Re: [geo] Advancing Interdisciplinary Discussions of Climate Engineering - Guest Post - Rachael Shwom, Rutgers University | WGC
On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 1:15 PM, Michael Hayes wrote:
"With that said, "the public" actually can not be expected to make up
their minds until a robust menu of options have been worked through at
the STEM level. Currently, not all possible physical/STEM options are
'on the table'."
And it is unlikely that "all possible . . . options" will ever be "on
the table." For example, we could work out how to reversibly freeze
9/10ths of the world population. Impose strong restrictions on births
and bring them back as there is room for them. Frozen people take
very little in the way of resources to keep them there, but this is
one unlikely option, far less likely than the option I favor.
http://spectrum.ieee.org/green-tech/solar/how-japan-plans-to-build-an-orbital-solar-farm
http://theenergycollective.com/keith-henson/362181/dollar-gallon-gasoline
The trouble with the main proposed options is that they tend to be as
bad (or worse) in human terms as the option of doing nothing and
letting the ice caps melt.
Chopping off using fossil fuels (which nobody can impose) would cause
on-the-order-of a 75% die back of the worldwide human population.
Who wants to be responsible for that?
Keith
On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 1:15 PM, Michael Hayes wrote:
> The criteria of: "1) technical potential 2) cost-effectiveness 3) ecological
> risk 4) ethical concerns 5) institutional capacity and 6) public
> acceptance." is in line with most efforts to develop GE concepts (TTBOMK).
> Additionally, the combination of points 1&3 should be considered as
> "ecological risk" is foundational to the "technical potential". The "public
> acceptance" factor is, in the long run, a highly important factor and one
> which may make or break the international policy ("institutional capacity")
> outcome. Yet, we have just seen that the White House has pointed to the use
> of SAI in the event of a "climate emergency" and "the public" did not riot
> in the streets using colorful words to describe the scientists who work on
> the SAI concept (and or the rest of "the scientists"). At this time, it
> appears that "the public" seems to be clueless and/or indifferent to the
> subject of GE (IMHO). Where is Justin Beaver when you need the guy?
>
> With that said, "the public" actually can not be expected to make up their
> minds until a robust menu of options have been worked through at the STEM
> level. Currently, not all possible physical/STEM options are 'on the table'.
> Rachel, may I have a non-pay-walled copy of the paper and related work. I
> may actually be the poorest person interested in this subject.
>
> Best,
>
>
>
> On Sunday, June 8, 2014 2:25:03 PM UTC-7, kcaldeira wrote:
>>
>> Who exactly is the 'we' of the first sentence of this abstract?
>>
>> Too often we first assess climate solutions on the basis of technical
>> capacity to reduce or avoid warming and the costs to do it and choose our
>> preferred solution – leaving ethical implications, governance, and public
>> support as afterthoughts to be ‘dealt with’ and worked around in attempts to
>> implement the solution
>>
>> If the authors are speaking about themselves, then fine...
>>
>> If they are not speaking about themselves, then they should name names and
>> cite citations. Who exactly is it that treats ethics as an afterthought?
>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Ken Caldeira
>>
>> Carnegie Institution for Science
>> Dept of Global Ecology
>> 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA
>> +1 650 704 7212 kcal...@carnegiescience.edu
>> http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab
>> https://twitter.com/KenCaldeira
>>
>> Assistant: Dawn Ross
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Jun 8, 2014 at 10:50 AM, Greg Rau wrote:
>>>
>>> "Too often we first assess climate solutions on the basis of technical
>>> capacity to reduce or avoid warming and the costs to do it and choose our
>>> preferred solution – leaving ethical implications, governance, and public
>>> support as afterthoughts to be ‘dealt with’ and worked around in attempts to
>>> implement the solution."
>>>
>>> Perhaps the social scientists would like to be the ones to first propose
>>> technical/environmental solutions? It would seem that evaluating ethics and
>>> governance of solutions that first do not meet technical/environmental
>>> criteria is a waste of time. Once the technical/environmental merits of a
>>> solution pass muster, then by all means lets have that ethics and governance
>>> discussion and decide whether or not to proceed, not the other way around(?)
>>> I would say that the technical/environmental evaluations of many possible
>>> solutions are in their infancy. I would also say a larger challenge for the
>>> social scientists is to fix the disconnect between CO2/climate realities and
>>> social/political structures that have thus far failed to adequately value
>>> and support a broad and deep search for effective solutions (social,
>>> technical, or otherwise) and rapid implementation of those found effective
>>> and desirable.
