Re: [geo] A Critical Examination of Geoengineering. Economic and Technological Rationality in Social Context

[Jonathan Marshall]

Hi Ronald,

I must decline the 'Professor' title I'm afraid.

I generally try  not to comment on technical issues, because I assume that 
others are more versed in those  issues, I'm a social 'scientist', not an 
engineer or a techno-ecologist.

However, I understand (perhaps incorrectly) that the amount of biochar that 
needs to be generated to make a significant impact on CO2 levels is enormous. 
If so, I then wonder about the consequences of that amount of generation would 
be?  How would we get access to that amount of material for production? Would 
we be burning down forests to save them? would we be destroying commons etc.

If the Amazon forests are being destroyed as rapidly as I occasionally read, 
how will the black earth survive? How again do we inhibit or stop this ongoing 
destruction, without political action?

These are things I worry about

However, I should thank you for putting forward a solution and the same to 
Stephen if he happens to read this and excuses my forgetfulness

jon

***

This is to pick up on one of your sentences below on CO2 removal (CDR).  I 
understand that this thread and the Gunderson et al article have intentionally 
(up to now) only discussed the SRM half of Geo.  But perhaps getting your 
reaction to the biochar form of CDR will help clarify our recent extensive 
SRM-related discussions.

You asked (below):  “If we also need CO2 removal then will that suddenly be 
self-supporting too?”

I believe that the mere existence of Amazonian Dark Earth (ADE, mostly known as 
Terra Preta) easily answers your question.   This anthropogenic soil is 
certainly “self-supporting”.  Wiki does a good enough job on ADE/Terra Preta, 
but there are hundreds of cites.

Of course, your “suddenly” doesn’t qualify with ADE.  But can I ask for your 
thoughts on a recent similar “self-supporting” story.  I choose Australia for 
obvious reasons- perhaps near enough for you to visit,  The brief report is at:
http://www.biochar-international.org/profile_Potatoes_in_Australia.
(I place Australia as one the top three countries for understanding biochar,  
but perhaps losing out now to China)

To further justify this jaunt into “self-supporting”, I also recommend a 
(non-fee) 2018 paper with more of a science flavor, on biochar results in Nepal:
 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048969718300226 .
This has citations for even larger increases of NPP.  For instance a search for 
“pumpkins” in that list of references - will lead to 400% NPP in a 2015 paper.  
Clearly highly “self-supporting” - without even considering additional out-year 
economic benefits (we generally hear of 1000 year biochar lifetime).

I am NOT claiming anything like this for the average biochar program - but I 
hope this is intriguing enough to have a little attention on this list to this 
specific SRM “CDR-cousin”.

Ron


On Jan 22, 2018, at 4:55 PM, Jonathan Marshall 
> wrote:


If these systems such as marine cloud brightening or increasing water droplets 
in the air (which was the example) work, and if there are no unintended 
effects, such as mass loss of surface plankton and so on, then I personally do 
not have a problem with them, and have not expressed a problem with them in 
principle.

But, I'm not sure that these proposals will meet with universal assent, so that 
all other agitations are closed, even on this list. It may be we need to remove 
CO2 as well as do marine cloud brightening,

I'm also not personally able to see how marine cloud whitening is 
self-sustaining in economic terms without any tax payer funding which was the 
secondary point about GE and 'small government', but if that is the case then I 
imagine that people will start taking it up. Are they? If we also need CO2 
removal then will that suddenly be self-supporting too?

Changing the discussion of self-supporting to "Cost-effective" is changing the 
goal posts considerably

The question of whether the process will allow the continuing or moderation of 
our socially destructive tendencies is another question, and does not (in my 
opinion) obviate the need for political action to ensure that we do moderate 
those tendencies, or the GE is largely pointless.

jon

From: Stephen Salter >
Sent: Monday, 22 January 2018 10:36 PM
To: Reno; Jonathan Marshall
Subject: Re: [geo] A Critical Examination of Geoengineering. Economic and 
Technological Rationality in Social Context

Hi Renaud

Thank you for your interest.  You are the first to ask.  Some papers are 
attached. If you look at credible estimates for the cost of not doing 
geoengineering you could conclude that a safe estimate for the cost of doing it 
is zero.

I am puzzled why returning sea surface temperatures to previous values without 
the introduction of any new materials and using energy from the local wind 

Re: [geo] A Critical Examination of Geoengineering. Economic and Technological Rationality in Social Context

[Jonathan Marshall]

Stephen

>Warm surface water reduces the movement of nutrients so marine cloud 
>brightening should
>give surface plankton a slight advantage.

I'm not a technical person, and don't pretend to be, so please excuse me. Does 
this process vacuum up water? because I'm not clear what would stop it sucking 
up small marine life such as plankton and shooting it into the atmosphere, and 
thus reducing plankton levels.

Is changing the reflective index of clouds continually, likely to have 
unintended weather effects, or do we simply not know?

I presume that other people are able to comment more usefully on technical 
issues, and whether they would support this form of GE, when compared to 
others. I gather it has its detractors.

>Is taxpayer funding used for international climate conferences?

What is the relevance of this? The question was about whether GE favoured small 
government and low taxation rates or not? I have no problem with taxpayer 
subsidies for useful projects.

Even if everyone agrees it will work and it works without too many unintended 
side-effects, it still does not remove the necessity to change our ways of 
living and producing in the long term. Which is the point of what I am talking 
about.

jon

UTS CRICOS Provider Code: 00099F DISCLAIMER: This email message and any 
accompanying attachments may contain confidential information. If you are not 
the intended recipient, do not read, use, disseminate, distribute or copy this 
message or attachments. If you have received this message in error, please 
notify the sender immediately and delete this message. Any views expressed in 
this message are those of the individual sender, except where the sender 
expressly, and with authority, states them to be the views of the University of 
Technology Sydney. Before opening any attachments, please check them for 
viruses and defects. Think. Green. Do. Please consider the environment before 
printing this email.

-- 
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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [geo] A Critical Examination of Geoengineering. Economic and Technological Rationality in Social Context

[Stephen Salter]

Jonathan

Marine cloud brightening should put sea surface temperatures back to 
where they used to be unless we have a reason to choose better ones such 
as less extreme El Niño events. There are no new chemicals introduced.  
Warm surface water reduces the movement of nutrients so marine cloud 
brightening should give surface plankton a slight advantage.   It does 
nothing to prevent CO2 removal and we can taper down the treatment as 
CO2 is removed.


Is taxpayer funding used for international climate conferences?

Stephen

Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design. School of Engineering, 
University of Edinburgh, Mayfield Road, Edinburgh EH9 3DW, Scotland 
s.sal...@ed.ac.uk, Tel +44 (0)131 650 5704, Cell 07795 203 195, 
WWW.homepages.ed.ac.uk/shs, YouTube Jamie Taylor Power for Change


On 22/01/2018 23:55, Jonathan Marshall wrote:

If these systems such as marine cloud brightening or increasing water droplets 
in the air (which was the example) work, and if there are no unintended 
effects, such as mass loss of surface plankton and so on, then I personally do 
not have a problem with them, and have not expressed a problem with them in 
principle.

But, I'm not sure that these proposals will meet with universal assent, so that 
all other agitations are closed, even on this list. It may be we need to remove 
CO2 as well as do marine cloud brightening,

I'm also not personally able to see how marine cloud whitening is 
self-sustaining in economic terms without any tax payer funding which was the 
secondary point about GE and 'small government', but if that is the case then I 
imagine that people will start taking it up. Are they? If we also need CO2 
removal then will that suddenly be self-supporting too?

Changing the discussion of self-supporting to "Cost-effective" is changing the 
goal posts considerably

The question of whether the process will allow the continuing or moderation of 
our socially destructive tendencies is another question, and does not (in my 
opinion) obviate the need for political action to ensure that we do moderate 
those tendencies, or the GE is largely pointless.

jon

From: Stephen Salter 
Sent: Monday, 22 January 2018 10:36 PM
To: Reno; Jonathan Marshall
Subject: Re: [geo] A Critical Examination of Geoengineering. Economic and 
Technological Rationality in Social Context

Hi Renaud

Thank you for your interest.  You are the first to ask.  Some papers are 
attached. If you look at credible estimates for the cost of not doing 
geoengineering you could conclude that a safe estimate for the cost of doing it 
is zero.

