I somewhat agree with Ken. There is a marked difference in the "intent" behind SRM in comparison to CDR activities. Although both can technically be described as geoengineering on the definitional front, both historically and linguistically, there is a sense to "geoengineering" harkens a more deliberate teleological intervention in the climate.
In fact, I think the "intent" part is something that makes solar radiation management meaningfully different in kind from CDR. CDR is more of a "cleaning up after ourselves" type of activity. The intention of SRM is to deliberately alter the Earth's climate in such a way that there is a *design* and *end goal* in mind. Any given SRM technology has significantly more degrees of freedom than CDR, which implies there are more choices (and hence, subjective intentions) involved. I do find myself broadly agreeing with Andrew and others too though. The semantic squabbles over "geoengineering" as an appropriate or not term is tiresome and probably unproductive. I'm pretty sure from memory that the failed UNEA draft resolution in 2019 on geoengineering was partly beset by precisely this type of issue, and whether or not to lump CDR in with SRM. I think the general move in the field towards the "climate intervention" label instead is probably a good call, and hopefully more useful in distinguishing what it is we're talking about. Plus, the whole "-engineering" part brings with it a bunch of baggage, not to mention how "geoengineering" often gets conflated with chemtrails and whatever else by the conspiracy-leaning public. -A On Friday, 3 February 2023 at 12:10:40 pm UTC+11 Wil Burns wrote: > Dear Ken, > > > > I’m curious where you found a definition of “geoengineering” that > establishes the criteria you set forth here. Here’s a couple of mainstream > ones: > > > > - *Geoengineering is the deliberate large-scale intervention in the > Earth’s natural systems to counteract climate change.* > > *Oxford Geoengineering Programme* > > > > - *Attempted large scale human control of either biogeochemical cycles > or the climate itself.* > > *Robert G. Watts, Engineering Response to Global Climate Change (1997)* > > > > > > Under both of these definitions, I think CDR fits under this rubric: > > > > 1. Under the Oxford definition, CDR is: 1. A large-scale intervention > (or certain can be in terms of the scales society now is contemplating), > and 2. Seeks to counteract the impacts of climate change that are > inevitable should atmospheric concentrations continue to rise; > 2. Under the Watts definition: 1. Many CDR approaches will exert a > profound impact on biogeochemical cycles (kind of the quintessential > definition, for example of those that rely on photosynthesis to effectuate > sequestration, see: > > https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_Chapter06_FINAL.pdf;) > and 2. CDR is intended to “control” the climate in terms of ensuring > radiative forcing is mediated. > > > I get why CDR folks worry about the “g word,” but I don’t buy the > distinction you’re making, Ken, based on credible definitions that have > been promulgated to date. > > > > wil > > > > > > > > > > > > <http://twitter.com/> > > *WIL BURNS* > > Co-Director, Institute for Carbon Removal Law & Policy > > American University > > > > Visiting Professor, Environmental Policy & Culture Program, Northwestern > University > > > > Email: [email protected] > > Mobile: 312.550.3079 <(312)%20550-3079> > > https://www.american.edu/sis/centers/carbon-removal/ > > > > *Want to schedule a call? Click on one of the following scheduling links: * > > - 60-minute phone call: https://calendly.com/wil_burns/phone-call > - 30-minute phone call: https://calendly.com/wil_burns/30min > - 15-minute phone call: https://calendly.com/wil_burns/15min > - 60-minute conference call: > https://calendly.com/wil_burns/60-minute-conference-call > - 30-minute conference call: > https://calendly.com/wil_burns/30-minute-group > - 60-minute Zoom call: https://calendly.com/wil_burns/60min > - 30-minute Zoom call: > https://calendly.com/wil_burns/30-minute-zoom-call > > > > Follow us: > > > <https://www.facebook.com/Institute-for-Carbon-Removal-Law-and-Policy-336916007065063/> > > <https://twitter.com/CarbonRemovalAU> > > > > [image: Title: line art] > > > > > > *From:* [email protected] <[email protected]> *On > Behalf Of *Ken Caldeira > *Sent:* Thursday, February 2, 2023 11:05 AM > *To:* Andrew Lockley <[email protected]> > *Cc:* Michael Hayes <[email protected]>; Robert Tulip < > [email protected]>; [email protected] < > [email protected]> <[email protected]>; > geoengineering <[email protected]> > *Subject:* Re: [CDR] Tiresome nomenclature squabbles > > > > Carbon dioxide removal is an activity, or a tool, and can be fully > described without reference to intent. > > > > In contrast, geoengineering involves specific intention to alter Earth's > climate. CDR is a tool that is not typically applied to this intention, > but could be. > > > > If the intention of using CDR is to avoid climate change from > concurrent CO2 emissions, the intent is to prevent the alteration of > climate, not to alter climate. > > > > If the intention of using CDR is to bring atmospheric CO2 levels down > below pre-industrial levels, then that application of CDR technologies > might be considered geoengineering. > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 2, 2023 at 6:21 AM Andrew Lockley <[email protected]> > wrote: > > 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 > "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-0645PTGZBXu3amtFweG-ad7QW-EyvicvSUD_9n2nQMQ3Q%40mail.gmail.com > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/CAJ3C-0645PTGZBXu3amtFweG-ad7QW-EyvicvSUD_9n2nQMQ3Q%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/CAKNUXC0-jt%2B41ORwCqD4ZEXfO2YLWiqPb5JD_kM%3Du3cMr2zemA%40mail.gmail.com > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/CAKNUXC0-jt%2B41ORwCqD4ZEXfO2YLWiqPb5JD_kM%3Du3cMr2zemA%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/8dfef335-0ea1-4c4e-a3ee-7e78083d1457n%40googlegroups.com.