>>
Re: [geo] Advancing Interdisciplinary Discussions of Climate Engineering - Guest Post - Rachael Shwom, Rutgers University | WGC
The criteria of: *"1) technical potential 2) cost-effectiveness 3)
ecological risk 4) ethical concerns 5) institutional capacity and 6) public
acceptance." *is in line with most efforts to develop GE concepts (TTBOMK).
Additionally, the combination of points 1&3 should be considered as
"*ecological
risk*" is foundational to the "*technical potential*". The "*public
acceptance*" factor is, in the long run, a highly important factor and one
which may make or break the international policy ("institutional capacity")
outcome. Yet, we have just seen that the White House has pointed to the use
of SAI in the event of a "climate emergency" and "the public" did not riot
in the streets using colorful words to describe the scientists who work on
the SAI concept (and or the rest of "the scientists"). At this time, it
appears that "the public" seems to be clueless and/or indifferent to the
subject of GE (IMHO). *Where is Justin Beaver when you need the guy?*
With that said, "the public" actually can not be expected to make up their
minds until a robust menu of options have been worked through at the STEM
level. Currently, not all possible physical/STEM options are 'on the
table'. Rachel, may I have a non-pay-walled copy of the paper and related
work. I may actually be the poorest person interested in this subject.
Best,
On Sunday, June 8, 2014 2:25:03 PM UTC-7, kcaldeira wrote:
>
> Who exactly is the 'we' of the first sentence of this abstract?
>
> *Too often we first assess climate solutions on the basis of technical
> capacity to reduce or avoid warming and the costs to do it and choose our
> preferred solution – leaving ethical implications, governance, and public
> support as afterthoughts to be ‘dealt with’ and worked around in attempts
> to implement the solution*
>
> If the authors are speaking about themselves, then fine...
>
> If they are not speaking about themselves, then they should name names and
> cite citations. Who exactly is it that treats ethics as an afterthought?
>
>
>
> ___
> Ken Caldeira
>
> Carnegie Institution for Science
> Dept of Global Ecology
> 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA
> +1 650 704 7212 kcal...@carnegiescience.edu
> http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab
> https://twitter.com/KenCaldeira
>
> Assistant: Dawn Ross >
>
>
>
> On Sun, Jun 8, 2014 at 10:50 AM, Greg Rau > wrote:
>
>> "Too often we first assess climate solutions on the basis of technical
>> capacity to reduce or avoid warming and the costs to do it and choose our
>> preferred solution – leaving ethical implications, governance, and public
>> support as afterthoughts to be ‘dealt with’ and worked around in attempts
>> to implement the solution."
>>
>> Perhaps the social scientists would like to be the ones to first propose
>> technical/environmental solutions? It would seem that evaluating ethics and
>> governance of solutions that first do not meet technical/environmental
>> criteria is a waste of time. Once the technical/environmental merits of a
>> solution pass muster, then by all means lets have that ethics and
>> governance discussion and decide whether or not to proceed, not the other
>> way around(?) I would say that the technical/environmental evaluations of
>> many possible solutions are in their infancy. I would also say a larger
>> challenge for the social scientists is to fix the disconnect between
>> CO2/climate realities and social/political structures that have thus far
>> failed to adequately value and support a broad and deep search for
>> effective solutions (social, technical, or otherwise) and rapid
>> implementation of those found effective and desirable.