I am puzzled why returning sea surface temperatures to previous values without 
the introduction of any new materials and using energy from the local wind 
should cause so much concern. Perhaps Jonathan can explain.

Stephen

Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design. School of Engineering, University of Edinburgh, 
Mayfield Road, Edinburgh EH9 3DW, Scotland 
s.sal...@ed.ac.uk, Tel +44 (0)131 650 5704, Cell 07795 203 
195, WWW.homepages.ed.ac.uk/shs, YouTube Jamie 
Taylor Power for Change

On 22/01/2018 10:59, Reno wrote:
Hi Stephen,
I am interested by the article you propose.
Thanks and best wishes,
Renaud de Richter, PhD

Le 22 janv. 2018 10:48 AM, "Stephen Salter" 
> a écrit :

Hi All

Jonathan Marshall writes about the cost of geoengineering proposals that  
'Nearly all of them require massive tax-payer subsidies . . ',Other people 
have written that they are so cheap that some private individuals could afford 
them.

We only need one cost-effective technology to remove the objection.  I hope 
that it will be possible to have one with the annual costs of reversing warming 
to date below those of international climate conferences. If anyone wants a 
paper  giving the supporting arguments, please contact me.
Stephen
Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design. School of Engineering, University of Edinburgh, 
Mayfield Road, Edinburgh EH9 3DW, Scotland s.sal...@ed.ac.uk, Tel 
+44 (0)131 650 5704, Cell 07795 203 195, 
WWW.homepages.ed.ac.uk/shs, YouTube Jamie Taylor Power 
for Change
On 22/01/2018 00:42, Jonathan Marshall wrote:
--
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 
geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to 
geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, 

Re: [geo] A Critical Examination of Geoengineering. Economic and Technological Rationality in Social Context

[Ronal W. Larson]

Professor Marshall:  cc list

This is to pick up on one of your sentences below on CO2 removal (CDR). 
 I understand that this thread and the Gunderson et al article have 
intentionally (up to now) only discussed the SRM half of Geo.  But perhaps 
getting your reaction to the biochar form of CDR will help clarify our recent 
extensive SRM-related discussions.

You asked (below):  “If we also need CO2 removal then will that 
suddenly be self-supporting too?”

I believe that the mere existence of Amazonian Dark Earth (ADE, mostly 
known as Terra Preta) easily answers your question.   This anthropogenic soil 
is certainly “self-supporting”.  Wiki does a good enough job on ADE/Terra 
Preta, but there are hundreds of cites.

Of course, your “suddenly” doesn’t qualify with ADE.  But can I ask for 
your thoughts on a recent similar “self-supporting” story.  I choose Australia 
for obvious reasons- perhaps near enough for you to visit,  The brief report is 
at:  
http://www.biochar-international.org/profile_Potatoes_in_Australia 
.  
(I place Australia as one the top three countries for understanding biochar,  
but perhaps losing out now to China)

To further justify this jaunt into “self-supporting”, I also recommend 
a (non-fee) 2018 paper with more of a science flavor, on biochar results in 
Nepal:
 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048969718300226 
 . 
This has citations for even larger increases of NPP.  For instance a search for 
“pumpkins” in that list of references - will lead to 400% NPP in a 2015 paper.  
Clearly highly “self-supporting” - without even considering additional out-year 
economic benefits (we generally hear of 1000 year biochar lifetime).

I am NOT claiming anything like this for the average biochar program - 
but I hope this is intriguing enough to have a little attention on this list to 
this specific SRM “CDR-cousin”.

Ron


> On Jan 22, 2018, at 4:55 PM, Jonathan Marshall  > wrote:
> 
> 
> If these systems such as marine cloud brightening or increasing water 
> droplets in the air (which was the example) work, and if there are no 
> unintended effects, such as mass loss of surface plankton and so on, then I 
> personally do not have a problem with them, and have not expressed a problem 
> with them in principle.
> 
> But, I'm not sure that these proposals will meet with universal assent, so 
> that all other agitations are closed, even on this list. It may be we need to 
> remove CO2 as well as do marine cloud brightening,
> 
> I'm also not personally able to see how marine cloud whitening is 
> self-sustaining in economic terms without any tax payer funding which was the 
> secondary point about GE and 'small government', but if that is the case then 
> I imagine that people will start taking it up. Are they? If we also need CO2 
> removal then will that suddenly be self-supporting too?
> 
> Changing the discussion of self-supporting to "Cost-effective" is changing 
> the goal posts considerably
> 
> The question of whether the process will allow the continuing or moderation 
> of our socially destructive tendencies is another question, and does not (in 
> my opinion) obviate the need for political action to ensure that we do 
> moderate those tendencies, or the GE is largely pointless.
> 
> jon
> 
> From: Stephen Salter >
> Sent: Monday, 22 January 2018 10:36 PM
> To: Reno; Jonathan Marshall
> Subject: Re: [geo] A Critical Examination of Geoengineering. Economic and 
> Technological Rationality in Social Context
> 
> Hi Renaud
> 
> Thank you for your interest.  You are the first to ask.  Some papers are 
> attached. If you look at credible estimates for the cost of not doing 
> geoengineering you could conclude that a safe estimate for the cost of doing 
> it is zero.
> 
> I am puzzled why returning sea surface temperatures to previous values 
> without the introduction of any new materials and using energy from the local 
> wind should cause so much concern. Perhaps Jonathan can explain.
> 
> Stephen
> 
> Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design. School of Engineering, University 
> of Edinburgh, Mayfield Road, Edinburgh EH9 3DW, Scotland s.sal...@ed.ac.uk 
>  >, Tel +44 (0)131 650 5704, Cell 07795 203 195, 
> WWW.homepages.ed.ac.uk/shs 
>  >, YouTube Jamie Taylor Power for Change
> 
> On 22/01/2018 10:59, Reno wrote:
> Hi Stephen,
> I am interested by the article you propose.
> Thanks and best wishes,
> Renaud de Richter, 

RE: [geo] A Critical Examination of Geoengineering. Economic and Technological Rationality in Social Context

[Jonathan Marshall]

Indeed, that is why I 'blamed' developmentalism. But there are plenty of people 
who would argue that both the soviet union and contemporary China are State 
based capitalist societies. Ownership and control of the means of production 
certainly did not reside with the workers and China is pretty much run on 
profit seeking at the moment anyway.

But, its an almost irrelevant point because geoengineering in those countries 
would be embedded in their particular environmentally destructive tendencies, 
so the argument that GE can proceed without paying attention to those 
tendencies is still not supported. In the west we may face destructive 
corporate domination, there they may face something else.

jon

From: Andrew Lockley 
Sent: Tuesday, 23 January 2018 9:25 AM
To: Jonathan Marshall
Subject: Re: [geo] A Critical Examination of Geoengineering. Economic and 
Technological Rationality in Social Context

Soviet Russia and modern China aren't noted for their green policies...

On 22 Jan 2018 22:22, "Jonathan Marshall" 
> wrote:

Indeed, I asked a question, you gave an answer.

However, you still have the problem that pro-capitalist governments in the US 
and in Australia (where I live) are making it easier for corporations to poison 
and pollute without there being much recourse against this. They are also 
removing protections on national parks and areas of restricted access for 
economic purposes. And they are doing it in the name of economic prosperity 
(which in their eyes seems to mean corporate profits). They are also supporting 
coal burning and coal mining in the name of profits. They are doing it in the 
face of the evidence for massive ecological despoliation and climate change - 
so to that extent there appears to be a direct competition between profit and 
survival.

However, I'm sure that you are aware that primarily profit seeking and 
developmentalist behaviour is leading to massive deforestation (in the Amazon 
for example) and to massive pollution dumping, in many parts of the world. 
There is little sign of this behaviour stopping because of 'instrumental 
reason' (with the possible exception of a slow down in the rate of increase of 
despoliation in China)

The fact that we have once had an era of governmental interference to lessen 
some of the effects of capitalist developmentalism is not a reason to say that 
this destruction has stopped, or that our social dynamics are not destructive 
in the long run, or that we may not need more attempts at control.

