earth as a single >> unified system, an inability to consider that earth system fragility and >> sensitivity can only be stabilised by brightening the planet. >> >> >> >> Greta Thunberg’s recent publication, *The Climate Book*, contains the >> assertion that “all geoengineering schemes are attempts to manipulate >> the Earth with the same domineering mindset that got us into the climate >> crisis in the first place.” This quasi-religious hostility to technology >> commands broad support among climate activists, producing a refusal to >> listen to reason, despite being a recipe for social and economic and >> ecological collapse. >> >> >> >> The philosophical and psychological and political blockages to albedo >> enhancement as a primary climate objective lead to highly dubious >> arguments, such as that accelerated emission reduction and CDR could >> prevent tipping points without any action on albedo. >> >> >> >> It is essential to defend the concept of geoengineering, since >> questioning it demonstrates an inability to understand the climate problem. >> >> >> >> These concerns ought to be the subject of much more discussion and >> debate, as they are actually central to planetary security, with >> significant moral implications. Thank you for highlighting the problem. >> >> >> >> Robert Tulip >> >> >> >> *From:* [email protected] < >> [email protected]> *On Behalf Of *Andrew Lockley >> *Sent:* Tuesday, 31 January 2023 11:06 AM >> *To:* [email protected] < >> [email protected]> < >> [email protected]>; geoengineering < >> [email protected]> >> *Subject:* [CDR] Tiresome nomenclature squabbles >> >> >> >> 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 >> "Carbon Dioxide Removal" 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/CarbonDioxideRemoval/CAJ3C-04_FoiiKfqT9ogcapfacZuSU5VJ%3DjwsE5Bn9G1EC5TYCg%40mail.gmail.com >> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/CAJ3C-04_FoiiKfqT9ogcapfacZuSU5VJ%3DjwsE5Bn9G1EC5TYCg%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >> . >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Carbon Dioxide Removal" 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/CarbonDioxideRemoval/046901d93640%24a995bd70%24fcc13850%24%40yahoo.com.au >> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/046901d93640%24a995bd70%24fcc13850%24%40yahoo.com.au?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/CAJ3C-06s98wAGN_ctco6ad6VZe-sPSan3D5LGVrcECk%2B-cNvLQ%40mail.gmail.com.