>> Greg
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> *From:* Andrew Lockley >
>> *To:* geoengineering >
>> *Sent:* Saturday, June 7, 2014 3:41 PM
>> *Subject:* [geo] Advancing Interdisciplinary Discussions of Climate
>> Engineering - Guest Post - Rachael Shwom, Rutgers University | WGC
>>
>>
>> http://dcgeoconsortium.org/2014/06/04/advancing-interdisciplinary-discussions-of-climate-engineering-guest-post-rachael-shwom-rutgers-university/
>> Advancing Interdisciplinary Discussions of Climate Engineering – Guest
>> Post – Rachael Shwom, Rutgers University
>> Too often we first assess climate solutions on the basis of technical
>> capacity to reduce or avoid warming and the costs to do it and choose our
>> preferred solution – leaving ethical implications, governance, and public
>> support as afterthoughts to be ‘dealt with’ and worked around in attempts
>> to implement the solution. While interdisciplinarity is a common rallying
>> cry to develop solutions for major pressing problems like climate change –
>> it is often difficult to achieve. Though social scientists have
>> productively engaged and published on this issue (as evident by the
>> Washington Geoengineering Consortium’s existence), their contribution to
>> the policy discourse and public discussio
Re: [geo] Advancing Interdisciplinary Discussions of Climate Engineering - Guest Post - Rachael Shwom, Rutgers University | WGC
Who exactly is the 'we' of the first sentence of this abstract? *Too often we first assess climate solutions on the basis of technical capacity to reduce or avoid warming and the costs to do it and choose our preferred solution - leaving ethical implications, governance, and public support as afterthoughts to be 'dealt with' and worked around in attempts to implement the solution* If the authors are speaking about themselves, then fine... If they are not speaking about themselves, then they should name names and cite citations. Who exactly is it that treats ethics as an afterthought? ___ Ken Caldeira Carnegie Institution for Science Dept of Global Ecology 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA +1 650 704 7212 kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab https://twitter.com/KenCaldeira Assistant: Dawn Ross On Sun, Jun 8, 2014 at 10:50 AM, Greg Rau wrote: > "Too often we first assess climate solutions on the basis of technical > capacity to reduce or avoid warming and the costs to do it and choose our > preferred solution - leaving ethical implications, governance, and public > support as afterthoughts to be 'dealt with' and worked around in attempts > to implement the solution." > > Perhaps the social scientists would like to be the ones to first propose > technical/environmental solutions? It would seem that evaluating ethics and > governance of solutions that first do not meet technical/environmental > criteria is a waste of time. Once the technical/environmental merits of a > solution pass muster, then by all means lets have that ethics and > governance discussion and decide whether or not to proceed, not the other > way around(?) I would say that the technical/environmental evaluations of > many possible solutions are in their infancy. I would also say a larger > challenge for the social scientists is to fix the disconnect between > CO2/climate realities and social/political structures that have thus far > failed to adequately value and support a broad and deep search for > effective solutions (social, technical, or otherwise) and rapid > implementation of those found effective and desirable. > Greg > > > > -- > *From:* Andrew Lockley > *To:* geoengineering > *Sent:* Saturday, June 7, 2014 3:41 PM > *Subject:* [geo] Advancing Interdisciplinary Discussions of Climate > Engineering - Guest Post - Rachael Shwom, Rutgers University | WGC > > > http://dcgeoconsortium.org/2014/06/04/advancing-interdisciplinary-discussions-of-climate-engineering-guest-post-rachael-shwom-rutgers-university/ > Advancing Interdisciplinary Discussions of Climate Engineering - Guest > Post - Rachael Shwom, Rutgers University > Too often we first assess climate solutions on the basis of technical > capacity to reduce or avoid warming and the costs to do it and choose our > preferred solution - leaving ethical implications, governance, and public > support as afterthoughts to be 'dealt with' and worked around in attempts > to implement the solution. While interdisciplinarity is a common rallying > cry to develop solutions for major pressing problems like climate change - > it is often difficult to achieve. Though social scientists have > productively engaged and published on this issue (as evident by the > Washington Geoengineering Consortium's existence), their contribution to > the policy discourse and public discussions can often be marginalized. In > reviewing major comprehensive government reports on climate engineering it > was all too often that I would search "ethics" or "public attitudes" and > find only a single page or paragraph of hundreds of pages dedicated to > these issues.In the fall of 2011, the Dissertations Initiative for the > Advancement of Climate Change Research (http://disccrs.org/home - known > as DISCCRS, funded by NSF and NASA) brought together 32 symposium scholars > from a wide range of disciplines, who had recently completed a dissertation > dealing with some issue relevant to climate science. After a discussion of > geoengineering one day, a number of us took a walk and continued the > discussion. Five of these scholars (Daniela Cusack, Jonn Axsen, Lauren > Hartzell-Nichols, Sam White, and Katherine Mackey) would go on to become my > co-authors on a recently published paper that provides a framework for an > interdisciplinary assessment of climate engineering strategies (Cusack et > al., 2014).The paper develops six criteria to help us assess a range of > climate engineering options (forest management, soil management, geological > burial of CO2, solar radiation management, and ocean fertilization) against > the baseline option of mitigation. The six criteria are: 1) technical > potential 2) cost-effectiveness 3) ecological risk 4) ethical concerns 5) > institutional capacity and 6) public acceptance. We then identify measures > for each of these criteria and apply them to highlight the strengths and > wea