You don't have to call this source of destruction capitalism if it makes you 
easier. I'm happy with other names..

And yes, as you say, we have to build a social consensus to regulate that 
destructive behaviour, and in the west that involves challenging corporate 
power and corporate control over governance. We might need to also use some 
geoengineering as well. However, you cannot pretend that GE is not tied in with 
social dynamics, and that if we ignore those dynamics we might make things 
worse.  That is what I said, and what the article being discussed said.

It is not unreasonable or stupid to discuss this.

jon

From: Peter Flynn >
Sent: Tuesday, 23 January 2018 2:50 AM
To: Jonathan Marshall; andrew.lock...@gmail.com
Cc: geoengineering
Subject: RE: [geo] A Critical Examination of Geoengineering. Economic and 
Technological Rationality in Social Context

If "the dynamics of capitalism are inherently destructive of ecologies",
how does one explain the following:

-the requirement that vehicles be equipped with catalytic converters, at
considerable expense to the buyer, in "capitalist" (in fact, market
regulated) economies.

- ditto re the clean up of rivers, in my lifetime. Staggering cleanup
compared to 60 years ago, when the Delaware river had no oxygen.

- ditto re the removal of sulfur from power plant stacks and vehicle
fuels.

And so oneven in less developed countries. India, as one step to deal
with horrible urban air, banned two cycle jitneys (that went over the
border to Bangladesh, where the debate on banning them was active when I
was there, many years ago).

All of the above are protective actions aimed at the ecology.

Start with the wrong statement and you can run anywhere with it.
Capitalism isn't an unchained monster: it is regulated, by society.
Sometimes more, sometimes less, but regulated. The issue isn't overturning
capitalism, or even attacking it; the issue is building a social consensus
to regulate.

I continue to believe that attacks on capitalism as a discussion of the
dangers of climate change is a dangerous distraction: dangerous in that it
diverts attention, needlessly, from a very important issue.

Peter

Peter Flynn, P. Eng., Ph. D.
Emeritus 

Re: [geo] A Critical Examination of Geoengineering. Economic and Technological Rationality in Social Context

[Jonathan Marshall]

If these systems such as marine cloud brightening or increasing water droplets 
in the air (which was the example) work, and if there are no unintended 
effects, such as mass loss of surface plankton and so on, then I personally do 
not have a problem with them, and have not expressed a problem with them in 
principle.

But, I'm not sure that these proposals will meet with universal assent, so that 
all other agitations are closed, even on this list. It may be we need to remove 
CO2 as well as do marine cloud brightening,

I'm also not personally able to see how marine cloud whitening is 
self-sustaining in economic terms without any tax payer funding which was the 
secondary point about GE and 'small government', but if that is the case then I 
imagine that people will start taking it up. Are they? If we also need CO2 
removal then will that suddenly be self-supporting too?

Changing the discussion of self-supporting to "Cost-effective" is changing the 
goal posts considerably

The question of whether the process will allow the continuing or moderation of 
our socially destructive tendencies is another question, and does not (in my 
opinion) obviate the need for political action to ensure that we do moderate 
those tendencies, or the GE is largely pointless.

jon

From: Stephen Salter 
Sent: Monday, 22 January 2018 10:36 PM
To: Reno; Jonathan Marshall
Subject: Re: [geo] A Critical Examination of Geoengineering. Economic and 
Technological Rationality in Social Context

Hi Renaud

Thank you for your interest.  You are the first to ask.  Some papers are 
attached. If you look at credible estimates for the cost of not doing 
geoengineering you could conclude that a safe estimate for the cost of doing it 
is zero.

I am puzzled why returning sea surface temperatures to previous values without 
the introduction of any new materials and using energy from the local wind 
should cause so much concern. Perhaps Jonathan can explain.

Stephen

Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design. School of Engineering, University of 
Edinburgh, Mayfield Road, Edinburgh EH9 3DW, Scotland 
s.sal...@ed.ac.uk, Tel +44 (0)131 650 5704, Cell 
07795 203 195, WWW.homepages.ed.ac.uk/shs, 
YouTube Jamie Taylor Power for Change

On 22/01/2018 10:59, Reno wrote:
Hi Stephen,
I am interested by the article you propose.
Thanks and best wishes,
Renaud de Richter, PhD

Le 22 janv. 2018 10:48 AM, "Stephen Salter" 
> a écrit :

Hi All

Jonathan Marshall writes about the cost of geoengineering proposals that  
'Nearly all of them require massive tax-payer subsidies . . ',Other people 
have written that they are so cheap that some private individuals could afford 
them.

We only need one cost-effective technology to remove the objection.  I hope 
that it will be possible to have one with the annual costs of reversing warming 
to date below those of international climate conferences. If anyone wants a 
paper  giving the supporting arguments, please contact me.
Stephen
Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design. School of Engineering, University of 
Edinburgh, Mayfield Road, Edinburgh EH9 3DW, Scotland 
s.sal...@ed.ac.uk, Tel +44 (0)131 650 
5704, Cell 07795 203 195, 
WWW.homepages.ed.ac.uk/shs, YouTube Jamie 
Taylor Power for Change
On 22/01/2018 00:42, Jonathan Marshall wrote:
--
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 
geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to 
geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.

--
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 
geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to 
geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


UTS CRICOS Provider Code: 00099F DISCLAIMER: This email message and any 
accompanying attachments may contain confidential information. If you are not 
the intended recipient, do not read, use, disseminate, distribute or copy this 
message or attachments. If you have received this 

Re: [geo] A Critical Examination of Geoengineering. Economic and Technological Rationality in Social Context

[Jonathan Marshall]

Indeed, I asked a question, you gave an answer.

However, you still have the problem that pro-capitalist governments in the US 
and in Australia (where I live) are making it easier for corporations to poison 
and pollute without there being much recourse against this. They are also 
removing protections on national parks and areas of restricted access for 
economic purposes. And they are doing it in the name of economic prosperity 
(which in their eyes seems to mean corporate profits). They are also supporting 
coal burning and coal mining in the name of profits. They are doing it in the 
face of the evidence for massive ecological despoliation and climate change - 
so to that extent there appears to be a direct competition between profit and 
survival.

However, I'm sure that you are aware that primarily profit seeking and 
developmentalist behaviour is leading to massive deforestation (in the Amazon 
for example) and to massive pollution dumping, in many parts of the world. 
There is little sign of this behaviour stopping because of 'instrumental 
reason' (with the possible exception of a slow down in the rate of increase of 
despoliation in China)

The fact that we have once had an era of governmental interference to lessen 
some of the effects of capitalist developmentalism is not a reason to say that 
this destruction has stopped, or that our social dynamics are not destructive 
in the long run, or that we may not need more attempts at control.

You don't have to call this source of destruction capitalism if it makes you 
easier. I'm happy with other names..

And yes, as you say, we have to build a social consensus to regulate that 
destructive behaviour, and in the west that involves challenging corporate 
power and corporate control over governance. We might need to also use some 
geoengineering as well. However, you cannot pretend that GE is not tied in with 
social dynamics, and that if we ignore those dynamics we might make things 
worse.  That is what I said, and what the article being discussed said.

It is not unreasonable or stupid to discuss this.

jon

From: Peter Flynn 
Sent: Tuesday, 23 January 2018 2:50 AM
To: Jonathan Marshall; andrew.lock...@gmail.com
Cc: geoengineering
Subject: RE: [geo] A Critical Examination of Geoengineering. Economic and 
Technological Rationality in Social Context

If "the dynamics of capitalism are inherently destructive of ecologies",
how does one explain the following:

-the requirement that vehicles be equipped with catalytic converters, at
considerable expense to the buyer, in "capitalist" (in fact, market
regulated) economies.

- ditto re the clean up of rivers, in my lifetime. Staggering cleanup
compared to 60 years ago, when the Delaware river had no oxygen.

- ditto re the removal of sulfur from power plant stacks and vehicle
fuels.

And so oneven in less developed countries. India, as one step to deal
with horrible urban air, banned two cycle jitneys (that went over the
border to Bangladesh, where the debate on banning them was active when I
was there, many years ago).

