Michael, as always, I'm very keen to avoid entering an extended discussion with you - but I'm writing to correct your false statements: *The geoengineering list was focussed specifically on SRM only after the CDR list was established. *As should be obvious, I'm talking only about the branding of the services I'm personally involved in branding: Reviewer 2, the geoengineering Google group and @geoengineering1. Plainly, I don't get naming rights beyond this.
As a note of caution, anyone using the geoengineering Google group to disparage individuals or make false statements about them can expect to be blocked or banned. I will not reply further, and I hope you will not either. Andrew Lockley On Thu, 2 Feb 2023, 01:20 Michael Hayes, <[email protected]> wrote: > [...] 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. [...] > > MH] > > 1) Your single person 'branding' ability over such discussions should be > questioned. No single person should have 'branding' rights to such a large > field of study. > > 2) Academia has already split largely due to the early GE discussion being > 'branded' as only about SAI. Your single person 'branding' of the GE > subject as only being about SAI as the GE group moderator triggered the > formation of a seperate CDR group. Bombarding the stratosphere with sulfur > loaded artillery rounds was your 'hobby horse' for years as the GE group > moderator, and the totality of the early GE discussions within that GE had > to revolve around your personal 'branding' desires. Years were wasted, IMO. > > Channeling expert level discussions through your personal GE 'SAI biased > branding' efforts within the old GE group has now been largely made moot, > the petty personal politics at this expert level of discussion are now > largely over. You're free to object to my historical account and insist > upon your personal 'branding' rights over climate disruption mitigation and > adaptation expert discussions. Please keep it within 3 short paragraphs. > > Best regards > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Feb 1, 2023, 11:02 AM Andrew Lockley <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> 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-0645PTGZBXu3amtFweG-ad7QW-EyvicvSUD_9n2nQMQ3Q%40mail.gmail.com.