Re: [geo] Advancing Interdisciplinary Discussions of Climate Engineering - Guest Post - Rachael Shwom, Rutgers University | WGC
"Too often we first assess climate solutions on the basis of technical capacity to reduce or avoid warming and the costs to do it and choose our preferred solution – leaving ethical implications, governance, and public support as afterthoughts to be ‘dealt with’ and worked around in attempts to implement the solution." Perhaps the social scientists would like to be the ones to first propose technical/environmental solutions? It would seem that evaluating ethics and governance of solutions that first do not meet technical/environmental criteria is a waste of time. Once the technical/environmental merits of a solution pass muster, then by all means lets have that ethics and governance discussion and decide whether or not to proceed, not the other way around(?) I would say that the technical/environmental evaluations of many possible solutions are in their infancy. I would also say a larger challenge for the social scientists is to fix the disconnect between CO2/climate realities and social/political structures that have thus far failed to adequately value and support a broad and deep search for effective solutions (social, technical, or otherwise) and rapid implementation of those found effective and desirable. Greg > > From: Andrew Lockley >To: geoengineering >Sent: Saturday, June 7, 2014 3:41 PM >Subject: [geo] Advancing Interdisciplinary Discussions of Climate Engineering >- Guest Post - Rachael Shwom, Rutgers University | WGC > > > >http://dcgeoconsortium.org/2014/06/04/advancing-interdisciplinary-discussions-of-climate-engineering-guest-post-rachael-shwom-rutgers-university/ >Advancing Interdisciplinary Discussions of Climate Engineering – Guest Post – >Rachael Shwom, Rutgers University > Too often we first assess climate solutions on the basis of technical >capacity to reduce or avoid warming and the costs to do it and choose our >preferred solution – leaving ethical implications, governance, and public >support as afterthoughts to be ‘dealt with’ and worked around in attempts to >implement the solution. While interdisciplinarity is a common rallying cry to >develop solutions for major pressing problems like climate change – it is >often difficult to achieve. Though social scientists have productively >engaged and published on this issue (as evident by the Washington >Geoengineering Consortium’s existence), their contribution to the policy >discourse and public discussions can often be marginalized. In reviewing >major comprehensive government reports on climate engineering it was all too >often that I would search “ethics” or “public attitudes” and find only a >single page or paragraph of hundreds of pages dedicated to these issues.In the fall of 2011, the Dissertations Initiative for the Advancement of Climate Change Research (http://disccrs.org/home – known as DISCCRS, funded by NSF and NASA) brought together 32 symposium scholars from a wide range of disciplines, who had recently completed a dissertation dealing with some issue relevant to climate science. After a discussion of geoengineering one day, a number of us took a walk and continued the discussion. Five of these scholars (Daniela Cusack, Jonn Axsen, Lauren Hartzell-Nichols, Sam White, and Katherine Mackey) would go on to become my co-authors on a recently published paper that provides a framework for an interdisciplinary assessment of climate engineering strategies (Cusack et al., 2014).The paper develops six criteria to help us assess a range of climate engineering options (forest management, soil management, geological burial of CO2, solar radiation management, and ocean fertilization) against the baseline option of mitigation. The six criteria are: 1) technical potential 2) cost-effectiveness 3) ecological risk 4) ethical concerns 5) institutional capacity and 6) public acceptance. We then identify measures for each of these criteria and apply them to highlight the strengths and weaknesses of the options.It’s not often that ethical concerns and governance challenges are quantified by measures in this manner.One unique aspect of this paper is that it’s not often that ethical concerns and governance challenges are quantified by measures in this manner. It certainly took some stretching of disciplinary practices and conversation on the part of the social scientists on our team. However, we found that it was the best way to enable inclusion of these dimensions in our analysis rather than them being separate qualitative decisions on equal footing with the technical and economic analysis. Too often we first assess climate solutions on the basis of technical capacity to reduce or avoid warming and the costs to do it and choose our preferred solution – leaving ethical implications, governance, and public support as afterthoughts to be ‘dealt with’ and worked around in attempts to implement the solution. In part, this is because we o