All of the above are protective actions aimed at the ecology.

Start with the wrong statement and you can run anywhere with it.
Capitalism isn't an unchained monster: it is regulated, by society.
Sometimes more, sometimes less, but regulated. The issue isn't overturning
capitalism, or even attacking it; the issue is building a social consensus
to regulate.

I continue to believe that attacks on capitalism as a discussion of the
dangers of climate change is a dangerous distraction: dangerous in that it
diverts attention, needlessly, from a very important issue.

Peter

Peter Flynn, P. Eng., Ph. D.
Emeritus Professor and Poole Chair in Management for Engineers
Department of Mechanical Engineering
University of Alberta
peter.fl...@ualberta.ca
cell: 928 451 4455



-Original Message-
From: Jonathan Marshall [mailto:jonathan.marsh...@uts.edu.au]
Sent: Sunday, January 21, 2018 6:10 PM
To: Peter Flynn ; andrew.lock...@gmail.com
Cc: geoengineering 
Subject: Re: [geo] A Critical Examination of Geoengineering. Economic and
Technological Rationality in Social Context


Ok, launched before ready but that's life... here's the second part.

The primary question of this article is a simple one. If the dynamics of
capitalism are inherently destructive of ecologies, then GE is unlikely to
prevent that destruction, nor give a breathing space for new developments.

GE, like everything else that depends on humans, is unlikely to be immune
to its social bases. If it is applied within the current capitalist
system, then we can suspect it will continue the destructive dynamics of
that system, unless another case is properly made. Demonstrating otherwise
may be possible, and it may need to be done, rather than just asserted. GE
could be the equivalent of encouraging smoking to 

Re: [geo] A Critical Examination of Geoengineering. Economic and Technological Rationality in Social Context

[Hawkins, David]

Yes. Capitalism is a social construct; just as interventions to curb the 
harmful side effects of capitalism’s actors are a social construct.
Attacks on “capitalism” have their analogs in attacks on “government,” where 
government interventions are claimed to inherently reduce the benefits of 
capitalism. Unfortunately, this paradigm of government as something to be 
avoided, tends to shift the burden to require proof that a government action is 
needed before there is a strong enough consensus to license that action.  As we 
have seen in the U.S. especially, in the last half century, this makes it hard 
to act soon enough on problems like climate change.
But, as I said at the start, the answer is not to mount calls for an end to 
capitalism. It is to build support for more timely and effective government 
interventions and other social responses.
David

Sent from my iPad

> On Jan 22, 2018, at 10:51 AM, Peter Flynn  wrote:
> 
> If "the dynamics of capitalism are inherently destructive of ecologies",
> how does one explain the following:
> 
> -the requirement that vehicles be equipped with catalytic converters, at
> considerable expense to the buyer, in "capitalist" (in fact, market
> regulated) economies.
> 
> - ditto re the clean up of rivers, in my lifetime. Staggering cleanup
> compared to 60 years ago, when the Delaware river had no oxygen.
> 
> - ditto re the removal of sulfur from power plant stacks and vehicle
> fuels.
> 
> And so oneven in less developed countries. India, as one step to deal
> with horrible urban air, banned two cycle jitneys (that went over the
> border to Bangladesh, where the debate on banning them was active when I
> was there, many years ago).
> 
> All of the above are protective actions aimed at the ecology.
> 
> Start with the wrong statement and you can run anywhere with it.
> Capitalism isn't an unchained monster: it is regulated, by society.
> Sometimes more, sometimes less, but regulated. The issue isn't overturning
> capitalism, or even attacking it; the issue is building a social consensus
> to regulate.
> 
> I continue to believe that attacks on capitalism as a discussion of the
> dangers of climate change is a dangerous distraction: dangerous in that it
> diverts attention, needlessly, from a very important issue.
> 
> Peter
> 
> Peter Flynn, P. Eng., Ph. D.
> Emeritus Professor and Poole Chair in Management for Engineers
> Department of Mechanical Engineering
> University of Alberta
> peter.fl...@ualberta.ca
> cell: 928 451 4455
> 
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Jonathan Marshall [mailto:jonathan.marsh...@uts.edu.au]
> Sent: Sunday, January 21, 2018 6:10 PM
> To: Peter Flynn ; andrew.lock...@gmail.com
> Cc: geoengineering 
> Subject: Re: [geo] A Critical Examination of Geoengineering. Economic and
> Technological Rationality in Social Context
> 
> 
> Ok, launched before ready but that's life... here's the second part.
> 
> The primary question of this article is a simple one. If the dynamics of
> capitalism are inherently destructive of ecologies, then GE is unlikely to
> prevent that destruction, nor give a breathing space for new developments.
> 
> GE, like everything else that depends on humans, is unlikely to be immune
> to its social bases. If it is applied within the current capitalist
> system, then we can suspect it will continue the destructive dynamics of
> that system, unless another case is properly made. Demonstrating otherwise
> may be possible, and it may need to be done, rather than just asserted. GE
> could be the equivalent of encouraging smoking to preserve corporate
> profits, while trying to do research in the hope of  some day being able
> to postpone the increasing cancer toll.
> 
> The paper also suggests that if GE becomes the main way of dealing with
> problems of Climate change, then we live in a society in which
> 'instrumental reason' does not function very well as there are cheaper and
> possibly better options, but those options require us to challenge
> established corporate power, and we are unlikely to do that successfully.
> I think the last 20 to 30 years of politics in the English Speaking world
> demonstrates that is very likely to be the case.
> 
> There are plenty of people on this list who think that SRM is problematic,
> and that is what this paper is primarily about, so its position is hardly
> unusual, even among those who are interested in the field. The governing
> idea of SRM seems that it is easier to change the whole ecological system
> than to change a political arrangement of economic power and profit. I'm
> not sure it is, but it is comfortable to think it is not - if we are going
> to spread accusations that people think things because it is comfortable
> for them.
> 
> The author's referencing on risk, seems reasonably up to date to me.
> However, I would suggest that the author minimizes the risks, because, in
> their 

RE: [geo] A Critical Examination of Geoengineering. Economic and Technological Rationality in Social Context

[Peter Flynn]

If "the dynamics of capitalism are inherently destructive of ecologies",
how does one explain the following:

-the requirement that vehicles be equipped with catalytic converters, at
considerable expense to the buyer, in "capitalist" (in fact, market
regulated) economies.

- ditto re the clean up of rivers, in my lifetime. Staggering cleanup
compared to 60 years ago, when the Delaware river had no oxygen.

- ditto re the removal of sulfur from power plant stacks and vehicle
fuels.

And so oneven in less developed countries. India, as one step to deal
with horrible urban air, banned two cycle jitneys (that went over the
border to Bangladesh, where the debate on banning them was active when I
was there, many years ago).

All of the above are protective actions aimed at the ecology.

Start with the wrong statement and you can run anywhere with it.
Capitalism isn't an unchained monster: it is regulated, by society.
Sometimes more, sometimes less, but regulated. The issue isn't overturning
capitalism, or even attacking it; the issue is building a social consensus
to regulate.

I continue to believe that attacks on capitalism as a discussion of the
dangers of climate change is a dangerous distraction: dangerous in that it
diverts attention, needlessly, from a very important issue.

Peter

Peter Flynn, P. Eng., Ph. D.
Emeritus Professor and Poole Chair in Management for Engineers
Department of Mechanical Engineering
University of Alberta
peter.fl...@ualberta.ca
cell: 928 451 4455



-Original Message-
From: Jonathan Marshall [mailto:jonathan.marsh...@uts.edu.au]
Sent: Sunday, January 21, 2018 6:10 PM
To: Peter Flynn ; andrew.lock...@gmail.com
Cc: geoengineering 
Subject: Re: [geo] A Critical Examination of Geoengineering. Economic and
Technological Rationality in Social Context


Ok, launched before ready but that's life... here's the second part.

The primary question of this article is a simple one. If the dynamics of
capitalism are inherently destructive of ecologies, then GE is unlikely to
prevent that destruction, nor give a breathing space for new developments.

GE, like everything else that depends on humans, is unlikely to be immune
to its social bases. If it is applied within the current capitalist
system, then we can suspect it will continue the destructive dynamics of
that system, unless another case is properly made. Demonstrating otherwise
may be possible, and it may need to be done, rather than just asserted. GE
could be the equivalent of encouraging smoking to preserve corporate
profits, while trying to do research in the hope of  some day being able
to postpone the increasing cancer toll.

The paper also suggests that if GE becomes the main way of dealing with
problems of Climate change, then we live in a society in which
'instrumental reason' does not function very well as there are cheaper and
possibly better options, but those options require us to challenge
established corporate power, and we are unlikely to do that successfully.
I think the last 20 to 30 years of politics in the English Speaking world
demonstrates that is very likely to be the case.

There are plenty of people on this list who think that SRM is problematic,
and that is what this paper is primarily about, so its position is hardly
unusual, even among those who are interested in the field. The governing
idea of SRM seems that it is easier to change the whole ecological system
than to change a political arrangement of economic power and profit. I'm
not sure it is, but it is comfortable to think it is not - if we are going
to spread accusations that people think things because it is comfortable
for them.

The author's referencing on risk, seems reasonably up to date to me.
However, I would suggest that the author minimizes the risks, because, in
their framework, they cannot deal with complex maladaptive systems which
are likely to destroy themselves completely. That is probably the result
of Marxist optimism, which I think is unjustified, and has been shown to
be unjustified by history.

All of the points the author makes involve reasonable questions. The
correct answers to them, may well involve disagreement, but not dismissal.
Personally I think the problem is a version of developmentalist ideology,
which could be magnified by capitalism, and that we both need to challenge
corporate power and investigate GE, particularly CDR.

jon
UTS CRICOS Provider Code: 00099F DISCLAIMER: This email message and any
accompanying attachments may contain confidential information. If you are
not the intended recipient, do not read, use, disseminate, distribute or
copy this message or attachments. If you have received this message in
error, please notify the sender immediately and delete this message. Any
views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except
where the sender expressly, and with authority, states them to be the
views of the University of 

Re: [CDR] Re: [geo] A Critical Examination of Geoengineering. Economic and Technological Rationality in Social Context

[Andrew Revkin]

On Peter's wise input, one other thought.

In ecosystems, there's some evidence that a lack of true "organization" -
meaning coordination, consistency - appears to be a source of resilience.
As Thomas Elmqvist captured as "response diversity"

in a remarkable 2003 paper. I cited it a couple of times in the context of
intense deep divisions over climate change solutions (sift to Elmqvist
mention here

).

Applied to human systems, the notion would be that our variegated responses
to environmental stresses - both at individual (
http://culturalcognition.net ) and societal levels (the difference
between China's
climate/energy planning and ours and Europe's etc.
)
- are adaptive in the best evolutionary sense. (There's only been one peer
reviewed paper
assessing
the social-resilience equivalent so far.)

The result looks disorderly and is full of tensions, but it's totally human
and got us through our mess.. so far..  The alternative - coordinated
planetary 'management' - feels necessary but seems implicitly un-human.


Of course we are entering what feels like uncharted terrain given how much
our environmental potency is outstripping our capacity to understand its
implications on time scales we're not set up to consider fully.. But that's
also the human way, it seems. .



On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 1:55 AM, Charles Greene  wrote:

> Thank you for your insightful and thought-provoking comments Peter about
> the evolution of human organizations.
>
> On Jan 21, 2018, at 1:12 AM, Peter Eisenberger <
> peter.eisenber...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> For what it is worth here is my 2 cts
>
> History is clear that human organizations have evolved much like other
> living systems. That evolution has had a consistent direction -increased
> social organziations covering ever larger populations.(eg hunter gatherer
> groups, villages
> cities , city states , nation states ) . This occurred because it made us
> more fit - face the cahllenges of the time.   The climate change issue is
> amongst other things a recognition of the global impact of our collective
> impacts and that no nation state can provide on their own a solution to the
> challenges we face. Thus there will be over time an inevitable
> globalization of our human systems. Looking back a previous organizations
> with disdain rather than part of our evolutionary history makes no logical
> sense but ignoring the need to change and that change will provide a better
> future is equally misguided .
>
> In my view human knowledge will provide technology to address the
> challenges we face and we will reorganize ourselves over time to be able to
> implement them effectively just as we have in the past reorgnized ourselves
> to address the challenges we faced.
> My view is that this evolutionary path is inevitable because it will make
> us more fit but what is not inevitable , as is the casse in the rest of
> nature , is how much destruction will occur before we change . That in my
> opinion in the challenge to all of us and I truly hope we are up to it.
>
> Finally to be clear whether that global organziation evolves into large
> global  bureaucracies or that stage is a transient organiztion giving way
> to a technology enabled cloud connected bottom up organizations is yet to
> be determined.
>
> On Sun, Jan 21, 2018 at 1:27 AM, Andrew Lockley 
> wrote:
>
>> Thanks for the support, but I don't fully agree with the reasoning. I've
>> encountered this thinking a great deal in the environmental movement, and
>> it's not motivated by publication incentives.
>>
>> There's a category of people, often found cosseted inside institutions of
>> various kinds, for whom "more government" is the answer to absolutely
>> everything. This approach is often mocked as "watermelon politics" - red
>> through and through, with a thin layer of green on the outside.
>>
>> Unfortunately, such people find it disproportionately easy to progress in
>> institutions of great intellectual influence: academia, state media, public
>> services, and government. This is despite the fact that their life
>> experiences and values run counter to the undeniable realities lived by the
>> vast majority of the population, who typically view the state as
>> inefficient, bordering on Kafkaesque (hence the author's popularity).
>>
>> A
>>
>> On 21 Jan 2018 01:13, "Peter Flynn"  wrote:
>>
>>> Andrew,
>>>
>>>
>>> Thank you for saying this, and saying it very well. I think that the
>>> abstract is just nonsense: claptrap, as you say. I 

Re: [geo] A Critical Examination of Geoengineering. Economic and Technological Rationality in Social Context

[Stephen Salter]

Hi All

Jonathan Marshall writes about the cost of geoengineering proposals 
that  'Nearly all of them require massive tax-payer subsidies . . ',    
Other people have written that they are so cheap that some private 
individuals could afford them.


We only need one cost-effective technology to remove the objection.  I 
hope that it will be possible to have one with the annual costs of 
reversing warming to date below those of international climate 
conferences. If anyone wants a paper  giving the supporting arguments, 
please contact me.


Stephen

Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design. School of Engineering, 
University of Edinburgh, Mayfield Road, Edinburgh EH9 3DW, Scotland 
s.sal...@ed.ac.uk, Tel +44 (0)131 650 5704, Cell 07795 203 195, 
WWW.homepages.ed.ac.uk/shs, YouTube Jamie Taylor Power for Change

On 22/01/2018 00:42, Jonathan Marshall wrote:

--
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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.

-- 
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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [CDR] Re: [geo] A Critical Examination of Geoengineering. Economic and Technological Rationality in Social Context

[Charles Greene]

Thank you for your insightful and thought-provoking comments Peter about the 
evolution of human organizations.

> On Jan 21, 2018, at 1:12 AM, Peter Eisenberger  
> wrote:
> 
> For what it is worth here is my 2 cts 
> 
> History is clear that human organizations have evolved much like other living 
> systems. That evolution has had a consistent direction -increased social 
> organziations covering ever larger populations.(eg hunter gatherer groups, 
> villages 
> cities , city states , nation states ) . This occurred because it made us 
> more fit - face the cahllenges of the time.   The climate change issue is 
> amongst other things a recognition of the global impact of our collective 
> impacts and that no nation state can provide on their own a solution to the 
> challenges we face. Thus there will be over time an inevitable globalization 
> of our human systems. Looking back a previous organizations with disdain 
> rather than part of our evolutionary history makes no logical sense but 
> ignoring the need to change and that change will provide a better future is 
> equally misguided . 
> 
> In my view human knowledge will provide technology to address the challenges 
> we face and we will reorganize ourselves over time to be able to implement 
> them effectively just as we have in the past reorgnized ourselves to address 
> the challenges we faced.
> My view is that this evolutionary path is inevitable because it will make us 
> more fit but what is not inevitable , as is the casse in the rest of nature , 
> is how much destruction will occur before we change . That in my opinion in 
> the challenge to all of us and I truly hope we are up to it. 
> 
> Finally to be clear whether that global organziation evolves into large 
> global  bureaucracies or that stage is a transient organiztion giving way to 
> a technology enabled cloud connected bottom up organizations is yet to be 
> determined. 
> 
> On Sun, Jan 21, 2018 at 1:27 AM, Andrew Lockley  > wrote:
> Thanks for the support, but I don't fully agree with the reasoning. I've 
> encountered this thinking a great deal in the environmental movement, and 
> it's not motivated by publication incentives.
> 
> There's a category of people, often found cosseted inside institutions of 
> various kinds, for whom "more government" is the answer to absolutely 
> everything. This approach is often mocked as "watermelon politics" - red 
> through and through, with a thin layer of green on the outside.
> 
> Unfortunately, such people find it disproportionately easy to progress in 
> institutions of great intellectual influence: academia, state media, public 
> services, and government. This is despite the fact that their life 
> experiences and values run counter to the undeniable realities lived by the 
> vast majority of the population, who typically view the state as inefficient, 
> bordering on Kafkaesque (hence the author's popularity).  
> 
> A 
> 
> On 21 Jan 2018 01:13, "Peter Flynn"  > wrote:
> Andrew,
> 
>  
> Thank you for saying this, and saying it very well. I think that the abstract 
> is just nonsense: claptrap, as you say. I put this in the academic realm of 
> “I need to publish”, and even better, “if I say stupid stuff I’ll get lots of 
> citations from the refutation”.
> 
>  
> I am reminded of the phrase that perfect is the enemy of the good. Linking 
> dealing with the risk of climate change to reversing capitalism would doom 
> any effective effort. Gunderson et al. can rest assured that any real action 
> will take place within the various economies as they exist and evolve, 
> slowly; thinking that climate change is the Trojan Horse that will overturn 
> existing choices about economies is both tedious and damaging nonsense.
> 
>  
> We have a serious problem to deal with, and distractions like this reduce 
> rather than enhance the ability to deal with it. I think all will agree that 
> perfection would be an instantaneous decarbonization that didn’t ruin 
> economies. But perfect won’t happen; we search for the good, the practical. 
> My personal guess is that a mix of decarbonization and geoengineering is the 
> likely future scenario, given the difficulty of mounting the will to 
> decarbonize quickly, in both capitalist and planned economies. I look at 
> catalytic converters added to cars: society found the will to spend more for 
> an existing technology to deal with an emission, but only in some regions of 
> the world, and only when the problem was evident and severe.
> 
>  
> There is a broad range of thinking on the challenge of climate change. Trying 
> to end capitalism, or perhaps more accurately regulated market economies, is 
> beyond the improbability of rapid decarbonization.
> 
>  
> Thanks again for calling this out.
> 
>  
> Peter
> 
>  
> Peter Flynn, P. Eng., Ph. D.
> 
> 

Re: [geo] A Critical Examination of Geoengineering. Economic and Technological Rationality in Social Context

[Jonathan Marshall]

Ok, launched before ready but that's life... here's the second part.

The primary question of this article is a simple one. If the dynamics of 
capitalism are inherently destructive of ecologies, then GE is unlikely to 
prevent that destruction, nor give a breathing space for new developments.

GE, like everything else that depends on humans, is unlikely to be immune to 
its social bases. If it is applied within the current capitalist system, then 
we can suspect it will continue the destructive dynamics of that system, unless 
another case is properly made. Demonstrating otherwise may be possible, and it 
may need to be done, rather than just asserted. GE could be the equivalent of 
encouraging smoking to preserve corporate profits, while trying to do research 
in the hope of  some day being able to postpone the increasing cancer toll.

The paper also suggests that if GE becomes the main way of dealing with 
problems of Climate change, then we live in a society in which 'instrumental 
reason' does not function very well as there are cheaper and possibly better 
options, but those options require us to challenge established corporate power, 
and we are unlikely to do that successfully. I think the last 20 to 30 years of 
politics in the English Speaking world demonstrates that is very likely to be 
the case.

There are plenty of people on this list who think that SRM is problematic, and 
that is what this paper is primarily about, so its position is hardly unusual, 
even among those who are interested in the field. The governing idea of SRM 
seems that it is easier to change the whole ecological system than to change a 
political arrangement of economic power and profit. I'm not sure it is, but it 
is comfortable to think it is not - if we are going to spread accusations that 
people think things because it is comfortable for them.

The author's referencing on risk, seems reasonably up to date to me. However, I 
would suggest that the author minimizes the risks, because, in their framework, 
they cannot deal with complex maladaptive systems which are likely to destroy 
themselves completely. That is probably the result of Marxist optimism, which I 
think is unjustified, and has been shown to be unjustified by history.

All of the points the author makes involve reasonable questions. The correct 
answers to them, may well involve disagreement, but not dismissal. Personally I 
think the problem is a version of developmentalist ideology, which could be 
magnified by capitalism, and that we both need to challenge corporate power and 
investigate GE, particularly CDR.

jon
UTS CRICOS Provider Code: 00099F DISCLAIMER: This email message and any 
accompanying attachments may contain confidential information. If you are not 
the intended recipient, do not read, use, disseminate, distribute or copy this 
message or attachments. If you have received this message in error, please 
notify the sender immediately and delete this message. Any views expressed in 
this message are those of the individual sender, except where the sender 
expressly, and with authority, states them to be the views of the University of 
Technology Sydney. Before opening any attachments, please check them for 
viruses and defects. Think. Green. Do. Please consider the environment before 
printing this email.

-- 
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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [geo] A Critical Examination of Geoengineering. Economic and Technological Rationality in Social Context

[Jonathan Marshall]

"There's a category of people, often found cosseted inside institutions of 
various kinds, for whom "more government" is the answer to absolutely 
everything. "

It strikes me that if you wanted less government, then you would not want 
geoengineering. I've not seen any viable self-supporting GE proposals. Nearly 
all of them require massive tax-payer subsidies, and some require appear to 
need massive cross-national governance and regulation. Of course we could give 
the massive subsidies to private enterprise and hope they do they job without 
any oversight, but I doubt that will happen even with the pro-corporate power 
lobby. With CCS we know that ultimate and infinite responsibility of checking 
for leaks and collapse will reside with governments/taxpayers. At the least, it 
seems probable that people will be concerned about other countries free loading 
on their efforts, and there will be massive governmental jaunts to try and sort 
this out. The likelihood of small government and GE seems miniscule.

Second, in my entire and pretty long life, I have never met anyone who thinks 
the answer to anything is "more government". There are a large number of people 
who object to giving all governmental power to the corporate sector (as is the 
usual action of those who supposedly support 'small government'), and there are 
those who think that 'the people' should be able to participate in their own 
government and challenge corporate power. As you might expect both positions 
are easily misrepresented by the dominant powers, who heavily fund think tanks 
and now permeate the university system. Capitalism appears to inherently 
intertwine itself into the State, resulting always in more oppressive 
government for everyone else, unless it is challenged. At least I do not know 
of a historical circumstance in which this is not true. The fact that other 
systems can be worse, does not disprove this.






From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com  on 
behalf of Andrew Lockley 
Sent: Sunday, 21 January 2018 8:27 PM
To: Peter Flynn
Cc: geoengineering
Subject: RE: [geo] A Critical Examination of Geoengineering. Economic and 
Technological Rationality in Social Context

Thanks for the support, but I don't fully agree with the reasoning. I've 
encountered this thinking a great deal in the environmental movement, and it's 
not motivated by publication incentives.

There's a category of people, often found cosseted inside institutions of 
various kinds, for whom "more government" is the answer to absolutely 
everything. This approach is often mocked as "watermelon politics" - red 
through and through, with a thin layer of green on the outside.

Unfortunately, such people find it disproportionately easy to progress in 
institutions of great intellectual influence: academia, state media, public 
services, and government. This is despite the fact that their life experiences 
and values run counter to the undeniable realities lived by the vast majority 
of the population, who typically view the state as inefficient, bordering on 
Kafkaesque (hence the author's popularity).

A

On 21 Jan 2018 01:13, "Peter Flynn" 
> wrote:
Andrew,

Thank you for saying this, and saying it very well. I think that the abstract 
is just nonsense: claptrap, as you say. I put this in the academic realm of “I 
need to publish”, and even better, “if I say stupid stuff I’ll get lots of 
citations from the refutation”.

I am reminded of the phrase that perfect is the enemy of the good. Linking 
dealing with the risk of climate change to reversing capitalism would doom any 
effective effort. Gunderson et al. can rest assured that any real action will 
take place within the various economies as they exist and evolve, slowly; 
thinking that climate change is the Trojan Horse that will overturn existing 
choices about economies is both tedious and damaging nonsense.

We have a serious problem to deal with, and distractions like this reduce 
rather than enhance the ability to deal with it. I think all will agree that 
perfection would be an instantaneous decarbonization that didn’t ruin 
economies. But perfect won’t happen; we search for the good, the practical. My 
personal guess is that a mix of decarbonization and geoengineering is the 
likely future scenario, given the difficulty of mounting the will to 
decarbonize quickly, in both capitalist and planned economies. I look at 
catalytic converters added to cars: society found the will to spend more for an 
existing technology to deal with an emission, but only in some regions of the 
world, and only when the problem was evident and severe.

There is a broad range of thinking on the challenge of climate change. Trying 
to end capitalism, or perhaps more accurately regulated market economies, is 
beyond the improbability of rapid decarbonization.

Thanks again 

Re: [geo] A Critical Examination of Geoengineering. Economic and Technological Rationality in Social Context

[Peter Eisenberger]

For what it is worth here is my 2 cts

History is clear that human organizations have evolved much like other
living systems. That evolution has had a consistent direction -increased
social organziations covering ever larger populations.(eg hunter gatherer
groups, villages
cities , city states , nation states ) . This occurred because it made us
more fit - face the cahllenges of the time.   The climate change issue is
amongst other things a recognition of the global impact of our collective
impacts and that no nation state can provide on their own a solution to the
challenges we face. Thus there will be over time an inevitable
globalization of our human systems. Looking back a previous organizations
with disdain rather than part of our evolutionary history makes no logical
sense but ignoring the need to change and that change will provide a better
future is equally misguided .

In my view human knowledge will provide technology to address the
challenges we face and we will reorganize ourselves over time to be able to
implement them effectively just as we have in the past reorgnized ourselves
to address the challenges we faced.
My view is that this evolutionary path is inevitable because it will make
us more fit but what is not inevitable , as is the casse in the rest of
nature , is how much destruction will occur before we change . That in my
opinion in the challenge to all of us and I truly hope we are up to it.

Finally to be clear whether that global organziation evolves into large
global  bureaucracies or that stage is a transient organiztion giving way
to a technology enabled cloud connected bottom up organizations is yet to
be determined.

On Sun, Jan 21, 2018 at 1:27 AM, Andrew Lockley 
wrote:

> Thanks for the support, but I don't fully agree with the reasoning. I've
> encountered this thinking a great deal in the environmental movement, and
> it's not motivated by publication incentives.
>
> There's a category of people, often found cosseted inside institutions of
> various kinds, for whom "more government" is the answer to absolutely
> everything. This approach is often mocked as "watermelon politics" - red
> through and through, with a thin layer of green on the outside.
>
> Unfortunately, such people find it disproportionately easy to progress in
> institutions of great intellectual influence: academia, state media, public
> services, and government. This is despite the fact that their life
> experiences and values run counter to the undeniable realities lived by the
> vast majority of the population, who typically view the state as
> inefficient, bordering on Kafkaesque (hence the author's popularity).
>
> A
>
> On 21 Jan 2018 01:13, "Peter Flynn"  wrote:
>
>> Andrew,
>>
>>
>>
>> Thank you for saying this, and saying it very well. I think that the
>> abstract is just nonsense: claptrap, as you say. I put this in the academic
>> realm of “I need to publish”, and even better, “if I say stupid stuff I’ll
>> get lots of citations from the refutation”.
>>
>>
>>
>> I am reminded of the phrase that perfect is the enemy of the good.
>> Linking dealing with the risk of climate change to reversing capitalism
>> would doom any effective effort. Gunderson et al. can rest assured that any
>> real action will take place within the various economies as they exist and
>> evolve, slowly; thinking that climate change is the Trojan Horse that will
>> overturn existing choices about economies is both tedious and damaging
>> nonsense.
>>
>>
>>
>> We have a serious problem to deal with, and distractions like this reduce
>> rather than enhance the ability to deal with it. I think all will agree
>> that perfection would be an instantaneous decarbonization that didn’t ruin
>> economies. But perfect won’t happen; we search for the good, the practical.
>> My personal guess is that a mix of decarbonization and geoengineering is
>> the likely future scenario, given the difficulty of mounting the will to
>> decarbonize quickly, in both capitalist and planned economies. I look at
>> catalytic converters added to cars: society found the will to spend more
>> for an existing technology to deal with an emission, but only in some
>> regions of the world, and only when the problem was evident and severe.
>>
>>
>>
>> There is a broad range of thinking on the challenge of climate change.
>> Trying to end capitalism, or perhaps more accurately regulated market
>> economies, is beyond the improbability of rapid decarbonization.
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks again for calling this out.
>>
>>
>>
>> Peter
>>
>>
>>
>> Peter Flynn, P. Eng., Ph. D.
>>
>> Emeritus Professor and Poole Chair in Management for Engineers
>>
>> Department of Mechanical Engineering
>>
>> University of Alberta
>>
>> peter.fl...@ualberta.ca
>>
>> cell: 928 451 4455 <(928)%20451-4455>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineering@googleg
>> roups.com] *On Behalf Of *Andrew 

RE: [geo] A Critical Examination of Geoengineering. Economic and Technological Rationality in Social Context

[Andrew Lockley]

Thanks for the support, but I don't fully agree with the reasoning. I've
encountered this thinking a great deal in the environmental movement, and
it's not motivated by publication incentives.

There's a category of people, often found cosseted inside institutions of
various kinds, for whom "more government" is the answer to absolutely
everything. This approach is often mocked as "watermelon politics" - red
through and through, with a thin layer of green on the outside.

Unfortunately, such people find it disproportionately easy to progress in
institutions of great intellectual influence: academia, state media, public
services, and government. This is despite the fact that their life
experiences and values run counter to the undeniable realities lived by the
vast majority of the population, who typically view the state as
inefficient, bordering on Kafkaesque (hence the author's popularity).

A

On 21 Jan 2018 01:13, "Peter Flynn"  wrote:

> Andrew,
>
>
>
> Thank you for saying this, and saying it very well. I think that the
> abstract is just nonsense: claptrap, as you say. I put this in the academic
> realm of “I need to publish”, and even better, “if I say stupid stuff I’ll
> get lots of citations from the refutation”.
>
>
>
> I am reminded of the phrase that perfect is the enemy of the good. Linking
> dealing with the risk of climate change to reversing capitalism would doom
> any effective effort. Gunderson et al. can rest assured that any real
> action will take place within the various economies as they exist and
> evolve, slowly; thinking that climate change is the Trojan Horse that will
> overturn existing choices about economies is both tedious and damaging
> nonsense.
>
>
>
> We have a serious problem to deal with, and distractions like this reduce
> rather than enhance the ability to deal with it. I think all will agree
> that perfection would be an instantaneous decarbonization that didn’t ruin
> economies. But perfect won’t happen; we search for the good, the practical.
> My personal guess is that a mix of decarbonization and geoengineering is
> the likely future scenario, given the difficulty of mounting the will to
> decarbonize quickly, in both capitalist and planned economies. I look at
> catalytic converters added to cars: society found the will to spend more
> for an existing technology to deal with an emission, but only in some
> regions of the world, and only when the problem was evident and severe.
>
>
>
> There is a broad range of thinking on the challenge of climate change.
> Trying to end capitalism, or perhaps more accurately regulated market
> economies, is beyond the improbability of rapid decarbonization.
>
>
>
> Thanks again for calling this out.
>
>
>
> Peter
>
>
>
> Peter Flynn, P. Eng., Ph. D.
>
> Emeritus Professor and Poole Chair in Management for Engineers
>
> Department of Mechanical Engineering
>
> University of Alberta
>
> peter.fl...@ualberta.ca
>
> cell: 928 451 4455 <(928)%20451-4455>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineering@
> googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Andrew Lockley
> *Sent:* Saturday, January 20, 2018 5:07 PM
> *To:* geoengineering 
> *Subject:* Re: [geo] A Critical Examination of Geoengineering. Economic
> and Technological Rationality in Social Context
>
>
>
> I'm probably putting myself at risk of getting shouted at, but...
>
>
>
> This paper, from my brief skim,
>
> A) is a total straw man argument - at least as far as geoengineering
> research community's attitude towards the technology
>
> B) reads like parody of postmodern/neo-Marxist/critical theory academic
> writing (admittedly, lots of comparable papers also read like parody)
>
> C) Misrepresents or misunderstands the current state of scientific
> knowledge, especially vis-a-vis risk
>
>
>
> I'd welcome other views, but I personally think it's important to call out
> claptrap when we see it in the literature (even if that risks us getting
> shouted at).
>
>
>
> A
>
>
>
>
>
> On 20 Jan 2018 18:17, "CE News"  wrote:
>
> http://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/1/269
>
>
>
> Gunderson, Ryan; Petersen, Brian; Stuart, Diana (2018): A Critical
> Examination of Geoengineering. Economic and Technological Rationality in
> Social Context (Sustainability, 10).
>
>
> Abstract
>
> Geoengineering—specifically stratospheric aerosol injection—is not only
> risky, but supports powerful economic interests, protects an inherently
> ecologically harmful social formation, relegates the fundamental
> social-structural changes needed to address climate change, and is rooted
> in a vision of a nature as a set of passive resources that can be fully
> controlled in line with the demands of capital. The case for geoengineering
> is incomprehensible without analyzing the social context that gave birth to
> it: capitalism’s inability to overcome a contradiction between the need to
> accumulate capital, 

RE: [geo] A Critical Examination of Geoengineering. Economic and Technological Rationality in Social Context

[Peter Flynn]

Andrew,



Thank you for saying this, and saying it very well. I think that the
abstract is just nonsense: claptrap, as you say. I put this in the academic
realm of “I need to publish”, and even better, “if I say stupid stuff I’ll
get lots of citations from the refutation”.



I am reminded of the phrase that perfect is the enemy of the good. Linking
dealing with the risk of climate change to reversing capitalism would doom
any effective effort. Gunderson et al. can rest assured that any real
action will take place within the various economies as they exist and
evolve, slowly; thinking that climate change is the Trojan Horse that will
overturn existing choices about economies is both tedious and damaging
nonsense.



We have a serious problem to deal with, and distractions like this reduce
rather than enhance the ability to deal with it. I think all will agree
that perfection would be an instantaneous decarbonization that didn’t ruin
economies. But perfect won’t happen; we search for the good, the practical.
My personal guess is that a mix of decarbonization and geoengineering is
the likely future scenario, given the difficulty of mounting the will to
decarbonize quickly, in both capitalist and planned economies. I look at
catalytic converters added to cars: society found the will to spend more
for an existing technology to deal with an emission, but only in some
regions of the world, and only when the problem was evident and severe.



There is a broad range of thinking on the challenge of climate change.
Trying to end capitalism, or perhaps more accurately regulated market
economies, is beyond the improbability of rapid decarbonization.



Thanks again for calling this out.



Peter



Peter Flynn, P. Eng., Ph. D.

Emeritus Professor and Poole Chair in Management for Engineers

Department of Mechanical Engineering

University of Alberta

peter.fl...@ualberta.ca

cell: 928 451 4455











*From:* geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:
geoengineering@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Andrew Lockley
*Sent:* Saturday, January 20, 2018 5:07 PM
*To:* geoengineering 
*Subject:* Re: [geo] A Critical Examination of Geoengineering. Economic and
Technological Rationality in Social Context



I'm probably putting myself at risk of getting shouted at, but...



This paper, from my brief skim,

A) is a total straw man argument - at least as far as geoengineering
research community's attitude towards the technology

B) reads like parody of postmodern/neo-Marxist/critical theory academic
writing (admittedly, lots of comparable papers also read like parody)

C) Misrepresents or misunderstands the current state of scientific
knowledge, especially vis-a-vis risk



I'd welcome other views, but I personally think it's important to call out
claptrap when we see it in the literature (even if that risks us getting
shouted at).



A





On 20 Jan 2018 18:17, "CE News"  wrote:

http://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/1/269



Gunderson, Ryan; Petersen, Brian; Stuart, Diana (2018): A Critical
Examination of Geoengineering. Economic and Technological Rationality in
Social Context (Sustainability, 10).


Abstract

Geoengineering—specifically stratospheric aerosol injection—is not only
risky, but supports powerful economic interests, protects an inherently
ecologically harmful social formation, relegates the fundamental
social-structural changes needed to address climate change, and is rooted
in a vision of a nature as a set of passive resources that can be fully
controlled in line with the demands of capital. The case for geoengineering
is incomprehensible without analyzing the social context that gave birth to
it: capitalism’s inability to overcome a contradiction between the need to
accumulate capital, on the one hand, and the need to maintain a stable
climate system on the other. Substantial emissions reductions, unlike
geoengineering, are costly, rely more on social-structural than technical
changes, and are at odds with the current social order. Because of this,
geoengineering will increasingly be considered a core response to climate
change. In light of Herbert Marcuse’s critical theory, the promotion of
geoengineering as a market-friendly and high-tech strategy is shown to
reflect a society that cannot set substantive aims through reason and
transforms what should be considered means (technology and economic
production) into ends themselves. Such a condition echoes the
first-generation Frankfurt School’s central thesis: instrumental
rationality remains irrational. View Full-Text


*Keywords: *climate engineering
; environmental
sociology ; critical
theory ; science and
technology studies
; solar

Re: [geo] A Critical Examination of Geoengineering. Economic and Technological Rationality in Social Context

[Andrew Lockley]

I'm probably putting myself at risk of getting shouted at, but...

This paper, from my brief skim,
A) is a total straw man argument - at least as far as geoengineering
research community's attitude towards the technology
B) reads like parody of postmodern/neo-Marxist/critical theory academic
writing (admittedly, lots of comparable papers also read like parody)
C) Misrepresents or misunderstands the current state of scientific
knowledge, especially vis-a-vis risk

I'd welcome other views, but I personally think it's important to call out
claptrap when we see it in the literature (even if that risks us getting
shouted at).

A


On 20 Jan 2018 18:17, "CE News"  wrote:

http://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/1/269



Gunderson, Ryan; Petersen, Brian; Stuart, Diana (2018): A Critical
Examination of Geoengineering. Economic and Technological Rationality in
Social Context (Sustainability, 10).


Abstract

Geoengineering—specifically stratospheric aerosol injection—is not only
risky, but supports powerful economic interests, protects an inherently
ecologically harmful social formation, relegates the fundamental
social-structural changes needed to address climate change, and is rooted
in a vision of a nature as a set of passive resources that can be fully
controlled in line with the demands of capital. The case for geoengineering
is incomprehensible without analyzing the social context that gave birth to
it: capitalism’s inability to overcome a contradiction between the need to
accumulate capital, on the one hand, and the need to maintain a stable
climate system on the other. Substantial emissions reductions, unlike
geoengineering, are costly, rely more on social-structural than technical
changes, and are at odds with the current social order. Because of this,
geoengineering will increasingly be considered a core response to climate
change. In light of Herbert Marcuse’s critical theory, the promotion of
geoengineering as a market-friendly and high-tech strategy is shown to
reflect a society that cannot set substantive aims through reason and
transforms what should be considered means (technology and economic
production) into ends themselves. Such a condition echoes the
first-generation Frankfurt School’s central thesis: instrumental
rationality remains irrational. View Full-Text


*Keywords: *climate engineering
; environmental
sociology ; critical
theory ; science and
technology studies
; solar
radiation management
; carbon
dioxide removal ;
Marcuse ; stratospheric sulfate
injection ;
stratospheric aerosol injection
; albedo
modification 



-- 
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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.